And Now For Something Completely Different; Possibly Positive Even

Just like back in the early 1800’s America’s voters have been conned, lulled into the “there is only a Two Party system to choose from” sedation.

Back then it was The Democrats (primarily in The South Pro-Slavery), and The Whigs (who were anti-slavery), but much like the modern G.O.P., weak, spineless, and gutless.

THEN…in 1850 there emerged a far more Constitutional, more Conservative, and far more Activist Party, The Republicans, who were Abolitionists.

The argument then, as now, was, “A Third Party simply can not win”…until IT DID.



Today we have a wretched, corrupt, moribund, Two-Party system again.

The Democrats/Marxists and The Republicans/Marxists-lite.

America NEEDS a Constitutional-Conservative, Biblical-Christian, vibrant, active Third Party choice…we may have one.


“If, to please the people, we offer what we ourselves disprove, how can we afterwards defend our work? Let us raise a standard to which the wise and the honest can repair. The event is in the hand of God.”

– George Washington


Tom Hoefling is a national conservative political activist, writer, publisher, organizer, and consultant. He is known primarily for his efforts to abolish abortion, and his staunch defense of traditional marriage. He has also been a long-time advocate for the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms, private property rights, economic liberty, fundamental tax reform, secure borders, and the maintenance of American sovereignty and security.

He was closely associated politically for many years with former Reagan administration official and U.N. Ambassador Dr. Alan Keyes.

Tom is the primary author of the Equal Protection for Posterity Resolution, which is revolutionizing how Americans look at what must be done to stop the abortion holocaust.

He is among the few American political leaders who is rated by American Right to Life as a Tier One Personhood Pro-Lifer.

In November of 2015, Tom Hoefling was listed by Newsmax as one of America’s “100 Most Influential Pro-Life Advocates.”

But, Tom Hoefling, and many others across America, have long ago left the “pro-life” label behind, and instead choose to call themselves abortion abolitionists.

Tom and his wife, Siena, live in Iowa, where they are raising their seven young children.  Tom also has three older children, and four beautiful grandchildren, so far.



  • Human life begins at conception. (Jul 2014)
  • Strongly opposes abortion. (Jan 2014)
  • Free enterprise is key to national prosperity. (Jul 2014)
  • Strongly opposes federal budget stimulus. (Jan 2014)
  • Government shouldn’t redefine marriage. (Jul 2014)
  • Strongly opposes affirmative action. (Jan 2014)
  • Strongly opposes same-sex marriage. (Jan 2014)

Supports Stricter punishment to reduce crime. (Jan 2014)

Never legalize marijuana. (Jan 2014)

  • Post the Ten Commandments in public school buildings. (Jul 2014)
  • True Local Control: TLC for public schools. (Feb 2014)
  • Getting government out of education is the ultimate goal. (Jan 2014)

Strongly opposes prioritizing green energy. (Jan 2014)

Strongly supports human needs over animal rights. (Jan 2014)

Reform divorce laws to increase waiting period. (Jul 2014)

Strongly supports US sovereignty from UN. (Jan 2014), AKA LEAVE THE U.N.

Free trade while putting American interests first. (Jan 2014)

  • Photo ID for voting. (Jul 2014)
  • Limits on campaign funds violate the First Amendment. (Jan 2014)
  • Opposes more gun restrictions. (Jul 2014)
  • Strongly supports gun rights. (Jan 2014)


Expand the military as needed to protect sovereignty. (Jan 2014)

Strongly opposes pathway to citizenship. (Jan 2014), AKA letting ILLEGALS seek to “legalise” their CRIME of stealing into our sovereign land.

