-- Tom Hoefling
"The only Person with any legitimate "choice" in matters of protecting innocent life and defining marriage is God. And He made those choices at the beginning of His creation. The only real question left for us is whether or not we will dutifully conform our laws and practices to His choice, so as to be blessed, or to be a curse to our posterity."
-- Tom Hoefling
"Marriage wasn't created "in tradition and the law." It was created by God, at the very beginning. In just the same way "up" and "down" were created by God. It is what it is. Tradition and law are forced to deal with these realities, and to be just and non-destructive they have to conform to them, but they didn't create them. This is not a nitpick. It's very important. The camel's nose in the tent is the idea that men, or governments, have any kind of legitimate choice in matters of natural law."
-- Tom Hoefling
"When it comes to the right to life, and marriage, God has already decided. "You shall not murder." "What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder." So neither individuals, nor states, nor our national government, have any legitimate right to decide otherwise. All they have is DUTY. The absolute imperative DUTY to agree with nature, and nature's God, and through the laws, and the enforcement of those laws, to protect and preserve one man one woman marriage, and to provide EQUAL PROTECTION for the right to life of every single innocent human person. You may have the POWER to distort what God intended, but all you're doing when you exercise that illegitimate power is codifying injustice, and destroying your own form of republican self-government, and obliterating the very basis for the American claim to liberty."
-- Tom Hoefling
"The time has come for honest men to take consistent ground in politics, or the Lord will curse them. . . . God cannot sustain this free and blessed country, which we love and pray for, unless the Church will take right ground. Politics are a part of religion in a country such as this, and Christians must do their duty to the country as a part of their duty to God. God will bless or curse this country according to the course Christians take in politics."
-- Charles G. Finney, 1835, Revivals of Religion.
"Those who rebel against legitimate authority, in other words authority instituted and authorized by God for our own good, for our own protection, and the good and protection of others, shall not prosper. Conversely, neither will those who refuse to rise up against illegitimate power, against evil. Either way you're a slave, to your own selfish passions, or to a wicked outside force. Instead, let us once again be what our wise forebears were, the moral, self-governing, sovereign, free people of the United States, under Almighty God."
-- Tom Hoefling
A decade prior to the Civil War there were two major political parties in the United States:
Democrats, who favored freedom of choice to own slaves; and Whigs, who tried to be a big tent party to stem the loss of members to the Know-Nothing Party.
In Ripon, Wisconsin, anti-slavery activists met for the first time on February 28, 1854, then held their first State Convention in Jackson, Michigan, JULY 6, 1854.
This new political party took a stand on social issues regarding the value of human life, being against slavery.
Also, in response to a movement in Utah to redefine marriage, this new party stood for marriage being between one man and one woman.
They named their party "Republican."
The chief plank of the Republican Party was "to prohibit...those twin relics of barbarism: POLYGAMY AND SLAVERY."
Those attempting to redefine marriage were denounced by Republican President Ulysses S. Grant, December 4, 1871:
"In Utah there still remains a remnant of barbarism, repugnant to civilization, to decency, and to the laws of the United States...
Neither polygamy nor any other violation of existing statutes will be permitted...
They will not be permitted to violate the laws under the cloak of religion."
On December 7, 1875, President Grant stated:
"In nearly every annual message...I have called attention to the...scandalous condition of affairs existing in the Territory of Utah, and have asked for definite legislation to correct it.
That polygamy should exist in a free, enlightened, and Christian country, without the power to punish so flagrant a crime against decency and morality, seems preposterous...
As an institution polygamy should be banished from the land...
I deem of vital importance to....drive out licensed immorality, such as polygamy and the importation of women for illegitimate purposes."
Republican President Rutherford B. Hayes stated, December 1, 1879:
"Polygamy is condemned as a crime by the laws of all civilized communities throughout the world."
President Hayes stated December 6, 1880:
"The SANCTITY OF MARRIAGE and the FAMILY relation are the cornerstone of our American society and civilization."
Republican President Chester Arthur stated, December 6, 1881:
"For many years the Executive...has urged the necessity of stringent legislation for the suppression of polygamy...this odious crime, so revolting to the moral and religious sense of Christendom."
