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 It is extremely unlikely that Obamacare will be repealed should Obama be elected, particularly if Senate continues to be controlled by Democrats.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!

Milestone

     With the addition of New York, Tom Hoefling is now on the ballot or a qualified write-in in states totaling 292 electoral votes. That number is significant because it is larger than 270, the number of electoral votes required to win. In all likelihood, Hoefling will be able to gain access to a total of two thirds of the electoral vote, either through gaining ballot access or through becoming a qualified write-in candidate. It is mathematically possible for him to win if - and only if - those who care about the country and its founding principles stop supporting what they claim to hate and start making a stand on principle.

For a new birth of freedom!

David Shedlock Interview with Tom Hoefling

     In September author and activist David Shedlock interviewed Tom Hoefling on a number of issues. Hoefling's responses truly set him apart from the other presidential candidates as a man who not gives lip service to great moral principles but really believes them as well.

For a new birth of freedom!

Romney: Abortion "Settled in the Courts"

     According to Mitt Romney, "Democrats try to make this [abortion] a political issue every four years, but this is a matter in the courts, it's been settled for some time in the courts." Romney is an enthusiastic advocate of stasis on abortion. He is not pro-life any more than any other politician who seeks to continue abortion is pro-life.

     Romney, the supposed champion of the pro-life cause in this year's election cycle, is unequivocally pro-abortion in many cases, and in all others simply wishes the issue would go away. He claims to plan to appoint pro-life Supreme Court justices, however, even after his "conversion" on abortion he appointed almost exclusively pro-abortion judges. Further, since the Supreme Court has failed to overturn even the Dred Scott v. Sanford decision, widely recognized as the worst decision from that body, leaving the issue of abortion to the courts is essentially avoiding the issue entirely: Roe v. Wade will not be overturned by the Supreme Court without outside action influencing the court, thus Romney is pro-abortion in every practical sense. Tom Hoefling, on the other hand, has consistently taken a stand for the life of the unborn. The choice could not be clearer.

For a new birth of freedom!

Conservative?

     Romney has been praised in circles on the right for his recent debate performance, in which he thoroughly demolished a somewhat vacant Obama, leaving him the clear victor on the platform. However, conservatism did not win as Romney did. While Romney claims to be a champion of conservatism, his statements did match that claim. For example, he lauded Medicare, a product of Lyndon B. Johnson's ultra-liberal Great Society program, and accused Obama of cutting the program - hardly something a conservative would do. Further, he again supported his own plan for government-mandated universal healthcare in Massachusetts at the national level, as he has in the past.

     The race between Obama and Romney is not, as it has been made out to be, a contest between a conservative and a liberal. It is rather a contest between two liberals of the most effective means of instituting liberalism. The choice between the two of them is no choice at all. The only choice for those who wish to preserve conservatism for future generations is Tom Hoefling, the only true conservative in the race.

For a new birth of freedom!

Differences

There are some differences between Obama and Romney, however similar the two may be.

• Obama is pandering to an urban liberal demographic, Romney is pandering to a rural and suburban    conservative demographic.

• Obama is black and rich; Romney is rich and white.

• Obama hasn't given anything but lip service to same-sex "marriage," while Romney helped institute it as governor of Massachusetts.

• Obama can't make conservatives support what they hate, Romney can.

• Obama didn't wage a well-funded and dishonest smear campaign against a number of prominent conservatives, Romney did.

• Obama hasn't corrupted the pro-life label by pretending to be pro-life, Romney has.

• Obama was not able to push through unapologetic funding of abortions in his healthcare plan, Romney was.

• If elected, Obama wouldn't be the head of the Republican Party, Romney would.

• If elected, Obama would face opposition from a Republican Congress, Romney wouldn't.

• If elected, Obama would not be eligible for reelection in 2016, Romney would.

The choice between Obama and Romney is no choice at all. When presented with two unacceptable choice, it is important to choose neither. Fortunately, there is an acceptable choice - Tom Hoefling, who has consistently stood for life, liberty, and the principles that made America great.

For a new birth of freedom!

The Most Dangerous Thing About Mitt Romney

"This is the most dangerous thing about Mitt Romney: he compromises people's moral integrity. And it is the personal moral integrity of the people that is the basis for our form of government and our claim to liberty. 'We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge or gallantry would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution is designed only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate for any other.' -- John Adams" Tom Hoefling

For a new birth of freedom!

Presidential Candidate Information for California

     Each presidential candidate has provided a statement for the California Secretary of State's website so that voters will have a chance to know what the choices are. These statements can be found here. Of the six candidates on the ballot, only one mentions the true foundation of liberty. Only one, Tom Hoefling, mentions that we are "one nation under God" and that we have a divine obligation to preserve freedom for our children. There is only one choice for Christians or anyone else who truly seeks to preserve freedom in November, and that is Tom Hoefling.

For a new birth of freedom!

