33 votes

Is GOODE any GOOD? Requesting Opinions on Voting Constitution Party

I absolutely cannot vote for Romney or Obama. I have considered writing in Dr. Paul’s name. I have considered not voting at all. I am also considering the Constitution Party.

I just found Dr. Paul last year and was quite devastated over the way he and our delegates were treated at the RNC. I also realize Dr. Paul has asked us to retake the GOP. I am floundering on what to do next.

That being said, I am still looking for a presidential candidate with whom I can agree this year. If my Friends of Liberty would be so kind, I would appreciate your thoughts on the Constitution Party. I have heard they are Pro-War, but I just looked today and did not see that. I think a lot of you all out there are a lot smarter than I when it comes to Liberty principles so I would appreciate your help.

If you could take the time, please see the CP platform: http://www.constitutionparty.com/party_platform.php and let me know what you think regarding how that party lines up with Liberty.

The 2012 Presidential Candidate is Virgil Goode: http://www.goodeforpresident2012.com/the-issues.html

Any time you can provide is much appreciated!

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

More and Less

Are you saying to me that I completely missed the most important thing to look for in a platform:

End the Fed
End the IRS
Bring the Troops Home

"Not enough numbers of people who know better, and not enough numbers of people who won't settle for less?"

Yes, that is the way it appears to me. People do not even seem to realize that Legal Criminals are in charge.

But, I still say if all Friends of Liberty would get busy like Granger and some run for office maybe more people would know and less people would settle for less.

Then what?

"But, I still say if all Friends of Liberty would get busy like Granger and some run for office maybe more people would know and less people would settle for less."

I miss the point. I also miss the point about supporting Romney, or any Legal Criminal, they are abominations paid well, for what?

What is the point?

If the point isn't effective remedy, then what is the point, to TAKE POWER?

Take over The Party?

Then what?

Take over POWER, take control, take The Business Cycle, take Involuntary Taxation, take The Union with the exorbitant Union Dues, and do what with all that POWER, now that someone, or some group, has Taking Over all that POWER in their sights?

What then?

End the Fed
End the IRS
End the Criminal War POWERS

That ends the monopoly, and the ways to do it are not aggressive, not deceptive, and only threatening to people who have grown dependent upon crimes made legal.

So, yes, run for office, everyone who can still walk, give it a try, overload the system, but seriously there is an need to use the power we have to make more power, not use the power we have to take more power, that consuming of power reaching the goal of taking power is The Problem, not the solution.

I don't know how that can be made clear.


Run for office?

To run for office as a Republican, you need to be vetted by the committee, so when you're on a committee, that makes vetting all the more easier.

Overload they system? Republican registration rose by the hundreds of thousands because of Ron Paul's campaign. That expanded the GOP committee seats, mine increased to add 6 new seats. Palin's people are taking OUR seats. We are not stepping up but finding excuses to not step up.

The idea is to get on a committee to empower us where we vet the issues, candidates and delegates, and if there is an office that is unconstitutional, we take that office and end it.

We write resolutions, inniatives and while the RNC and State central committees CAN and do send us theirs we have every right to vote NO. We also have every right to make our own in response and have them vote.

If we are going to materialize freedom, we have to push the wheel before we have the power for it to carry us.

What I am undertanding is, if

What I am undertanding is, if we had expended the energy to take the power in the GOP we would have had more power to get Dr. Paul nominated and elected so that we would have someone in the Oval Office who wants to

End the Fed
End the IRS
and bring the troops home

The goal is to be in a position to put forth a candidate that is a Friend of Liberty. Granger has to vote for Romney because she had to sign a pledge. I am a purist and that is difficult for me. But perhaps if enough Friends of Libety were represented in the GOP organization she would not have had to sign that pledge.

For some reason if there is a republican president she is able to use her power in her committee as a source of power for Liberty. I don't understand all of that, but I am not actually in the position she is. However, if there is a democratic president, I suppose her liberty power is somehow muted during that term.

Did you hear the GJ Q&A? http://www.vokle.com/events/74213-gary-johnson-ron-paul-revo... I am listening now, but do not understand everything...as usual.

Back to principles

The discussion between myself and Granger went in opposite directions immediately.

Did you notice?

