Interview with Virgil Goode: How Do We Elevate Constitutional Principles?

...Virgil Goode has long supported a bill to audit the Federal Reserve, which recently cleared the House. He advocates “currency that is real and backed by gold or silver.”

Goode champions “fair and equitable opportunity, but it’s up to you to use it. Government cannot ensure equal results because every individual differs;”

An ardent proponent of balancing the budget, our deficits Goode insists, stem from “spending.” “Taxes should be simple and fair … I’m not for increasing income taxes; if we even have an income tax.”

The candidate laments “too much federal involvement in our lives” offering as an example the Department of Education, “should not be involved, schooling should be determined by states and localities …

“Government forcibly redefining marriage to include anything other than one man and one woman would be totally foreign to the views of the framers of the Constitution, first ten amendments and Declaration of Independence.”

Goode denies that the Founders, men of “deep-seated values,” would consider a cross on the town square or the Ten Commandments posted at school “as un-constitutional... public displays “aren’t forcing religion on anyone,

Goode implores “following the Constitution, we can’t let the UN decide” clarifying “I don’t mind working with allies like we did in World War One and Two, but I’d never let U.S. troops serve under UN command. ...

“I’m totally opposed to illegal immigration and will put a moratorium on new Green Cards until unemployment reduces. Jobs should [go] to U.S. citizens first.” Goode would “eliminate automatic birthright citizenship”

Going the third party route is admittedly precarious ... unless living in a key battleground state, it’s unlikely your vote matters much. Likewise, for the many voters (that) might stay home, pulling the lever for Goode seems sound.

I agree that you answer to God and not to me.

I spelled out the deficient logic of those who tell a Christian that they should do evil so that good will result. That is unbiblical logic.

My biblical analysis, on the other hand, is supported by both the bible and by centuries of similar interpretation.

So far as some necessity to keep our religious opinions out of our political discussions, that is not the case on Free Republic. The religion forum exists for specifically religious threads, not to prevent freepers from speaking out on the religious basis of their political positions.

Jim Robinson, on the other hand, has said that Free Republic is a God, life, guns, etc., forum.

I agree that you answer to God and not to me.

Well thank you very much.

I spelled out the deficient logic of those who tell a Christian that they should do evil so that good will result. That is unbiblical logic. My biblical analysis, on the other hand, is supported by both the bible and by centuries of similar interpretation.

Well preacher, in that case you need to take your Biblical analysis and your sermons, and head to the rear with the gear, the rest of us have a battle to fight between now and November 6th, ok? Like the saying goes, "either lead, follow, or get the Hell out of the way".

So far as some necessity to keep our religious opinions out of our political discussions, that is not the case on Free Republic. The religion forum exists for specifically religious threads, not to prevent freepers from speaking out on the religious basis of their political positions.

Then you might kindly counsel your fellow evangelist SoConPubbie who seems bent on passing religious judgment on FReepers who live in the real world, faced with real world situations which are not perfect and which have no absolutely pure and simple answers as you prefer.

Jim Robinson, on the other hand, has said that Free Republic is a God, life, guns, etc., forum.

And it remains so. And since you wish to cite our Founder, here's another thing JimRob says with every post in his tagline:

"Resistance to tyrants is obedience to God!!"

None of us are enamored with the idea of having to vote for Romney in order to stop the tyrant known as 0bama, but unless you have a way to pull a rabbit out of your magic hat and provide ANOTHER method of removing 0bama from office, the only way that is going to happen is by voting for Romney & Ryan on November 6th.

But you go right ahead and be a conscientious objector.

I spelled out the deficient logic of those who tell a Christian that they should do evil so that good will result. That is unbiblical logic.

It defies reason as well. Expecting a RINO with a long liberal history to suddenly change his stripes and gives us the CONSERVATIVE solutions this Country needs to continue existing in any meaningful way...

The other poster cannot articulate HOW Willard will end abortion, repeal gun control, diminish the FedGov to a point where it operates within it's Art 1 Sec 8 limits, etc...

No. All he seems to have is a mouth full of his own vomit for those who dare question his pet RINO's purity...

