Two articles by the American Free Press on Republican Presidential candidate Mitt Romney’s political inconsistencies and shady business acumen.

Pat Shannan
American Free Press

Mitt Romney: Chameleon in a Three-Piece Suit

Amidst the media muckraking, Mitt Romney still seems to be “anointed” by the hidden powers, the South Carolina surge by Newt Gingrich notwithstanding, causing many to examine the constant flip-flopping of the former liberal Massachusetts governor now posing as a conservative presidential candidate.

TV comic Stephen Colbert made a direct hit when he quipped the day before the Palmetto State primary that “The only difference between Mitt Romney and a statue of Mitt Romney is that a statue never changes its position.” One New York newspaper said, “Romney cannot decide who he is.”

Both summations are accurate. An outspoken “pro-lifer,” Romney and his wife have been financial supporters of the pro-choice Planned Parenthood that supports abortion clinics nationwide.

When he ran for the Senate against Ted Kennedy in 1994, Romney supported “full equality” for gays and lesbians, a pledge that won him support from homosexual Republicans. But 12 years later, when going up against Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) for the Republican presidential nomination, Romney’s record was clear on the subject: He had become an opponent of gay marriage. In 1994, Romney had opposed the federal marriage amendment but in 2007 supported it.

Romney supported “assault weapon” bans and the Brady Bill, and as late as 2002 was in favor of gun confiscation laws in Massachusetts. But in 2011, obviously romancing America’s conservative vote, Mitt joined the NRA prior to announcing his current candidacy.

In the case of illegal immigration, Romney has spoken both “for” and “against” it so often that news commentators realized his drift was determined by that day’s podium location.

Similar to the attitude of Democrats who want to scream “racist” whenever one points out Barack Obama’s shortcomings, Romney backers are quick to say that anyone who doesn’t like Romney must be “anti-Mormon.”

The Salt Lake City connection to the president that should concern all Americans the most is the blood oath vows taken by devout Mormons such as Romney professes to be. These are of a higher priority than the presidential oaths (or any other) because the taker has sworn to follow the instructions of his church leaders under penalty of death, according to a former high-ranking Latter Day Saints member now a Christian minister.

A vocal critic of the “cesspool of pornography,” Romney did nothing for the nine years he sat on the board of directors while Marriott Hotels made millions from showing porno movies on hotel TVs.

Here Romney’s cagey reticence could be tied to his relationship to Chicago’s billionaire Crown family, which became rich as “war profiteers” in WWII and every war since. The Crown family is also reported to have earned a large part of its fortune in recent years from the pornography industry. Notorious for supporting both opposing party candidates, Susan Crown, granddaughter of the company’s founder, has been supporting Barack Obama since 2003 and is now investing in Romney because of his willingness to wage war in the Middle East for Israel.

All of these facts and rumors aside, Romney’s appointment of Michael Chertoff as head of his Counter-terrorism and Intelligence Advisory Committee should be all the information Americans need, to be aware of this candidate’s loyalty to the New World Order. Chertoff, as head of the criminal division of the Department of Justice, oversaw the FBI cover-up of 9-11 and the disposal of evidence refuting the government’s false version of what happened on 9-11.

Ralph Forbes
American Free Press

Romney Is Wall Street’s Ace in the Hole

Mitt Romney, the iconic symbol of “American capitalism,” has proved to be nothing but a Barbie’s blow-up Ken doll for the perverted plutocrats on Wall Street. Romney is a disciple of the “Greed is Good Gurus.” He followed in the footsteps of the infamous Ivan Boesky, the Wall Street crook who plundered U.S. free enterprises in the 1970s and 1980s. “Ivan the Terrible” was a role model, not only for Romney, but the fictional corporate raider Gordon Gekko, who said: “I am not a destroyer of companies. I am a liberator.”

Mitt needed $300 million to take over two Texas department-store chains, Bealls and Palais Royal, to form Specialty Retailers, Inc. Bain Capital made a $175 million profit. Romney sold out just before disaster struck. The Bain-“rescued” department-store company went bankrupt—drowning in $600 million of debt.