Supreme Court Chief Justice Morrison Waite, appointed by Republican Ulysses S. Grant, rendered the Murphy v. Ramsey, 1885, decision:
"Every person who has a husband or wife living...and marries another...is guilty of polygamy, and shall be punished...
No legislation can be supposed more wholesome and necessary in the founding of a free, self-governing commonwealth...than that which seeks to establish it on the basis of the idea of THE FAMILY,
as consisting in and springing from the union for life of ONE MAN and ONE WOMAN in the holy estate of matrimony; the sure foundation of all that is stable and noble in our civilization;
the best guaranty of that reverent morality which is the source of all beneficent progress in social and political improvement."
The stand against polygamy is in the comprehensive annotated John Quincy Adams-A Bibliography, compiled by Lynn H. Parsons (Westport, CT, 1993, p. 41, entry #194, Essay on Turks, 1827):
"Mohammed poisoned the sources of human felicity at the fountain, by degrading the condition of the female sex, and the allowance of polygamy."
Supreme Court Justice Stephen Field, appointed by Republican President Abraham Lincoln, rendered the Davis v. Beason, 1890, decision:
"Bigamy and polygamy are crimes by the laws of all civilized and Christian countries...
They...destroy the purity of the MARRIAGE relation...degrade woman and debase man...
There have been sects which denied...there should be any marriage tie, and advocated promiscuous intercourse of the sexes as prompted by the passions of its members...
Should a sect of either of these kinds ever find its way into this country, swift punishment would follow."
Justice Stephen Field concluded:
"The constitutions of several States, in providing for religious freedom, have declared expressly that such freedom SHALL NOT BE CONSTRUED TO EXCUSE ACTS OF LICENTIOUSNESS."
Republican President Theodore Roosevelt stated to Congress, January 30, 1905:
"The institution of MARRIAGE is, of course, at the very foundation of our social organization, and all influences that affect that institution are of vital concern to the people of the whole country."
The “lesser of two evils” philosophy is by definition godless Utilitarianism.
That philosophy excludes faith, the belief that if we will simply align ourselves with right, and do right, God will, in His good time, step in on our behalf.
It destroys the foundations of American independence, liberty, and self-government.
George Washington, and the rest of the founders, made constant reference to divine Providence, crediting that Providential Power as the Source for all their successes.
Unless we are willing to return to their attitude, and emulate their moral, courageous actions, there truly is no hope for the republic they fought so hard to establish.
“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
“We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.”
— Closing lines of the Declaration of Independence
As part of an ongoing discussion we have been having with certain influential national conservative Christian leaders concerning the dangerous, destructive fallacy of judicial supremacy, my wife Siena penned the response below. It is so good, and so important, that I asked her permission to republish it to a wider audience. I hope and pray that every reader will give serious thought to what she is saying. -- Tom H.
As we take the time to sort out the implications of the ongoing state-by-state attack on marriage, with the courts the primary culprits, I believe that most of us are still in the learning phase when it comes to the powers of the executive and legislative branches to check the judiciary.
Given the importance of the matter, anything and everything should be constitutionally explored to preserve our good inheritance for future generations.
Our federalist system was designed to preserve that inheritance as long as possible. When a state takes a blow in a manner destructive of its constitutional institutions, the federal government is most especially obliged to act.
We cannot lose sight of Article IV in the U.S. Constitution. Section 4 requires that the states (and the people) retain the ability to make laws to govern themselves. We read:
"The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government[.]"
This means, for instance, that an oligarchy of any sort is prohibited in the states. None but a state-by-state republic is permitted or guaranteed. And we know the word "guarantee" is a legal term, that carries with it the expectation of power and obligation to enforce the promise made.
The federal government is the body charged in Article IV with direct obligatory oversight, as an extra layer of protection to liberty, in order to secure the ability of the people in each state to make laws in their republic.
No branch of government anywhere, whether at the state or federal level, has the constitutional authority to impose oligarchical rule upon the body of the people. Nor does the Constitution tie our hands, or the hands of the chief executive and legislature, when the states are under attack. In its full context, Article IV, Section 4, explicitly names the executive and legislative branches as the chief instruments charged to provide ultimate protection to the states, to fulfill the purpose of federalism in the Constitution:
"The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government, and shall protect each of them against invasion; and on application of the legislature, or of the executive (when the legislature cannot be convened) against domestic violence."
