TomHoefling.com
  • HOME

Eight reasons abortion is not legal in America

6/20/2018

1 Comment

 
Tom Hoefling

June 20, 2017

1. God made mankind in His own image and likeness.

2. God strictly, explicitly forbade the murdering of any individual so made in His image and likeness.

3. The great minds of western civilization, from Cicero, down through Aquinas, and Blackstone, and Hamilton, and Adams, and Jefferson, and many others, posited the protection of the individual right to life as the first part of the natural law, and the first and most important reason for the existence of human government.

4. The founders of the American republic, in our national charter, the first part of the organic laws of the United States, the Declaration of Independence, asserted as self-evident truth that all men are CREATED equal by God, and are, each and every one, therefore endowed with the unalienable right to life, from the first moment of their creation.

5. The framers of the United States Constitution asserted as the crowning purpose of that Constitution the securing of the Blessings of Liberty to POSTERITY, ie those who are not yet born or even conceived.

6. The framers of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution forbade the taking of the life of any person without a fair trial on a capital offense.

7. The framers of the Fourteenth Amendment explicitly, imperatively REQUIRED the equal protection of every innocent person, and explicitly REQUIRED each and every state in the Union to provide equal protection under the law for that supreme God-given individual right.

8. Article Six of the U.S. Constitution REQUIRES every officer of government in this country, in every branch, and at every level of governance, to swear an oath to God to support and defend the Constitution, including its crucial equal protection requirements.

I don't know how it could be any clearer:

Abortion is NOT legal in America.

Every person must be provided equal protection under the law.

We don't need more legislation.

We don't need more constitutional amendments.

We have no obligation to obey the immoral, unconstitutional opinions of tyrants in black robes.

All we need is for public officers, especially in the executive branch, to keep their sacred oaths and provide equal protection to the innocents.

In order for that to happen, THE PEOPLE MUST FIRST MAKE THE DEMAND.

NO MORE COMPROMISE.

1 Comment

Double-minded Supreme Court leaves door open to religious discrimination

6/8/2018

0 Comments

 
RenewAmerica.com

Siena Hoefling
June 6, 2018

It was a decision that tossed a crumb to religious liberty with one hand, while it took the whole cake away with the other.

The "cake-baker case," properly called Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, convinced conservatives they had won a battle in the culture war.

But, contrary to widespread belief, the decision did not close the door on religious discrimination. Quite the opposite: the decision ended favorably on a technicality for the individual baker alone, and encouraged states to make new laws to hamper future religious freedom claims.

The Supreme Court held that the baker acted reasonably "at the time," because the controversy began in 2012, before Obergefell v. Hodges. To accommodate its hijacked changes to the political landscape, the Court in Cakeshop said states were free to enact laws that grant "gay persons" (a newly-crafted fictional term) "whatever products and services they choose on the same terms and conditions as are offered to other members of the public," no matter religious objections.

"The laws and the Constitution can, and in some instances must, protect gay persons and gay couples" – another fictional term – "in the exercise of their civil rights," wrote the Court. Religious objections are protected only in "some instances." What these instances are, the Court declined to detail, except to say that the right to refuse to bake a cake on religious grounds was not among them.

"The Court's precedents make clear that the baker, in his capacity as the owner of a business serving the public, might have his right to the free exercise of religion limited by generally applicable laws," the majority declared.

Not only does this judicial attitude leave every cake-baker vulnerable, it conceivably extends the arm of government to intrude upon the religious claims of any person or entity imaginable, even churches. For example, a state law could require churches to provide same-sex marriage rites – and that would be fine with SCOTUS, so long as the law was forced upon all churches, equally. Such is the doctrine of Cakeshop.

Conservatives should have been wary when they noticed that Cakeshop was written by Anthony Kennedy, author of Obergefell. Kennedy would have no conceivable inclination to walk back his own precedent, only to enlarge it. Predictably, his reasoning in Obergefell was expanded upon in Cakeshop, to the extent that it secured the support of Elena Kagan, one of the farthest-left justices in history.

No wonder the liberal Washington Post editorial board called Cakeshop "a step in the right direction."

While conservatives welcomed a Trojan Horse gift into their camp, the Post noticed the decision "laid the foundations for a more ambitious ruling in the future." The ambition it had in mind, of course, was to further diminish the role of traditional marriage and religion in society.

The Post applauded Cakeshop for siding with the judicial myth that the U.S. Constitution requires governmental "neutrality" toward religion. To have that extra-constitutional concept celebrated by conservatives is an important gain for liberals. In embracing Cakeshop, advocates for religious liberty are tricked into endorsing the invented doctrine of Sandra Day O'Connor's "endorsement test" and the 1971 "Lemon Test," which provide the basis for removing the Ten Commandments from the public square.