GS Industries Inc. is another Romney “success.” The steel manufacturer had been solid for a century, employing generations of Americans—until Bain cut more than 1,750 jobs—and sank it into bankruptcy. When Bain took it over, it had $1 billion in revenue and employed 3,800 people worldwide as the largest producer of carbon wire rods in North America. Bain Capital used $24.5 million to get GS Industries. In seven years Bain took $58.4million profits and annual management fees of about $900,000—plus multimillion-dollar dividends.

Republican President Dwight Eisenhower warned America to beware of the military-industrial complex—but the internationalists who hijacked the Republican Party want untold billions for $400 toilet seats—but not one cent to protect American workers.

No wonder the Wall Street banksters are Romney’s top donors: Goldman Sachs—$367,200; Credit Suisse Group—$203,750; Morgan Stanley—$199,800; HIG Capital—$186,500; Barclays—$157,750; Kirkland & Ellis—$132,100; Bank of America—$126,500; PriceWaterhouseCoopers—$118,250; EMC Corp.—$117,300; JPMorgan Chase & Co.—$112,250; Bain Capital—$74,500; UBS AG—$73,750; Wells Fargo—$61,500; Blackstone Group—$59,800; Citigroup Inc.—$57,050; as of last report Romney filed with the FEC.

This is just chickenfeed for Romney and his ilk, who dismiss $374,327 in speaking fees as “not very much.” The real money is hidden in “super-PACs” because corporations have more rights than people—“of the corporations, by the corporations, for the corporations.” Orwell was right. The pigs are rewriting the law of the land.

---

For more no-nonsense, uncensored, and independent news like this, visit American Free Press online.

Like GCN Live on Facebook and follow on Twitter for more great news, opinions, and announcements from GCN Live’s hosts and staff.

GCN Live contributor Steven Birn and GCN host and online contributor Josh Tolley were kind enough to give us their differing analysis of the current state of the GOP presidential race – along with a few other political talking points – in a piece we like to call 7 Questions.

1. What have the first three primaries told you about the Republican presidential race?

Steven Birn (SB): We’ve learned a couple things so far. First, you’ll get a truer sense of what the Republican rank and file wants in the south. Iowa and New Hampshire allow independents and Democrats to vote, which skews results. Most of the southern states don’t allow such persons to vote in GOP primaries. Second, we learned that Newt Gingrich is a fighter and Mitt Romney is weak under pressure.

Josh Tolley (JT): It has told us the Republican voting base is lost at sea. Here is a President with tanking approval numbers that we haven’t seen since Jimmy Carter. If the Republican party had the pulse of the Republican voting base we wouldn’t be seeing a campaign that is led by two candidates the Republicans were ashamed to claim as their own just a few short years ago. When a party is so weak that it has to puke up a couple rejects and still are in danger of losing to the worst President in over a generation, they are revealing their disconnect with the American people.

2. In one sentence for each remaining candidate, what about each one concerns you the most?

SB: Romney’s inability to articulate the conservative position on any subject is very concerning. Newt’s history of self destruction ought to concern everyone. Rick Santorum’s smug looks and lack of money ought to concern conservatives. Ron Paul’s absurd foreign policy should concern every American.

JT: Newt Gingrich is a globalist wrapped in conservative clothing and a chameleon’s skin with either no understanding of what America is or an intent in this heart which America has been fighting to prevent. Mitt Romney is the safe establishment plant who protects the same corrupt interests that Obama has been serving over the past three years. Santorum concerns me from the standpoint that he can pull the social/moral conservative vote which is starting to realize Newt and Mitt are not conservative at all. Ron Paul concerns me because I don’t think he is doing enough through his messaging to bridge the gap between those who understand what conservatism really is and those who still believe this one party – two name system lie which has been shoved down our throats for decades.

3. What do you make of Mitt Romney’s release of his tax records? What do you make of Newt Gingrich’s affiliation with Fannie and Freddie Mac?

SB: Romney’s tax returns are none of our business and irrelevant. Newt’s firm doing consulting work for Freddie is likewise irrelevant. A $300,000 annual contract is small potatoes for both Freddie and Newt’s firm. Both of these issues are irrelevant and shift focus away from what’s important: Barack Obama’s dismal record as President.

