A (Virgil)'Goode' plan to save American jobs

World Net Daily ^ | 21 May 12 | WND

[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.

[Drew68]

I see rhetoric like this here frequently and it has me convinced that the real motivation of the Free Republic He-Man Mitt-Haters Club is religious.

DING! DING! DING! We have a winner!

There's a small but very vocal contingent here who's hatred of Mormonism is so total and complete that they'd rather the nation suffer another four years of the most destrctive, American-hating president who has ever sullied the Oval Office.

It helps to reflect on this while reading the garbage they spew on the once stellar forum.

[Drew68]

I see rhetoric like this here frequently and it has me convinced that the real motivation of the Free Republic He-Man Mitt-Haters Club is religious.

DING! DING! DING! We have a winner!

There's a small but very vocal contingent here who's hatred of Mormonism is so total and complete that they'd rather the nation suffer another four years of the most destrctive, American-hating president who has ever sullied the Oval Office.

It helps to reflect on this while reading the garbage they spew on ths once stellar forum.

[Drew68]

I see rhetoric like this here frequently and it has me convinced that the real motivation of the Free Republic He-Man Mitt-Haters Club is religious.

DING! DING! DING! We have a winner!

There's a small but very vocal contingent here who's hatred of Mormonism is so total and complete that they'd rather the nation suffer another four years of the most destrctive, American-hating president who has ever sullied the Oval Office.

It helps to reflect on this while reading the garbage they spew on this once stellar forum.

[EternalVigilance]

I want the Constitution to be followed, which would balance the budget so fast it would make your head spin.

Why exactly is that “silly”?

Why can’t you answer a simple question about where your candidate finds constitutional authority for his beloved entitlement programs?

[EternalVigilance]

Perhaps we should start over and I should ask you first: Do you care if the Constitution is followed? Does the oath of office matter to you or not?

"Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths?"

-- George Washington

[xzins]

I’m not the candidate for the presidency, Tom. You are.

I don’t have a plan I have to put out for all Americans. You do.

So, I take it that you want to cancel social security. Is that right?

[EternalVigilance]

So, I take it that you want to cancel social security. Is that right?

If it's not constitutional, of course. The oath of office, made to God, would require it.

So, is it?

[EternalVigilance]

For the record:

http://www.tomhoefling.com/tom-hoefling-i-believe.html

Restoring limited government

I seek to restore the intended balance between the three separate branches of our government, and to strictly limit government to the Enumerated Powers granted and expressed by the will of the people of the United States in our Constitution.

All existing functions of the Executive branch that are outside of those Enumerated Powers must be eliminated.

All spending and regulation by the Legislative branch that lies outside the Enumerated Powers must cease.

Judges who attempt to legislate from the bench, or who abandon the clear principles of our Constitution, must be checked if liberty and justice are to prevail in our society once again.

I demand a return to adherence to the provisions of the Tenth Amendment: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

[Agamemnon]

First, electing Romney is not electing a conservative, so you are expecting to go forward by going backward. Good luck with that.

Says you. Good luck with that yourself.

I have some of my own theories about Mitt’s conservative roots

I think if you check just my sign up date on FR and my tagline, you’d realize my age is a bit more down the road than you credit me with.

OK, so I am "class of 98" around here too. What you know about what I write, however, is that I have been in the thick of these fights >30+ years predating that. I lived it with pix to prove it.

I was in Washington DC in May 1971 for the May Day demonstration against the war in Vietnam. I, however, was in the military and stationed at (then) South Post Fort Myer. So, I expect I know about Nixon.

If you were there at that time and paid attention to anything you'd recall that there were demonstrations and sit-ins from Earth Day (April 22 -- also coincided with the same day John Kerry appeared before the Fulbright Committee) and the climax of the demonstration was May 1 "May Day" the day the Communists celebrated their "Revolution" in Red Square every year.

Coincidentally, it's also the same date, May 1, 1776, that Adam Weishaupt founded the Illuminati, but whose counting right? Makes you look at the Great Seal of the US with a little different perspective too, "MDMCCLXXVI" at the pyramid's base.

So, I expect I know about Nixon. The single most important thing to know about Dick ...

Given that, I'd actually expect you to know more about Nixon than it appears that you do. But when you call him "Dick," like that, one might mistakenly assume that you were more familiar with him than you actually are. Did you also happen to realize that "Dick" was stranded in Jerusalem of all places for the entirety of the 6-Day War in 1967?