When it comes to judicially-imposed radicalism, the Founders did not leave us without recourse. The federal government, in particular the executive and legislative branches, is bound by contract to make good on the republican guarantee of Article IV.
We are designed to be a nation of law, not of caprice. And "we the people" fought a revolution against tyrannical caprice just for the opportunity to make law in harmony with the laws of nature. If we look more closely at the legal instrument our Founders created, we see that they did not leave us unprotected. All we have lacked in modern times is the election of individuals who are wise and courageous enough to uphold their oath to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.
P.S. On the question of federal involvement in marriage, you may take a look at the Utah Enabling Act of 1894, in which Congress required the prohibition of polygamy for statehood. The Act fulfilled the obligation of Article IV, Section 2, to put the new state of Utah on equal footing with the original states. Article IV, Section 2, requires: "The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states."
Civil recognition of marriage between a man and wife is one of the primary privileges of a civil society. Inescapably, the federal government has the authority and duty to safeguard the exercise of that privilege for every state, in order to constitutionally "insure domestic tranquility."
For domestic tranquility's sake, the federal government maintains the power to oversee a singly exclusive form of marriage in all of the states, to thereby defend for posterity the natural obligations owed by parentage.
P.P.S. No matter its use, the word "domestic," Latin for "house," is inseparable from the idyllic concept of family life: father, mother, child. Even in the national sense, the word "domestic" alludes to family. As Webster's 1828 dictionary puts it, "Domestic . . . 4. Pertain[s] to a nation considered as a family." So it is that domestic violence hits us closest to home. I cannot help but think of Article IV, Section 4, in the context of abortion: a domestic violence in the closet possible place--the womb.
“I would rather be beaten and be a man than to be elected and be a little puppy dog. I have always supported measures and principles and not men. I have acted fearless[ly] and independent and I never will regret my course. I would rather be politically buried than to be hypocritically immortalized.”
-- Davy Crockett
"One may well ask: 'How can you advocate breaking some laws and obeying others?' The answer lies in the fact that there are two types of laws: just and unjust. I would be the first to advocate obeying just laws. One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws. I would agree with St. Augustine that 'an unjust law is no law at all.'
Now, what is the difference between the two? How does one determine whether a law is just or unjust? A just law is a man made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God. An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law.
...Thus it is that I can urge men to obey the 1954 decision of the Supreme Court, for it is morally right; and I can urge them to disobey segregation ordinances, for they are morally wrong. ...A law is unjust if it is inflicted on a minority that, as a result of being denied the right to vote, had no part in enacting or devising the law.
I hope you are able to see the distinction I am trying to point out. In no sense do I advocate evading or defying the law, as would the rabid segregationist. That would lead to anarchy. One who breaks an unjust law must do so openly, lovingly, and with a willingness to accept the penalty. I submit that an individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust, and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for law. Of course, there is nothing new about this kind of civil disobedience. It was evidenced sublimely in the refusal of Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego to obey the laws of Nebuchadnezzar, on the ground that a higher moral law was at stake. It was practiced superbly by the early Christians, who were willing to face hungry lions and the excruciating pain of chopping blocks rather than submit to certain unjust laws of the Roman Empire. To a degree, academic freedom is a reality today because Socrates practiced civil disobedience. In our own nation, the Boston Tea Party represented a massive act of civil disobedience.
We should never forget that everything Adolf Hitler did in Germany was 'legal' and everything the Hungarian freedom fighters did in Hungary was 'illegal.' It was 'illegal' to aid and comfort a Jew in Hitler's Germany. Even so, I am sure that, had I lived in Germany at the time, I would have aided and comforted my Jewish brothers. If today I lived in a Communist country where certain principles dear to the Christian faith are suppressed, I would openly advocate disobeying that country's antireligious laws."
-- Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., Letter from a Birmingham Jail
Toledo Chronicle, Tama News-Herald
Editor's Note: Republican candidate for governor Tom Hoefling was asked by The Chronicle for his reaction to the Toledo and Tama June 3 primary results which showed him out-polling Gov. Terry Branstad 64-57 in Toledo and losing by a single vote 41-40 in Tama.
