Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Tom Hoefling, LIVE on camera interview 11 am Eastern
Tom Hoefling for President 2012 ^ | May 11, 2012 | Steph Watts

Posted on 05/11/2012 8:12:59 AM PDT by Steve Schulin

Tom Hoefling is the longtime FReeper EternalVigilance -- and he's the presidential nominee of America's Party. America's Party is unlike any party you've seen before -- it is designed to ensure that America's Principles are its guiding force. The party doesn't want your money, it just wants you to do your duty as a citizen. Check out Tom's first campaign video interview, being conducted live now.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: 2012; eternalvigilance; presidential; tomhoefling
If money was the answer to our problems, the billions contributed by conservatives to national groups would have solved them long ago. It's long past time to change the politics is done, and electing Tom Hoefling to serve as President will be an excellent step in this direction. He's looking for a million Christians to each wage their own 'front porch campaign' to turn out 50-100 voters in November.
1 posted on 05/11/2012 8:13:01 AM PDT by Steve Schulin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Steve Schulin; Jim Robinson

Hey if any of us decide we are going to cast a protest vote in 2012, why not do it for a Freeper.


2 posted on 05/11/2012 8:15:33 AM PDT by HiTech RedNeck (Mitt! You're going to have to try harder than that to be "severely conservative" my friend.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Steve Schulin
He's looking for a million Christians to each wage their own 'front porch campaign' to turn out 50-100 voters in November.

Yeah, that's gonna happen.

This is a joke.

3 posted on 05/11/2012 8:16:21 AM PDT by Drew68 (I WILL vote to defeat Barack Hussein Obama!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Steve Schulin

He’s looking for a million Christians


That will be over 950,000 more that voted for Keyes in 2008.


4 posted on 05/11/2012 8:24:06 AM PDT by deport (.............God Bless Texas............)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Drew68
Yeah, that's gonna happen.

This is a joke.

So say the spineless.

I see you got your Rom-kneepads to fit.

5 posted on 05/11/2012 8:24:29 AM PDT by Yashcheritsiy (Anybody but Obama and Romney)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Steve Schulin
I asked him directly on a thread “how many states are you on the ballot? and Is this a write in campaign" and all I got for an answer to either was that his campaign tactics would be revealed later.

No thanks

6 posted on 05/11/2012 8:57:24 AM PDT by rightly_dividing
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Steve Schulin

How is ballot access going? Can you list specifically what states you are able to get on the ballot so freepers from those states will know?


7 posted on 05/11/2012 9:07:57 AM PDT by mnehring
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Steve Schulin

Your presidential candidate despises Governor Sarah Palin.


8 posted on 05/11/2012 9:13:26 AM PDT by ansel12 ( Obama, Romney,"Eurasia" "Eastasia" "Oceania" I can't keep up with the players anymore.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rightly_dividing
I asked him directly on a thread “how many states are you on the ballot? and Is this a write in campaign" and all I got for an answer to either was that his campaign tactics would be revealed later.

ROTFL

9 posted on 05/11/2012 9:15:45 AM PDT by nutmeg (Thank you, Andrew Breitbart)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: rightly_dividing

The candidate is more slippery than Bill Clinton, getting a straight answer from him is close to impossible.


10 posted on 05/11/2012 9:24:42 AM PDT by ansel12 ( Obama, Romney,"Eurasia" "Eastasia" "Oceania" I can't keep up with the players anymore.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: HiTech RedNeck; mnehring; rightly_dividing; nutmeg; ansel12; Drew68; EternalVigilance
Folks in each state will have to do what it takes to put Tom on the ballot. There's still plenty of time to do that, although the requirements in some will be quite a challenge. Oklahoma is one of the toughest. In some states, I suspect Tom and his running mate will be on the ballot as independent candidates. In others, state affiliate parties will have a whole slate of America's Party candidates after petitioning for recognition (that's the plan for here in Maryland, where a party can get statewide ballot access with 10,000 valid petition signatures, while an independent presidential candidate would need several times that number).

When two million or so tea partiers came to DC, they were quite eloquent in saying "We want our country back!" Well, putting Tom Hoefling on the ballot in your state and then electing him is a great way to get our country back.