The GOP platform is one of the most conservative in history. Social conservatives like Rick Santorum are thrilled with.

Compared to the Democrat platform perhaps... that's really saying alot, isn't it. I think you mean to say that the GOP platform WAS one of the most conservative in history... but not any longer, it's leaving conservatives just as the Democrat party left Reagan. After all, Rick Santorum isn't the nominee, is he? You might also want to check out Rush's article to get his insight as well.

Here are just a few excerpts:

"They want to stop all this impugning of conservatives and Republicans, and the way they think to do it is to get the conservatives out of the party."

"Everybody showing up there was at least united around a singular proposition, and that is: "We've gotta get rid of Obama." The disagreements are in how you carry the message. But there was unity of purpose, here. There was not unity of strategy, but there was unity in purpose. Now they've started this war within the ranks, to get through this messy process here of finally marginalizing the conservatives."

"The establishment, they just are embarrassed like they can't believe over the positions conservatives take regarding abortion and immigration. They're just embarrassed, and they want to get rid of it. They just want to get rid of it. Folks, if I may be blunt?"

"This country has a two party system. You are not going to get your way most of the time when it comes to the party's general election candidate. That's how 2 party systems work. They are as much about defeating an opposition as getting our own side elected. I wish we had a different system sometimes to be honest. I wish we had a system that allowed for coalition building. I am not sure our winner take all, 2 party system is all that super sometimes, but it's what we've got. Most of us under 40 have never had a presidential candidate we could really be excited about voting for in a general election. For the rest, Reagan is probably it.

What good is having a two party system in which one party has been co-opted by Liberalism and the other is in the process? Eventually you will learn that deciding between voting for the Democrat or the Republican will be like trying to pick up a dog turd by the clean end.

**Don't misunderstand, I'm not voting for Obama either... but my non-vote for Romney is not a vote in favor of Obama.**

You can try to convince yourself of that, but in the end, yes, you are helping enable Obama. Romney is the only ballot you can cast that has any usefulness in removing Obama from office. I know it, you know it and everyone else with a lick of sense knows it too.

Give me a break, you and all other Romney/GOPe kool-aid drinkers keep spouting the same nonsense that it's becoming half-way comical...

"A non-vote for Romney is a vote for OBAMA"
"We HAVE to get rid of OBAMA"
"The country won't survive 4 more years OBAMA"
"The sky is falling and the earth is burning because of OBAMA"

You presuppose that my vote automatically belongs to Romney. My vote belongs, first and foremost, to ME, sir. So explain how my vote for neither candidate is a de facto vote for one or the other?

Lastly, I have more faith in the good conservative people of this country... good people who believe in the 1st and 2nd Amendment and ARE WILLING TO FIGHT FOR IT... than I have in a flip-flopping, conservative-hating, abortion-loving, gay-marriage-advocating, RomneyCare-creating pile of toe-jam that YOU are enabling.

I need some coffee now.

"Resistance to tyrants is obedience to God!!"

Generally, an appropriate line.

It falls apart when the idea is to replace one evil baby killer with another evil baby killer, just because the 2nd guy kills a few less babies.

The Apostle Paul says the idea of trying to get good out of supporting evil is an already condemned plan. He goes on to say in Ro 5:"1 What shall we say, then? Shall we go on sinning so that grace may increase? 2 By no means!"

And, BTW, I am leading. You just don't like the direction. It will not be toward either Romney or Obama. You are absolutely correct, I conscientiously object to both of their evil plans for this nation.

I will not vote FOR aborted babies. I will not vote FOR gun control. I will not vote FOR gay couples. I will not vote FOR gay adoption. I will not vote FOR gay boy scouts. I will not vote FOR a gay military. I will not vote FOR Romneycare. I will not vote FOR social crony corporatism. I will not vote for phony "revenue enhancement" and pretend it isn't increasing my taxes. I will not vote for phony budget balancing schemes that take 27 years to come to fruition and cut not one red cent of spending.

Romney voters are voting FOR all of that.

Is that what conservatism has come to?

That, jessup, is CINO: conservative in name only. OR, it is deceived.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.