Posted on 05/22/2012 7:05:50 AM PDT by xzins
Listen to interview at:
http://www.wnd.com/2012/05/a-goode-plan-to-save-american-jobs/?cat_orig=money
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?
That’s the hope of the Constitution Party and its nominee, Virgil Goode.
Goode says Obama’s 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, Goode’s 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.
“We’ve got to focus on discretionary spending, social-services programs. For instance, I’ll make sure illegals and recent immigrants don’t 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 ...
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?
FWIW, people like me are called principled conservatives.
I wrote a lengthy reply that was eaten by the server troll that was bothering FR yesterday. 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? He might have tried a two-step with the "gay adoption" back-pedal, but he let "gay couple" remain without correction.
What is a "gay couple"?
I know you are not LDS, and therefore, your analysis should carry even more weight, particularly by those who chief motivation is this man's religion.
I am LDS, and from a distance I would have called Romney a moderate and one who leans towards being liberal. But I did not live under his governance, and make my own judgements based on the totality of his words and my impressions as opposed to my experience living under his term as a governor.
As a result, I am forced, as a result of my own knowledge and respet of you, to modify my own impressions of the man and even have greater hope for our beloved Republic.
As I have stated myself, I already intended to support him against the Kenyan Marxist currently rsiding in the White House. Now I will be able to do so with even more convistion egarding his own potential as opposed to mostly doing so in order to defeat Obama.
God's speed and His blessings to you and yours.
So what does that make me — chopped liver? Just because I disagree with you? And am entirely content to just agree to disagree in good faith, thus holding you harmless?
However I may appear to you, dear brother in Christ, I understand myself to be a "right-wing" political conservative — times three: Social, Economic, and Constitutional, right down to the very ground I stand on. Conservatism under God harmonizes these three disparate yet necessarily connected "realms" of human experience. Or at least, that is my understanding: The divine Logos — the Word of God "in the Beginning" — not only constitutes the order and structure if the Natural World (God's Creation), but the order and structure of unique human souls, with all the public and social consequences flowing therefrom.
You ask a question like this:
What is a "gay couple"?How do you expect me to answer a question like that — from experience, or by "scriptural rote?" The two accounts would probably differ. [I have very close experience. I do not want to get into it here. So please don't ask.]
If I lived in a world that had "killed God," I would take a very dim view of things indeed. I suspect that the people who want to do this sort of thing are only trying to seek relief from their own human nature in an act of rebellion against not only divine (eternal), but natural (temporal) Truth. — both of which I insist from everything that I know is God-given, and for God's reason (Purpose)....
What such folks seem to be trying to get rid of is any possible criterion of universal Truth (and all its implications in the divine economy: Justice; Mercy; Beauty; Love). It appears such folk live in a constant state of anxiety. They have a knack for denying human nature as a "given"; they prefer to see human nature and "its problems" as a "product of evolution".... Which is fundamentally understood as "progressive." Meaning: "Better than now — for ME."
And to hedgetrimmer, all I want to do is to remind him of what I've said before: The arguments I'm hearing from "your side" do tend to dispense with context.
I won't belabor details. Let me sketch a scenario instead: The context being avoided here is any concept of what Massachusetts is as a political milieu. The first thing outsiders need to know is that Massachusetts is a machine state. Frustrated voters here have a penchant for electing Republican governors from time to time (recently, Bill Weld and Mitt Romney). But it seems that, other than a period of good governance and good stewardship of the Commonwealth's resources, it is not apparent that either man accomplished much to move Massachusetts to the political Right. There are institutional reasons for this, which I will not bother you with right now.
I suspect, had Romney been, say, the Governor of South Carolina instead of the Governor of Massachusetts — both of whom must "accountably" respond to the people who gave him his job as governor, while reaching out to the rest so to establish a governing "social consensus"; a man who, in such an undertaking, is sworn to his duty by his Oath of Office — then we wouldn't now be complaining about his so-called nefarious "public policies."
unless....
But must conclude for now. Just one thing to add:
I suspect I am more of a political realist than some of my friends here. Which makes me "sympatico" with the idea of "politics as the art of the possible", not the politics of the "Ideal" in any way, shape or form.
The Kingdom will come in God's time, and only then. Not even the Son knows the time....
