Can Romney Gain Points by Announcing His Running Mate Now?

Oh the little things.

I have a written a couple of pieces about Senator Jim DeMint on my blog recently, I have also posted his latest statement about the shamnesty bill that he is trying to kill. I have made no secret that he has recently gained a great deal of support from myself. I thought about trying to draft him into the presidential race and also suggested that he would make a great running mate for Fred Thompson.

But some additional research makes me wonder if another candidate isn't already considering DeMint for the position of Vice President.

I didn't know this until moments ago, but Jim DeMint has endorsed Mitt Romney and in fact is the senior advisor to the Romney for President Exploratory Committee. I have attached the links for the Press Release and the letter of support from Senator DeMint. If DeMint were more popular back in January when he endorsed Romney, this would have probably been bigger news and I probably wouldn't be sitting here saying, "Wow, look at that." But due to the fact that DeMint has just recently gained any real popularity, I am just now seeing this. I am also wondering if a few people wont read this while they are thinking to themselves that they have known this for a long time and that it isn't new news. Well, it's new to me.

"We must elect a President in 2008 who is up to the task, and I need you to encourage Mitt to run. ... As a leader who has spent most of his life in the private sector, Governor Romney will call on America's strength and character to solve problems and secure our future."

I am not sure what to think of Romney or DeMint to be honest. They are both on the radar just very recently, so their politics is only known by those who have done the research. I have been considering supporting Romney in the primaries, even over the prospect of Fred Thompson. And now that I see support from Senator DeMint, who had done a great job preventing the shamnesty bill from going to a vote, Romney has gained points in my view.

If Romney were to give indication that Senator DeMint was his choice for a running mate, he would shoot up the ladder. I may be wrong, but I think that DeMint was mentioned as a possibility when Romney was name dropping a few weeks back. And if the Senator is able to defeat shamnesty, they would gain favor in the ranks of conservatives who are against this bill. Much of the political landscape is going to be shaped by what happens to this bill and what action is taken for border security. Conservatives are split over this issue by those who want to support the GOP at all costs and those who are more concerned about policy that party. The candidate who can mend this split has the best shot at becoming the next President of the United States.

What Would Reagan Do?

This week marks the 20th anniversary of President Ronald Reagan’s speech before the Berlin Wall. Reagan’s remarks were immediately condemned by the left wing political pundits, the state department bureaucrats, and the media. Their main point of contention was the phrase, “Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall.” Their fear was the same throughout Reagan’s entire presidency. The bureaucratic apprehension was that at any moment, Reagan would plunge the United States and the rest of the world into a nuclear holocaust.

For all of the wailing and shrieking from the far left, Reagan was elected in a landslide victory over President Jimmy Carter. Four years later, Reagan defeated Walter Mondale in a historic landslide victory. What made Reagan unique was his steadfast belief in freedom and the potential of the American people. His policies and leadership brought the country out of the malaise of the Carter years. Reagan’s conservative ideals turned around the double digit inflation and nightmarish unemployment lines.

This week also marked a renewed effort by President Bush and the Congress to push through the Comprehensive Immigration Reform bill. The bill has created a deep rift between the administration and the conservative base of the Republican party. The base is demanding that the border be secured first and then we can discuss the other aspects of the immigration bill. The supporters of the bill have alienated all those who are opposed to the bill, causing many within the party to question the commitment of the party to conservatism.

I realize that Reagan signed the immigration bill in 1986 that granted amnesty to over 3 million illegal immigrants, but I believe that the Republican party needs a Reaganesque candidate for 2008. I firmly believe that the Republicans don’t stand a chance unless someone emerges to lead the party back to conservatism. Reagan believed that all of us were created to be free, and with that freedom we have the potential to be great. Listening to the current crop of declared candidates from both parties, reminds me of a bad high school play. A group of amateurs trying to act like something they are not.

