GLENN BECK: SECTION of Mitt ROMNEY’s “GHAFFE” TAPE You Haven’t Heard

www.GlennBeck.com ^ | Thursday, Sep 20, 2012 | Glenn Beck

[Yosemitest]

The media is still freaking out over the video tape of Mitt Romney talking about the 47% of Americans who aren’t paying taxes.
Seriously…they’re still talking about it.
But what they aren’t talking about is the rest of the tape – the parts that matter.
The media is playing the portion of the video tape that Americans need to hear, instead, as usual, they’re focusing on the sound bites that fit their agenda.

“If you want to reason a vote for Mitt Romney here it is,” Glenn told listeners this morning.

Glenn has expressed his concern about whether or not Mitt Romney really “gets it” when it comes to the Federal Reserve, bailouts, and the serious damage that is being done to the dollar.
Thanks to the video the media has labeled a “gaffe” he’s not worried anymore.

“I want you to listen carefully to what Mitt Romney said is the biggest problem in our country.
A response to a question – listen to what he says about the Federal Reserve.

“Yeah, it’s interesting…
the former head of Goldman Sachs, John Whitehead, was also the former head of the New York Federal Reserve.
And I met with him, and he said as soon as the Fed stops buying all the debt that we’re issuing—
which they’ve been doing,
the Fed’s buying like three-quarters of the debt that America issues.
He said, once that’s over, he said we’re going to have a failed Treasury auction, interest rates are going to have to go up.
We’re living in this borrowed fantasy world, where the government keeps on borrowing money.
You know, we borrow this extra trillion a year, we wonder who’s loaning us the trillion?
The Chinese aren’t loaning us anymore.
The Russians aren’t loaning it to us anymore.
So who’s giving us the trillion?
And the answer is we’re just making it up.
The Federal Reserve is just taking it and saying,
“Here, we’re giving it.’
It’s just made up money, and this does not augur well for our economic future.

You know, some of these things are complex enough
it’s not easy for people to understand,
but your point of saying, bankruptcy usually concentrates the mind.”



Listen to Romney’s statement here:

Romney talks about the Fed

“Why are we not talking about that,” Glenn asked.
“Do you hear what the presidential candidate just said?
Apparently not.
Nobody knows — nobody cares.
Nobody in the media cares.
This is a major revelation.”

The ‘Ron Paul people’ always harp on ‘auditing the Fed’ and claim that no one will go after the Fed but Ron Paul.
Mitt Romney will according to his words caught on this tape in a candid moment.

“While everybody is else paying attention to the 47% there is your answer.
Your answer is

he knows what’s going on with the Federal Reserve,
and he is warning us what’s happening in the Federal Reserve.”

[Yosemitest]

Watch the stock market drop and precious metal go through the roof.
Thank you Glenn. I had to research augur.
At first, I thought it was a typo for "argue".
But after learning that it 's "one held to foretell events by omens" , it makes sense.

[Yosemitest]

CORRECTION to Link:

Listen to Romney’s statement here:

[newzjunkey]

This weak dollar garbage started under W with Greenspan, Bernanke’s continued it into oblivion. It’s insanity. Japan’s had a generation of QE and a stalled economy. At some point, an adult is going to have to say, we need to derail this train or go off the cliff. It’ll be painful short term but the best course in the long run.

[Isabel C.]

GLENN BECK: SECTION of Mitt ROMNEY’s “GHAFFE” TAPE You Haven’t Heard

GHAFFE? That's quite a gaffe.

[Lancey Howard]

(( ping ))

[Yosemitest]

I guess I'm too tired. Thanks.

Here's some more background on Obama.

Obama, the African Colonial,June 25, 2009

PRAVDA SAYS 'AMERICAN DESCENT INTO MARXISM HAPPENING WITH BREATHTAKING SPEED'!

Here's the mind of Fascist Obama, from another poster LomanBill.
"Yuri Bezmenov on demoralization" Interview with Yuri Bezmenov (ex-KGB) by Edward Griffin - 1984

Hitler / Obama Comparisons: Is Barack Obama Like Adolf Hitler or The Nazis?

[Yosemitest]

I agree.

"It’s insanity.
At some point, an adult is going to have to say, we need to derail this train or go off the cliff.
It’ll be painful short term but the best course in the long run."

But I'll add to it,

Obama and the rest of his Fabian Fascists, are DOING IT ON PURPOSE , and with malice !