  • Straight up the middle Reagan conservative. (Feb 2014)
  • Strongly supports keeping God in the public sphere. (Jan 2014)
  • Fully supports Free-Market principles at local, sate, national level
  • Let Free-Market/Private Sector create and drive the jobs market.
  • Strongly supports privatization of Social Security. (Jan 2014)
  • Eliminate the state’s income tax & special crony favors. (Feb 2014)
  • Progressive taxation violates “Equal Protection” clause. (Jan 2014)



Thomas Hoefling quotes:

How many votes do you think Trump would have gotten in the last election if there was truth in political advertising and he had been forced to run on “I’m going to sign over record amounts of money to Planned Parenthood every single time I get the chance”?


How many votes do you think the Republicans would have gotten in the last twenty election cycles if there was truth in political advertising and they had been forced to run on “We’re only going to pick judges who think that ‘a fetus’ is not a person, and that judicial precedent, even in support of mass murder and sexual depravity, is ‘the law'”?


July 14, 2016

Don’t be naive and mistake the Republican National Convention or the Democratic National Convention for actual American political conventions in any true historical sense. For some time, these have been nothing but completely pre-programmed, scripted propaganda shows, not unlike those that were once held in a place called Nuremberg, or in Moscow.

[MY NOTE: Reagan was the last to break the mold.]


July 14, 2016

How many different ways can I get the point across? When you say abortion or “gay marriage” are “legal,” or have “been legalized,” or that they are now the “law of the land,” simply on the basis of immoral, unconstitutional, illegal court opinions, you are granting legitimacy and legal force to things which destroy the moral basis of our claim to liberty as a people, which are counter to every stated purpose of our Constitution, and which are in fact completely, totally, illegitimate. Words matter, and these particular words surrender this war for America’s survival right up front, every single time. Please, if you’re still doing it, stop.


July 14, 2016

A year ago, I heard quite a bit of talk from the bigwigs of “conservatism” about how they were willing to practice “civil disobedience” in the face of the Obergefell court opinion. I knew at the time it was nothing but bluster. Have you seen any of them getting arrested for anything? I haven’t. In any case, I strenuously disagree with the framing of this situation as Christians needing to practice civil disobedience. Adhering to the laws of nature and nature’s God and the Constitution is civil obedience. It is the Left and their enablers in the Democrat and Republican parties who are acting contrary to the law, not us, and everybody should know that. What we actually need are elected officials who will do what is right, keep their oaths, support and defend the Constitution of the United States, and tell lawless, out-of-control judges to go to Hades.


July 14, 2013

You may think your influence is small, or your abilities lacking, but don’t worry about it. You may never be a George Washington, or a William Wilberforce, or an Abraham Lincoln, or a Frederick Douglass, or an Abigail Adams, or a Dietrich Bonhoeffer, but, who knows, if you are faithful, and steadfastly do right and speak the truth in love, making the most of the opportunities the Lord gives you, perhaps you will be the inspiration for someone who ends up being that kind of leader. Jesus made it pretty clear: “The greatest among you will be the servant of all.”


July 14, 2012

Quit calculating odds and just do what is right. Because it ain’t going to get easier… It is only going to get harder to do so.

“Still, if you will not fight for the right when you can easily win without bloodshed, if you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not so costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance for survival. There may be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no chance of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves.”

— Winston Churchill


“It is impossible to enslave mentally or socially a Bible reading people. The principles of the Bible are the groundwork of human freedom.”

— Horace Greeley


July 14, 2017

What some call ‘crony capitalism,’ which is actually state socialism, is rampant in America today; in Washington, DC, but also in all of our state capitals. Basically, our government, and our freedom, and our future, are being bought and sold. And the guy who is now at the top of the heap made his fortune doing it. He managed to get himself elected and bypassed the middlemen. I guess it was inevitable that it would finally come to this.

“Now, legal plunder can be committed in an infinite number of ways. Thus we have an infinite number of plans for organizing it: tariffs, protection, benefits, subsidies, encouragements, progressive taxation, public schools, guaranteed jobs, guaranteed profits, minimum wages, a right to relief, a right to the tools of labor, free credit, and so on, and so on. All these plans as a whole — with their common aim of legal plunderconstitute socialism.”

