The Wrong Side of History

"With Roe overturned, states will be empowered through the democratic process to determine their own abortion laws and not have them dictated by judicial mandate." - Mitt Romney

"I deny the right of Congress to force a slaveholding State upon an unwilling people. I deny their right to force a free State upon an unwilling people. I deny their right to force a good thing upon a people who are unwilling to receive it. The great principle is the right of every community to judge and decide for itself, whether a thing is right or wrong, whether it would be good or evil for them to adopt it; and the right of free action, the right of free thought, the right of free judgment upon the question is dearer to every true American than any other under a free government." - Stephen Douglas

     Mitt Romney's position on abortion is eerily similar to the position of Lincoln's famous opponent in the Illinois Senate race and, later, the presidential race, Stephen Douglas, on slavery. Both men refused to recognize that the source of the right to self-government, which they use to justify their indifference toward eradicating glaring moral problems, is derived from the same source that the right to life and liberty is. If the later is denied the former cannot stand on its own - no man has a right to violate the rights of others. If, as Douglas stated and Romney implied, the "great principle" is the "right of every community to judge and decide for itself whether a thing is right or wrong," we are left at the mercy of the tyranny of the masses, with no natural rights set as limits on what the majority can do.

    Just as the subsequent generations passed a measure of censure on Douglas and recognized that he stood on the wrong side of history when he refused to take a stand against slavery, it will be clear to future generations that Romney also stands on the wrong side of history when he refuses to take a stand against abortion. In the face of great moral issues deference to the whims of the majority will not suffice. History will not remember kindly those who take such a stance, and their own indifference will condemn them.

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!

Romney: Abortion Legislation not on the Table

     Yesterday Mitt Romney stated that he would not be in favor of any law regarding abortion. Since the only laws that would be likely to be passed are those banning or regulating abortion, he essentially reiterates his pro-abortion position at the national level. His position on abortion has been clear to those who follow politics, but he had yet to state it so plainly for a general audience. Perhaps the most disturbing fact is that even after so obviously taking a pro-abortion stance he continues to call himself pro-life.

     In the words of Tom Hoefling, "Mitt Romney has no intention of lifting one finger to stop the daily brutal slaughter of thousands of innocent, defenseless, helpless little boys and girls in this country. His every position guarantees the abortion on demand status quo. Honest observers have known this all along. Mitt Romney destroys our republican form of government with his gross judicial supremacist views, and his spurious claim that if a court says it, that’s 'the law.' He destroys the foundational moral, natural law premises of this free republic and our claim to liberty with his claim that abortion should be 'legal' if a democratic majority thinks it is okay. He doesn’t believe in God-given, unalienable rights, not even the supreme right, the right to live. He doesn’t believe in our intrinsic equality before God and the law, and disdains the explicit, imperative requirements found in the Fourteenth Amendment. Comments that defend Romney on this are shameful, especially since the man just spent an entire election season blatantly and obviously lying to the American people concerning the central moral question of our day. They are a clear signal of the extreme danger to the republic that Mitt Romney represents. Sadly, his supporters are becoming more and more like the man they are following. May God have mercy on us."

     Pro-life voters have accepted candidates who compromise for long enough. It's time we voted for someone who actually shares our beliefs, not someone who occasionally pretends to, and not very well at that, in order to advance his own political ends. There is only one Tier One pro-life leader in the presidential race - Tom Hoefling.

For a new birth of freedom!

Romney: Massachusetts Plan Applicable at Federal Level

     Mitt Romney has denied claims that he ever advocated instituting a plan similar to Romneycare on the national level, yet in the past he has indeed advocated such a plan at the national level. He said that "I think a lot of what we did could be applicable on a national basis. My preference, however, is not to have a one-size-fits-all plan pushed on all the states, but instead to give the states flexibility in creating their own plan." He made it clear that allowing states to set their own standards for health insurance, and in doing so following the Constitution, was merely a preference. He went on to add, disingenuously, that "Our plan did not include a government insurance plan. We did not put together a government-insurance product that was then sold to individuals. Instead, we relied entirely on private market-based insurance plans to help people get insurance. I think that’s a much better model." In the context of a discussion of Obamacare that statement is irrelevant - Obamacare also avoids establishing government-insurance, instead forcing the individual to purchase private insurance.

     The fact that Romney would accept, and in the past advocated, a plan similar to his Massachusetts plan at the national level speaks volumes about his principles (or lack thereof). Romney's plan in Massachusetts alone resulted in a 7.3% increase in the state budget in 2010 and a 42% increase in the state's overall costs for health programs. Romney's plan was not fiscally conservative in Massachusetts, and should he implement a similar plan at the national level, as he has said he will do (repeal and replace) we have no reason to expect that that plan will be fiscally conservative, either.

     Romneycare truly was the blueprint for Obamacare. The two are similar in their disregard for the principles of good government, for the law of the land (the U.S. Constitution in the case of Obamacare, the Massachusetts constitution for Romneycare), and in the fact that, so far, they have been failures. We cannot expect a marked difference between Romney and Obama when everything in the past records of both men suggest they will be exceptionally similar.

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!

Third Party - First Presidential Debate - Examiner.com

     Tom Hoefling participated in Examiner.com's third party presidential debate. His answers are provided below.

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!

Only One

     The 2012 presidential race includes precisely one Tier One pro-life leader: Tom Hoefling. No other candidate has demonstrated the dedication and commitment to preserving life for the most helpless among us. Hoefling is a signer and the primary author of the Equal Protection for Posterity Resolution, a principled defense of life, and has spent his career fighting for life, from conception to natural death - unfortunately, more than can be said for any other presidential candidate in the race.

     If every life is not respected then no life is respected. On this most vital of issues Tom Hoefling has taken a position that truly sets him apart from the pack. A candidate must be dedicated to protecting innocent life, and here Hoefling not only passes, he does so with flying colors.

For a new birth of freedom!