Election Results

     The results are mostly in, and, although some guesswork and estimation is necessary since not all states report write-in votes, a rough approximation of the total votes for Tom Hoefling can be made. Nationwide 40,624 votes for Hoefling were cast. Around 38,000 of those were cast in California, the biggest single state total by far.

     These results are both an encouragement - a campaign without money or media coverage pulling even 40,000 voters is impressive - and a call to action. California came through with a fairly large vote total on which to build for the future, but the rest of the country has a long way to go before it can consistently maintain a conservative candidate. It is not an insurmountable obstacle, though - we can and we will succeed.

For a new birth of freedom!

Election Day

     After all the debates, campaigning, and advertising, it comes down to today. Now you, not the media or the elite of either party, are in control. We have an unrivaled ability here in America to make our leaders accountable to us, but we can't enjoy the effects of that ability if we don't utilize it - go vote!

     Conservatives living in California, Colorado, and Florida will be able to vote for Tom Hoefling simply by selecting his name on the ballot. Those in Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Connecticut, Delaware, Washington D.C., Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Texas, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming will still be able to vote for him, they'll just have to write him in (for a list that is a bit easier to access, check out this page). Remember to vote for principled pro-life conservatives for every office, not just for president.

     For instructions on how to vote, Gizmodo has produced an excellent guide to every device used to vote in every state in America. A guide to locating your polling place, together with other information about voting, can be found here. You no longer have an excuse not to make your voice heard. Vote!

For a new birth of freedom!

A Better Path

     Very few voters have any idea at all what a "third" party presidency in general might look like, let alone what the presidency of specific candidates would look like if they were elected. This post is an attempt to remedy that situation and give a rough prediction of what a Hoefling presidency might look like based on his stated positions and historical precedent. Given the fact that it is highly unlikely that he would be elected - more than anything else the campaign provides an outlet for "protest" votes and, most importantly, builds a viable alternative for the future - this is a purely hypothetical exercise. However, it can be enlightening to imagine what the world might look like: it just might look good enough to take a risk to get it there.

     If voters were to experience a near-miraculous change of heart on election day and reject the false choice they have been given between Romney and his ideological twin, Obama, one could reasonably expect the political world to be shaken up - turned upside down, if you will. The election of a third party candidate, especially a write-in candidate, would constitute a "shot across the bows" of the elitist faction. The momentum from this victory could be enough to overcome, at least for the first few years, the natural resistance of major party politicians to third party candidates and provide an opportunity to implement a conservative agenda.

     Tom Hoefling is a staunch constitutionalist. A Hoefling administration would, according to what he has said, favor the repeal of any and all federal legislation that cannot be justified by the Constitution. This would include Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and other forms of wellfare programs. Here a distinction must be made between favoring and achieving the repeal of these programs. The president has limited authority - that of an adviser, really - when it comes to the actions of the legislative branch. It is not likely that the career politicians in Congress would consent to running afoul of a large segment of the population by eliminating their pet wellfare programs. A few might join in to restore the Constitution, faced with looming insolvency and growing debt, but these would not be likely to achieve significant gains, unfortunately.

     On the other hand, there is a strong faction in Congress lobbying for decreased spending and taxes generally and this faction lacks only a leader. Hoefling would be, unlike Romney or Obama, a dedicated voice advocating the reduction of both taxes and spending, meaning that it is probable that significant gains would be made in reducing both taxes and spending. Perhaps, although this is unlikely, the coalition of Hoefling and the conservatives in Congress could push through the elimination of the federal income tax and its replacement with the Fair Tax. This would be a massive step forward in replacing government dependency with individual freedom and responsibility and would be the greatest victory for conservatism in the country since the election of Ronald Reagan.

    A Hoefling presidency could have an enormous impact on the Supreme Court. While Romney promises to appoint justices who would be strict constructionists, Hoefling has given reason to believe that he actually will nominate such justices. Whether these justices are seated is dependent on the resolve of the Republicans in the Senate, but at least the Senate's choices would be conservatives.