— Frederic Bastiat, the Law, 1850


How many votes do you think the Republicans would have gotten in the last five election cycles if there was truth in political advertising and they had been forced to run on “We’re going to keep and fully finance Obamacare”?


July 14, 2017

The only way you can have a judicial oligarchy is if the other branches refuse to do their own sworn duty and check the courts when they opine immorally or unconstitutionally. Because, the courts have no actual power to do anything.

The Executive not only dispenses the honors, but holds the sword of the community. The legislature not only commands the purse, but prescribes the rules by which the duties and rights of every citizen are to be regulated. The judiciary, on the contrary, has no influence over either the sword or the purse; no direction either of the strength or of the wealth of the society; and can take no active resolution whatever. It may truly be said to have neither FORCE nor WILL, but merely judgment; and must ultimately depend upon the aid of the executive arm even for the efficacy of its judgments.”

— Alexander Hamilton, Federalist #78


“It is the highest impertenence and presumption, therefore, in kings and ministers to pretend to watch over the economy of private people, and to restrain their expense…they are themselves always, and without any exception, the greatest spendthrifts in the society.”

— Adam Smith, An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations, 1776

[MY NOTES: In today’s language Adam Smith is saying: “That leaders that tell the people to be thrifty while they themselves enrich themselves at the expense of the people is hypocrisy and ruin.]


July 14, 2016

Without our moral understanding of God-given, unalienable, individual rights, and without the crucial principle of equal protection under the law, the historic American claim to liberty and self-government is gone. That’s why, unless it is stopped, the practice of human abortion will inevitably be fatal to the American republic. A building cannot long stand once its foundations have been eroded away.


July 14, 2017

Abortionism. Homosexualism. Globalism. Socialism. All of these destructive “isms” are now rampaging through the halls of power in your country, and they threaten to erase or enslave your posterity. You must fight this with all your might, not just for the sake of your own freedom, but for the sake of your children and grandchildren.

The ultimate stated purpose of the United States Constitution:

We the People of the United States, in Order to…secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”


July 14, 2015

For more than forty years, Republicans have conformed their political and governmental positions, policies, and actions to the illicit, unconstitutional Roe v. Wade court opinion, thereby assuring the continuation of the mass slaughter of tens of millions of innocent children. And now, they are showing every sign of doing exactly the same thing on marriage vis a vis Obergefell v. Hodges. Instead of providing the necessary check and balance against the rise of tyranny in America, they have, by the invocation of the destructive fallacy of judicial supremacy, become co-implementers of that tyranny. It’s a coup d’etat, with no one defending right, or the Constitution, or republican self-government, or the sovereignty of the people of the United States.


“I find no warrant for such an appropriation in the Constitution, and I do not believe that the power and the duty of the General Government ought to be extended to the relief of individual suffering which is in no manner properly related to the public service or benefit…The friendliness and charity of our countrymen can always be relied upon to relieve their fellow citizens in misfortune. This has been repeatedly and quite lately demonstrated. Federal aid in such cases encourages the expectation of paternal care on the part of the Government and weakens the sturdiness of our national character, while it prevents the indulgence among our people of that kindly sentiment and conduct which strengthens the bonds of a common brotherhood.”

— President Grover Cleveland, upon vetoing a bill appropriating money to aid drought-stricken farmers in Texas, February 1887

[MY NOTES: Read Article 1, Sections 8 & 9 of The U.S. Constitution, and the 9th, 10th, and 11th Amendments. There is NO provision, NO authority for government hand-outs/aid of any kind. This WAS done by: Family, Church, Friends, Charities, and locally, and above all else VOLUNTARILY.]


July 14, 2017

Some of the most confused, and most dangerous, people in America are those who try to conflate Christian charity with state socialism.


July 14, 2017

Our government is only as good as the understanding, commitment, and character of those who take the oath of office.

“Let it simply be asked, Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths…?”