Senator John McCain may try to sound like a conservative, but his recent staunch support for the immigration bill has sealed his fate as a RINO(Republican In Name Only). Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani is a conservative on some of the issues, such as the war on terror and taxes, but on many of the other pressing issues he has struggled to find a position. Former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney is conservative as well on many issues, but he has labored over the past few years to find his conservative voice. Shouldn’t a presidential candidate know where they stand before they declare themselves a candidate?

Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich is a conservative that knows where he stands and hasn’t waffled on the issues of today. Newt’s biggest obstacle, should he decide to run, is that he led the impeachment proceedings against President Clinton while he was having his own extramarital affair. I know that the impeachment was not about sex or adultery, but it is too big of a target for the media, blogosphere, or the Democratic competition.

Former Senator Fred Thompson is also a potential candidate who knows where he stands on the issues. Thompson has been a conservative for his entire political career, but questions arose when he supported the McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform bill. Fred has honed his communication skills over the years as an actor in movies and the TV series “Law And Order”. Thompson could be the candidate to carry the Reagan mantle, but only time will tell. There is still plenty of time before the first votes are cast in the primaries.

They Never Rest; More Crazy Propaganda from the Huffington Post

by The New Pundit

I should go to that site to get all of my material. It has been less than a week since I discussed the propaganda that was written about the JFK plot. Well, not only is there more of it straight from the Huff herself, but there are no less than two articles in support of Saddam Hussein. Yes, I said Saddam Hussein. It seems that they are not aware of the fact that the man is dead. Two articles at the Post are making a bad attempt at smearing Mitt Romney, while showing support for the former terrorist regime of Hussein. They are in addition to an article from Arianna explaining to us that the JFK plotters were not an actual threat because they did not have the financing or the weapons. Arianna, they didn't get the financing or the weapons because they were arrested before they could get these things accomplished. Just so you know, it is a bit more difficult to get this accomplished because of the fact that the NSA intercepts telephone communications from known terrorist organizations overseas. And their plan to blow up the pipeline could have been greatly improved upon once they made contact with monetary resources. While searching for the resources, they could have easily run across people who would have had more knowledge on the science needed to take out the entire pipeline. But we don’t expect someone like yourself to actually thank the authorities for preventing this disaster.

But I made enough mention of the JFK plot in another post. Today I want to talk about the Saddam supporters. Apparently Mitt made some crazy remark about Saddam kicking out UN weapons inspectors, and that it was this action that led to the war. Now I know what you are thinking, you are thinking that Saddam did in fact kick weapons inspectors out of Iraq multiple times from 1997 to 2002. Well, according to Larry Beinhart and Paul Begaga, you are absolutely wrong. You are living in a mad, mad world and stepping in shit.

Now I'm sure that if they were called out, they would try to clarify by stating that they were mostly referring to the fact that Saddam did in fact let inspectors back into the country in 2002. But they would need a lot of clarification because they both intentionally try to get around exactly what happened. They fail to mention how many times in 2002 Iraq rejected UN resolutions regarding inspections. They fail to mention how the inspectors were treated when they were allowed into the country. They fail to mention that Saddam and his thugs did everything possible to keep the inspectors at bay. They pay no attention to the timeline leading up to the liberation of Iraq from a terrorist regime led by Saddam and his two child raping brats. Well, ok, only one of his brats was constantly raping children.

In March 2002, Iraqi officials met with UN officials for the first time since 1998. This is done only after President Bush talks about Iraq in his 2002 SOTU address. UN officials fail to win the return of inspectors at this meeting or the two meeting that occur in May and July. It is not until September of 2002 that Saddam sends a letter to the UN allowing inspections, and even then he does not agree to the rules until October.

In January 2003 Hans Blix filed an update with the UN. In it he describes a lack of cooperation from the Iraqi government that includes actual harassment of the inspectors by Iraqi government officials. He mentions that he is not being given access to interview 3,100 different scientists to fill in gaps from missing records. He mentions the fact that numerous weapons and chemical agents remain unaccounted for. This list includes 1,000 tons of chemical agents from the Iraq-Iran war, 6,500 chemical rockets, 8,500 liters of anthrax, and 650kg of bacterial growth. He finds that Iraq possesses thiodiglycol, a precursor of mustard gas. Iraq had been developing missiles that went beyond the range allowed by sanctions. And to finish things off, they found that 380 rocket engines were smuggled into Iraq the previous month with chemicals used for missile propellants and control systems. This means that as late as December 2002, Iraq was creating and smuggling the very weapons they were not allowed to possess. For those keeping score, this is in fact the part of the justification for the war.