      It is on abortion that a Hoefling administration would have its greatest impact. He has promised to issue a presidential finding that the unborn are persons under the law, covered by the protection of the 14th amendment. This alone would provide a major step forward for the unborn, however he has also promised to close every abortion clinic in the country by executive order, using states' preexisting laws prohibiting murder. Realistically this would be unlikely to succeed. It would be opposed by even supposedly "pro-life" politicians and would be violently opposed by advocates of legalized abortion. However, in the unlikely event that it did succeed it would save millions, even billions, of lives. Even if it did not, it would establish an environment that could foster the eventual abolition of abortion.

      All things considered, a Hoefling administration could expect to be opposed by the establishment of both parties. The wave of momentum from the unprecedented election of a third party candidate (even Abraham Lincoln, the last third party candidate elected, had more recognition) could allow the implementation of a portion of his agenda. This would probably include the perennial Republican causes of lowering taxes, reducing spending, cutting government, and limiting abortion, along with this election cycle's particular project, repealing Obamacare. There is just a chance that a Hoefling administration could also achieve some of its more ambitious goals, such as the abolition of abortion or the placement of failed, unconstitutional wellfare programs on the path to ultimate extinction. In the end, even a small percentage of Hoefling's agenda would do more to advance conservatism than every president since, and maybe including, Ronald Reagan. Even if Hoefling didn't win the presidency a respectable loss would do more to advance conservatism than a victory for either Romney or Obama. Now isn't that something worth voting for?

For a new birth of freedom!

Two Scenarios

     Perhaps the greatest obstacle for many conservatives when contemplating voting for a third party candidate is the potential for harm to the country should Obama be reelected. Since Romney is seen as the candidate most likely to prevent Obama's reelection, many conservatives feel a duty to support him regardless of his positions. This argument, although one could make a case that it is flawed, and such a case is made here and here, the idea is compelling enough to warrant a more complete discussion.

     The most obvious method of conducting an investigation of the merits of this argument is to produce competing scenarios, one if Obama wins and one if Romney wins, based on the candidates' past actions and a knowledge of American history, and to compare and contrast these scenarios. In making such a case it is important to to remember that, as Mark Twain said, "it is difficult to make predictions, especially about the future" and that God alone ultimately controls the future. At the same time, it is also important to recognize that such predictions, when carefully made and informed by the past, can be a useful tool in deciding on a course of action.

     In the first case, if Obama wins, certain things are obvious. It is extremely unlikely that Obamacare will be repealed should Obama be elected, particularly if Senate continues to be controlled by Democrats. An Obama administration would most likely enthusiastically implement the provisions of Obamacare. An Obama administration would also continue to advocate a more progressive tax system, emphasizing a move farther away from flat tax rates. How successful an Obama administration would be in this area would be determined primarily by the nature of Congress. Since the most likely situation is that the House stays Republican while the Senate remains Democrat, it is not at all likely that the tax code will change in any significant way, at least for the majority of people. We can also expect, should Obama be reelected, that spending will continue to rise unchecked. However, spending is less a result of the president's actions than it is of the actions of Congress so it is debatable what effect Obama's reelection would have.

     The country can also expect unequivocal support for abortion from an Obama administration in every way possible. Federal funding of abortion, both at home and abroad, would continue and any legislation limiting abortion would face a determined opponent in the White House. Obama's judicial appointments, both to the Supreme Court and to lower courts, could also be expected to share his liberal viewpoint, not just on abortion but also on marriage, religious liberty, and constitutional interpretation. These appointments could potentially produce negative effects for decades.

     On the other hand, if Romney is elected it is still highly unlikely that Obamacare would be repealed. Doing so would require not just having a president who favored its repeal, as Romney claims to, but also having a majority in both houses of Congress in favor of its repeal. As was mentioned previously, current polling suggests that the Senate will not change hands, meaning that a majority in at least one house of Congress will not favor repeal, even if Romney backtracked from his previous positions on the issue and favored repeal. With or without a divided Congress it would require that the Republican leadership be determined and unwavering in their drive to repeal Obamacare. Romney would not be able to muster that dedication to repealing his own brainchild. Under a Romney administration there is a chance that the tax code might be reformed to remove some of the burdensome taxes on businesses, however without both houses of Congress this is unlikely. Further, spending would probably continue to increase at current levels, given Romney's past record (as governor of Massachusetts spending increased dramatically every year while he was in office) and the lack of the moral courage to cut spending among "conservative" politicians. This would most likely be an improvement over an Obama administration, which could easily see an increase in the rate at which spending increases, but not a significant improvement.

