Skip to comments.A (Virgil)'Goode' plan to save American jobs
Posted on 05/22/2012 7:05:50 AM PDT by xzins
Listen to interview at:
As President Obama and likely Republican nominee Mitt Romney remain locked in a virtual dead heat, is there any room for a third party to make a statement or even be competitive in 2012?
Thats the hope of the Constitution Party and its nominee, Virgil Goode.
Goode says Obamas spending is completely out of control but Republican proposals are also not good enough because he says the budget needs to be balanced now and not in a few years or a couple of generations from now.
I would submit a balanced budget if elected president, and it would be painful, Goode told WND.
He expects a fierce fight with Congress about cutting spending, but his plan would not focus on entitlement reforms. Instead, Goode envisions big cuts in discretionary spending both in the defense and domestic portions of the budget. When it comes to jobs, Goodes top priorities are to end illegal immigration and nearly put a stop to legal immigration in order to prevent foreign workers from competing with Americans for the job opportunities that exist.
Weve got to focus on discretionary spending, social-services programs. For instance, Ill make sure illegals and recent immigrants dont get food stamps, said Goode.
Goode says he would also seek to repeal Obama administration regulations that he says are stifling job creation. He would start with the Obama health care-laws which Goode considers the most repressive to job creators. The former congressman says he is not a spoiler in the race but is a much needed voice on fiscal responsibility, ending government programs for illegal immigrants and other issues.
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
"We've got to focus on social service programs...food stamps." He says to be tough on new sign-ups and definitely no illegal or recent immigrants.
End any new increase in Defense Spending. Can't afford increases right now. Wait for the economy to improve. We want the best defense, but the economy being strong is the predicate that undergirds a strong defense.
Ping to article and to interview
Goode says we need to END birthright citizenship, and that both Romney and Obama support it.
Wants to end green carders getting tax reductions for claiming relatives living in other countries.
A vote for Goode is a vote for Obamanation.
Who does he think he is? That's racist!
I thought Jim Robinson called for a truce?
Same old tired rhetoric from people who are content with the "scraps" and rare "win" they get from the Republican Party. Funny how some claim to have principles but then toss them out the window for what appears to be a potential win. Ultimately though, the Dems and Pubs are leading us down the same path, the only difference is the speed.
For so many it’s a matter of having a winning team...the yankees, red sox, cowboys, lakers....you name it.
They care about the “win”. They talk about “loving” and “hating” candidates.
It’s an “emotional” investment akin to following a favorite team, a winning program being the ultimate.
For others, it’s a matter of the nation and the best principles for governing that nation.
These folks are not ABLE to support Romney any more than they’re able to support Obama. He is a big government, anti-life, anti-natural law candidate.
Romney defies the natural order, and therefore, he defies creation and its Creator.
He cannot be supported by principled conservatives. He can only be supported by the emotionally driven.
A vote for Goode is a vote for Obamanation.
Your an idiot. A vote for Goode is a vote for Goode. And you are not even close to a conservative if you are bashing the only conservative running in the General.
How is the Virgil “The Loser” Goode going to end birthright citizenship?? You do have to realize that in order amend the Constitution, you need 2/3 of both houses and 3/4 of the states to do it.
Exactly. Some people move from team to team, always trying to follow the winner because they want the ego boost.
I, on the other hand, have remained and always will be a KC Royals fan.
Nope. Congress merely needs to clarify a definition (which, in this case, would be the one originally intended by the 14th amendment's author) of "natural born citizen" that excludes birthright citizenship. No need to amend anything except present statutory law.
Well at least I know the difference between "your" and "you're"!
Sorry but I can’t get behind a baby killer like you support. You can risk the fires of hell through your support of liberal Romney, but count me out.
I will disagree. Birthright citizenship is an interpretation and not the intent. An originalist would see BR ctzshp as misguided.
Thanks for sharing your views, dear brother in Christ!
My only concern (with a question) is for conserving non-Romney delegates, and to hopefully convert some uncommitted delegates, in order to make a showing on the second ballot that proves some degree of threat to the GOPE. It seems to me that an unknown who is seen as debuting a Third Party at this late date would not prove profitable to shaking up the Republican Party.
2010 was a kick off to change that mattered. The dissident vote against the GOPE is not entirely insignificant, and serves as one more step of fearlessness that if it can only gain steam, could be the wake-up call to the Establishment that their rule and reign, their money, pay offs, and pressure threats circulating around DC are coming to an end.