As for Tom's opinion about Sarah Palin, well, he finds much in her record that shows she doesn't come close to meeting the simple minimal criteria that America's Party uses to endorse candidates -- see http:/www.selfgovernment.us

11 posted on 05/11/2012 10:45:45 AM PDT by Steve Schulin (Cheap electricity gives your average Joe a life better than kings used to enjoy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Steve Schulin
DO NOT ping me via your list again.

I have zip, zero, nada interest in Tom Hoefling's "campaign".

12 posted on 05/11/2012 11:26:08 AM PDT by nutmeg (Thank you, Andrew Breitbart)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: deport

Bwahahaha!


13 posted on 05/11/2012 11:38:54 AM PDT by going hot (Happiness is a momma deuce)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Steve Schulin

Hoefling is an embarrassment and a self-aggrandizing megalomaniac.


14 posted on 05/11/2012 11:43:21 AM PDT by Chunga (Ron Paul is a fruitcakey jackass.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Steve Schulin

Yes, it was that misguided analysis of Palin that pushed me away from AIP. Many deep flaws, which I would peruse, but I’m at work tapping this out on my Droid, so not practical right now. Plus I don’t like arguing with people I regard as friends. It is possible to lose more than one gains with such conflicts.

But I am an unrelenting fan of Palin, whom I continue to regard as an exemplary and fully authentic conservative, and I will not sit passively by if and when those conservative credentials are attacked by insufficient arguments. She is for the unborn, she is for US sovereignty, she is for free markets, and representations to the contrary are, no matter the motive, false. She is one of our own and remains one of our best hopes for the political future of conservatism. She deserves better than to be sniped at by other conservatives whilst the greater enemy engulfs our trench line.


15 posted on 05/11/2012 12:15:51 PM PDT by Springfield Reformer (Winston Churchill: No Peace Till Victory!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Springfield Reformer; Drew68; Chunga; ansel12; nutmeg; mnehring
Watch the video HERE!
16 posted on 05/11/2012 1:11:12 PM PDT by Servant of the Cross (the Truth will set you free)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Springfield Reformer
Sarah Palin has a lot going for her, but there's a couple of points you make about her with which I disagree.

* You say she's for the unborn, for example. Well, she also thinks women have the right to choose abortion. I'm through with supporting any candidate who fails to oppose the legal fiction that any group of human beings is outside of the Constitutional protection against depriving any person of his or her life without due process.

* You also say she is for US sovereignty. Well, how do you explain her support for ratifying the 'Law of The Sea Treaty'?

If you're pro-life and pro-sovereignty, I hope you'll give America's Party and Tom Hoefling another look.

You also mention that Sarah Palin is pro-free market. Yet she did not speak out against the Bush-McCain-Obama bailout response to the fall 2008 financial disaster. America's Party candidates did strongly oppose the bailout. We pointed out that there was a much better way to solve the problem, and that it had been in our party platform since our formation: abolish the ability of federal government to tax income. The biggest advantages of this initiative have much more to do with liberty than with economic growth, but abolishing income tax would have quickly attracted investors to rush to put their money to work, and would have created an economic boom the likes of which has never been seen before. It's not too late to do this still, but we could have saved trillions of dollars worth of debt if we had done it in 2007-2008.

But the conventional wisdom among Republicans, Democrats, and the talking heads in the news media assured the public that there were two choices only: bailout or bust. That's very similar to the folks today who are saying we only have two choices for President: Obama or Romney.

17 posted on 05/11/2012 2:34:23 PM PDT by Steve Schulin (Cheap electricity gives your average Joe a life better than kings used to enjoy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Chunga
Hoefling is an embarrassment and a self-aggrandizing megalomaniac.

You left out oily, slippery, and incredibly rude and arrogant.