     On social issues Romney would be, most likely, slightly more conservative than Obama. It can be argued based on his record in Massachusetts that he would be exceptionally socially liberal, but this ignores the fact that he would most likely give some concession, small as it might be, to those who elected him. He promises to reinstate the Mexico City policy and stop funding of abortions overseas. He also promises to stop funding of abortions at home, however this is also unlikely given the previously mentioned divided nature of Congress - putting a stop to funding for abortion overseas only requires an executive order, however putting a stop to funding at home would require an act of Congress. Romney has promised that his judicial appointments will be judges in the mold of Chief Justice John Roberts. Again, an argument can be made from his past history that he would not do this, since he appointed primarily Democrat judges in Massachusetts, but we will give him the benefit of the doubt. If this really was the case it would certainly be an improvement over Obama's appointments, but it would not guarantee the sort of judicial reform conservatives would like to see. In his ruling on Obamacare, with which Romney expressed agreement, Roberts demonstrated himself to be less of a strict constructionist than he he makes himself out to be. Further, he has only "hinted" that he might overturn Roe v. Wade, although that is more assurance in that regard than an Obama appointee could be expected to give.

     The discussion so far has been concerned primarily with the intent of the candidates, and only slightly with how effective they would be in achieving their goals. Of course, the president alone has relatively little control without the consent of Congress. Here the difference between the two candidates is actually far more marked. Historically speaking second term presidents are very weak - on election night they have reached the zenith of their career. Congressmen cannot hitch their fortunes to the president's star, and so are far less likely to side with the president in politically dangerous situations. Obama would be a second term president, whereas Romney would be a first term president. Romney would have a far better ability to implement his agenda than Obama. In fact, the latter would be extremely limited, in part by his status as a second term president and by in part, perhaps even more, by the fact that while the House is likely to be solidly Republican, the Senate will be only marginally Democrat.

     All things considered, although there are many commonly overlooked mitigating factors that would limit Obama's effectiveness, it seems clear that the immediate effects of an Obama presidency would be significantly worse for conservatism than that of a Romney presidency. However, such a short-term viewpoint would miss important long-term effects. If elected Romney would be the leader of the Republican Party for the next four years. He would have a significant impact on the direction of the party which most closely represents conservatives, dragging it to the left and destroying its credibility by associating it with his own unprincipled pragmatism, just as he did in Massachusetts. In addition, while Obama cannot run again, Romney would undoubtedly be the Republican nominee in 2016. Given his economic record in Massachusetts (abysmal doesn't quite cover it) it is very unlikely that he would win the presidency again in 2016. Whereas we are guaranteed four more years of Obama should he win, we are guaranteed four years of Romney should he win followed by either four more years of Romney or four years of someone even more liberal, probably Joe Biden. Any small gain that might have been made by Romney winning as opposed to Obama would quickly be lost by the hamstringing of the Republican Party and the negative effects of the longer period of liberal dominance brought on by a Romney victory.

     Now none of this constitutes the best reason to vote for Tom Hoefling, but it can provide a bit of peace of mind for those who choose to. A better argument for a vote for Hoefling, consisting of a similar analysis of the potential results should conservatives as a group decide to stand on principle and vote him into office, will be forthcoming in the next few days.

For a new birth of freedom!

Are All Candidates the Lesser of Two Evils?

Somehow in this election cycle an alarming number of Christians have become enthralled with the idea that because all men are sinners, all votes are a vote for the lesser of two (or three or four) evils. I applaud people standing up for what they believe in. It is precisely that strength coupled with wisdom that has made us who we are as a nation. But I frequently caution my fellow believers to never use a saying or idea for the spreading of our cause if it is not true no matter how pithy or "cool" or "spiritual" it is. We're on God's side, we don't need pithy sayings, and when we use them we need to make sure that they are true and Biblical. It is my belief that just as with the saying "Christianity is not a religion, it's a relationship" Christians have seen that this idea has some Biblical truth in it that the world generally doesn't recognize and so have latched onto it without really thinking it through, even though it has some major flaws. So I plead with you, lay aside your emotions and biases for just a few minutes and let's examine it rationally to see which side we should stand on.