Conservatives missed it, but the Post understood that any religious victory in Cakeshop was limited to this particular cake-baker, and was of no use to religious liberty in general. Observed the Post: "Mr. Kennedy warned that the court could not, in the future, rule expansively in favor of a baker's religious claims." Indeed, the Court recognized no broad right to religious objection, because to do so, said the majority opinion, would "impose a serious stigma on gay persons" and impermissibly deny them marriage-oriented goods and services (including marriage rites?) for "moral and religious reasons."

What this means is that, as far as the Supreme Court is concerned, your religious liberty had an expiration date of June 26, 2015.

© Siena Hoefling


0 Comments

Iowa’s iniquitous heartbeat law

6/8/2018

0 Comments

 
Frederick Douglass

Siena Hoefling
June 7, 2018

News outlets say Iowa has passed “the nation’s strictest legislation,” that “bans most abortions.” One report called it a “total abortion ban.” Iowa’s fetal heartbeat bill, S.F. 359, supposedly prohibits abortions after six weeks. Upon signing the bill, Governor Kim Reynolds said, “I understand and anticipate that this will likely be challenged in court.”

Lawmakers welcomed the legal battle. Some said the law was designed to “take a run at” “overturning” Roe v. Wade.

Three years ago, another heartbeat law from North Dakota met defeat in the 8th Circuit, which covers Iowa. The Supreme Court declined to hear that case.
Supporters of the Iowa law say this time is different, because Antonin Scalia has been replaced by Neil Gorsuch. The junior justice, however, has indicated a respect for abortion precedent. In his U.S. Senate hearing, Gorsuch called Roe v. Wade “the law of the land,” and emphatically asserted its doctrine that “a fetus is not a person.” “That’s the law of the land,” insisted Gorsuch. “I respect the law of the land.”

Legal experts predict the Iowa heartbeat law will die in the courts at the hands of precedent. Since 1992, state-level abortion regulations have been judged by the “undue burden” test that sprang out of the Republican-led Rehnquist court in Planned Parenthood v. Casey. An undue burden, according to Casey, is a “substantial obstacle in the path of a woman seeking an abortion.” Based on that precedent, the Iowa heartbeat law “is likely to be struck down,” says Drake law professor Renee Cramer, because she said it prohibits abortion before most women know they are carrying a child.

But imagine that the Supreme Court hears the case, Gorsuch changes his view of precedent, and the majority sides with the heartbeat law. Is that a victory for life? Are babies now protected? Is Roe “overturned”?

No.

The Iowa heartbeat law does not challenge Roe. It simply replaces one arbitrary standard with another. Even if the courts embrace the heartbeat law, we are no better off — perhaps we’re worse — and the destructive jurisprudence of Roe is left in place.

To be victorious against Roe and all its mischief, the Iowa law would have to go to the heart of the matter, which is not the heartbeat.

Iowa’s S.B. 359, now codified, cheapens life and enables abortion without restraint. Reports of a prohibition on “almost all abortions” are false. The heartbeat law is a mishmash of baseless exceptions and exploitable loopholes that effectively grant abortion to anyone willing to play around with a little paperwork. The whole ordeal can take place privately, without any accountability or consequence.

The rape and incest exceptions enable a woman to kill her child upon a bare, unsubstantiated report to her doctor. No trial, no adjudication is required. No due process is given the child. Authorities need not be involved. The supposed perpetrator can remain anonymous, and get away with the alleged “crime.” All the doctor has to do is say that the woman notified him within forty-five days of a claimed rape, and the baby can be killed up to twenty weeks. (Or later. Who would know?) For “incest,” one-hundred-forty days are granted to the woman to report the alleged incident to the doctor — again, without proof.

This is abortion without restraint. Not only are doctors allowed to fib on the paperwork without consequence, they suffer no penalty for bending the “rules” to commit an abortion on their own terms. (This is true of the Iowa heartbeat bill, even without the exceptions.) Mothers of the dead children are specifically exempt from prosecution — free to destroy their precious offspring and to lie.

But it gets worse. Not only do these loopholes discard the lives of children upon hearsay regarding the status of their fathers, but shockingly, the Iowa heartbeat law adds an exception that echos the first Nazi eugenics program, Aktion T4, which gave physicians godlike power over life and death.