[ReaganGeneration2]

It WILL be painful short term, if by short term you mean 5-10 years. I pray this country can handle tight money and low federal spending and humility overseas, because it’s either us or the next 2 or 3 generations. We choose between austerity and delay. They won’t have a choice, because they will have tyranny.

If Romney gets this, you should hear it in the debates many times. If not you never will. The media is shutting out his message otherwise.

[Yosemitest]

That's WHY the LAME Stream Media edited the tape.

[mdmathis6]

We were getting our international trading butts kicked because a strong dollar allowed everyone in the world to keep weaker currencies then ours, allowing our goods to be much more expensive while we were flooded with cheap foriegn goods. China artificially kept their currency pegged at 8 yuan to the dollar, therebye boosting their economy at the expense of ours. Allowing our currency to float against the world’s currency was an attempt to force parity and to force the Chinese to take themselves off the American teat, which they were finally forced to do so. As for any “debt” we may owe the Chinese, I believe we could make a case for theft on their part thru currency manipulation!

[Safetgiver]

I think it’s Libyan-speak. You know like Quaddafi, Kahdafi, Ga-ghaffe?

[Nekman]

Not to mention all the copyright and patent infringement.......

[HannibalHamlinJr]

All - read this - and re-read the part copied below. This is EXACTLY what I said in a post yesterday or the day before. That so many think Mitt is a centrist. I said that about the Fed, and I said it about abortion. He's not a centrist. He's a pragmatist conservative posing where he needs to pose to get something done, one thing at a time. And he's only targeting what he CAN get to at any moment.

Yes I'm being vain, and yes I'll take credit for harping on this, but more importantly you've got to get behind him if you're not.

What I said was that you're not going to get a better man than Mitt now or in a long time, so please get behind him and have a little faith that he's more like you than you know. He MAY even be MORE like you than ... YOU.

A snippet:

The ‘Ron Paul people’ always harp on ‘auditing the Fed’ and claim that no one will go after the Fed but Ron Paul. Mitt Romney will according to his words caught on this tape in a candid moment.

“While everybody is else paying attention to the 47% there is your answer. Your answer is he knows what’s going on with the Federal Reserve, and he is warning us what’s happening in the Federal Reserve.”

Let me ask this: Where is Ron Paul now? Can Ron Paul get ANYTHING done about the Fed? Mitt knows what Ron is talking about, probably more than Ron.

Mitt's abortion stance is the same kind of thing. He despises it, but he despises it so much that he's not going to fizzle out his chance of having a powerful say about the future of (no) abortion by, as the saying goes, "spilling his candy in the lobby."

Thanks for posting this ... very important for people to know this stuff, partially for their own sanity. He's not going to waste political capital screaming in the streets like some ineffectual OWS idiot pooping on a police car about an ideal that is, at least at this moment, not possible in the physical universe because people aren't ready to hear it. You can't teach kindergarteners calculus. And unfortunately, at least for now, the American electorate is too mentally and spiritually underdeveloped to understand monetary policy, what a gold standard means, and what abortion really means.

First, there is a major collective hypnosis that has to be undone - from which people need to wake up, then that hypnosis needs to be replaced with the truth - about money, how value is stored, about killing unborn infants, most fundamentally, what freedom is and whence it comes.

If you're not already, please get behind him at least with your vote. It's really not a case of just "oh well he sucks but he sucks less than the others and certainly sucks less than Obama." No, here on Earth, he is far better than Ron Paul or certainly Newt or Palin. Ron is an idealist and in being one, reminds of what we're ultimately fighting for, even if he's a little kooky. The other two - they are right, but America has already spit them out. They'd be great in an America where half the electorate weren't idiots - where maybe only 40% were idiots. But it's an overwhelmingly stupid citizenry right now.

Final analogy: If you want to give a kid a vitamin, you've got to get a vitamin that will go down his throat to do any good - and to make him strong enough for the next vitamin. I love Sarah, but too many people viscerally can't stand her. Are they stupid? Yes. Jealous women? Yes. Sheeplike men? Yes. Doesn't matter. The kid won't swallow the vitamin.

Rant over, but this is important. And yeah - Mitt did need something to get him fighting (the 'secret' tapes) ... I'm not saying the guy is a star politician ("That is why it must be YOU Maximus,") and he has a reverse-anger-management problem. Feel free to piss him off to get him going, but do vote for him, and let him teach a little about the real world to Ryan and the younger crew ... because the real world is where people vote, right now the real world is incredibly ignorant, deceived, stupid even - and they don't even know that they have locked themselves in their own misery - that they can be - strong, free and happy again. But people do not vote in Ron or Sarah's correct vision. They vote in our fallen universe.

