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

Forbes ^ | 28 Aug 12 | Bill Flax

[Eric Pode of Croydon]

[Lakeshark]

I understand his looseness on social issues, and in this regard he doesn't line up with candidates I prefer to support.

I know you understand that the choice we have is not easy, nor in any way a good one. Having said that, what we are dealing with is a choice between someone we know will likely disappoint us in these matters as president, and one who is an active ideologue who wants to destroy us in these areas.

Bambi absolutely chooses the most extreme position, yet you seem to find that acceptable by your silence and willingness to support a candidate who can only reelect the most destructive administration ever. At the same time, you take Mitt's small steps away from conservative orthodoxy as unacceptable.

I don't care for Mitt's small steps, but to say you would prefer to have an ideological destroyer who is fervently against everything you love and hope for, to someone who won't actively work against what you love and care for seems to be very short sighted to me.

[xzins]

“”Since private and publick Vices, are in Reality, though not always apparently, so nearly connected, of how much Importance, how necessary is it, that the utmost Pains be taken by the Publick, to have the Principles of Virtue early inculcated on the Minds even of children, and the moral Sense kept alive, and that the wise institutions of our Ancestors for these great Purposes be encouraged by the Government. For no people will tamely surrender their Liberties, nor can any be easily subdued, when knowledge is diffusd and Virtue is preservd. On the Contrary, when People are universally ignorant, and debauchd in their Manners, they will sink under their own weight without the Aid of foreign Invaders.”

- Samuel Adams in Letter to James Warren, November 4, 1775”

[xzins]

Actually, Lakeshark, I work with equal fervor for the defeat of both candidates.

Both are a grave danger to the freedom of the Republic.

Both accept the decline of morality into the cesspool. A people focused on the fulfillment of their lusts is a people already defeated.

There is a conservative candidate running. If you aren’t voting for him that is not my fault.

[Lakeshark]

Both are NOT a grave danger to the Republic, that's simply fatuous.

One is a RINO squish, the other is a destroyer.

Virgil Goode is a joke, you know very little about him, he is being bankrolled by the DNC and Soros in hopes of stealing a close election, and you for some reason don't understand that.

Yet.

I sincerely hope your puppet has no traction and does not do what Bambi and his minions hope he does: Reelect the most destructive, anti-American, atheistic, anti-everything you love and live for administration ever.

I sincerely hope you never have to face what happens if this third party folly of yours works.

[Reily]

If Goode really wanted to actually be effective in fighting for the Constitution he should run to replace “Helmet Hair
Warner as Va senator. This “Blue Ridge Don Quixote” quest to be president is a waste of time gives and credence to the view he is a tool of Soros & the Rats.

[xzins]

Hi, Lake, hope you’re having a great Saturday.

In any case, you seriously underestimate the danger of Romney, in my view. It is no accident that he has been unanimously rejected on Free Republic since 2007. Just check the RomneyTruthFile.

I want Virgil Goode to run a race in which he tries to get every state, every vote possible. Any other strategy for a candidate would doom the aspirations of that party to grow.

As Goode has himself pointed out, he takes as much from the dem column as he does from the repub column. His real target is social conservative independent, dem, and repub.

Since social conservatives have been rejected by the Republican Party, there is only ONE major minority party welcoming them....the Constitution Party. Who is Rejecting social conservatives, you say? See Rush Limbaugh statement to that effect. See Todd Akin. See even Sarah Palin who says that perhaps the time has come for a 3rd party.

[Lakeshark]

It's a good one up here, same to you down there.

I fully understand the problems with Romney. I also fully understand the horror of the current administration.

Trust me, Virgil does not take from the dem column, he's just blowing smoke(and likely lying) if he is saying that.

The only hope for social conservatives is to unelect Bambi, the real threat to all of us. He is the most pro-death president ever, the most anti-Christian, anti-God president ever. After that we continue to work with the TEA party to dominate the GOP, much like Reagan did. There is no hope with Goode, he is being bankrolled by the very evil you hate, and you need to figure this out: the third party path is not the right path at this point, it's self defeating and hurts everything you love and care for.

[Yashcheritsiy]

I have to admit that I think the chances of Goode winning are between nil and none - mainly because far, far too many conservatives are trapped in the mental misconception of the two-party system.