Here was Hoefling's message received in an email on June 4:
"I would like to express my appreciation to the people of Toledo and Tama for their votes on Tuesday," "Your experience with the closing of the Iowa Juvenile Home is an object lesson in what happens when government gets it wrong. The real world isn't made up of the rhetoric of politicians, the machinations of lawyers, or entries on a bureaucrat's ledger. in fact, it consists of real people, real families, and real communities, who bleed when they're cut," Hoefling wrote.
"My prayers are with your community, that over the long haul, the spirit of your people will overcome this adversity."
“If any should say, it is in vain for them as individuals to be vigilant, zealous and firm in pursuing any measures for the security of our rights, unless all would unite: I would reply: Ages are composed of seconds, the earth of sands, and the sea of drops, too small to be seen by the naked eye. The smallest particles have their influence.
Such is our state, that each individual has a proportion of influence on some neighbor at least; he, on another, and so on; as in a river, the following drop urges that which is before, and every one through the whole length of the stream has like influence.
We know not, what individuals may do. We are not at liberty to lie dormant until we can, at once, influence the whole. We must begin with the weight we have. Should the little springs neglect to flow till a general agreement should take place, the torrent that now bears down all before it, would never be formed.
These mighty floods have their rise in single drops from the rocks, which, uniting, creep along till they meet with another combination so small that it might be absorbed by the travelers foot. These unite, proceed, enlarge, till mountains tremble at their sound.
Let us receive instruction from the streams, and without discouragement, pursue a laudable plan.”
-- Nathaniel Niles
"If you perform your part, you must have the strongest confidence that the same Almighty Being who protected your pious and venerable forefathers, who enabled them to turn a barren wilderness into a fruitful field, who so often made bare His arm for their salvation, will still be mindful of you, their offspring...May this Almighty Being graciously preside in all our councils. May He direct us to such measures as He Himself shall approve, and be pleased to bless. May our land be a land of liberty, the seat of virtue, the asylum of the oppressed, a name and a praise in the whole earth, until the last shock of time shall bury the empires of the world in one common undistinguishable ruin!"
-- Dr. Joseph Warren, March 5, 1772
Common Core Advocates Hail Tuesday Primaries As Vindication
Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2014/06/04/common-core-advocates-hail-tuesday-primaries-as-vindication/#ixzz33mIW6pn9
From Tom Hoefling's statement last night:
We fought the political status quo, and the status quo won an overwhelming victory.
In other words, nothing important has changed. Tomorrow, they will still be murdering innocent, helpless babies in our state, under the color of "law." Even though the supreme law of the land, and of our state, explicitly requires the equal protection of the right to life of every person.
Tomorrow, in Iowa, they will still be pretending to "marry" men to men, and women to women, even though such is an obvious violation of the laws of nature and nature's God, and the Iowa Code.
Tomorrow, in Iowa and across our land, judges will still believe, and act as if, they rule over us, and over our constitutions and laws, with few in the executive or legislative branches with the understanding, will, and courage to disabuse them of that false notion.
Tomorrow, in Iowa, the insidious Common Core final takeover of our local schools will continue apace, with the support of our incumbent governor and the rest of the political establishment.
Tomorrow, the leaders of the State of Iowa will still be pushing crony capitalism, ie legal plunder, ie state socialism, while pretending that it is "economic development."
Tomorrow, Iowa will still have the highest corporate tax rate in America, and one of the highest personal income tax rates in the country, higher than New York's.
And all of that is before we even have begun to discuss what is being done to us at the national level, and will continue to be done to us tomorrow, because We the People have not yet found the will to rein them in.
One last thing, on a more encouraging note. Tomorrow I will still have the best, most principled friends and supporters in Iowa. Maybe not enough of them yet, but hey, you have to start somewhere. 26,000 people is a lot of people!
God bless you all, thank you for all you've done, and good night...
For Iowa, for America, for our Posterity,
"It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in the minds of men." - Samuel Adams
My challenge of Terry Branstad in the GOP primary on Tuesday gives you a chance to send a powerful message.
If you oppose Branstad's Common Core takeover of our schools and his bloated state budget that's a billion dollars bigger than Chet Culver's, I need your vote.