The single most important thing to know about Dick is that the Billy Graham smear revealed Nixon to be an anti-Semite. That was embarrassing to Graham who kept quiet in the presence of those “great” men rather than speak out in defense of Israel.

Nixon had problems with media, many of whom happened to be members of the Jewish faith (e.g. New York Times), and that from wayyyyyy back in his political career, but Judaism per se did not prevent US policy under Nixon from supporting Israel in the October 1973, Yom Kippur War of 1973.

In fact, it was in part because of pro-Israel US foreign policy that that OPEC initiated the first of its oil shocks in the summer of 1974 that lead to deep recession that year. But you say you "know about Nixon," do you?

In any case, I voted for Nixon in 1972, and his signature is on my first enlisted discharge, that signature ceasing to be used the next day (Aug 9) due to the ignominy of resignation.

You have one of Richard Nixon's final signings. Cool. Bet it would be worth something on eBay. Ignominy had nothing in particular to do wth your discharge did it? Missed having Ford sign it by a day. Wow.

Nixon was no conservative either. And I just might be older than you think.

Old you may be, but not necessarily wiser, nor possibly of any particular value to the conservative movement at that time.

But I budgeted my language in my last post to include you too: "You know when people write that way about Nixon, they are usually too young to remember Nixon (so they only have the exalted MSM's perspective of history), or if they are old enough, they just weren't paying attention to anything in the '70's (so they still only have the exalted MSM's perspective of history).

There were plenty of folks who schlepped through the '70's uninvolved. Military, as well. Some were involved as military (John Kerry on April 22, 1971) giving aid and comfort to the other side, and participated in the very anti-war demonstration that you mentioned. Surely you remember all those Viet Cong flags waving about the Mall.

I have pix from where I was on May 8, 1971 at the March for Victory in Vietnam in Washington, DC. Do you have a picture of yourself doing anything productive at the May 1, 1971 anti-war demonstrations by any chance that you could scan and share like I just did?

That said, it is critical that Romney be pushed to the right. His comfort zone is far left.

He's our tool. If we push him to the right, he'll go there. Especially if he choses the cabinet I proposed.

How's this for a novel idea: Run with your proposed cabinet

Are you willing to tell me Romney is and has been a solid conservative?

As solid a conservative in Massachusetts as was any mayor of a town in WWII Vichy France, that gave as much aid and cover to the resistance as he could while still appearing to be in charge to the Nazi's that chose to keep him there.

Mayors in Vichy France towns did not have the benefit of being able to seek out the advice of the Federalist Society as Romney himself did. I'd call that solid conservative -- in a Scalia and Thomas (two original founders of the Federalist Society) kinda way, now wouldn't you?

Ohio, where you live, isn't exactly behind enemy lines like MA is. You need to listen to and learn more from betty boop, and stop picking on her. She actually lives in Massachusetts and can tell you all about it.

Of course, I grew up in New England and live here now too, so maybe Betty and I both know something about being long-time conservatives "behind enemy lines."

FReegards!

[hedgetrimmer]

Romney is willing to let internationalist organizations become the dictator. You must read his climate change plan imposed by executive order that destroys sovereignty, property rights,and the right to constitutional government in his state. The plan written by the international anti private property organization called ICLEI, also codifies the Kyoto Treaty which has had a terrible affect on American agriculture and farm ownership. It is a painful, communist plan that creates laws, groups and ordinances with tax payer money to undermine, eventually completely, individual rights for citizens of that state.

We cannot keep voting for the destroyers, no matter what party. They are hanging us with our own tax dollars.

[rogue yam]

His (Romney's) comfort zone is far left.

This is the essential tenet of the Free Republic He-Man Mitt-Haters Club catechism.

However there is absolutely no evidence that it is true.

[rogue yam]

There's a small but very vocal contingent here who's hatred of Mormonism is so total and complete that they'd rather the nation suffer another four years of the most destructive, American-hating president who has ever sullied the Oval Office.

Exactly.

[rogue yam]

Romney is willing to let internationalist organizations become the dictator.

This is nonsense. Obama is trashing the economy right now using AGW as an excuse.

Romney says he will reverse this. There is no reason to doubt him.

[hedgetrimmer]

I suggest you read his Climate Change Action Plan, 2004.

[xzins]

He's our tool. If we push him to the right, he'll go there.

Which is exactly what we are trying to do.