However, I think that our major effort should be at destroying the GOP and rebuilding a credible second party in its place. Frankly, the GOP is about where the Whigs were in 1848 - they won that election, but had ceased to exist as a party by 1856. This was because, while still being able to cobble together enough coalitions to win elections, they nevertheless fractured themselves because of their inability to find a set of principles and stick with them.

Conservatives should help this process along with the GOP. We need to take away the GOP-E’s little toy, break it, and substitute it with one of our own. If we were serious about really standing on our principles, we could permanently disemploy people like Karl Rove, Steve Schmidt, and the rest of the people who, frankly, are as much of a long-term problem as Barack Obama is.

[SoConPubbie]

It is a constant struggle that doesn't leave us. Paul says that “the things I want to do, I don't do, and the things I don't want to do, I do.”

He goes on: “O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death? I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord!”

Sorry I didn't get back to you guys sooner, but this is truly the most important topic to us Conservative Christians, not to be taken lightly, so because of that, and because it is so easy to offend sincere professing Christians on these topics I wanted to think about it and make sure my response was the correct one and as least offensive as it could be.

That having been said, I am going to respond to several things that were said and will do it over the span of this week because it deserves, like I said before, a lot of thought.

First of all, xzins, I believe the verse you quoted was from Romans Chapter 7. Romans Chapter 7 HAS to be read along with Romans Chapter 8, not just because it follows Chapter 7, but because it fully answers the hopelessness of the sinner just awakened in Chapter 7. In other words, Chapter 8 finishes Chapter 7.

Chapter 7 describes the condition of a man becoming aware of his total sinfulness and his total helplessness in doing anything about it until he finally turns to Christ his Savior.

Chapter 8 describes the state of that same man after he has repented and believed the Gospel for in that chapter, Paul states the following:

1. There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.

2 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.

3 For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:

4 That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.

5 For they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit.

6 For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace.

7 Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.

8 So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God.

9 But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.

10 And if Christ be in you, the body is dead because of sin; but the Spirit is life because of righteousness.

11 But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you.

xzins, Christ commanded us that "you must be born again", he also commanded the woman at the well, the harlot, to go and sin no more.

None of his commands were presented, in context, as being in the future at our death, even when he stated "be ye perfect, as I am perfect". All of his commands concerning sin and holiness were in the immediate, the "right now" and never were any his commands, like the one he uttered to the harlot, presented in a fashion as if he were saying "I know you will fail, I know you will sin again".

My general point in this post is that we, as Christians, too often give ourselves excuses for doing things we know are not the best, and even in some cases sin, because we choose not to believe that God came to save us from our sin in the immediate, in the here and now.

Even if you believe that the the salvation that Christ came to give us on this earth does not FREE you from your sin or give you power over your sins, and that you have to continue to live in your sin, there is no excuse for situational Christianity, none.

We as Christians cannot, under any circumstances, support a man or woman who wantonly and knowlingly supports sins and sinful behaviors like Murder (Abortion) or Homosexuality.

To do so, cheapens our testimonies as Christians.

There is more to come...

[mkjessup]

There is more to come...

Do not ping me. I have no further interest in what you morally superior beings have to say.

[.30Carbine]

You should try not to sound so morally superior when you say that to another poster, mkjessup. It detracts from your position.

[mkjessup]

I never said I was morally superior, far from it. The poster in question I was responding to (which was not you, btw) has proven themselves to be a sanctimonious holier-than-thou know-it-all. I'll respond to them as I see fit, and in fact I informed that poster to cease pinging me, and you can do the same as far as I'm concerned. This thread about why anyone should vote for Virgil Goode is an absolute waste of bandwidth as that goofball hasn't got a Chinaman's chance of being elected president and everyone knows it. A vote for Goode is a default vote for 0bama, especially in Virginia.

Appropriately, the mods moved this thread to the 'Smoky Backroom' as the only thing being accomplished with it is to blow smoke up everyone's ASS.

[Christie at the beach]

I like Virgil. He has one of those home town quality type personality. When he talks; he’s very interesting and easy to listen to. A country boy at heart though very smart and sincere. Thinking he is funded by Soros (as someone posted), in Boones Mill Va/Rocky Mount (one part time cop-one police car-maybe 2 traffic lights) is one of the funniest things I have read. He is just a good old country boy who loves his country; (I’m sure he is sick of the dems going to the extreme & repubs spending wild/not fighting back) like alot of us are.