Must run for now. Thank you ever so much, dear brother in Christ, for your enlightening essay/post!
Thank you so much for your beautiful essay-posts!
The ‘people’ of Massachusetts did not force Romney to go to the dark side UN.
California is also an Agenda 21 state, and no where, on any ballot, were the ‘people’ asked to vote for the implementation of these policies.
I am thrilled you are a devoted christian, but you are by choice, blinding yourself to the reality of this candidate because you refuse to believe in his perfidy.
Remember George Herbert Walker Bush gave the UN it’s power in this country. Clinton, his son and Obama in addition to Romney, Schwarzenegger and others, are carrying through his gift of this country to the UN. If you are truly a believer in Christian principles then you will look at history and see for yourself the corruption put down on this country to benefit the UN and it’s agenda.
There is no denying the Kyoto Protocol and it’s affect on farming and agriculture in this country.
There is no denying the effect of ‘smart growth’ as pushed by climate change operatives like Romney and Schwarzenegger in this country.
If you are looking for proof, the State of California, is the first Agenda 21 state in the nation. This state is about to default, just like Greece. This reality should show you the harm in Romney’s ‘plan’ which was not devised to help the people of Massachusetts, but to grant power to internationalist organizations over what was once an independent sovereign state in the United States of America. It was NOT put forward by the people of the State of Massachusetts as you claim, but word for word United Nations agenda implemented to destroy Constituional government by creating unconstitutional regional government agencies. Many of us have seen this and lived through the wresting of authority from the citizen to the globalist organization, although you still deny what has happened in Massachusetts.
It HARMS the American people when people like YOU see what these politicians have done, but continue to deny that they HAVE NO KNOWLEDGE of their perfidy and are INNOCENT of WRONGDOING.
They know EXACTLY what they are doing and many believe in global government, and ALL are benefiting financially by selling out this country.
"So what does that make me — chopped liver? Just because I disagree with you?"
First, Sister, it is more than just me, so there are a number of principled conservatives who have recognized Romney's record and have agreed that he, too, is a disaster.
So, you are not chopped liver. You are confused. In the same post in which you agree that unnatural sex is an affront to Nature's God, you affirm a man who supports it, and "couples" and state-enforced adoption by "gay couples" (whatever those are).
What has turned you aside from your principles?
I believe it is fear. Apparently, you fear one disaster for our republic more than you fear the other disaster for our republic. The only defense I've heard is "Sure he was a liberal in Massachusetts, but you can be sure that in Texas he would have been a flaming conservative."
What a reassuring thought.
Now, dear Sister in Christ, what do I recommend.
That you trust God's Sovereignty and Providence. There is nothing in all creation that will separate us from the love of God that is ours in Christ Jesus.
Do I hope to defeat Mitt Romney? You bet. Do I hope to defeat Barack Obama? Absolutely!
How? By knowing and voting for every conservative and conservative principle up and down the entire ticket. If we all did that, we would win.
In any case, the results will be in God's very capable Hands, and He will work His plan despite (through?) all our understandings and machinations.
A vote for Goode is a vote for Obamanation.
***
Belief in this fallacy allows the Republican hierarchy to force on us the same liberal candidates every four years.
It is true. A vote for him is a vote for obami.
Perhaps the nominee of the CONSTITUTION Party could point me to that part of the Constitution that lends legitimacy to said "entitlements"?
"I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents." -- James Madison, the father of the U.S. Constitution
Instead, Goode envisions big cuts in discretionary spending – both in the defense and domestic portions of the budget.
Does anyone but me ask why the first target of the Ron Paul paleocons is always the defense budget?
Sorry, but trying to balance the budget on the back of national defense, when well in excess of half of what the general government is now doing is extra-constitutional, including entitlements, is wrong-headed, to say the least.
Follow the Constitution, keep your oaths, and the budget will balance just fine.
He didn’t say entitlement cuts were forever off the table. He simply said they were not part of the current plan to quickly balance the budget.
As far as cuts in defense spending, they must necessarily take place as the US exits another war.
There is no sane reason to continue to war-time spending levels when there is no longer any war. Like any other bureaucracy, the DOD is also perfectly willing to take and spend any amount you are willing to give them.
The issue with our military is for it to be the right size and with the right equipment and munitions to win against any two adversaries simultaneously. That has long been a definition of defense security.
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.