Platform Republicans

     Former Reagan-era diplomat and current World Net Daily commentator Alan Keyes has presented  a strategy for conservatives dissatisfied with the Republican Party's liberal presidential nominee but unwilling to leave the party completely. Those in this category can honor their consciences and refuse to vote for Romney, a liberal, but vote straight Republican (as far as their conscience allows) down the rest of the ticket. This will not only help preserve a pro-life conservative majority in the House while building one in the Senate, the disparity between votes in the presidential race and the votes in other national races will send a clear message that conservatives have had enough of being trampled by the Republican wing of the elitist faction. This approach ultimately demonstrates support for the conservative (albeit imperfect) Republican platform while rejecting Romney, who rejects the Republican platform, hence the term "platform Republican."

     While this approach has much to recommend it, one could imagine an amendment to it which would send an even clearer message to the Republican wing of the elitist faction: while voting straight conservative Republican down the rest of the ticket, vote for Tom Hoefling, who stands for all the good and very few, if any, of the bad aspects of the Republican platform, at the top. Not only would it send the message that conservatives are fed up and tired of "holding our noses" and voting, it would send that message that our country matters more to us than our party, and that principle is more valuable than politics. We do not have to be disenfranchised, we can send a message loud and clear that we believe in something worth fighting for, and we are done compromising it to achieve ephemeral political gain.

For a new birth of freedom!

Republican Congress Funds Obamacare

     Republicans may talk a good talk when it comes to conservatism, but when it comes time for them to walk the walk things get a bit dicey. House Republicans passed a continuing resolution funding Obamacare, including the unpopular HHS mandate, which requires all insurance providers to provide access to sterilization, contraception, and abortifacients free of charge. It also does not restrict funding to Planned Parenthood, the largest abortion provider in the country.

     The House of Representatives controls which funds are appropriated and for what. It, as the body which most closely represents the will of the people, stands as the last defense against irresponsible and immoral spending. While the Republicans in the House may have claimed to oppose Obamacare and funding for Planned Parenthood, they could have acted and refused to include those programs in the continuing resolution yet they did not. It is not difficult to see that their true goal is not to advance conservatism and better the country but to dupe a large portion of the electorate. These are the men and women many conservatives claim will keep a "President Romney" in check. How can we expect that they will risk political suicide and stand up to the most powerful figure in their own party when they won't even take the opportunity to excite their base by standing up to the most powerful figure in the opposing party?

     The Republican leadership is corrupt, unprincipled, and concerned only with gaining and holding power and prestige for themselves, yet many well-meaning conservatives will blithely troop to the polls to vote to keep this group of unscrupulous egomaniacs in power, who gladly provide lip service to conservatism but betray at every opportunity. It would be far better if those conservatives would utilize their energy to send the message that their country is more important than their party, and that principle matters more than politics. Vote for a man whose rhetoric supporting America's founding principles has not only been matched but exceeded by his actions in defense of those principles--Tom Hoefling.

For a new birth of freedom!

What if...

     Judge Andrew Napolitano, a Fox News contributor, raised a series of questions in a recent article. What if the 2012 presidential election doesn't change anything? What if the candidates actually agree more than they disagree? He goes on to list a plethora of similarities between the two candidates, concluding with "What do we do about it?" He provides no answer, but this is the answer: http://www.tomhoefling.com/

For a new birth of freedom!

Hoefling Economic Manhattan Project

     Tom Hoefling has promised, if elected, to gather the best and brightest minds in the country and develop a workable plan for restoring the economy. Not an expansion of government and a step towards collectivism, as the New Deal was, but a truly American Deal, rooted in the principles on which our great nation was founded. The only way the economy can be set on its feet permanently is to remove the pseudo-socialist economic plans put in place and replace them with one based on liberty.

For a new birth of freedom!

Republicans: Fewer Fleas

"In the recent debate over increasing the debt ceiling, the Democrats offered a plan to have a hungry eight hundred pound grizzly bear with fleas live in your house. The Republicans offered the bear, minus a few of the fleas. Now they want you to vote for them again because of their wonderful anti-flea credentials. But if you ask them about the bear in the living room, they call you a purist and an extremist." Tom Hoefling

A Standard to which the Wise and Honest can Repair

     While other candidates have vacillated, obfuscated, and generally confused the issue of abortion or, worse still, come firmly down on the side of genocide against the unborn, Tom Hoefling has remained firm in his commitment to life. As shown in this page, Hoefling not only talks the talk now, he has walked the walk in the past on abortion.

     Some argue that any vote for a third party candidate is a waste of a vote, however, a true wasted vote is one cast for a candidate who does not represent your beliefs. Pro-lifers are presented with a choice between a bevy of candidates who are, at best, tepidly moderate on abortion, and Hoefling, who has not backed down from taking tough stands on life. If we as pro-life voters waste our votes voting for a candidate whose views are antithetical to our own it will be made all the more egregious by the fact that we ignored a candidate whose views aligned with ours to do so.

     A vote cast in defense of the eternal principles on which America was founded can never be said to be wasted. As George Washington, first president of the United States, put it, "let us raise a standard to which the wise and honest can repair. The event is in the hand of God."

For a new birth of freedom!

Know the Past

"History by apprising [citizens] of the past will enable them to judge of the future; it will avail them of the experience of other times and other nations; it will qualify them as judges of the actions and designs of men; it will enable them to know ambition under every disguise it may assume; and knowing it, to defeat its views." --Thomas Jefferson, Notes on the State of Virginia, Query 14, 1781