— George Washington


Think about this, and what it means:

Because it’s the age of the internet, it’s also the age of agitprop. And because Americans have abandoned objective truth, they’re the perfect marks for those who are pushing it every single day.

Agitprop, abbreviated from Russian agitatsiya propaganda (agitation propaganda), political strategy in which the techniques of agitation and propaganda are used to influence and mobilize public opinion. Although the strategy is common, both the label and an obsession with it were specific to the Marxism practiced by communists in the Soviet Union.

The twin strategies of agitation and propaganda were originally elaborated by the Marxist theorist Georgy Plekhanov, who defined propaganda as the promulgation of a number of ideas to an individual or small group and agitation as the promulgation of a single idea to a large mass of people. Expanding on these notions in his pamphlet What Is to Be Done? (1902), Vladimir Lenin stated that the propagandist, whose primary medium is print, explains the causes of social inequities such as unemployment or hunger, while the agitator, whose primary medium is speech, seizes on the emotional aspects of these issues to arouse his audience to indignation or action. Agitation is thus the use of political slogans and half-truths to exploit the grievances of the public and thereby to mold public opinion and mobilize public support. Propaganda, by contrast, is the reasoned use of historical and scientific arguments to indoctrinate the educated and so-called “enlightened” members of society, such as party members.

The term agitprop originated as a shortened form of the Agitation and Propaganda Section of the Central Committee Secretariat of the Communist Party in the Soviet Union. This department of the Central Committee was established in the early 1920s and was responsible for determining the content of all official information, overseeing political education in schools, watching over all forms of mass communication, and mobilizing public support for party programs. Every unit of the Communist Party in the Soviet Union, from the republic to the local-party level, had an agitprop section; at the local level, agitators (party-trained spokesmen) were the chief points of contact between the party and the public.

The word agitprop is used in English to describe such departments and, by extension, any work, especially in the theatre, that aims to educate and indoctrinate the public. It typically has a negative connotation, reflecting Western distaste for the overt use of drama and other art forms to achieve political goals.


The communists know they have to destroy the family, because the natural family is the essential basis of real economics.


A recent argument against independent candidate Thomas Hoefling for President compared the R and D sides with terms referencing excrement. So let me ask that logical follow up question:

If you go to a restaurant and you know they have many options in the kitchen, but the menu only lists Elephant poop and Donkey poop, do you go ahead and order poop and then complain about the limited options or do you tell the waitress that you want a steak and ask them to consider changing the menu?


July 13, 2013

“Conservatives,” misled by National Right to Life and the other “pro-life” Republican satellite organizations, regularly demand that legislators support lawless laws which violate the first obligation of their sacred oaths, which is to equally protect the God-given, unalienable right of all innocent persons to live.
And then they act surprised when those same legislators then ignore every other duty associated with that oath.

The key to saving America is to restore active respect for the cornerstone natural law moral principles of our republic’s charter:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men…


July 13, 2013

If you’re one of those who has bought into the idea that the U.S. Supreme Court, in Marbury vs. Madison, arrogated to itself the supreme power to decide what the Constitution says and means, and the power to legislate from the bench, and to veto laws, you’ve believed a Big Lie. In fact, you’ve believed the lie that is doing more to destroy our republic and our form of government than any other single thing. John Marshall promulgated a constitional supremacist view, not a judicial supremacist one. And he made it clear that not only must the court obey the Constitution, so must every other officer of government, in every branch.

Don’t believe me? Go read it for yourself. They still wrote in plain, non-lawyerly English back then.


So, if a law be in opposition to the Constitution, if both the law and the Constitution apply to a particular case, so that the Court must either decide that case conformably to the law, disregarding the Constitution, or conformably to the Constitution, disregarding the law, the Court must determine which of these conflicting rules governs the case. This is of the very essence of judicial duty.
If, then, the Courts are to regard the Constitution, and the Constitution is superior to any ordinary act of the Legislature, the Constitution, and not such ordinary act, must govern the case to which they both apply.