JT: Mitt Romney’s release of his tax records really doesn’t reveal too much to me. Come on, did anyone really not know he was rich? He played the same tax game all of those who pay taxes play while showing he believes his religious convictions. If he does a good job getting the attention away from the fact he is rich, it actually shows a man who puts his money where his mouth is. Newt Gingrich is a completely different situation. Newt worked for a corrupt government integrated company in a sub-contracted manner and we are supposed to believe that this man who has numerous ethical violations in the past was just a highly paid historian who just happened to be Speaker of the House?

4. Considering Rick Santorum won Iowa and was competitive in other states AND Ron Paul has the strongest and most loyal base, do either Santorum or Paul still stand a chance for the GOP nomination?

SB: Santorum has a shot because debates are the great equalizer in this race. He does a good job debating and so long as Newt and Romney are cat fighting over nothing Santorum looks Presidential. Ron Paul has zero chance at the nomination because his foreign policy is so far outside the mainstream of the GOP that not even his sound economic policy can save him.

JT: No. Santorum right now is running for a place in the next administration. They know he will pull the conservative and religious vote that Newt and Mitt seem to be spitting at and come summer the lead on the ticket will need all the help from that voting base they can get. Ron Paul is probably the candidate with the best chances of beating President Obama in November as he has the largest amount of “real” pull power with Democrats and Independents. If the GOP really wanted to win they would run with the candidate who pulls the largest number of non-GOP voters (that’s what wins elections) and since they don’t seem to want to do that, it would be a safe bet to say Ron Paul will not be allowed to win the nomination.

5. Did the Monday and Thursday debate have a significant impact on the Florida Primary? How and why?

SB: Monday’s debate won’t change anything in Florida because it was the worst performance by a moderator and a network so far. Brian Williams and his local high school sidekicks were dreadful. About all we learned is that Romney thinks Castro will meet his maker, Newt thinks he’s going straight to Hell. Meanwhile the economy stinks, prices are going up and the Federal debt inches towards $16 trillion. Williams wasn’t interested in those issues, I suspect because they make Obama look bad. The debates matter, just as much as money right now.

JT: The roll of the Florida debate is really just to help the establishment decide which candidate, Romney or Newt, wins the hearts and minds of the GOP fan base. Right now we see Newt playing to the “frustrated” establishment while Mitt is playing to the “old school” side of GOP voters who think the answer to bringing back America is as easy as getting Obama out of the White House. The debates are basically a thermometer at this point to gauge the amount of heat the GOP fan base will want to see play out in this election cycle once the incumbent enters they fray.

6. How do you think President Obama’s State of the Union address affected the countries politics? Was it uniting or divisive? Was it about the state of the country or was it a platform for his reelection?

SB: Obama gave another re-election campaign speech in the House last night. It won’t unite anyone, though it won’t divide us further. In two weeks will anyone have remembered this speech? If not, then the speech was, if not a failure, irrelevant. At best the speech will shore up the far left and get them on board for the fall.

JT: President Obama has pretty much lost all relevance as an ambassador of change by this point. When even the liberal media starts getting on his case about failed promises and hollow speeches, there is no longer a teleprompter to pull this lame duck back up. Now, taking away the fact that nobody believes he will bring change and results, he can still wreck some havoc on this nation in the form of division and class warfare. Even though he knows better, he is using tax and class as things that would divide the public. So while we are distracted by the lie of taxing the rich, the systematic dismantling of this nation through the perversion of the Constitution and the selling of sovereignty can continue in broad daylight. The real shame is that if the American populace was wise, we would take these political lies and use them to unite against a common threat.

Clearly his intention was to present his case for re-election. You can take his campaign speeches, his other State of the Union speeches, and compare them with his actions and see they don’t match up. Leaving us with three options, he is either lying to our face without knowing it (which is a mental health condition), he is not capable of performing his job duties, or he is willingly deceiving those he swore to lead for the sole purpose of keeping the White House, and the power it provides, for another four years.

7. What would be your preferred Republican presidential ticket and why (President and Vice President)? What do you think the GOP presidential ticket will actually be?