If Rush is right and the GOP only wanted the senate all along, then this is a Republican leadership out to defend turf and further entrench nothing more than their personal power, with no respect for the voters. Conservatives have simply got to cut them loose.
Delegates are now the last voice of the grassroots, and it seems to me that whoever of all the candidates has the most delegates in our upcoming state primaries should vote for that candidate, regardless who it is. There is no other way to make the Republican convention actually matter, is there?
I so, then please explain to me how your position and that of your like-minded coterie isn't itself thoroughly "emotional," when you boil it all down.
I sure hope this doesn’t put the Republican nominee behind Obama in the popular vote.
Naming a group of hot button issues with zero context certainly comes as close to an emotional appeal as is possible while retaining plausible truthiness.
I wouldn’t call anything safe. Never has a sitting _resident received so much opprobrium.
Records have contexts; this presents none.
Word. Romney will NOT get my vote.
To which you replied: Because it's an adherence to conservative principle, and not tribal loyalty to the GOP.... This should be easy for you to understand bb.
Why are you imputing "tribal loyalty" to the GOP on my part, from which I resigned two years ago out of sheer disgust because of the mounting equivocations of said party with regard to fundamental constitutional and conservative questions?
I am a registered voter in Massachusetts of "unenrolled" status. Meaning, I have no political party affiliation at all nowadays; I am politically an independent voter. Meaning: I do not carry water for the GOP; indeed, I have serious concerns about that party's evolution in recent times. (E.g., the "Big Tent" scenario, which requires the party to trash its own historical base.)
From my view as a citizen of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, any characterization of Mitt Romney as "a lying, left-wing, Progressive Liberal" does not comport with my understanding and experience of his tenure as governor of my state. I am frankly puzzled that such a rumor ever got "legs" to walk around on to begin with, such that you believe it.
Judging from what I have seen, this guy is no "progressive liberal." Where folks outside the state may deem him as such (for whatever peculiar reasons of their own), such a representation evinces profound ignorance about the "preferred method" of conducting the "official" State's business given that Massachusetts is a machine-run state, much like Illinois, and California....
And the machine is not just Democrat liberal: it is outright Left-Progressive these days, bordering on anarchy....
How I long for the days of Tip O'Neill! But they are long-gone: Tip was a democratic populist; as such, he could work with a, say, Ronald Reagan to "get things done" for the people. Nowadays in Massachusetts, the machine is run by ideologues out of Harvard, MIT, and the labor unions. And they not only have an ax to grind against the historical American polity; but they want to utterly transform it into something more congenial to their totally unhinged utopian dreams, so to construct a world in their own image. Which, whatever shortcomings one might find in a Tip O'Neill, is a completely different scenario than played in his political philosophy.
And Obama is "their guy." He's in their camp. Which is why he MUST be removed from presidential office.
You speak of Romney's "constant lying." Then you present a "list" of examples of his supposed malfeasance to support your view. But unfortunately, your "list" routinely falsifies objective reality.
Let's go through your list:
"1. [Romney] Implemented Gay Marriage."Romney did no such thing. The Supreme Judicial Court that is, the State Supreme Court did that, and unilaterally.
The reason it played out that way: The gay lobbies had haunted the General Court (i.e., the Massachusetts legislature) and Senate to pass a gay marriage law literally for years. The elected legislative bodies in this state did not want to touch that issue with a ten-foot pole no matter how sympathetic the various individuals composing those bodies might have been to "gay marriage." Reasons: (1) They did not want to risk their own reelections by casting a "yea" public vote on a matter that they knew in their heart of hearts was repugnant to a significant body of people living in their electoral districts (Massachusetts is heavily Catholic). (2) If they did cast such a vote, they risked facing a gubernatorial VETO which would only prolong the public dispute, and put them on "the wrong side of the issue" as far as a majority of Massachusetts voters were concerned. Plus they would put themselves out of the protection of The Boston Globe, which would tirelessly lobby against any miscreant legislator or senator who would dare to cast a NAY vote against gay "marriage."
So the Massachusetts political class reverted to the "Massachusetts model": All public decisions, ideally, are not to be effected by elected, accountable bodies supposedly reflecting the public will. All important public decisions should be referred to the Courts.
In short, gay marriage in Massachusetts was not the act of the governor, or the legislature; it was a judicial decision a decision of an unelected and unaccountable body "made law" by extra-constitutional means. (And I daresay without any serious reflection on the permissible mandates of the Massachusetts Constitution, which John Adams wrote.)
Romney could not veto an act of the state supreme court, not like he could veto an act of the state legislature. The governor's powers do not constitutionally reach that far.