18 posted on 05/11/2012 3:28:24 PM PDT by ansel12 ( Obama, Romney,"Eurasia" "Eastasia" "Oceania" I can't keep up with the players anymore.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: ansel12; Chunga

I’ve been a FReeper since the Clinton administration — it was possible to read every post here in those early years, and all the comments too. I’m happy to assure everyone here that the criticisms of Tom Hoefling in this thread do not at all square with my experience. I’ve talked with Tom hundreds of times a year since first listening to him in 2007. I urge all of good will to come and talk to Tom for yourself on the Tuesday and Thursday night “America’s Summit” calls. He takes questions and joins in discussions with all comers. I’ve learned a lot from Tom over the years, and he’s always been gracious and uplifting to me and others. We continue to disagree on some policy matters, but we do agree with those ‘self-evident truths’ expressed in the Declaration of Independence, and much much more. It’s my pleasure to endorse our very own EternalVigilance — Tom Hoefling — for President this year. I’ll do what I can to get him the approximately 2-million votes to win Maryland’s electoral votes this year, and hope FReepers in other states will do likewise.


19 posted on 05/11/2012 4:29:01 PM PDT by Steve Schulin (Cheap electricity gives your average Joe a life better than kings used to enjoy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Steve Schulin

What color is the sky on your planet?


20 posted on 05/11/2012 4:35:33 PM PDT by Interesting Times (WinterSoldier.com. SwiftVets.com. ToSetTheRecordStraight.com.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Steve Schulin

Many of us here have experience with him, I wouldn’t support him for dog catcher, post 14 was an accurate description.

Your first comments page goes all the way back to 2004, you probably don’t have the incredibly negative experience with him here that many freepers do, especially the Palin supporters.


21 posted on 05/11/2012 4:52:18 PM PDT by ansel12 ( Obama, Romney,"Eurasia" "Eastasia" "Oceania" I can't keep up with the players anymore.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Steve Schulin

No Steve, it is a blatant misrepresentation to say she thinks women have the right to abortion. Her public statements concerning Roe have been wildly misconstrued. Even if the Roe decision had never been written, natural law suggests something like a right to privacy, i.e., to control of one’s own person. It is an essential element of personal, individual freedom. But one cannot extrapolate from that a belief in a woman’s right to commit murder, and to my knowledge Palin has never made such a statement.

What this really comes down to is whether prolife people can differ on strategy without devolving to name-calling and demonization tactics as a means of promoting their particular strategy. . If two people, A and B, hold the same basic belief about the right to life for the unborn, and both A and B are looking to bring an end to the practice, it is simply not moral, not honest, to say that A is not really prolife because they believe in a different strategy than B for accomplishing that same objective.

For example, I confess my own position on this began with an unexamined acceptance of the assumption that federal legislation was the best approach. However, after studying the question more closely, I now believe, as Palin does, that “our federalism” provides a more reliable path to actual success in eliminating abortion and saving real lives than to create federal bans. The federal government should be little more than a treaty organization between the several sovereign states, and I believe that is largely how it was regarded by many of the founders. So if California wants to go to hell, it is free to do so. The rest are free to outlaw abortion altogether. Under our federalism, the police power resides with the state, not the federal, and for excellent reasons.

US action against Hitler is sometimes offered as a justification for the notion of imposing natural law principles on renegade sovereign states. The argument is basically that state sovereignty ends where universal moral law begins. But the German conflict was the action of one sovereign state going to war against another sovereign state, and that decision was not made primarily to prevent remote atrocities happening overseas, but was born of a reasonable fear that those atrocities might reach our own shores were Hitler not stopped. I had relatives who worked on the Manhattan Project, and it is certain we had no choice but to engage Germany preemptively in order to beat them to the nuclear punch.

Thus, even in our response to Hitler’s Germany, our federal system was merely doing its most basic job, providing for the self-defense of our collection of hypothetically sovereign states. Sovereign states can and will do bad things. We are not God. Our powers to enforce good in the world, both pragmatic and moral, are limited. To think otherwise is hubris.

You see, the Hitler question is really an attempt to figure out the limit of that power to enforce good, as defined by the natural law. The Nuremburg trials provide an excellent study in the tension between state sovereignty and natural law. From them we learned that crimes against humanity can be committed even if the state itself is the sponsor of the crime. But to “arrest” the criminal, your state must wage a real war against his state, and you must win. Those are the rules for dealing with sovereign states, and though they are sometimes hard to accept, ultimately they promote both freedom and life.