SB: I wish it was Cain/Bachmann or Cain/Rubio. I was never completely sold on Cain but he had a very innovative platform, which is more than can be said for the four remaining candidates. I don’t know if Newt has it in him to pull this race off. But if he does, a Newt/Rubio or Newt/Jindal ticket would be very strong. I wouldn’t be shocked if Newt at least approached Rand Paul.

JT: I think it will be Romney/Christie most likely. Romney gives the traditional Republican candidate while Christie would bring the Tea Party and Newt Gingrich supporters. Other VP possibilities would be Allen West, Mitch Daniels, and Bobby Jindal.

As far as what I would like the ticket to look like, I’m a bit torn. On one side I would like to see a Ron Paul ticket with a strong personality and presence as his VP, either a military personality or a solid business character to counter Ron’s nice old guy image. A Rand Paul/Michael Savage ticket might be fun, just as a counter to what we have been corrupted by over the past 4 administrations. On the other side, part of me would like to see a Barack Obama/Harry Reid ticket. NOT because I support what those two are trying to shove down our throat but because America is so comfortable with our destruction at the hands of these sort of politicians that perhaps if it continued to the point where more people felt the boot of tyranny on their neck we would wake up and fight for what makes people more than animals and our nation more than just a piece of land. We have a tendency to think that if we get the right leader in the White House then we, as citizens, can just sit back and not work at living out our freedoms. This is a very dangerous place to be and a vulnerable mindset to have as a nation. My fear is that if Romney, Newt, or Santorum win we will lose our freedom, sovereignty, and success even faster because we would be under the false impression that we have an “anti-Obama” and that is was only Obama that caused our problem when in reality it was our own ignorance and ability to maintain ground which we already had.

Bonus Question: Of all the issues – social, economic, foreign, etc. – what is the most important to fix for the future well-being of our country? How can this be accomplished?

SB: So long as the nation continues to legalize and fund abortion, so long as the illegitimacy rates are as high as they are, so long as the family is destroyed via illegitimacy and no-fault divorce and so long as the Christian faith is left behind in the hearts of the people and politicians, we have no hope to get any better. But there is hope if each of us individually returns to the Christian faith and to the church. We can build up from there. But until then, all the fixes proposed will just be Band-Aid on an underlying problem: The lack of true Christian faith in this country. Nobody wants to hear it but it needs to be said.

JT: Freedom is the most important issue at the moment. We are at a place where if we lose our freedom we cannot have an impact on the social issues, we cannot have an impact on our economic issues, and we certainly cannot have a positive impact on foreign issues. Most people make the mistake of thinking that the freedom issue is just fodder for talk show hosts and that freedom is not being lost but rather just being transformed. This mistake in thinking is made even more dangerous when you understand we cannot put this genie back in the bottle. With the advancements in technology, a glowingly intertwined world stage, and a lack of values in the hearts of people, it is now or never in making our stand for the preservation of what we need most…freedom.

This is why some candidates, like Ron Paul, do not always have to be agreed with on policy but still make good candidates because freedom is preserved. Where as there may be up sides to these other candidates but all of those remaining are pushing for a lack of freedom in some way, shape, or form. When freedom is lost for one person, it is lost for every person.

To bring freedom back we need to do a better job of living out the freedom we have. For a couple decades now we have all been proud of the freedoms we have been blessed with but we didn’t practice those freedoms. This is like having a tool in the garage, it is yours, you know you have it, but if you never use it you will continue to believe it is yours, you will still tell everyone how great it is but someone could steal it and you would never know it until one day you need it and it is no longer available.

One of the key elements to living out and regaining freedom is to reinstate our grasp on free enterprise. Free enterprise is the fuel for freedom. You can look at the decline of entrepreneurship and a rise in the loss of freedom.

---

Previous 7 Questions article:
- 7 Questions: Ron Paul

---

Steven Birn is an attorney and conservative political junkie and blogger. For more news and commentary visit Steven Birn Speaks.

Josh Tolley is the host of The Josh Tolley Show, which airs on GCN Monday-Friday 9:00-11:00am Central Time. Listen to the show On Demand.

Like GCN Live on Facebook and follow on Twitter for more great news, opinions, and announcements from GCN Live’s hosts and staff.

Thursday evening, CNN presented the final Republican debate before Tuesday’s Florida Primary.

Participants: Newt Gingrich, Ron Paul, Mitt Romney, and Rick Santorum.