So far as May 1, 1971, we were, by order of the commanding general of Fort Myer, locked down on post. We were not permitted to be out in that area at all.

So, maybe we were paying a bit more attention than you give us credit for.

You did not affirm for me that Mitt Romney is and always has been a solid conservative. I can only assume that you, too, realize that he isn't.

The answer is to vote the most conservative candidate (or issue) up and down the ticket, Aggie.

I repeat, and it is simple logic, you cannot go forward by going backward.

However, let me add that I do respect your experience and insight, and if you served in our military, thank you for your service.

[xzins]

far left....no evidence that it is true.

RY, that's silly. There's an entire Romney truth file, but just to get recent, there's the simple announcement by Romney of his support for Gay adoption by Gay couples made just a month ago.

He then checked his "What I believe" book and discovered he actually believes that STATES can force gay adoption but that the FED cannot. Now, there's a relief. It was better, no doubt, when the Bavarian police captured a Jew and put them in Dachau than when it was done by the SS.

What he left untouched was "gay couples". What exactly did he mean by the type of "gay couple" that could "adopt" your indigent relative children should your family be wiped out?

[cripplecreek]

there's the simple announcement by Romney of his support for Gay adoption by Gay couples made just a month ago.

Shhh. We aren't supposed to talk about that. We're supposed to do the democrat thing and screech about Obama's support of gay marriage.

[Crusher138]

You and your clear conscious will be very happy in the re-education camps Obama will set up for those who don’t agree with him.

I really think you do not understand the threat to the Republic. Should the Obamination get 4 more years, without worrying about re-election, and a conservative Supreme Court justice passes away or retires, then all is lost.

[betty boop]

...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.... What has turned you aside from your principles?

Jeepers, I hate to say it, but "debating" with you and your group of like-minded "principled conservatives" reminds me of nothing so much as debating with Darwinists. I, another member of the Class of '98, have had a little experience with that over the years. And the mindset and thought process of the standard orthodox Darwinist seems to differ not a whit from your own.

Let me explain: The most profound difficulty in debating with a Darwinist is that you can never, ever get him to question his presuppositions. He has unshakable faith in his doctrine of materialism, "common ancestor," and biological evolution by "blind" natural selection. These commitments — presuppositions — must never be questioned. And never are — by Darwinists.

What happens from there is the Darwinist selects only evidence that fits the presuppositions. All non-conforming evidence is simply dismissed out of hand as "no data."

Another typical experience in debates with Darwinists is, since they really can't rationally defend their arguments, they take to making the debate about their opponent — that would be me, in what is called an ad hominum attack ("What has turned you aside from your principles?"). Plus they are not above tossing in red herrings, and avoiding answers to questions by changing the subject entirely.

This is how these critturs "think."

In over ten years of debate with Darwinists, I do not believe I have ever gotten even a single one to question his presuppositions....

Debating a Darwinist would be a complete waste of time — except for the fact that third-parties paying attention to the debate — the Lurkers — often enjoy the exchanges, and even learn something new from them.

Anyhoot, I feel I am in the very same situation debating you, dear brother in Christ. I simply cannot get you for one instant to question your (highly questionable) presuppositions.

And what are your presuppositions? They seem to be: Mitt Romney is an evil, depraved man; a congenital liar; a wolf in sheep's clothing, someone who wants to destroy the American Republic and its capitalist system, and by guile and deception to integrate the United States into a new globalist political order run by some nefarious internationalist cabal.

Thus, the presuppositions. And certainly you and your group have "uncovered" all kinds of confirming evidence for them, while absolutely rejecting any non-confirming evidence (such as offered by Agamemnon and me) as simply "no data" at all....

Is this sort of thing even rational?

Just wondering....

[napscoordinator]

What about people who feel it is a sin to vote for Romney? How can you have a clear conscience about a guy who supported killing babies ALMOST all his life? Sure he magically says he doesn’t believe it anymore, but it also doesn’t affect him anymore. His boys are raised and married so the “scare” of pregnancy is over. When the boys were younger, there was the possibility a girlfriend getting pregnant and Romney definitely didn’t want a little brat to ruin his chances at politics so he believed that if this happened to kill it IMMEDIATELY. You have to remember that some of us want to ensure that when it is our time to go, we have a clear list of sins so we can gain entry to Heaven and sometimes with liberals such as yourself, it is hard to explain that fact to them. You want the feel good time on Earth, but some of us want to ensure we are good to go in Heaven.