There is something here that is very important, and I don’t want anyone to miss it. Bush stepped up pressure on Iraq in January of 2002. This was after many years of a massive run-around effort by Iraq. Iraq finally decides to 'comply' with the UN in September 2002, and even then still has to be forced to give the small amount of cooperation that it gave. Iraq only makes this announcement after meeting with UN officials in March, May and July. Iraq is aware by this time that Bush is not going to tolerate further noncompliance after 9-11. Iraq knows that Bush is going to attack. Yet with this knowledge, they still drag their feet. What happened in those months?

According to former Iraqi General Georges Sada, Saddam had refitted commercial jets transport WMDs from Iraq to Syria in June 2002. These jets were pretending to fly aid to Syrian flood victims. Let me make sure this is loud and clear. Iraq sent aid to Syria. Iraq had been in a humanitarian crisis since the invasion of Kuwait. UN sanctions prevented other countries from providing food and medicine to the poor. I'm sure you all remember the big stink that was made for so many years about how the evil U.S. was killing Iraqi children by not allowing this food and medicine. But Iraq somehow has the ability to send aid to Syria? This flood killed about 20 people and took out a small amount of farmland. Saddam, being the humanitarian we all know, sent aid to this country despite the fact that he could not take care of his own people. Yeah, I buy that. The general talks about this in his book Saddam's Secrets.
The reason Saddam had kicked out inspectors so many times over the years was because he was in fact trying to re-arm his country. Inspectors had a 4 year long absence from 1998 to 2002 which allowed Saddam to build that list that I mentioned earlier. He also used this time to shoot at jets that were inspecting the no fly zones. He used oil money to fund Palestinian suicide bombers and line the pockets of UN officials. After realizing that George Bush was no Bill Clinton, he then stalled just long enough to hide his weapons in Syria in an attempt to make it appear that he was complying. He assumed that this would buy him enough influence to avert an invasion. Hindsight tells us that he assumed wrong.

Hindsight has also told us about Saddam's plans. It has told us that he was using the oil-for-food scandal to buy influence with the UN. After all of the information we now have regarding this scandal, can we safely say that he was not using his cash to influence the inspectors who were there in early 2003? Hindsight tells us that he was building alliances with Palestinian thugs and the terrorist regime of Syria and using funds from smuggled oil to do so. It tells us that he gave safe haven to terrorists like Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the Jordanian national who had ties to Al-Qaeda long before the invasion. While I’m at it, I will also mention that hindsight tells us that the AP reported no less than two separate attacks on our troops that included IEDs created from looted chemical weapons in 2003. Hindsight tells us quite a bit about Saddam's regime, maybe the writers for the Huff should subscribe to the History Channel.

So before you accuse Mitt Romney of stepping in shit or living in a mad, make-believe world, you should try this little thing known as research. You should take a look at the timeline. You should take a look at Saddam’s intentions. Failure to do so makes it appear that you support people like Saddam, former terrorist thug.

Sold to the Highest Bidder!! Mexico

In case you haven't yet seen it, here are some links to the all new United States of Mexico.

Here is Malkin with some links and commentary from National Review and NumbersUSA. "It's here: The Bush-Kennedy amnestyReport: Potential cost = $2.5 trillionUpdated with GOP reax"

Brietbart gives some of the details of the sale.

Senator DeMint calls it what it is. "But the little we do know about the bill is troubling. According to reports, the bill contains a new 'Z Visa' that allows those who entered our country illegally to stay here permanently without ever returning home. This rewards people who broke the law with permanent legal status, and puts them ahead of millions of law-abiding immigrants waiting to come to America. I don't care how you try to spin it, this is amnesty."