The governor's powers in Massachusetts are actually quite weak (and deliberately so) as compared with the powers of the chief executive in most other states. For the simply reason that the "machine" here prefers to get the public business (especially if it's socially divisive) done through unelected and unaccountable judicial courts.
2. [Romney] Supported AbortionTo this point, all I ask is for a direct quote from Romney in substantiation of your claim that he actively supports abortion. One that goes to the merits of the argument, not a statement in which he attempts to differentiate himself from any other person's claim in the matter (e.g., Teddy Kennedy's who is probably roasting in Hell right about now....)
3. [Romney] Nominated 27 out of 36 extreme left-wing Progressive Liberal judgesI've mentioned this in the past, a couple of times by now. But I'll go another round with you on this question (evidently you didn't credit my last two posts on this subject). That fact is, the political machine in Massachusetts knows that it conducts its business with far greater felicity under a weak executive. The fact is, the governor of Massachusetts cannot make any direct appointment to any court in the Commonwealth. That is, he cannot nominate his own choice of candidates. Nominees for all judicial vacancies are selected by an unelected "governor's council." The governor is restricted to the choices advanced by this (unelected and thus unaccountable) body. Which puts the governor if he is at all politically "conservative" in the position of selecting the least worst candidates for the bench.
4. [Romney] Implemented an Assualt Weapons ban.This is news to me. Of course, in Massachusetts, an "assault weapon" is any "scary looking" firearm, including child's toys. All firearms are "scary" to your average person living in Massachusetts particularly among some of my dear women friends....
5. [Romney] Implemented Socialized Medicine with a $50 AbortionSo you are saying that Romney is the "Machiavelli" who engineered and single-handedly passed "Romneycare?" This does not compute. The legislature was agitating to "do something" BIG. Probably the only reason what they effected wasn't worse than it was, was because of fear of Romney's veto on points.
The fact is, Republican governors in Massachusetts in recent times I'm including Bill Weld here simply do not have the power to override the ideological supremacy and resources of Progressive Left ideology.
6. [Romney] Raised taxes/fees by $700 million.This is news to me. He cut marginal income tax rates. He raised certain fees but the sort of fees that were optional for any citizen to bear. The income tax, of course, is never "optional."
7. [Romney] Implemented a Carbon Cap and Trade systemHe did??? WOW. That's really news to me. Kindly fill me in on these details, which I seem to have missed somehow.
Arggh. As for items 8 through 11 on your list: I do not know what planet such events may have occurred on. But I do not recall any of them having occurred here in Massachusetts, under Romney's tenure as governor.
But perhaps you can supply further details, to show me what I may have "missed," as a concerned (and conservative) citizen of this Commonwealth.
In short, I just get the feeling that "you guys" are making up "stuff" as you go along.
To reach the point you want to make, but won't confess to: You deplore Romney's theology, and just can't get passed that, no, not even to save your own life, and the lives of your progeny.... And that is the long and the short of the present question....
There is a word for that sort of exercise: VANITY.
Well, again: JMHO FWIW.
Which I imagine is perfect "DIDDLEY-SQUAT" to you. For you seem to be so SURE of yourselves....
Which brings up another word: unholy PRIDE....
Be carefull of how you judge this man; for the elements of your judgment will assuredly redound on you personally, on the Day to come....
We have our Lord's promise with respect to precisely this matter....
Thank you so much for writing.
I originally wrote something to the effect that those who are voting for someone whose positions they oppose, because they feel backed into a corner, are voting emotionally and not on their principles.
My memory does say that might not apply to you, Sister Betty, since you’ve been positive toward Romney throughout the primary season, although he might not have been your favorite. I’ve attributed that in a past discussion with you to your Massachusetts citizenship and the likelihood that you’d voted for him as governor and had overcome the cognitive dissonance years before the ABO’s here on FR.
So, while I don’t accept your apologetics for Romney that you listed for SoConPubbie — we’ve had that discussion before I won’t call your attention to hundreds of articles and posts that disagree with your facts (go to the RomneyTruthFile) — I will acknowledge that your support for Romney, given that it is long-standing, probably is not emotional on your part. You have had time to work through the dissonance and actually come down philosophically supportive of Romney.
I can’t agree with you, but it does appear you’ve decided that Romney truly is not a danger.
Do you consider Romney to be a conservative?
I looked in my “Shorter Oxford” two volume set for “eloquent”. Your picture was there.
I would characterize Romney as right-of-center on the political spectrum. Thus he is NOT a man of the Left. Neither is he as conservative as I am, or you are. His preferred governing style is consensus-building as the most efficacious way to get things done. I believe he sees politics as the art of the possible, not as the art of constructing a doctrinally preferred "perfect world." (Which I suspect is what you and your group of like-minded Romney detractors is seeking.)
In short, he is a political realist, not any kind of ideologist.
Plus he is a man who extends genuine kindness and respect toward others, which you are absolutely blind to. I consider him to be a good man, a man of upright character. I don't think he is a serial liar; I think you take his statements out of context, thus to justify calling him a liar. I simply do not recognize the person you describe as the real Mitt Romney.
So of course I do not consider him "dangerous." What we have in the Oval Office now IS dangerous. Terribly, fearsomely dangerous. And I worry that, thanks to people like you, that man will be re-elected to a second term as President of the United States.
Thanks KC for your very kind words.
WOW! Very true and well stated.
No it isn’t.
"The Constitution Party gratefully acknowledges the blessing of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ as Creator, Preserver and Ruler of the Universe and of these United States. We hereby appeal to Him for mercy, aid, comfort, guidance and the protection of His Providence as we work to restore and preserve these United States. This great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ. For this very reason peoples of other faiths have been and are afforded asylum, prosperity, and freedom of worship here."
G-d has turned this Nation over to sodomites because we have NOT acknowledged Him as Creator (Romans Chapter 1). The problem isn't with Christians that support Goode; it is with the people that support Obama. Deal with it.
You don’t consider him ‘dangerous’ because you have no problem with the country continuing down the path it is on. That is, more and more control over us from the nascent global government.
We have been presented with a non-choice as a candidate for the election. This is in keeping with the philosophy that there are ‘political elites’ and the MSM uses that term all the time because the public relations campaign to make America step away from freedom and to become completely ‘interdependent’ with the rest of the world. This goal has almost been achieved. We have changed from a ‘classless’ society to one with a ‘political class’ and ‘working class’ and an ‘unemployed class’. Sound like communism, doesn’t it?
‘Consensus building’ is a communist tool in the globalist playbook. It hurts individual rights because it creates policy based on group think, and peer pressure to get people to change their values or opinions. The homosexual agenda has made strides in our society through consensus building. Agenda 21 is entrenched in local governments through consensus building. In this technique ideas of right, wrong and morality are pushed out of the political process because they have no place in consensus.
This man is not opposing any of Obama’s policies. He’s not a marxist, but he answers to the same masters Obama does and it is not the loyal American citizen. Net result, is the global corporatist agenda will be furthered no matter which one is elected.
With apologies - where’s the beef on jobs? We’re talking some 25 million un/underemployed living off the government, not buying things and paying taxes. Goode becomes the same as Obama and Romney. Jobs should be everone’s #1 priority. With Goode its even playing second fiddle to tagged along on with immigration.
Well obviously, this is what you believe. But on what basis in fact?
What is your evidence that "he answers to the same masters Obama does?" That he is not himself a loyal American citizen who understands that, when in political office, one is directly accountable to American citizens for all his public acts?
I haven't noticed that George Soros or the various organizations spawned by Soros' money are Romney contributors in this election cycle or ever before.
Here's a scenario: Do you believe that Obama would or would not sign the upcoming Law of the Sea Treaty ("LOST") if the Senate passes it? (I understand a vote may come as early as two weeks from now.)
I believe Obama would sign it in a heartbeat, because it undermines American interests and power in the world.
But I also believe that Romney would not sign it, for the very same reasons. I believe Romney, unlike Obama, truly loves his country. He is a champion of free markets and our capitalist system generally.
I find your statement "Consensus building is a communist tool in the globalist playbook" totally risible. Free markets are based on consensus achieved as between market participants. Before our ideological era, consensus building was the way American politics got done.
You are worrying yourself about "Agenda 21." I am worried about four more years of Obama. Which appears to be the nearer threat by far.
It appears you are given to conspiracy theories. And are totally sucked in by them....
I wrote a lengthy reply that was eaten by the server troll that’s bothering FR right now.
If it shows up in the future, then you’ll find it enjoyable.
I don’t see how anyone can find Romney to be anything but a liberal. Proof: within the last month he came out in support of “gay adoption by gay couples”. He slightly back-pedaled when he decided states could violate nature and force this cultural debilitator on us but not the fed.
What kind of “gay couple” would be “adopting” kids, Sister Betty? How is that not entirely a violation of nature, an affront to Nature’s God, and a sign of great confusion?