First let me make it perfectly clear that I do understand and completely agree with the Biblical fact that "all have sinned and come short of the glory of God" (Romans 3:23). I agree with and understand that no-one is perfect. There is not one candidate today nor has there ever been one who was perfect, and there won't ever be a perfect candidate. It is also, as I have seen mentioned elsewhere, wrong and foolish for us to put our hope in any particular candidate, party, or election. None of those things are disputed by myself or other Christian third-party voters.

However, there are some major flaws in this line of thought. Let's examine them.


First: This statement misunderstands what is meant by "evil" in the "lesser of two evils".

Let's define our terms. There are two basic ways that the statement "choose the lesser of two evils" can be used. First there is the general idiom used in all kinds of circumstances. It is imperative to this discussion to remember that the word "evil" used in the general form is NOT necessarily defined morally or in conjunction with the Biblical definitions of "good" and "evil". There is nothing wrong with that. For example, the phrase is often used when referring to military situations. From a practical standpoint there are many times when there may only be two choices (or even three or four) all of which will result in the deaths of some of the soldiers. Generals often say you should "choose the lesser of two evils", in other words, we should pick the course of action that accomplishes our goal (winning the battle, taking the strategic point, etc.) with as few casualties as possible. I have no problem with this. The word "evil" here is NOT being defined in reference to Biblical morality; it is not being said that there are only two options both of which require sin. What is being said is that there are two necessary options, both of which have negative and regrettable but necessary and Biblically acceptable outcomes, one of which has less negativity to it. This is a perfectly acceptable use of the phrase and it is a perfectly acceptable rationale for the Christian.

The second way in which this phrase can be used is when the word "evil" is defined in relation to Biblical morality; the word "evil" can be interchanged with the word "sin". In other words, it means that out of two options, both of which require require sinning (or "doing evil"), one of them much more than the other, we should choose the one that has the least amount of evil (sin) in it. This is also an acceptable use of the phrase. The reason I am belaboring this point is because what happens in this discussion is we wish to define the term in one way (the moral usage showing that the choices are between two evils) and then turn around and use it in another way to justify it (the general way to say that the lesser evil choice isn't really sin so it's ok). A Biblical example of choosing the lesser of two evils where "evil" is defined in relation to God's Law is 1 Chronicles 13:7-10 where Uzza puts his hand to the Ark of the covenant to keep it from falling and touching the ground. God had commanded that the Ark not touch the ground, but He had also commanded that man should not touch it with his hand. Uzza only disobeyed the command to make sure that something worse didn't happen to it. This way of using the phrase is also perfectly acceptable but the rationale is never Biblically justifiable.



Second: This statement misunderstands what is meant when we say "choose the lesser of two evils".

The problem now with the contested statement is that we're confusing people's own sin (or evil) with whether or not a choice to support that person is sin or evil. You see, when we use the phrase "the lesser of two evils" what we are saying is that out of two choices both of which are "evil" (whether this be truly sinful or merely disliked) we should choose the least bad. It does NOT mean that people are the lesser of two evils, but that choosing one of them is. This is absolutely fundamental. When someone says that it is never ok to choose to do the "lesser of two evils" they are saying that the CHOICES are evil (sinful) and are NOT talking about whether or not the people involved in those choices are sinful. Frankly, this should be obvious. Again, no-one contests that everyone has sinned; that is agreed. The issue is that this fact doesn't mean choosing those people for something is necessarily equal to their sin!