If, like me, you find it unacceptable that we have the highest income tax rates in the country, and you want fundamental tax reform, I’m your guy.
If you're tired of the lip service to the principles you care about - on life, on marriage, on judges - and you're ready for conservative action, all you have to do to do is check Hoefling rather than Branstad on your ballot.
Please, on Tuesday, show up at the polls and help me strike a strong blow against the Republican status quo.
Thank you, and may God bless the people of Iowa.
2014 Republican candidate for Iowa Governor
American Right to Life national press release
Contact: Donna Ballentine, American Right To Life, 888-888-ARTL, office@AmericanRTL.org
DENVER, May 28, 2014 /Christian Newswire/ -- The following is submitted by Leslie Hanks President, and Jefferson George, Vice President, of American Right to Life:
Tom Hoefling, author of the Equal Protection for Posterity resolution, is candidate for Iowa Governor and believes in the God-given, inalienable right to life of his pre-born neighbors and equal protection for Iowa's posterity.
While there are a growing number of candidates who've decided enough is enough and are willing to fight the Crimes Against Humanity which have become an industry in America these past 40 years, Tom Hoefling has led the way in educating America about our founding documents and our citizens' God-given rights. Tom is owed a debt of gratitude by our nation for shining the light of truth in the darkness and educating about the infinite value of every human life in God's sight.
American Right to Life commends Tom Hoefling for being a true statesman, fighting to protect the lives & liberty of every citizen in Iowa, without exception, and for his determined efforts to re-establish the principles America was founded upon in our Declaration of Independence.
"Rights of persons. Section 1. All men are, by nature, free and equal, and have certain inalienable rights - among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety and happiness."
May 24, 2014
Today Iowa Right to Life didn't endorse me for Governor in the June 3rd Republican primary. Which is no surprise, since I didn't fill out their candidate questionnaire.
Because their language told me right up front that I couldn't possibly earn their endorsement, even though I've spent the last two decades as an uncompromising right-to-lifer, in political battles all across the land.
In order to answer their questions "correctly," I would have had to agree to support legislation that I know to be immoral, unconstitutional, illegal, and futile. Lawless "laws" that, in effect, end in "and then you can kill the baby," which grant express permission to commit most abortions, despite the fact that God forbids murder, without exception, and even though our Constitution explicitly and imperatively REQUIRES equal protection for the right to life of EVERY PERSON, in every jurisdiction in America. IT’S NOT OPTIONAL.
There are only two scriptural, moral, constitutional, legal, and political arguments against the practice of human abortion: 1) The God-given, unalienable, nature of the individual right to live, and 2) the absolute obligation borne by all officers of government, in every branch, at every level, to provide equal protection under the law. Those two all-important principles also happen to be the basis for the rule of law in America, and for our form of republican, constitutional self-government. Destroy those principles, as permitting abortion, any abortion, does, and you have obliterated the foundations of our American claim to liberty.
The bills that continue to be forwarded by IRTL, and their parent organization, National Right to Life, which they were asking me to agree to, surrender those arguments right up front.
Of course, they had no problem endorsing my opponent, Governor Terry Branstad.
Again, I’m not at all surprised. But here’s the problem with continuing to cede a “pro-life” label to politicians like Mr. Branstad: In order to write a truly pro-life bill, one that actually fulfills the explicit, absolute requirements of the Iowa and the U.S. Constitutions, that all persons be protected equally in their God-given, unalienable right to live, you have to erase Terry Branstad's, and Iowa Right to Life’s, entire "pro-life" legacy from the Iowa Code.
I know. I helped craft Tom Shaw's House File 138, which meets the moral and constitutional test of a true pro-life bill. In addition to rightly identifying the unborn child as a person, its language scrubbed all the unconstitutional Branstad/IRTL code sections that permit abortion.
Of course, the Branstad Republican establishment consistently insisted on burying HF-138 in sub-committee, while pushing even more unconstitutional "pro-life" legislation, so that they could then go out again and pretend to their naive pro-life constituency that they are doing something to stop this American holocaust.
Wake up, people. Read your own constitutions, and start demanding that those who represent you fulfill the primary purpose and duty of their offices, which is the defense of the supreme right of every single individual human being, the right to live.
"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..."