Those, then, who controvert the principle that the Constitution is to be considered in court as a paramount law are reduced to the necessity of maintaining that courts must close their eyes on the Constitution, and see only the law.

This doctrine would subvert the very foundation of all written Constitutions. It would declare that an act which, according to the principles and theory of our government, is entirely void, is yet, in practice, completely obligatory. It would declare that, if the Legislature shall do what is expressly forbidden, such act, notwithstanding the express prohibition, is in reality effectual. It would be giving to the Legislature a practical and real omnipotence with the same breath which professes to restrict their powers within narrow limits. It is prescribing limits, and declaring that those limits may be passed at pleasure.

That it thus reduces to nothing what we have deemed the greatest improvement on political institutions — a written Constitution, would of itself be sufficient, in America where written Constitutions have been viewed with so much reverence, for rejecting the construction. But the peculiar expressions of the Constitution of the United States furnish additional arguments in favour of its rejection.
The judicial power of the United States is extended to all cases arising under the Constitution. [p179]

Could it be the intention of those who gave this power to say that, in using it, the Constitution should not be looked into? That a case arising under the Constitution should be decided without examining the instrument under which it arises?

This is too extravagant to be maintained.

In some cases then, the Constitution must be looked into by the judges. And if they can open it at all, what part of it are they forbidden to read or to obey?

There are many other parts of the Constitution which serve to illustrate this subject.

It is declared that “no tax or duty shall be laid on articles exported from any State.” Suppose a duty on the export of cotton, of tobacco, or of flour, and a suit instituted to recover it. Ought judgment to be rendered in such a case? ought the judges to close their eyes on the Constitution, and only see the law?

The Constitution declares that “no bill of attainder or ex post facto law shall be passed.”

If, however, such a bill should be passed and a person should be prosecuted under it, must the Court condemn to death those victims whom the Constitution endeavours to preserve?

“No person,” says the Constitution, “shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.”

Here. the language of the Constitution is addressed especially to the Courts. It prescribes, directly for them, a rule of evidence not to be departed from. If the Legislature should change that rule, and declare one witness, or a confession out of court, sufficient for conviction, must the constitutional principle yield to the legislative act?

From these and many other selections which might be made, it is apparent that the framers of the Constitution [p180] contemplated that instrument as a rule for the government of courts, as well as of the Legislature.

Why otherwise does it direct the judges to take an oath to support it? This oath certainly applies in an especial manner to their conduct in their official character. How immoral to impose it on them if they were to be used as the instruments, and the knowing instruments, for violating what they swear to support!

The oath of office, too, imposed by the Legislature, is completely demonstrative of the legislative opinion on this subject. It is in these words:

I do solemnly swear that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich; and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge all the duties incumbent on me as according to the best of my abilities and understanding, agreeably to the Constitution and laws of the United States.

Why does a judge swear to discharge his duties agreeably to the Constitution of the United States if that Constitution forms no rule for his government? if it is closed upon him and cannot be inspected by him?

If such be the real state of things, this is worse than solemn mockery. To prescribe or to take this oath becomes equally a crime.
It is also not entirely unworthy of observation that, in declaring what shall be the supreme law of the land, the Constitution itself is first mentioned, and not the laws of the United States generally, but those only which shall be made in pursuance of the Constitution, have that rank.

Thus, the particular phraseology of the Constitution of the United States confirms and strengthens the principle, supposed to be essential to all written Constitutions, that a law repugnant to the Constitution is void, and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument.

The rule must be discharged.


July 13, 2016

So, if you shut down some sub-par Nazi death camps, but “legally” authorize the operation of clean, efficient Nazi death camps, the Nazis will simply build bigger, cleaner, more efficient Nazi death camps. Quit playing this deadly, immoral, unconstitutional legislative game. If you’ve got the governmental power to regulate mass murder, you have the power to stop the bloodshed entirely.