When we define "evil" in the sentence in relation to Biblical  morality and say "don't vote for the lesser of two evils" we're NOT talking about the personal sin state of the person. We're saying that we believe that the choice to vote for both people is sin, but we are NOT saying that the choice to vote for someone else is necessarily sin just because all have sinned. Yes, all three of the people being discussed have sin in their lives, but this does not equate to it being sin to choose any of the three (consequently, all have sin in their lives and are therefore "evil", but this does NOT mean that the choice to vote for all of them is evil. If the choice to vote for one of them is not evil, then it cannot be a choice between the "lesser of two evils" since both must be evil for that to be true). Thus, when we say "choose the lesser of two evils" we're talking about two choices not two people. You see, when we say a vote for the lesser of two evils is wrong we are not directly talking about whether or not the man is evil but about whether or not the choice to support him is. The lesser of two evils in this case is not so much about the the men but about voting for them. It is wrong to vote for either, therefore it is wrong to vote for the lesser of the two evils because both courses of action still require sin.

While this is true in voting it is also true in every other area. Frankly, it is hard for me to see how so many Christians have been duped by this when no-one ever argues that this same philosophy is acceptable in any other case or in any other years but election years. No-one ever supposes that since all men are sinful it is ok to select any man to be a deacon or elder even if he's a fool and a murderer so long as he has the least sin of the other options!

Yes, it is true that anytime you vote you are choosing someone with "less sin" than someone else (and also choosing someone with more sin than yet another someone else...). But that does not mean that the choice to support someone is evil, in which case it cannot be "less evil" than another choice. Yes, there's a sense in which you're voting for a person who may be less evil than another person, but this does not mean that all choices in voting are less evil than another choice because it may not be evil at all.



Third: This statement misunderstands what is meant by people being "evil".

There are a number of examples we can use to help understand this. What is being pointed out by my Christian friends is that God's standard is perfection: God requires absolute sinlessness from all of us and we all fail, thus we are all "evil". First, we must remember that regenerate believers, children of God, are all washed by His blood. The stain of sin is removed from us. We are no longer "evil" by God's standard. There's a big difference between the way that a non-Christian is "evil" and the way that a Christian is "evil"!

Even granting that we all still sin, and are not perfect, we're completely overlooking another important aspect: God's standards. You see (as strange as it may sound) God has different standards for things. Yes, He really does. Just read Romans 3:23 which says that God's standard for not condemning us to Hell is absolute perfection and compare that with 1 Timothy 3, the standards for bishops, which does not include perfection in any way, shape, or form. You see, I can (and do) absolutely fall short of God's absolute standard of perfection. I ain't going to heaven on my own, folks, so sure, I'm "evil" in that sense. But can I fall short of this standard and meet the standard in 1 Timothy 3? Of course!! God doesn't require perfection for church leaders, nor does He from civil leaders, so when we use the term "evil" we MUST use the term in relation to the standard being discussed.

To be perfectly honest, this is one of the most obvious and yet well-done "bait & switch"es I've seen Christians use. We so piously assert that "all are sinful" (something that no Christian dare disagree with) and then subtly change gears and standards by equating this with everyone being "evil" so that we can say that all votes are a vote for the lesser of two evils! I can't believe it works but it obviously does, as  smooth as a snake-oil salesman selling something you don't need and don't want. Again, we must use the proper definitions in conjunction with the standard being discussed. God doesn't say perfection is required of civil leader, that will be readily admitted. So, are all people equally evil in relation to this standard? No, they are not. Someone being evil in this context would be someone who doesn't meet the required standard (just as someone evil in general is someone who doesn't meet God's absolute standard of perfection), so if you find any candidate who meets the standard, he is not evil, and thus, cannot be a "lesser" of two evils! We have again proved our point that voting for someone is not necessarily voting for the lesser of two evils.



Fourth: It misunderstands the fact that not all imperfection is equal.

For this part I will use the words of my friend, +Daniel Woodworth since he has so adequately dealt with this before on several occasions. In his words, "Also, I think I might shed a little light on the issue of evil as regards political candidates. No one is perfect. That is not disputed. However, I think everyone can agree that not all imperfection is equal. Take, for example, grades. If all imperfection was equal I would be equally as pleased with a 99 as a 19. I will be the first to tell you that I am not. There is a sense in which all imperfection is the same--that is, we all fall short of God's perfect standard under our own power--but there are also lines which separate some imperfection from others. Another example of this would be the imperfections of a believer, which are forgiven, next to the imperfections of an unbeliever, which are not. Both are imperfect, both fall short of God's perfect standard, but they are not the same.