Arrrgghhhh, and so pirate's day comes to an end, and hopefully Mitt has learned that while he faces a truly wussified, mentally and spiritually crippled country, there are those who can still hear the truth, who pray for the truth.

Our fat friend, the Buddha, didn't want to teach at all after he attained enlightenment - he thought it to deep a truth for his silly human compatriots to grasp. But God whispered in his ear "there are a few with little dust on their eyes." So see clearly, but practically - we inhabit a fallen world. Our little Mittens understands his vision is good medicine, but viewed as poison for now, so few will swallow it.

And yes, vainly, I've been hammering this all along outside this board for months and predicting a 5% popular vote drubbing of Obama. Looking more like 6 to 8 % now. Back to bed ...

[Alas Babylon!]

Mitt Romney's giraffe? You mean this one? All the rich guys have one....

[pepsi_junkie]

Thank you Glenn. I had to research augur.

Some useless information: back in ancient times, the Etruscans ruled Rome and their religion relied on priests called Augurs who read the entrails of animals, observed the birds in the sky, things like that as a means to determine omens. When the Romans tossed out the Etruscans and began their own republic they ultimately embraced a variation of the Greek religion based on a pantheon of Gods like Zeus/Jupiter, Ares/Mars, etc. But they kept the Augurs to read the omens. They carried a lot of sway, for example an army might decide not to attack because the auguries were not favorable.

[pepsi_junkie]

One other bit of useless information. When Roman politicians took office, an augur read the signs and if they were okay he would begin his term. He was thus inaugurated. And that word is still with us.

[Yosemitest]

Let's see, today is Sept 21, 2012, and you've been around since "Since Sept 17, 2012" .
I can understand you rant, partially, but disagree with your statement that Romney's a "pragmatist conservative"
and I'm of the frame of mind that he's just another "Establishment Republican" .
Yeah, he's not a Fabian Fascist and he WAS born IN the United States.
But a "pragmatist conservative" ? Not even close !

"It's really not a case of just
'oh well he sucks but he sucks less than the others and certainly sucks less than Obama.' "

Look, Romney has some business sense, and he has been faithfully married to one woman for a very long time (which says much about his morals).
But Romney is NOT a Conservative, and dirty politics is his forte when it comes to REAL conservatives.
Will Romney get my vote? I don't know yet.
I'm still pretty pissed at Romney, and I'm hoping he won't be around come the general election time (God, forgive me for my wishes).
We could do A LOT BETTER than Romney!

[HannibalHamlinJr]

Yo, Semitest - I’m not going to bounce back at you on any of that, except to say that by ‘conservative pragmatist’ I’m neither coining a new political term nor even invoking anything political-historical about the words.

Romney is for everything a real conservative is for. What he says out loud and how he tries to move in that direction, effectively, on the Earth, is pragmatic.

Of course neither of us can prove anything. I only write to remove a little bit of the stress a lot of people are feeling about him.

The question ultimately is: If you are conservative, will you be better off in four years if Romney (in terms of your fight against abortion, fight for national fiscal stability, fight to curb the shredding of the Constitution, fight to preserve the idea that liberty comes before government because liberty comes from God) would you be better off than if Paul, Palin, Newt etc. were president. Forget personalities, forget ideology, forget how you feeeeeel, even if you have to swallow the puke in your mouth when you pull the lever.

You would be better off, because none of those 3, or many other figures, are actually capable of moving the country, of causing a result, rather than maintaining eternal ‘hope and change’ like some we know. You might hear what you want to hear for 4 years from your president, but hearing what you want to hear, having your guy in power, is not what actually changes the country. It doesn’t, in itself, produce results ... movement towards your goal. In some cases, it produces a backlash.

re: The Establishment: Yeah - he’s from the Republican Establishment ... but even a blind squirrel sometimes, even by mistake, even for all the wrong reasons, bumbles into a nut.

Best!

[Yosemitest]

I'm not buying it, and neither is most of the base.
We've been played too many times by the Establishment Republicans who don't want us around, except when it's time to vote.
Haven't you ever read
Jack Kerwick's article, May 24, 2011 titled The Tea Partier versus The Republican.
He expressed some important issues that I agree with.