And here is Mitt, who won some points from me today. "I strongly oppose today's bill going through the Senate. It is the wrong approach. Any legislation that allows illegal immigrants to stay in the country indefinitely, as the new 'Z-Visa' does, is a form of amnesty. That is unfair to the millions of people who have applied to legally immigrate to the U.S. Today's Senate agreement falls short of the actions needed to both solve our country's illegal immigration problem and also strengthen our legal immigration system. Border security and a reliable employment verification system must be our first priority."

Rep. Steve King: "Each one of these Senators should wear a scarlet letter 'A' for amnesty." Thank you Mr. King.

I also found a good post at digg from poster ritad. Does anyone see the irony that we lost 2 pretty good Kennedy boys, now we are left with fat old windbag brother Teddy, who along with El president Bush, and the rest of the scum bags on both the left and the right have just sold our country down the river by voting to reward bad behavior by illegal immigrants with amnesty. We will now for all intents and purposes be a one party country as the stupid Republicans cannot see the fact that all these new illegal citizens will most assuredly vote democratic, and since they will be the majority now, shows the republicans have just effectively shot their own balls off and don't even realize it, oh well if they are that stupendously ignorant, they don't deserve to have a party anyway. I have one question for anyone out here who might be able to answer it, why in the world do we feel we owe amnesty to people invading our country, disrespecting our laws and our sovereignty, the way they are doing? I am sorry, I just don't get it and will never will, if the house reps, are unable to squelch this bill, our country is doomed. Gone our beautiful country, trashed as Mexico is, wonder when there are not enough original Americans left to pay for welfare, food stamps, medicaid and whatever other entitlements these people feel they should be entitled to, what will they do then? Will they "migrate" on up to Canada? God, we could be so lucky! Our, we might just join Iraq, and have our own little civil war, due to the fact that most of our American citizens are strongly against this amnesty!

And let us not forget who it is we are letting into our country.
U.S. soccer team faces chants of 'Osama'
Illegal Immigration And Terrorism

Did Romney win the Debate of Stupid Questions? -- The Sequel

According to Drudge, Romney took it with 37% of the vote followed by Giuliani with 20%.

Pollster.com gives it to The Mayor with 30% followed by McCain with 17%.

Prisonplanet.com says that Ron Paul had 47% of the vote on MSNBC's poll. I can't find an active link to the MSNBC poll, but yahoo has a US Newswire story with Paul taking 43% of the MSNBC vote.

Interestingly, FoxNews says that McCain won. But the article claiming this was written by Dick Morris. Morris runs vote.com. Vote.com shows the winner to be Ron Paul with 30% followed by Romney with 29%. McCain took only 7%.

With the exception of pollster, these are all online polls, so no one knows how many people voted multiple times. Pollster's survey was limited to California adults, so the fact that the more liberal candidate won probably doesn't reflect the entire country.

More strict Constitutional conservatives now know the name Ron Paul. More conservatives got to compare Giuliani and McCain to Romney. So my question is how long before Romney and Paul are the frontrunners in a field that is currently led by a pro-abortion candidate and a candidate lax on border security? Paul answered a number of questions by saying that something was or was not authorized by the Constitution. He did it so many times that it almost seemed monotonous. But few conservatives will argue with his logic. Romney had some good answers, and I thought his explanation of his abortion views made sense. He said he has always been against it, but believed that it was a choice. After debating the issue, he believes the federal government should pass it to the states. He stood tall and looked good, which won him a lot of points. He looked like a President.

Of course, everyone is still asking about Fred and Newt. If they enter the field, do some of the others drop out? Could Fred and Newt take the frontrunner spots? People like them. Fred is mostly marketing, and Newt has that skeleton out of the closet thing. But people see a lot of comparisons in Fred and Reagan, and not just the acting thing. Newt is probably the smartest of them all when it comes to actually fixing problem. His book Winning the Future: A 21st Century Contract with America is about as good as it gets. If they enter, it changes everything. They may not win, but they certainly make the race more interesting.