How does this apply to politics? Well, some things in candidates are tolerable, others are not. I will tolerate someone who disagrees with me on issues not addressed repeatedly and specifically in God's Word, but I will not tolerate a candidate who goes against the clear teaching of God in his positions on the issues. Both Obama and Romney advocate abortion in the majority of instances (Romney's position is, if you read the article I posted, logically the same as that of Roe v. Wade) which is evil, therefore I cannot support either of them."

Take this back to standards for a moment. God requires certain things of civil leaders (this is an excellent article detailing many of them: http://www.christianpost.com/news/why-the-bible-is-the-best-voters-guide-83688/). If God requires wisdom (something not difficult to see) then a candidate who does not have a decent amount of wisdom is not fit for office. No candidate, however, is perfectly wise. Compare the fact that no-one is perfectly wise with the standard, and you will see that clearly, not all imperfection is equal. It is an acceptable imperfection that a man not be perfect in wisdom, it is not an acceptable imperfection that a man have no wisdom at all.




Fifth: It misunderstands the Biblical way to justify an action.

This point is the saddest to me. As I have said elsewhere, "Even if it were true, you're trying to justify a wrong decision by stating its necessity instead of going to God's word for the answer. Choosing an action that is wrong to prevent a worse wrong is an incrediblely unBiblical action. If all men are evil, and if that means that voting for anyone always means voting for evil, then I expect you to never take part in an election."

If one truly believes that because all men are evil this means that we always vote for the lesser of two evils, what we're saying is that anytime we choose a human for anything (civil office, church office, etc.) we are choosing evil. This is simply unacceptable for the Christian. It burdens my heart that so many Christians have chosen to take up such an unBiblical view. Oughtn't we rather to suffer the results of the election by not voting at all than to chose to do evil in God's name? Brothers and sisters in Christ, hear God's words: "What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound? God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?" (Romans 6:1-2). Again in Romans 3:8, Paul says "And not rather, (as we be slanderously reported, and as some affirm that we say,) Let us do evil, that good may come? whose damnation is just."

I can hardly believe my eyes every time I see a Christian saying that all votes are a vote for the lesser of two evils and that they will go vote because they are admitting by their own mouth that political victory is more important to them than God's standards. It is altogether wrong and unBiblical to justify our decisions based on their necessity. If you are still convinced that all votes cast must be a vote for the lesser of two evils, then upon God's Word and as a Christian I expect that you will not be voting in any election ever again.



It is my hope that it will be clearly seen now how the concept that every vote is a vote for the lesser of two (or three or four) evils is mistaken. Remember that the phrase "lesser of two evils" is not referring to the people or things involved but to the choice to do that course of action. I have already written and continue to write more about why voting for the lesser of two evils (by that phrase's proper definition) is wrong. Feel free to ask any questions. Discussion is welcome, but facts and Scripture will be my guide, so you will not dissuade me with unsupported opinions or attacks. God bless you all.

Compromising our integrity is always a step away and I sincerely hope that other Christians would take this much effort to steer me away from wrong teaching and point out my fallacies. In the spirit of Christian love I share this so that others may come to see the foolishness and the untruth in this idea. To God be the Glory!

No Compromise

     It has been the spirit of every great movement to achieve positive change, to abolish an evil, that victory must be pursued whole-heartedly, not with mild compromise. Martin Luther King, Jr., the champion of the civil rights movement in the 1960's, stated that "This is no time to engage in the luxury of cooling off or to take the tranquilizing drug of gradualism. Now is the time to make real the promises of democracy." The abolitionists of a century before him also took the same position, arguing that, as William Lloyd Garrison put it, "I am in earnest - I will not equivocate - I will not excuse - I will not retreat a single inch - and I will be heard!" Across the pond and earlier still, William Wilberforce proposed the same uncompromising bill ending the slave trade entirely every year, and every year saw it voted down. Even though he did eventually compromise and utilize incrementalism to achieve the abolition of the slave trade, he regretted that decision and saw it as the cause of the lengthy continuation of slavery within the British empire. When given a second chance in the fight against slavery he enthusiastically endorsed the position of Garrison and the immediate abolitionists. It is this sort of uncompromising dedication to principle, not twisted politicking, that achieves lasting results.