I was confused at first. Then I returned back to power principles, and then it became obvious.

Which principle is employed by anyone (you, I, or Granger)?

Use power to make more power

Use power to take more power

I will have an office day today so my replies may be short or delayed, and I want to listen to the GJ Q&A, but my viewpoint will tend to be along those same lines as just described above, and again Ron Paul set the Standard.


OK, so here is a very serious question, how, how, can the better driving principle be employed toward very necessary goals, if the idea is to gain Liberty back from Legal Crime?

Working on 3 things on a short list first.

Principle 1 is to use power to make more power, and that is the better driving principle for many reasons.

End the FED


Stop enforcing punishments executed upon competitors where the competitors are being destroyed, and then people will voluntarily being to invent, produce, and maintain better, and better, replacements of Legal Money, at lower and lower costs.

That is the use of scarce power in the work required to make power abundant.

End the IRS


Stop enforcing the extortion fees, stop punishing people who refuse to provide the means by which we suffer and then those people who no longer have that power stolen from then will have power to use to do what they do best, which is why they are targeted in the first place, since they are the ones who produce things worth stealing, so that, again, is the better principle of using scarce power in the necessary work required to make power abundant.

Bring the Troops Home

That, from any angle, is extremely beneficial at a much lower cost, and anyone, ever, claiming otherwise has a mountain of evidence to refute where the evidence proves exactly how destructive and costly Aggressive Wars for Profit are to everyone except a very few people who just happen to be the people who invent, produce, and maintain those Aggressive Wars for Profit.

If Granger, The Hand Washer, GJ, or any competitive seeker of Counterfeit Law Authority employs Principle 2 (use power to take power) then they are in a whole different world when compared to The Standard already set by Ron Paul.

Ron Paul is in the Friends of Liberty League, or, by my measure, Ron Paul is in the League that is driven by the principle of employing scarce power to make power abundant, not in the League driven by the principle of employing scarce power to take power from anyone.

As to the often claimed claim that there aught to be a law against criminals who commit crimes, this crime or that crime, and therefore "we" have to take the government power (to punish) back, from those "Governors" who are not doing as good a job as we can do with that power to punish wrong doers, I'm reminded again of Trial by Jury, and why not allow that Power to be equitably distributed, or randomly distributed, among each citizen who may be subjected to that power as much as any other citizen, if such a power is worth anything at all, it should be worth as much to Peter as it is to Paul.

The concept of supplying a demand for politicians is turned up-side-down (or right side up) when employing the better principle.

If people must punish each other, then get a seat on a jury.

If people must use their power to make more power, then more power to them.

If people demand a higher paid better liar, to steal for them, then it makes sense that they must invent, produce, and defend their fraud money, at all costs, because they get to pass on those costs to the victims?

What is the driving principle behind any volunteer who volunteers to step into political economy, and I know, if no one else will admit it, that politics and economy are linked as solidly as falsehood is linked to violence?


"What is the driving

"What is the driving principle behind any volunteer who volunteers to step into political economy, and I know, if no one else will admit it, that politics and economy are linked as solidly as falsehood is linked to violence?"

Josf, I can't even remember what Political Economy is...

But I think Friends of Liberty volunteer to make a difference which would add power to liberty by displacing power owned by criminals. Is that taking power?

Or are you talking about the required vote for Romney as taking power?

Exemplary answers

As competitive as questions can be as far as the most vital (highest quality) and more urgent (least costly): the answers are as competitive in quality (accuracy) and cost (misdirection away from answering the vital question).

If the motive behind doing something, even asking or answering a question, is how much can I gain at the expense of my fellow man, then that can be called many names and it remains to be the same motive.

If the motive behind doing something is not that ONE motive above, then how many motives can be listed by all the many Friends of Liberty?

"But I think Friends of Liberty volunteer to make a difference which would add power to liberty by displacing power owned by criminals."

That sounds exactly along the same lines as Ron Paul suggesting the voluntary, peaceful, competitive, inventive, productive, cooperative, Free Market, methods of Ending The FED.

Ending the IRS is similarly possible peacefully, voluntarily, however in this there is much to consider as far as the demarcation line between the lesser of two evils (not taking quite as much from your innocent fellow man or woman) and employing the power available in the work required to make power abundant, or investing in your fellow innocent man or woman, because this is the actual power stream that connects the Legal Criminals at the National Level and the productive victims that are so ready and able to be convinced of the need to provide the means by which we suffer.