July 13, 2016

The American Revolution is never complete as long as there is injustice in our land.

“The American war is over; but this far from being the case with the American revolution. On the contrary, nothing but the first act of the drama is closed. It remains yet to establish and perfect our new forms of government, and to prepare the principles, morals, and manners of our citizens for these forms of government after they are established and brought to perfection.”

— Benjamin Rush, letter to Price, 1786

[MY NOTES: Things went pretty good til 1913…then again in 1963, 1973…corruptions were made to American Constitutional Law and The Republic that have NOT YET been corrected BY a return TO The Constitution.]


Still true.

Thomas Hoefling
July 13, 2016

As far as I know I’m the only presidential candidate in our time who has said that I will shut down the abortion mills, and has provided an ironclad moral, constitutional, and legal case why I can and must do so, should I be elected.

No person shall be deprived of life without due process of law.”

“No State shall deprive any person of life without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”


From July 13, 2016 (nothing has changed in four years):

Another 3000 or more innocent, helpless, defenseless little boys and girls will be slaughtered today in facilities licensed by the state to commit mass murder.

So, exactly which part of “you shall not murder” do our elected representatives fail to understand?

Exactly which part of “no State shall deprive any person of life without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws” do they not get?

If you are surprised by the growing violence in our country, you shouldn’t be. The allowance of the genocide of tens of millions of unborn children, under the color of “law,” opened the gates to this hell.

A country that has no regard for the lives of the weakest among us is certainly not in the end going to have any regard for the lives or the rights of anyone else.

A country that has no regard for the lives and the rights of its posterity is not going to care about the lives and the rights of those who are already living.

“God who gave us life gave us liberty. Can the liberties of a nation be secure when we have removed a conviction that these liberties are the gift of God? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just, that his justice cannot sleep forever.”

— Thomas Jefferson


July 13, 2013

Folks forget that the Roe vs. Wade Supreme Court was primarily Republican. And it seems that few realize that most of the ‘laws’ which have been codified since then which grant explicit ‘legal’ permission to murder babies have been put there by ‘pro-life’ Republicans as well. Wake up.


“I know there are [those] among you who laugh at virtue, and with vain ostentatious display of words will deduce from vice, public good! But such men are much fitter to be Slaves in the corrupt, rotten despotisms of Europe, than to remain citizens of young and rising republics.”

– Richard Henry Lee, 1779


July 13, 2015

We’re never going to restore constitutional republican self-government and the rule of law in this country until we’ve once again taught the people, starting with the Christians, what the basis for our form of government and the rule of law is. Without firm ground, and decent footings, and a good foundation, nothing you build will last very long or be of any real use.


July 13, 2018

Folks need to come to the realization that “overturning Roe” is a fallacy. There’s nothing to overturn. It’s not a law. It’s just an old judicial opinionan immoral, unconstitutional, illegitimate one at that. Executives, legislators and judges do not swear an oath to support judicial opinions of any sort. They swear an oath to do justice and to support and defend our constitutions. And the Constitution of the United States, which is binding upon them, absolutely demands equal protection under the law for every innocent person, in every state. It’s not optional.


July 13, 2016:

Abortion is illegal in America, no matter what some lawless judge or court may opine, or some legislature may legislate, or the civil magistrates may choose to ignore.

True law is right reason in agreement with nature; it is of universal application, unchanging and everlasting; it summons to duty by its commands, and averts from wrong-doing by its prohibitions. And it does not lay its commands or prohibitions upon good men in vain, although neither have any effect on the wicked. It is a sin to try to alter this law, nor is it allowable to attempt to repeal a part of it, and it is impossible to abolish it entirely. We cannot be freed from its obligations by Senate or People, and we need not look outside ourselves for an expounder or interpreter of it. And there will not be different laws at Rome and at Athens, or different laws now and in the future, but one eternal and unchangeable law will be valid for all nations and all times, and there will be one master and ruler, that is, God, over us all, for He is the author of this law, its promulgator, and its enforcing judge. Whoever is disobedient is fleeing from himself and denying his human nature, and by reason of this very fact he will suffer the worst penalties, even if he escapes what is commonly called punishment …”

— Marcus Tullius Cicero, 59 – 47 B.C.