The real irony is that AIP has staked out a position against surrender to UN sovereignty, and rightly so, but inconsistently argues for the further disintegration of boundaries of jurisdictional sovereignty among our own states. In this they are really following, not rejecting, the example set by the UN. The totalitarian impulses of the UN benefitted greatly from Nuremburg, in that for the first time an international body was given power to impose criminal sanctions on a sovereign state. From that seedling we now have an evil progeny arising, the UN Treaty on the Child, Treaty on the Sea, etc. And unlike us, unlike our federalism, they have no structural or ideological inhibition against exerting their growing police power across any and all jurisdictional boundaries.

Which is why the founders allocated the police power to the states. The federal may announce the charter of individual rights (and Palin has never, to my knowledge, objected to using the federal platform to do so with respect to the rights of unborn children), but it must respect the limitations of its own power. To turn the police power over to the federal is to concede the totalitarian premise.

Which is why Palin believes it is best to wage this war against the murder of the unborn state by state. In systems analysis we call this partitioning the problem. It is a very practical approach that has a very high probability of long-term success. She augments this strategy by exporting a culture of life, which is to wage real war, but to avoid bombs and bullets while saving lives, using persuasion as an adjunct to locally written and locally enforced laws.

Therefore, to sum it all up (and I know I’ve gone on quite long), it is a gross mischaracterization to castigate Palin as not prolife, simply because she espouses a strategy that strives for the same outcome all prolifers seek, but without destroying the indispensible benefits of state sovereignty. Some may not agree with her approach, but let us do keep it honest. She is as prolife as the day is long, and may in fact have the better roadmap for how to get us to a society where abortion is enforceably illegal because everyone really gets that it is murder, which cannot happen without first valuing life.


22 posted on 05/11/2012 5:46:50 PM PDT by Springfield Reformer (Winston Churchill: No Peace Till Victory!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: ansel12; Chunga; Servant of the Cross; Steve Schulin; EternalVigilance
Hoefling is an embarrassment and a self-aggrandizing megalomaniac.

You left out oily, slippery, and incredibly rude and arrogant.

LOL, very well said, both ansell2 and Chunga, although you left out "extremely sanctimonious" as well. Hundreds of FReepers agree, believe me.

Servant of the Cross and Steve Schulin: Take me off your stupid "Hoefling" ping lists... IMMEDIATELY.

23 posted on 05/11/2012 7:40:02 PM PDT by nutmeg (Defeat Obama 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: nutmeg
although you left out "extremely sanctimonious" as well. Hundreds of FReepers agree, believe me.

That should be on a plaque on his wall.

24 posted on 05/11/2012 8:21:33 PM PDT by ansel12 ( Obama, Romney,"Eurasia" "Eastasia" "Oceania" I can't keep up with the players anymore.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: ansel12

LOL!


25 posted on 05/11/2012 8:27:49 PM PDT by nutmeg (Defeat Obama 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: nutmeg

In reply to your freepmail, I don’t know, but EV as Leader of the Free World?? That cracks me up!! Obama move over!! There is a new EGO in town!!


26 posted on 05/11/2012 9:57:29 PM PDT by ansel12 ( Not voting Romney?? Then double up on down ticket races and your participation this election.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: nutmeg

Sorry Nutmeg

In that post, my first sentence was a "I don't know" to a question, and then I started posting a statement about EV's Presidential run that had nothing to do with your freepmail.

Now when I read post 26, I see that I made it look as though the parts of that post after the simple "I don't know" sentence to you, was a follow up to something that you had freepmailed me, and it wasn't.

Sorry about that sloppy merging of a quick answer to your freepmail, and then my totally separate tangent that I did on Hoefling as leader of the free world.

27 posted on 05/11/2012 11:15:03 PM PDT by ansel12 ( Not voting Romney?? Then double up on down ticket races and your participation this election.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Steve Schulin

You’ve managed to attract some notable FR detractors of mine from over the years, I see. I have to wonder how many of them will be voting for the most liberal governor in the history of the republic, or, short of that, who in the world they will put their sacred franchise behind.

Thanks Steve. You’re a good friend, and good man.


28 posted on 05/12/2012 1:42:03 AM PDT by EternalVigilance (We're not Republicans or Democrats. We're Americans. Visit SelfGovernment.US.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ansel12
Your presidential candidate despises Governor Sarah Palin.

