What is Ron Paul doing with Mitt Romney?

I addressed this issue at the end of my February 26th program. What is truly behind this perceived Ron Paul / Mitt Romney alliance? Is it really an alliance or is it something else? I'm beginning to believe it may be something much more sinister and selfish on the part of Ron Paul.

First, the premise that has taken hold among the Republican establishment. It says that Mitt Romney has the best chance to defeat Barack Obama in the general election. I believe it's a faulty premise and that the only candidate with a worse chance of beating Obama is Ron Paul.

Assuming the latter premise is correct, why would Ron Paul help Mitt Romney? Steve Deace and I appear to have arrived at the same conclusion.

Via Townhall:

...it has become obvious that that Paul campaign is more interested in aiding and abetting the Republican Party nominating its weakest and least principled candidate then it is trying to promote its own candidate. The latest prima facie evidence to support this premise is the Paul campaign’s decision to invest money running a 30-second negative ad about Rick Santorum in Michigan, despite the fact Paul has never actually campaigned there.

As I mentioned on my program, I have a source that essentially confirms what Deace writes here:

Either the Paul campaign is engaged in the dumbest strategy to promote a presidential candidate since Lyndon LaRouche’s disciples handed out pamphlets in airports, or it’s time to admit the Ron Paul campaign of 2012 is really the Rand Paul campaign of 2016. Since I know Paul's campaign people are not only not dumb, but some of the best political operatives in the business, I’m going with the Rand Paul option.

The thinking goes that if Obama is defeated in 2012, Rand Paul will not have a shot until 2020. Conversely, if Obama is reelected, Rand can run in 2016.

Deace makes an excellent case and I believe he's right. However, he doesn't necessarily reach the same conclusions I do when it comes to WHY Romney will lose in the general.

The main reason has to do with how the liberal media will destroy him based on his religion. It's already started at CNN, MSNBC, and Comedy Central's Colbert Report. CNN conducted an interview with holocaust survivor Elie Wiesel about his name appearing on a Mormon list of holocaust survivors that are to be posthumously baptized. MSNBC's Lawrence O'Donnell reported that the Mormons have baptized Anne Frank. Colbert picked that up and ran with it when he posthumously circumcised dead Mormons and converted them to Judaism.

The liberal Media will attempt to destroy Mitt Romney based on his religion. The lengths to which it will go to do so could actually make the Romneycare issue irrelevant.

Oh, and if Romney attempts to make an issue of Obama's ties to Islam, all Obama will have to do is point to the words of Mormonism's founder, Joseph Smith, who is quoted as saying:

“I will be a second Mohammed to this generation…whose motto, in treating for peace, was 'the Alcoran [Koran] or the Sword,' so shall it be eventually with us, 'Joseph Smith or the Sword.’ ”

Incidentally, in light of Obama's standing with Jewish voters this year, how well does anyone think Romney will do with those voters when his religion is posthumously baptizing holocaust victims? Not only that but Ron Paul has developed a bit of a reputation for being "anti-Israel."

Read Deace's entire piece here.

**UPDATE 2/28** Take note that the source cited by CNN and MSNBC for all of these posthumous baptisms is a woman by the name of Helen Radkey, who has also written that Adolf Hitler has also been baptized posthumously by the Mormons:

In October 1998, McAreavy was able to obtain copies of LDS temple ordinance records for Adolf Hitler and Eva Braun from Philip Roberts of the North American Mission Board of the Southern Baptist Convention. These IGI (International Genealogical Index) copies reveal that Adolf Hitler was indeed  baptized and "endowed" on Dec. 10, 1993, and "sealed" to his parents on March 12, 1994. These events took place in the London Temple, England. Robert's copies also show that Hitler was "sealed" to Braun on September 28, 1993, in the Jordan River Temple, Utah, and on June 14, 1994, in the Los Angeles Temple. Roberts sent copies of these records to Ashton.

Now, if the liberal media has already started reporting on Mormons baptizing deceased holocaust victims, to include Anne Frank - according to Helen Radkey, does anyone think for one moment that they haven't already learned of Radkey's reporting that Hitler was also baptized as a Mormon?

Talk about neutralizing the Jewish vote.

h/t Special Guests

Hillary Siding with Muslim Brotherhood against... Republicans?

Back in June, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton took a question from someone in Jamaica about the situation in Libya; Muammar Gadhafi had not yet fallen. She used strong rhetoric in her defense of the Libyan (al-Qaeda) rebels. Here is a portion of her response:

...the bottom line is, whose side are you on? Are you on Qadhafi’s side or are you on the side of the aspirations of the Libyan people and the international coalition that has been created to support them? For the Obama Administration, the answer to that question is very easy.

Then, just this past weekend, while in Tunisia, Hillary called out Russia and China over their support of Bashar al-Assad in Syria. Via UK Telegraph:

Speaking after a Friends of Syria conference, held in Tunisia, Mrs Clinton said that Russia and China must join international condemnation of President Assad's regime.

"It's quite distressing to see two permanent members of the Security Council using their veto while people are being murdered – women, children, brave young men – houses are being destroyed," she said.

"It is just despicable and I ask whose side are they on? They are clearly not on the side of the Syrian people."

In Libya, Hillary essentially sided with the Muslim Brotherhood. The al-Qaeda flag was placed atop the Benghazi Courthouse after Gadhafi's fall. In Syria, she's doing the same thing. In fact, Hamas can be added to the list as well; they formally came out in support of the rebels this past week.

While speaking to that audience in Tunisia, in response to a question from the audience, Clinton came off as being far more partisan than her position is supposed to afford her.

Via Fox News:

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton suggested Sunday she may have been less than diplomatic when she told an audience in Tunisia to "not pay attention" to the rhetoric coming from the Republican presidential primary race. But she doesn't take back the gist of her comments.

Perhaps it's time for someone to ask Hillary whose side she's on?