     Despite this historical fact, there are those who would have us believe that the way to end the evil of abortion is to approach the issue gradually, chipping away at its facade here and there, saving a few lives while abandoning others. That approach is horribly misguided and has hamstrung the pro-life movement for decades. Abortion was foisted on the country gradually, but it will not be abolished gradually, just as slavery was not abolished gradually.

     With that in mind, those who wish to see the end of abortion within our generation must reject the "tranquilizing drug of gradualism" and refuse to retreat a single inch. We are on the winning side if we just stand our ground. Tom Hoefling, unlike any other presidential candidate, has a plan to achieve the immediate abolition of abortion within the United States. He pledges, if elected, to apply the protections of the 14th amendment to the unborn, beginning by issuing a presidential finding of the self-evident fact that the unborn are persons under the law, then requiring states to offer equal protection under existing laws to the unborn. We can abolish abortion in this generation, but we will not if we allow ourselves to be sidetracked by the false promise of gradualism.

For a new birth of freedom!

Statistical Analysis Reveals Likely Fraud in Romney Victories

     Analysis from a number of sources, notably here and here, shows a stunning statistical anomaly in the votes collected in the Republican primary. The larger the precinct - regardless of the demographics of the precinct - the more vote flipping, a form of election fraud in which votes are changed from one candidate to another or several others during electronic voting and vote tabulation, in favor of Mitt Romney occurs. The results fall far outside what can reasonably be expected and are nearly impossible statistically speaking. The vote flipping favors Mitt Romney exclusively (and by an enormous margin - a total of 1,233,570 votes were flipped in his favor, while no other candidate gained any votes as a result of vote flipping) and hurts his rivals in amounts proportional to how great of a threat they were. Santorum lost the most, losing 580,291 votes, Gingrich second, losing 499,899 votes, Paul third, losing 69,887, with Perry, Bachmann, and the rest of the field straggling in behind the three leading rivals.

     The same analysis reveals a similar anomaly in the results from the 2008 election, this time in favor of Republican nominee John McCain. This seems to indicate that the problem lies in the Republican Party rather than in a specific candidate. The Republican Party establishment apparently has engaged in systematic election fraud in at least the Republican primaries and the last presidential election. Dishonesty on this level ought to be utterly repulsive to any honest voter. It is time for those within the Republican Party who value honesty to come out and begin to support a party which will value honesty. America's Party, which refuses to accept donations to avoid even the slightest hint of fraud, is the obvious choice.

For a new birth of freedom!

A Line in the Sand

     Conservatives as a group will have to work out at some point where we draw the line. Evil will continue to grow here in the US, so there will always be a greater evil leering across the aisle at us. We must draw a line in the sand somewhere and say "This is where I stand. I will not compromise beyond this point." If we do not we will always be left fighting a rearguard action in every election, not to gain ground, but to lose a little less ground. We will be always fighting, never advancing, always retreating. An attempt to compromise to the forces of evil, to sacrifice some principles in order to preserve others, will always take you farther than you want to go. We will lose our liberties piece by piece, not because they were ripped from us by the obvious enemies of freedom in our country, but because they were cajoled from us by the self-described defenders of freedom. If we take a stand here and now and refuse to back down conservatism may "die with its boots on" at the hands of unabashed evil, but if we continue to retreat in every election it will most certainly die in bed eventually from the lingering symptoms of compromise and lack of guiding moral principles.

     If conservatives support Mitt Romney, a candidate who has pushed same-sex marriage, abortion, higher taxes, and almost everything else conservatives oppose, they will have shown that they cannot draw such a line. We can draw a line in the sand by supporting a candidate who believes as we do and takes action in accordance with his beliefs. Tom Hoefling is such a candidate.

For a new birth of freedom!

Hoefling-Ellis 2012

Third Party - First Vice Presidential Debate - Examiner.com

     Jonathan D. Ellis, America's Party's candidate for vice president, participated in Examiner.com's vice presidential debate. His answers are provided below.