I don't despise Sarah Palin. I simply disagree with her on public policy. I'm sorry you don't know the difference.

29 posted on 05/12/2012 1:47:20 AM PDT by EternalVigilance (We're not Republicans or Democrats. We're Americans. Visit SelfGovernment.US.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Springfield Reformer; Steve Schulin; BlackElk
For example, I confess my own position on this began with an unexamined acceptance of the assumption that federal legislation was the best approach. However, after studying the question more closely, I now believe, as Palin does, that “our federalism” provides a more reliable path to actual success in eliminating abortion and saving real lives than to create federal bans.

"Our federalism" does not include a right to alienate God-given rights, most notably the right to life. Never has, never will. Those rights precede and supercede all written constitutions and humanly-devised laws, coming as they did from God, not from men. Indeed, all officers of government, at all levels, have a sworn obligation to protect the lives of the people, all of the people. It's the primary reason for the existence of those governments and those offices, all of them.

"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..."

The federal government should be little more than a treaty organization between the several sovereign states...

We tried that, under the Articles of Confederation. It didn't work. That's why we have the Constitution we have, which is far more than a mere "treaty organization."

The real irony is that AIP [For the record, it is now AP] has staked out a position against surrender to UN sovereignty, and rightly so, but inconsistently argues for the further disintegration of boundaries of jurisdictional sovereignty among our own states.

Simply inaccurate. We support the exact boundaries of jurisdictional sovereignty that are laid out by our Constitution. We have a system of dual sovereignty, in which the people, via the Constitution, granted the national or general government some of the most important aspects of sovereignty, and the several states retained all of the other characteristics of sovereign states.

But the common defense is one area that both retain responsibility for, under our Constitution, although he general government is required to provide it. If they fail, of course the states retain the right to defend themselves. This is clear in the language of the Constitution. Anything else would have been nonsensical, frankly.

What is the common defense, sir? First and foremost it is the defense of the lives of the people, is it not?

Which is why Palin believes it is best to wage this war against the murder of the unborn state by state. In systems analysis we call this partitioning the problem. It is a very practical approach that has a very high probability of long-term success. She augments this strategy by exporting a culture of life, which is to wage real war, but to avoid bombs and bullets while saving lives, using persuasion as an adjunct to locally written and locally enforced laws.

Actually, that is not her position. She, like Gerald R. Ford, Ron Paul, John McCain, and Mitt Romney, believes the decision over whether or not to allow abortion should be left to the states. She's said so a number of times. Which is counter to the natural law premises of this free republic, to the principles of the Declaration of Independence, the stated purposes of the U.S. Constitution, all of them, and the explicit, imperative requirements of the Fifth, the Eighth and the Fourteenth Amendments.

"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."

I'm saddened to see someone of your intellect buying into the pro-choice for states, Stephen A. Douglas democrat, arguments.

30 posted on 05/12/2012 2:28:39 AM PDT by EternalVigilance (We're not Republicans or Democrats. We're Americans. Visit SelfGovernment.US.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: ansel12

I have been scouring the internet looking up information on this Heofling guy, and I have found some sites about him, none of them good. Didn’t he run the Keyes campaign which gave us Senator Obama in the first place? Those who know him best say that he is a nasty and incompetent person.

http://www.ballot-access.org/2012/02/29/alan-keyes-party-qualifies-for-florida-ballot/


31 posted on 05/12/2012 5:43:32 AM PDT by Mountain Bike Vomit Carnage (Oh good grief, is that the best you've got?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Mountain Bike Vomit Carnage

I’m Tom Hoefling. And those people are nuts.

I don’t use that title for people lightly either.


32 posted on 05/12/2012 2:13:19 PM PDT by EternalVigilance (We're not Republicans or Democrats. We're Americans. Visit SelfGovernment.US.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Mountain Bike Vomit Carnage

By the way, that is the absolute worst screen name I’ve ever seen on FR.


33 posted on 05/12/2012 2:14:03 PM PDT by EternalVigilance (We're not Republicans or Democrats. We're Americans. Visit SelfGovernment.US.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson