Posted on 04/02/2012 1:00:13 PM PDT by EternalVigilance
Tom Hoefling:
I believe...
We're One Nation Under God.
The first sworn duty of every officer of government is to protect the God-given, unalienable rights to life, liberty, and private property of every person, from creation to natural death.
The God-given institution of one man-one woman marriage and the natural family must be protected.
The right of the people to Keep and Bear Arms shall not be infringed.
Our national sovereignty, security, and borders must be defended.
Our republican form of representative self-government must be adhered to.
The oath of office to support and defend the Constitution of the United States must be fulfilled.
I also support the Platform of America's Party, and have signed the America's Party Leadership Pledge.
For Life, Liberty, and the Constitution,
-- Tom Hoefling (aka EternalVigilance )
Have you read the Equal Protection for Posterity Resolution?
It is now part of the America's Party Platform, and the heart of the America's Party Leadership Pledge.
We don't support candidates for any office in the land without adherence to its principles.
If they won't provide equal protection, as the Constitution imperatively requires, you can't count on them for anything.
Nothing personal of course.
"There are two ways to conquer and enslave a nation. One is by the sword and the other is by debt."
-- John Adams, 1826
Assuming for a moment that your assessment of me is correct, what is your principled, practical alternative to conservatives violating their conscience and selling out all principle to support a lying socialist?
This thread has 47 posts on it as I write. 30 of those posts are by you. How can you possibly imagine that you are creating a national party with you as its Presidential Candidate when you can only get three votes from a forum you've been posting on for over ten years?
Unless God has spoken to you directly, personally, ala burning bush type communication you are certifiable and you detract from every conservative position you have ever espoused. You detract from every conservative politician you have ever supported and you are the FR Poster Child for narcissism.
I absolutely believe that individual Freepers have affected national politics. But, this is whackjob central.
Jim, if I were you I'd ban Tom just so the nutbars on the left can't use his posts to slam FreeRepublic.com.
This is the kind of lunacy that makes Jorn Birchers look rational. Tom's postings on this thread discredit FR and Freepers just by being posted on the same forum.
Have a nice life.
TS
Perhaps the problem isn’t me. You might want to ponder that possibility, old friend.
Especially in light of the facts about where the conservatives in the GOP have arrived.
Are you going to be supporting Romney if he’s the Republican nominee?
“There remains the one standard that has not yet been universally used, namely, the choosing of candidates on moral grounds. A nation always gets the kind of politicians it deserves. When our moral standards are different, our legislation will be different. As long as the decent people refuse to believe that morality must manifest itself in every sphere of human activity, including the political, they will not meet the challenge of Marxism. Contemporary history proves that modern political leaders, devoid of a moral inspiration and relying solely on a mass basis (might makes right), proves ineffectual in time of crisis."
-- Fulton Sheen, “COMMUNISM and the CONSCIENCE of the WEST” -1948
-- George Washington, letter to James Madison, 1786
"If, to please the people, we offer what we ourselves disprove, how can we afterwards defend our work? Let us raise a standard to which the wise and the honest can repair. The event is in the hand of God."
-- George Washington
The Triumph of the Constitution
1966
Clinton Rossiter
The triumph of the Convention of 1787 is that in raising a standard to which the wise and honest could repair, it also raised one that met the threefold test of legitimacy, popularity, and viability.
One reason the Convention was able to strike the right balance between the urge to lead the people and the need to obey them, and between the urge to be noble and the need to be practical, was the disposition of most delegates to be “whole men” on stern principles and “halfway men” on negotiable details. Another was the way in which it worked with familiar details – the State Constitutions, the Articles of Confederation, the best of the colonial experiences – and thus presented the people with a constitution that surprised but did not shock.
Rejoicing in philosophy but despising ideology, putting a high value on reason but an even higher one on experience, interested in the institutions of other times and peoples but confident that their own were better, unafraid to contemplate the mysteries of the British Constitution but aware, in Wilson’s words, that it “cannot be our model,” the Framers kept faith with the American past even as they prepared to make a break with it. Indeed, the excellence of their handiwork is as much a tribute to their sense of continuity as to their talent for creative statesmanship. The Constitution was an ingenious plan of government chiefly in the sense that its authors made a careful selection of familiar techniques and institutions, then fitted them together with an unerring eye for form. It had very little novelty in it, and that, we with the aid of hindsight, was one of its strongest points.
A final reason – and also perhaps the most heartening lesson the Convention presents to supporters of Constitutional republics, was the process of give-and-take through which these masterful public men managed to create a Constitution that could be carried home with some confidence to every part of a sprawling country. While the process may have often seemed unnecessarily erratic and time wasting to those trapped in its midst, we can see that it was the only way in which self respecting representatives of free men could have pieced together a set of operational rules of government and, at the same time, settled their outstanding political differences. In doing these things so well, and so acceptably to all but a handful of their colleagues, the men of 1787 met the supreme test of the democratic assembly; they proved beyond a doubt that the whole was wiser than the parts, that the collective was more creative than any individual in it. No single man, nor even the most artfully constructed team of four or five, could have provided so wisely for the Constitutional needs of the American people as did the logic of reason that operated through the whole Convention.
All in all, it was a convincing demonstration of the truth that the highest political wisdom in a Constitutional republic lies in the assembly rather than in the individual lawmaker.
From Clinton Rossiter, 1787 The Grand Convention W.W. Norton & Co., 1966
Good Luck Tom.
It takes citizens that have truly lived by traditional American principles to understand yours.
It seems apparent that many Americans have abandoned theirs and have failed to transmit them to their offspring, leaving a drought of sympathetic individuals that will actually support your candidacy.
I am praying that there will be a miracle that will save our nation but in any case it will surely be a long road.
Thank God that many good men(and women) like you are still in the fight.
We've been drinking the Socialist potion for the better part of 100 years.
Obama is more like a bullet to the head.
I’m good with that.
Obama is a bullet to the head, and Romney is a bullet to the heart.
I too see that long road, and yet, all the while I remember that again today thousands of innocents will die in the abortion mills, contrary to the founding principles of the republic, all the stated purposes of our Constitution, and that document's explicit, imperative requirement that equal protection be provided to ALL.
NOTHING compares to the current Marxist POTUS in the White House. God help us if he wins reelection and is thus UNLEASHED for a second term.
But, apparently, all of you "no difference" people know something I don't. So, fill me in. Why should we expect 4 years of Willard to be any worse than 4 (or even 8) years of, say, G.H.W.Bush, Nixon or, even Clinton or Carter?
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.