Comments on: Mass. Gov. Mitt Romney Meets with Kim Wolfe in Charleston http://committedtoromney.com/2006/10/31/mass_gov_mitt_romney_meets_with_kim_wolf/ A Community of People Committed to Conservative Principles Since 2005. Thu, 08 Jan 2009 12:41:31 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5.1 By: blueridgewv http://committedtoromney.com/2006/10/31/mass_gov_mitt_romney_meets_with_kim_wolf/#comment-30053 blueridgewv Wed, 22 Aug 2007 22:25:28 +0000 http://committedtoromney.com/2006/10/31/mass_gov_mitt_romney_meets_with_kim_wolf/#comment-30053 Very nice to see that the man who was governor in the most liberal state of Massachusetts can talk about "the framers" of the Constitution, for his own purposes of an endorsement, while he did not appear to care for them as a governor. The question for republicans is would Mitt adhere to the Constitution of the framers or not? In West Virginia, where "Mountaineers are always free", we have rehearsed the U.S. constitution into our own: "The provisions of the constitution of the United States, and of this state, are operative alike in a period of war as in time of peace, and any departure therefrom, or violation thereof, under the plea of necessity, or any other plea, is subversive of good government, and tends to anarchy and despotism." --WV Constitution 1-3. Continuity of constitutional operation. In West Virginia we like to keep our second amendment rights (already too trampled) and right to life is an important issue, something we don't see a good track record on with Romney, as with Giuliani too. The Constitution is our bill of freedoms, restraining the federal and protecting States Rights, and REAL ID and the North American Union agenda is not likely to be opposed by Romney, as it is among conservatives in this state, particularly since Romney is a CFR member, an organization that endorses this anti-sovereign, anti-constitutional agenda. Unfortunately, since the neoconservative and CFR republicans hijacked the republican party from traditional conservatives for their own agenda, deceiving many for a time through religious pretence, many of us do not see this as a conservative agenda, but a neoconservative and rather liberal one. West Virginia conservatives are not likely to be as easily hood-winded this time around, and honesty and trustworthiness are key factors in examining candidates (based upon their historical records), not just rhetoric that tickles the ears, that could change after elected. War policy is being more honestly examined, especially the claims made to justify it, which is truly conservative position. The threat of "terrorism" has been proven historically overblown by lack of credible evidence over the last six years, which only seems to drive a desired agenda, pre-conceived by the Project for a New American Century, before 9/11. We have more to fear from big government (that threatens our freedoms, as with REAL ID) or traffic accidents, or even being struck by lightening, than acts of "terrorism", which has propelled domestic and foreign policy into dangerous irrationalism, a form of paranoia induced through indoctrination like Romney parrots as if reciting a script. (He is too rehearsed, as if reciting a catechism.) Paleoconservatives (traditional) are strongly opposing the changes the neoconservatives have made, or are attempting to make, and the republican party must debate principles of their platform all over again (there are factions) since such a radical departure has taken place. A Constitutional view of government, like that of Reagan, is missing in candidates like Romney and Giuliani, who embrace a big interventionist government instead that threatens our freedoms under increasing centralization. States rights will be an important issue, and restoring trust! Slick candidates will be thoroughly scrutinized, and even their religion will not be overlooked. Very nice to see that the man who was governor in the most liberal state of Massachusetts can talk about “the framers” of the Constitution, for his own purposes of an endorsement, while he did not appear to care for them as a governor. The question for republicans is would Mitt adhere to the Constitution of the framers or not? In West Virginia, where “Mountaineers are always free”, we have rehearsed the U.S. constitution into our own:

“The provisions of the constitution of the United States, and of this state, are operative alike in a period of war as in time of peace, and any departure therefrom, or violation thereof, under the plea of necessity, or any other plea, is subversive of good government, and tends to anarchy and despotism.”

–WV Constitution 1-3. Continuity of constitutional operation.

In West Virginia we like to keep our second amendment rights (already too trampled) and right to life is an important issue, something we don’t see a good track record on with Romney, as with Giuliani too. The Constitution is our bill of freedoms, restraining the federal and protecting States Rights, and REAL ID and the North American Union agenda is not likely to be opposed by Romney, as it is among conservatives in this state, particularly since Romney is a CFR member, an organization that endorses this anti-sovereign, anti-constitutional agenda.

Unfortunately, since the neoconservative and CFR republicans hijacked the republican party from traditional conservatives for their own agenda, deceiving many for a time through religious pretence, many of us do not see this as a conservative agenda, but a neoconservative and rather liberal one.

West Virginia conservatives are not likely to be as easily hood-winded this time around, and honesty and trustworthiness are key factors in examining candidates (based upon their historical records), not just rhetoric that tickles the ears, that could change after elected. War policy is being more honestly examined, especially the claims made to justify it, which is truly conservative position. The threat of “terrorism” has been proven historically overblown by lack of credible evidence over the last six years, which only seems to drive a desired agenda, pre-conceived by the Project for a New American Century, before 9/11. We have more to fear from big government (that threatens our freedoms, as with REAL ID) or traffic accidents, or even being struck by lightening, than acts of “terrorism”, which has propelled domestic and foreign policy into dangerous irrationalism, a form of paranoia induced through indoctrination like Romney parrots as if reciting a script. (He is too rehearsed, as if reciting a catechism.)

Paleoconservatives (traditional) are strongly opposing the changes the neoconservatives have made, or are attempting to make, and the republican party must debate principles of their platform all over again (there are factions) since such a radical departure has taken place. A Constitutional view of government, like that of Reagan, is missing in candidates like Romney and Giuliani, who embrace a big interventionist government instead that threatens our freedoms under increasing centralization. States rights will be an important issue, and restoring trust! Slick candidates will be thoroughly scrutinized, and even their religion will not be overlooked.

]]>