Thus far, the field of GOP presidential contenders, actual and potential, isn’t looking too terribly promising.

This, though, isn’t meant to suggest that any of the candidates, all things being equal, lack what it takes to insure
that Barack Obama never sees the light of a second term; nor is it the case that I find none of the candidates appealing.
Rather, I simply mean that at this juncture, the party faithful is far from unanimously energized over any of them.

It is true that it was the rapidity and aggressiveness with which President Obama proceeded to impose his perilous designs upon the country
that proved to be the final spark to ignite the Tea Party movement.
But the chain of events that lead to its emergence began long before Obama was elected.
That is, it was actually the disenchantment with the Republican Party under our “compassionate conservative” president, George W. Bush,
which overcame legions of conservatives that was the initial inspiration that gave rise to the Tea Party.

It is this frustration with the GOP’s betrayal of the values that it affirms that accounts for why the overwhelming majority
of those who associate with or otherwise sympathize with the Tea Party movement
refuse to explicitly or formally identify with the Republican Party.
And it is this frustration that informs the Tea Partiers’ threat to create a third party
in the event that the GOP continues business as usual.

If and when those conservatives and libertarians who compose the bulk of the Tea Party, decided that the Republican establishment
has yet to learn the lessons of ’06 and ’08, choose to follow through with their promise,
they will invariably be met by Republicans with two distinct but interrelated objections.

First,
they will be told that they are utopian, “purists” foolishly holding out for an “ideal” candidate.

Second, because virtually all members of the Tea Party would have otherwise voted Republican if not for this new third party,
they will be castigated for essentially giving elections away to Democrats.



Both of these criticisms are, at best, misplaced; at worst, they are just disingenuous.
At any rate, they are easily answerable.

Let’s begin with the argument against “purism.” To this line, two replies are in the coming.


No one, as far as I have ever been able to determine, refuses to vote for anyone who isn’t an ideal candidate.
Ideal candidates, by definition, don’t exist.
This, after all, is what makes them ideal.
This counter-objection alone suffices to expose the argument of the Anti-Purist as so much counterfeit.
But there is another consideration that militates decisively against it.

A Tea Partier who refrains from voting for a Republican candidate who shares few if any of his beliefs
can no more be accused of holding out for an ideal candidate
than can someone who refuses to marry a person with whom he has little to anything in common
be accused of holding out for an ideal spouse.
In other words, the object of the argument against purism is the most glaring of straw men:
“I will not vote for a thoroughly flawed candidate” is one thing;
“I will only vote for a perfect candidate” is something else entirely.



As for the second objection against the Tea Partier’s rejection of those Republican candidates who eschew his values and convictions,
it can be dispensed with just as effortlessly as the first.

Every election season—and at no time more so than this past season—Republicans pledge to “reform Washington,” “trim down” the federal government, and so forth.
Once, however, they get elected and they conduct themselves with none of the confidence and enthusiasm with which they expressed themselves on the campaign trail,
those who placed them in office are treated to one lecture after the other on the need for “compromise” and “patience.”

Well, when the Tea Partier’s impatience with establishment Republican candidates intimates a Democratic victory,
he can use this same line of reasoning against his Republican critics.
My dislike for the Democratic Party is second to none, he can insist.
But in order to advance in the long run my conservative or Constitutionalist values, it may be necessary to compromise some in the short term.

For example,

as Glenn Beck once correctly noted in an interview with Katie Couric,
had John McCain been elected in 2008, it is not at all improbable that, in the final analysis,
the country would have been worse off than it is under a President Obama.
McCain would have furthered the country’s leftward drift,
but because this movement would have been slower,
and because McCain is a Republican, it is not likely that the apparent awakening that occurred under Obama would have occurred under McCain.


It may be worth it, the Tea Partier can tell Republicans, for the GOP to lose some elections if it means that conservatives—and the country—will ultimately win.

If he didn’t know it before, the Tea Partier now knows that accepting short-term loss in exchange for long-term gain is the essence of compromise, the essence of politics.

Ironically, he can thank the Republican for impressing this so indelibly upon him.

I'm fresh out of "patience", and I'm not in the mood for "compromise".
"COMPROMISE" to me is a dirty word.
Let the RINO's compromise their values, with the conservatives, for a change.

Mitt Romney and the "Establishment Republicans" can go to hell!

[Hegewisch Dupa]

thanks for doing your part to send us there!