"But I think Friends of Liberty volunteer to make a difference which would add power to liberty by displacing power owned by criminals."

In other words: when does the actual power being consumed actually produce more out of less, compared to when the power being consumed consumes the power supply?

This isn't really that difficult, and the ease of seeing this is made easy by illustration.

Suppose a Granger, or some other Friend of Liberty, has no drive to take power away from anyone, not even the lying, cheating, stealing, crooks who run most of the government from the National level on down, and this illustrative example of a Friend of Liberty stumbles...


...stumbles upon Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports and the significance of that Fraud and that ongoing crime continues to threaten innocent productive people into providing more of the means by which we suffer, and then this Friend of Liberty has reached a position of Legal Power whereby the FUND in question, the Total Net Receipts of that Government Investment, is then disposed of, in some way.

How is that FUND controlled by that individual in that position of Legal Power at that time?

Is this an understandable illustrative, and taxing, thought experiment? Is the question vital, valid, and a question that is being answered right now?


Thankyou for your input

I googled Jill Stein on the issues and found these positions that Ron Paul would likely disagree with:

The Obama stimulus bill did not spend enough (eek)

The recession was caused by record profits (hmm)

We should end the recession by asking the wealthy to pay their fair share (even Keynesians don't claim taxation will end a recession)

We should establish a basic right to free college education (holy moses)

Public schools are under assault from privatization, and we must defend them.

We can wait even four years to address climate change and need a World War II-scale mobilization to reduce carbon emissions (oy vey)

We need a national ban on fracking

"Guns at home more likely to cause injury than to defend home." (Hard to see that flying on this site)

We need single-payer free government healthcare. It will save money. (All government programs save money if you ask the government)

Legally mandated "living wage"

Americans have a "right to affordable housing"

I have finally made up my

I have finally made up my mind as I have been flip flopping back and forth between Johnson and Goode. I will be voting for Johnson. I can not stand the fact that Goode thinks victimless drug laws should carry heavier criminal sentences. My vote goes to Johnson.

Your comment is unhelpful

Your comment is unhelpful without further information. I assume your source is the Goode/Johnson comparison chart that is linked somewhere hereabouts, but beyond the mere assertion on that chart, I cannot find any evidence that this is his position. Indeed, it seems inconsistent with his position that the federal war on drugs should be ended to say that drug laws should be more drastic. Assuming the statement is true at all, is he talking about state or federal penalties? Forgive my skepticism, but some of the Johnson supporters on the DP appear to have learned their tactics from Romney.

Here is what I found on Drug

Here is what I found on Drug Abuse on the CP Platform:

http://www.constitutionparty.com/party_platform.php#Drug Abuse

Then from Goode's campaign website I searched on drug and found this http://www.goodeforpresident2012.com/the-issues.html :

"Immigration: Illegal immigration must stop. Our borders must be secure. In Congress, I supported and cosponsored legislation to stop illegal aliens, terrorists, drug smugglers, and other criminals from coming across our Southern border. We need to utilize troops, fences, and other measures to stop the invasion from Mexico. I was the first to sponsor legislation providing for a fence along the Southern Border. We must continue to fight for funding and for adequacy of the fence. "

I'm a little concerned about a "fence" which can keep people "in" as well as out.

Bear, My Wife

has had problems with drugs at times in her life, but I ask you, do you really think that prison is the correct response to this? Do you think prison would have helped you? Meth-labs exist BECAUSE of the drug war. They are a response to market forces reacting to the drug price increase caused by risk of production and sale of the drugs in an illegal market. If drugs were legal, adults could buy quality-controlled, inexpensive, carefully measured doses in a pharmacy. The probable result is that less dangerous and lower doses of drugs would be used by people, in the same way that whiskey and gin were consumed heavily during alcohol prohibition, but since repeal alcohol consumption has dropped, and most alcohol consumption is now beer and wine coolers instead of hard liquor. Portugal has effectively decriminalized all drug use (even hard drugs), with the result that drug use has dropped significantly, and drug-related crime has been virtually eliminated.

Also, I wish to alert you to the fact that the power to persecute drug addicts (or any alternative lifestyle) is also a power that can be used to persecute the Christian Church. Any power which can be used to regulate private, consensual behavior, is a power which can, simply by altering its targets, result in imposing a religious orthodoxy on people, and there is nothing guaranteeing in any way that it will be an orthodoxy you approve of. One thing that frightens me very much are prophesies of the rise of the Anti-Christ, who will use the authority of an all-powerful world government to try to force people to reject Jesus Christ. (I know you know the Bible better than I -- more on that below)

Bear, my wife and I believe in God but are unchurched as we are not comfortable completely with the churches we have been to. I would like to discuss religious matters with you and your husband, if you have time. You are so kind, gentle and sweet that I trust you are the real deal. Could you private chat with me and let me send you my email address? If you see me online sometime. I really don't know any other way to contact you. MODS -- if this is inappropriate let me know. There doesn't seem to be a way to send messages to users on this site.

Thank you for taking the time

Thank you for taking the time to provide a rational response to my question drug laws.

On the discussion about religion. I am glad to hear that both you and your wife believe in God. God loves you. Jesus said these words:

• John 14:1 Let not your heart be troubled: ye believe in God, believe also in me.

I would be happy to talk with you further. My husband is better at keeping up with email than I and he said he would be glad for me to provide you with his email to talk with you as well. Just let me know.

Me too. I don't think we

Me too. I don't think we need fences, but an end the the deliberate, publicly professed non-enforcement of existing law. Democracy and the positive operation of a free market in labor is undermined without the legal and moral recognition that the state exists for the benefit of citizens, and the the name "citizen" refers only to nationals. Open borders serve only totalitarians and employers who want to suppress the operation of a free labor market by using state power to introduce an infinite supply of labor, thus preventing wages from ever increasing. Open borders, as I see it, are the equivalent of dollar inflation. And both benefit only a small, state-favored clique.

Excellent Point!!!

I have never heard the argument put quite that way against open borders. The open borders issue is yet another reason why I cannot support GJ. On his own website he states that he envisions a US truck going 60 miles per hour across the Mexican border passing a Mexican truck going 60 miles per hour into the US??? In other words, sounds like his dream is the NAFTA Super Hwy!!!! NO THANK YOU>>>>>

Thanks for taking the time to

Thanks for taking the time to figure out my awkwardly expressed point.

Thank you for weighing in. I

Thank you for weighing in. I am having constitutional concerns as well. I am still flip flopping. We have a meth house down the street from us. IMO the folks pulling up and honking their horns are the victims as well as the children playing outside unattended as well as the high school students that frequent the place and the cats that keep having kittens. I am not so sure Meth is a victimless drug. I don't get the whole drug thing except that it should be up to the states and that the prison system has become an industry and that the alcohol and pharmaceutical industries do not want competition from marijuana. After taking drugs as a minor and nearly ruining my life I am glad that I did not become a victim of addiction. So I don’t have all the answers on that one. I wouldn’t mind being enlightened if I am missing something.

Authority POWER

Trial by Jury works with 12 people, so it doesn't have to be a State, or a Nation State, or a Monarchy with a King, that has the legal privilege to Employ Due Process of Law FOR any victim in any case where a victim may be victim to any criminal of any kind anywhere without exception.

I think it is a very serious loss of POWER to fail to realize how Trial by Jury was designed to work, how it did work, and how it can work again when dealing with victims and criminals.

Individuals, Families, Cities, Counties, States, and Federations can return POWER to INDIVIDUALS by returning to Trial by Jury based upon sortition, and then crime is dealt with effectively, without exception, and if there are exceptions, then it may be a good idea to stop excepting those exceptions too.

How many victims could currently accuse Obamanation for crimes committed by that group in that seat of Legal Power?

Why not get them back on the list of those who are not excepted for due process that is due everyone else?


Is it Known?

Do you think Friends of Liberty understand the importance of true Trial by Jury? I didn't. Maybe I am more behind than most. I don't think people even realize how far liberty was set back. Do you think people even know the history of the Magna Carta and King John (I think that is the right name). Trial by Jury may be one of the most important aspects of Liberty, lost in 1788.

Hint Hint: You could do an educational post if you want to.

Works for me.

I can lean into it, perhaps tomorrow.

I've kept Proverb 8 on my mind, lately, having to do with The Fear of God, there are some important words in that writing, it seems to me, very significant stuff, and it has not yet reached the point, in my thing, to be commons sense, as matter of fact as, say, not staring at the sun.


True Trial by Jury

Yes, Josf, if you are working with Proverbs 8, do not set it aside. It was just a hint. You do what you have time for and what you see as necessary.

I am wondering though, while when we are saying

End the Fed
End the IRS
Bring the Troops Home
maybe we should add Institute True Trial by Jury (It seems to me, after my JTK education, that that is the hinge pin upon which Liberty may rest so as to maintain competition against monopoly.)

If you want some study tools for Proverbs 8 here are a couple:




Goode - Johnson comparison

See: http://www.dailypaul.com/253892/goode-vs-johnson-comparison

When we try to pick out anything by itself, we find it hitched to everything else in the Universe.
~ John Muir

A Test for Dr. Paul

Hey Thanks!

I morally align with VG, but I am not sure all his answers are constitutional. That is the part I have trouble with. I wish Dr Paul would take the test and I could look at his answers!

I passed on taking the test.

Someone here once posted a National Tea Party Patriot's test, and I started getting all kinds of mail. I don't want to have to go through the process of getting myself removed. (It took me two tries there.) Though, I have to admit I'd be curious. It seems to me it would be a toss up, although (issues aside) I think Gary Johnson has more going for him in terms of qualifications - having run a state, for two terms. And that's after running a construction company he founded, employing 1,000 people. It seems that Goode has been a politician his whole life.

Plus in my book, Goode has one strike against him. And I'm serious: he's a lawyer. I once heard Tammy Bryce on C-Span's Booktv (S/S 48 hours of non-fiction books - do you ever watch?); she was speaking to college students about her book, "The New Thought Police" (which I subsequently read - what a story she has!). In the Q&A, someone made a negative comment, and there was a bit of back and forth, and then she stopped and asked the student, "You're in law school, right?" The individual was. Bryce just sighed, "That's explains the problem." She recommended to the audience that they not going to law school, as it ruined your brain - literally, ruined your normal thought processes.

I've known my share of attorneys - as friends and otherwise, and the more I thought about it, the more I realized EXACTLY what she was talking about. Another time on C-Span, I heard Thane Rosenbaum, an attorney, talk about his book: "The Myth of Moral Justice." I was all choked up because he's an insider, and he gets it. I read that book, too. Sad, but true. One of my sons was once talking about his possible interest in going to law school, and I told him that I'd disown him if he wasted his brain on that. And that I was serious! He said he was only interested in Constitutional Law. I told him, well... in that case... *maybe* I wouldn't disown him. All I can say is, when I read that about Virgil Goode, I found myself frowning. We have a lawyer in the presidency now, and we just had a lawyer change his mind and vote that Obamacare was constitutional. I'd rather have a down-to-earth libertarian-oriented handyman/construction company business owner/two-term governor who lives in the world of reality, not case law/theory. I'd tell you my favorite lawyer joke, but it would surely ruin your opinion of me. I'm not a "counterfeit Christian, but I'm no angel, either.

In any event, I noticed what you said here about the abortion issue. Did you happen to see mike something or other's comment, "Am I the only one." He made an interesting point. I elaborated on it a bit.

When I was looking at that comparison sheet, as I mentioned somewhere below (or maybe it was on that other page), I disagree with both of them having no problem with campaign advertising by corporations (SuperPacs) on the grounds of "First Amendment rights." Ar-r-r-gh! That's more than a PET PEEVE of mine! Our founders never intended for "corporations" to have "human" rights. They were as distrustful of big corporations ruling people (like they do today) as big government.

I'm so glad you posted this, bear. I've been checking in periodically all day. There is some great information, plus it's been interesting to read the comment exchanges, too, to see what people think about different issues. We all bring something different to the table. When I came across an (unrelated) interesting article today (a side by side comparison of responses from Obama and Romney on a whole SLEW of science-related issues, I decided to follow your lead and post that. Alas, two people saw it. No one commented (except me, to give it one more try). Maybe it's because most people here, myself included, wouldn't be voting for either of them, anyway. So I guess, really, it was a moot point.

I was going to say to have a nice evening, and I thought to myself, too bad I don't have an evening song, too, and I realized... I do! It's an old Moody Blues song from the 70's. They made this beautiful album - with the London Symphony Orchestra - about... the day. There are songs that go from dawn until night. (I know a song for every day part! :)) (That's a smile inside a parenthesis, not a double chin. Not yet, I'm grateful to report.) I googled it, and someone put it to a very nice video. Hope you enjoy it. So, bear, have a nice evening!

When we try to pick out anything by itself, we find it hitched to everything else in the Universe.
~ John Muir

How do you know when a Politician is lying?

A lawyer you say...I'll add that to my musings. I guess it will always depend what is is when it comes to that profession. I like c-span but do not normally listen to it except when Dr. Paul is the star LOL.

My oldest learned to play the Blue Danube on the Recorder last year and the vocal was part of the spring concert. I love the words especially "staying till night turns to day." I sing a song to each of them at bed time and then they sing Blue Danube to me. This is the version and the lyrics are on the screen. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y9peQUZpo3A I am hoping they sound a little better, but you will get the idea. I couldn't find another short version like this one so you will have to maybe cover your ears and read the lyrics.

A longer more palatable version: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KE7Zk-qaJAs

I enjoyed the blues evening song. Very different! I had not heard it before.

I stopped by your post and added a couple of comments and voted you up. I couldn't bear to read much after I read the health care portion. I read a little of the economic part at the top.

I will tell you a clean joke: How do you know when a Politician is lying?

That sounded so-o-o-o sweet.

I can imagine how adorable the spring concert was. (I miss those.) And what a lovely bedtime routine. I loved the orchestra version, too. I LOVE Andre Rieu. I saw that concert on PBS. I don't know if you saw it, but it was so cute. This bride and groom - the "Hochzeit Paar" - came down the aisle and took front-row seats, the (pretend) "guests of honor." Each song was a gift.

And, oh, thanks for your comments at the post on the science-issue comparison. Yes, it was a bit tedious, wasn't it. You had to work to figure out what they were saying, with answers filled with "positive-sounding" (campaign talk) rhetoric. Nice segue into what I was going to say next. Okay, tell me. How do you know when a politician is lying?

Incidentally, as to my lawyer joke, no, it wasn't a dirty joke. I have no use for them. Hey, just like I feel about lawyers! (Apparently Clint Eastwood, too!) My thing with lawyers is that, in my experience, if you're having a discussion, they seem to not think in terms of what is TRUTH, or what is the RIGHT thing to do, but rather... what can you legally get away with (or what can you legally pin on someone). I'm told that, in Japan, if people are in a car accident, regardless of who is at fault, they immediately see if everyone is all right and say they are sorry that it happened. Here? You're told to NOT say that, even if it IS your fault, or you could forfeit your insurance claim. In general, their three words of advice are: deny, deny, and deny. I can't relate. Maybe it depends on the individual, but I really think Tammy Bryce was right, that literally, law school changes the way you think. Oh, my joke isn't really so bad. I've heard worse said about our fellow man here at the DP.
Q: What do you call a lawyer at the bottom of the ocean.
A: A good start.
(No, I don't wish ill on anyone, even lawyers. Even the socialist one in the White House bankrupting our country and taking away our liberties with help from the conservative one who's chief justice of the U.S. Supreme Court.)

When we try to pick out anything by itself, we find it hitched to everything else in the Universe.
~ John Muir

His/Her Lips are Moving

Didn't want to keep you hanging. I'll reply more fully later.

Ha, ha :)

Isn't it nice that that didn't apply to Ron Paul? Truly, a statesman not politician! (P.S. I watched that beautiful Blue Danube again and realized the concert was in Dublin, not Dresden. I've never been to Ireland.)

When we try to pick out anything by itself, we find it hitched to everything else in the Universe.
~ John Muir

Dr. Paul:

A True Statesman Indeed!

A Lawyer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vd0yue2mW9I

Perfect! Exactly my point! :)

You got me smiling again.

When we try to pick out anything by itself, we find it hitched to everything else in the Universe.
~ John Muir