 

 

 

 

CNN Highlights:

Entire Debate:

---

Steven Birn
Steven Birn Speaks

January 26th Republican Debate Review

Last night was the last debate for a month (the peasants rejoice!). This time Wolf Blitzer moderated for CNN, a minor step up from Peter King. Blitzer spent 10 minutes a piece on moon colonies and whose wife would make the best First Lady. All terribly important issues facing America today. On several occasions when candidates tried to address Obama, Blitzer stepped in and tried to get them to fight with their fellow candidates. The first half hour was spent listening to Newt and Romney cat fight while issues such as venture socialism (Solyndra), Fast and Furious and judges were ignored. In other words, the expected left-wing bias of CNN at play.

Before we go any further can we put an issue to rest once and for all? Newt’s firm was paid $300,000 a year for five or six years from Freddie Mac. Such money is peanuts for Freddie Mac, which sees billions pass through it every year. This is a non issue. Likewise, Mitt Romney’s tax returns are a non issue. He has a blind trust, which means he has no idea what the trustee is investing in. Sort of the definition of a blind trust don’t you think Newt? Also in a pathetic attempt to attack Romney ABC has discovered that Mitt’s tax return didn’t include $1,700 in income from a Swiss account. (again a blind account) In a tax return of $20 million this is the best ABC can come up with. Can we put this pathetic nonsense to rest already?

Rick Santorum perhaps did the best tonight because he tried to get Newt and Romney to stop cat fighting with each other. He came off as the most reasonable last night. His answers weren’t bad either. He displays a terrific knowledge of Central and South American politics and he has a clear vision for our nation in that region. Something that couldn’t be said for the other three candidates. Santorum was perhaps at his best when he subtly brought up the life issue during his monologue about his wife. Over all a terrific performance that would probably win Florida if Newt weren’t in the way.

Romney clearly got the best of Newt last night. Newt thought he was going to make a big show of Mitt’s investments in Freddie Mac and Goldman Sachs and was completely shot down by the fact that Mitt has a blind trust. Thus Newt looked like a complete fool. It never got any better for Newt last night. He didn’t have any zingers, no answers that wowed anyone. It was a poor performance, really three in a row for Newt. Let’s face it, the first South Carolina debate was his best by far. It’s all been down hill from there.

While Romney got the best of Newt a couple of times, he looked like a complete fool on occasions. Santorum had his big above the fray comment trying to get Newt and Mitt to knock it off. Blitzer then comes back after a break and tries to get it going again. Romney took the bait and went on the attack when he could have and should have taken the higher ground like Santorum had suggested. Over all though it was a decent performance. It should be concerning to the rank and file though that Romney never seems to answer a question with any specifics. For a candidate whose conservatism is questioned you would think he would at least make an effort to propose a few specific conservative plans.

Ron Paul’s policy with regard to Cuba and South America is ridiculous. We should not be trading with Castro and we should not be letting Chavez run wild in South America. Trade is great, it’s one way to limit Chavez’ influence. But it isn’t the only way and we should be directly opposing the leftist dictator.

Win: Santorum took the high ground, the question is whether conservatives will be fed up with Newt enough to swing to him.

Place: While Romney never took the high ground, he got the best of Newt. But will he ever adequately defend the conservative position on anything?

Show: Newt hasn’t had a good debate since a week ago Monday. Having a month off from debates won’t be good for him though.

Big Loser: Wolf Blitzer and CNN once again proved their left-wing bias by trying to get the candidates to focus on themselves rather than Obama and by asking absurd questions on absurd topics meant to hurt one particular candidate.

---

Steven Birn is an attorney and conservative political junkie and blogger. For more news and commentary visit Steven Birn Speaks.

Like GCN Live on Facebook and follow on Twitter for more great news, opinions, and announcements from GCN Live’s hosts and staff.

John Palm, Editor
GCN Live.com

Yet another debate comes your way Thursday night, marking the last one before Tuesday’s Florida Primary.

The four remaining Republican presidential candidates must make tonight count as there is not another debate scheduled until February 22. That means the Florida, Nevada, Maine, Colorado, Minnesota, and Missouri voters will be casting their primary and caucus votes with Thursday’s nights debate in mind.

Over the course of the last 48 hours, Florida Primary polls have swung from a slight lead for Newt Gingrich to an eight point lead for Mitt Romney (Daily Polls tracker). Polls swing from day to day so there should be no surprise. However, prior to the South Carolina Primary, Gingrich was down to Romney by 23 points in Florida polls. Today, the lead has essentially vanished and that is quite surprising.

Tonight’s debate will be aired at 7 p.m. CT on CNN. It can also be streamed live on CNN.com. In addition, CNN encourages you, the audience, to submit questions that may be used during the debate. For more information on CNN’s debate, the issues, and the remaining candidates, click here. CNN has announced it will allow audience reaction that was banned by NBC on Tuesday’s debate.

GCN Live will post video of the entire debate Friday morning.

---

Like GCN Live on Facebook and follow on Twitter for more great news, opinions, and announcements from GCN Live’s hosts and staff.

Steven Birn
Steven Birn Speaks

Let’s face it, this speech was nothing more than a campaign speech. Obama wants to raise taxes and the GOP doesn’t. Shocking! Obama used similar lines on several issues that he used in his 2010 and 2011 speeches. In other words, if you’re hearing or reading the speech you’ve basically heard or seen it before. Obama proposed plans that have already failed in Congress (both the Democrat and Republican controlled versions). He has a whole list of things that he knows the GOP won’t even consider. Rather than trying to work with Congress, Obama just throwing stuff out there to appease various constituencies. The GOP isn’t going to raise taxes so why go there? Likewise Obama won’t sign an Obamacare repeal, so the GOP need not go there.

Obama presides over a nearly $1.6 annual budget deficit. Yet he wants to use the “saving” from ending the Iraq war to spend on infrastructure projects, most of which will be done by union workers. Reducing the amount of money government spends doesn’t even enter the President’s mind. Which of course means that he isn’t serious about reducing spending or cutting anything. No surprise there.

While Obama railed against the rich last night, his administration has done little more than aid his rich friends. We all know about Solyndra and several other failed green companies, all of which awarded billionaire campaign donors millions in tax money. We all know that Obama supporting companies like GE pay no tax and receive millions in subsides. Now we find out that the biggest beneficiary of the Keystone XL pipeline rejection is Warren Buffet, another billionaire supporter of the President. Berkshire Hathaway just happens to own the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad, which just happens to transport oil (inefficiently) via rail from Canada. Evil rich my foot.

Obama wants to bring in the so-called Buffet rule declaring that those making over $1 million shouldn’t pay less than 30% in taxes. He of course doesn’t distinguish between labor income and capital gains. Buffet’s secretary, who allegedly pays a higher rate than he, was sitting with the First Lady last night.

The capital gains rate is 15%, keep in mind capital gains are investments made with money already earned via labor. There’s risk involved, you can’t deduct the majority of what you lose. Warren Buffet, like Mitt Romney, earns most of his income on capital gains. The truth here is that 97% of Americans pay less than 15% of their income in Federal income taxes. Those who pay more earn over $200,000 a year. So if Warren Buffet’s secretary is paying a higher percentage than he is, I would like her job because she’s making a lot more than I am.

Obama claims to be for the middle class. Yet gas prices have doubled during his Presidency. It is consistently over $3.00, gas averaged $3.50 last year. Given the opportunity to make gas cheaper by drilling or approving a pipeline, Obama says no. Oil leases on Federal land were down 40% last year. Ground beef is up 24% under Obama, bacon is up 22%, ice cream is up 19%. Corn is up 50%, sugar is up 20%. This is all due to inflation, high gas and administration policy. So much for caring for the middle class.

Last night’s speech was more of the same. More big government, more unnecessary confrontation with Republicans and more campaigning. His poll numbers won’t increase much because of the speech. The recent history of this President is that he’s largely tuned out by the general public. The question is whether this speech gets his base excited about re-electing him. Time will tell on that.

---

Steven Birn is an attorney and conservative political junkie and blogger. For more news and commentary visit Steven Birn Speaks.

Like GCN Live on Facebook and follow on Twitter for more great news, opinions, and announcements from GCN Live’s hosts and staff.