“Human law is law only by virtue of its accordance with right reason; and thus it is manifest that it flows from the eternal law. And in so far as it deviates from right reason it is called an unjust law; in such case it is no law at all, but rather a species of violence.”

— Thomas Aquinas, Summa theologiae, Ia-Ilae, q. xciii, art. 3, ad 2m.

Good and wise men, in all ageshave supposed, that the deity, from the relations, we stand in, to himself and to each other, has constituted an eternal and immutable law, which is, indispensably, obligatory upon all mankind, prior to any human institution whatever.”

“This is what is called the law of nature, which, being coeval with mankind, and dictated by God himself, is, of course superior in obligation to any other. It is binding over all the globe, in all countries at all times. No human laws are of any validity, if contrary to this; and such of them as are valid, derive all their authority, mediately or immediately, from this original.”

— William Blackstone, Commentaries on the Law of England (1765)

“[A]ll men are equally bound by the laws of nature, or to speak more properly, the laws of the Creator.”

— Samuel Adams

“When human laws contradict or discountenance the means, which are necessary to preserve the essential rights of any society, they defeat the proper end of all laws, and so become null and void.”

— Alexander Hamilton


The crucial question when you look at candidates:

What is their proven understanding of, and commitment to, the true obligations of the oath of office?

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution…”

— Article VI, the United States Constitution

“Let it simply be asked, ‘Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths?”

— President George Washington


July 13, 2015

The oath of office is to support and defend our constitutions, not to obey the dictates of other officers of government, in the other branches. This isn’t Nazi Germany, with an oath of loyalty to a Fuehrer.


Even if the victim is less than 20 weeks old, feels no pain, has no detectable heart beat or brain waves, even if the murderer has notified her parents, waited 48 hours, signed an informed consent release, and stated that her desire to murder is not motivated by the victim’s gender, even if the murder is committed in a licensed facility by a trained professional who has admitting privileges at the nearest hospital. Even then, THOU SHALT NOT MURDER.”

— J.D. Ellis


If you think you’re manipulating evil to your own ends by playing this continual political “lesser of two evils” game, you’re tragically mistaken. In fact, it is evil manipulating you, to it’s own ends.


July 12, 2016

They tell me that a vote for Donald Trump is a vote for a “lesser evil.”

I say that a vote for Donald Trump is an abject surrender to the forces that are destroying our republic.

If you want to surrender, go right ahead. I can’t stop you. But I ain’t doing it.


July 12, 2015

In a most ironic set of circumstances, the political/media establishment has no answer for Trump. None of their usual tactics will work against his well-financed populist bombast in this deeply disgruntled political environment that they themselves created. There is only one way to stop Trump, and that is with principle, and the establishment has no principles left to answer with, and no credibility anyhow even if they managed to find some at this late date.



When you read Thomas Hoefling’s Platform, the quotes from The Giants of TRUE Constituionalism, Conservatism, “LIFE, Liberty, and The Pursuit of Happiness”…

…and then read what Thomas HIMSELF says and believes…

…you are looking at a candidate,

a man,

a Patriot,

a REAL Constitutionalist,

REAL Conservative,

and most importantly , a REAL Christian.

NOT since Reagan has America had the opportunity it has now.




July 14, 2020

Independent presidential candidate Tom Hoefling today announced his vice-presidential pick for 2020, long-time conservative activist Andy Prior of Arlington, Texas.

“First of all, Andy Prior is my dear friend. But, more importantly, he has also been a consistent, principled co-laborer in our efforts to turn the country around since 2007. In fact, I don’t know anyone else in the country who has been more consistently principled than Andy. And, as anyone who knows him will tell you, he’s very smart, and very capable,” Hoefling said.

In their written statement, Hoefling and Prior laid out an agenda which includes the immediate abolition of abortion, and the restoration of the civil institution of one-man, one-woman marriage.

“We can’t expect America to ever be great again as long as this bloody holocaust continues. We can’t expect God’s blessings on a land that continues to destroy innocent children by the millions. And we certainly can’t prosper again as long as we continue to allow the destruction of our most fundamental and essential institution: the God-ordained, God-created, God-instituted, natural family. It’s absolutely clear that neither the Trump Republicans, nor the Biden Democrats, will lift one finger to protect the unborn, or to restore our historic legal protections to the civil institution of marriage. So, we are standing forward on behalf of those millions of Americans who still believe in the original moral and constitutional principles of the country,” Hoefling said.

Both Tom Hoefling and Andy Prior have also placed great emphasis on restoring and protecting Second Amendment rights, on educating Americans about the dangers of the destructive fallacy of judicial supremacy, and on restoring limited government that stays well within the bounds set by our Constitution, among many other things.

Andy Prior, forty-one, is a native of Grand Prairie, Texas, and a long-time resident of Arlington. Much of his childhood was spent in the Far East, including China and Japan. He has been very active in local and state politics, testifying before government committees on a variety of issues, ranging from the abolition of abortion, to ballot access, Home School freedom, excessive debt/bond packages, local property rights, and more.

Andy has worked as an educator, as an athletic director and track coach, and is currently a representative for one of the largest member-owned, not-for-profit insurance firms in America. He spends his free time traveling, doing genealogy research, and solving sudoku puzzles.

For various practical reasons, including the Covid-19 scare, Hoefling and Prior are running a classic American front porch campaign.

Since the shutdowns in various states have made it difficult or impossible to obtain petition signatures, the campaign will be running a qualified write-in effort in most states. Tom pointed out that if he had things his way, all elections would be by write-in. All it would take, he said, was for “each candidate to file the necessary paperwork proving that they meet the constitutional requirements for the office in question, and for presidential candidates to also file the necessary slate of presidential electors. Then let the people decide, without any reference to political parties whatsoever.”

The General Election will be held this year on Tuesday, November 3rd.

Voters can learn more at


A Potential Voter Ask Hoefling a series of Loaded/Biased Questions:

Hi! I see you have abortion listed as your flagship idea and I can respect a pro-life attitude for sure.

Do you hold life sacred from conception to natural death?

And if so what are your views on trans rights, lgbtq+ rights, and immigrant child detainment?

All lives matter to God, can I expect from you a full pro-life platform, or does it stop at ending abortion?


I absolutely hold life sacred from conception to natural death.

There is no such thing as “trans rights, lgbtq+ rights.” There are only two genders, male and female, and homosexual activities are immoral and unnatural. Pretending otherwise is wrong, and there is never any right to do wrong.

If children are brought into our country illegally, by parents or by anyone else coming here illegally, of course they are going to be detained. Should they be treated humanely? Of course. Anything else is a disgrace to our country.

I hope this helps.



Tom Hoefling

Let me let you in on a little secret: The real slogan for my presidential campaign is: “Repent!”

The funny part is, that message is not aimed primarily at the country’s heathens. It’s aimed directly at American Christians.

Fact is, if even a significant minority of the self-professed Christians would repent of their political compromises with evil, and begin to consistently do right, I could win, and we could put this country back aright in fairly short order, for the sake of our posterity.

And it starts with repenting of their continual compromises with evil as they attempt to regulate abortion instead of immediately abolishing it.


I am voting FOR Thomas Hoefling. He is the MOST sincere, honest, Constitutional, Conservative, and most importantly, CHRISTIAN Candidate in DECADES.

 -Rev. Larry Wallenmeyer.


Leave a Reply