By a provision targeted at killing the disabled, the Iowa code now empowers doctors to identify and then destroy any child in the womb they label “incompatible with life.” Although some outlets claim that this exception is designed to kill off babies who would die anyway, the superfluous exception is a violation of the right to life, by grotesque excuse. The label can be attached arbitrarily, without due process of law, to kill any baby and make the community complicit in euthanasia.

The Nazis called it administering Gnadentod (gracious death) to the incurably sick, whose lives were considered worthless. Technologies for mass-murdering these disabled victims later found implementation on a larger scale in the concentration camps. The T4 program emboldened the Nazis to violate the right to life, sanitize murder, and enable the wider Holocaust by the deadened conscience of a nation.

Similarly to the Iowa heartbeat law, the Germans labeled their “incurable” victims “Lebensunwertes Leben”: “life unworthy of life.”

Strangely, the Iowa law echos the Nazi program in another indefensible way. Now the euthanasia of Iowa babies with “fetal abnormalities,” along with the killing of babies of alleged rape and incest parentage, is codified as “medically necessary.”

Medically necessary? “Necessary” is a dangerous word to toss around in a code book. When the government uses that terminology for killing a child, you know we are walking in territory foreign to human rights.
By defining the lives of some children as “incompatible with life,” and codifying their killings as “medically necessary,” Iowa’s heartbeat law is a closer champion of eugenics than a foe of Roe.

Once Iowa determined to exempt some children from protection, none were safe. It’s an inevitable consequence.

But even supposing a heartbeat law exists without added exceptions, the bare proposition that we shall exclude the smallest babies from protection is an indefensible, man-made exception to the right to life. Detached from claim that we are all endowed with rights by our Creator, and due the equal protection of government in our lives, the “heartbeat” concept is intrinsically immoral.

The smallest human life must be protected because to do otherwise is an offense to God. “Thou shalt not kill,” said the Lord. For killing the “least of these,” we do it unto Him. (Matthew 25:32–46)

A heartbeat law, in any iteration, sanctions killing the “least.” When the “least” is your own offspring as a nation, and you have no heart for them, your land deserves the curses that come. (Malachi 4:6)

Even before the Iowa bill was amended with new exceptions, its arbitrary standard, like Roe, treated the smallest children as non-human beings, unworthy of equal protection and due process. The right to life was discarded for a doctor’s perception of “repetitive” and “rhythmic” contractions of the heart. Excluded, for no reason, are those children whose heartbeats aren’t detected — or, more accurately, weren’t “repetitive” or “rhythmic” enough to suit the abortion doctor, whose own heart is hardened against the womb-bound child.

Contrary to the hope that this is a worthy counter to Roe, the heartbeat standard is its regurgitation, lapped up again. (Proverbs 26:11) Rather than assert the right to life of every child, the heartbeat standard accepts the core error of Roe: that unborn persons are not due equal protection of the laws.

American government owes its existence to the unassailable truth that “all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights,” including the right to life. “To secure these rights,” equally among the weak and strong, the disabled and able-bodied, the young and old, “Governments are instituted among men.” Although our nation ignored the requirements of that universal principle in its tolerance and practice of slavery, over time the demands of justice prevailed. We ceased our infidelity, and renewed our vows to the Declaration of Independence.

Like the American slave system of bygone days, Roe v. Wade trampled underfoot the eternal, moral law of human equality. Rather than change course, the heartbeat standard follows Roe’s deadly footsteps, and treats the right to life as an uncertain right, to be bestowed by the whims of men. Substituted for equality is the counterfeit design of tyrants who treat human beings as unequal subjects, unendowed by God with fixed rights that are the only guard against an ever-shifting, capricious government.

In its invention of a trimester system that pretends to know which children shall live and which shall die, Roe presents an iniquitous favoritism. The heartbeat standard likewise assumes the lie that the right to life is variable and man-made — as if government can protect life for some and not others — and joins Roe in treating the unborn child as unequal to ourselves.

Beyond logic, many opponents of Roe claim to believe in the Declaration of Independence while they violate its precepts in such legislation as the Iowa heartbeat law. They claim to “save some,” by offering laws that explicitly and implicitly exclude others. But making a detectable heartbeat determinative of the right to life only joins Roe in creating a tool of arbitrary oppression. By discarding the smallest babies, heartbeat laws grant permission for their deaths. Even if the hidden intent was to de facto “ban” abortion without providing full protection, as some headlines supposed of the Iowa law, the abandonment of equality is not worth the price of clever obliqueness.

As soon as you abandon equality under the law, and you grant governmental permission to murder some of the babies, you have removed the basis for protecting any. Before you know it, those you aimed to protect are exposed to harm, because rights bestowed by government today are gone tomorrow.

Regulationists of abortion, who wish to “chip away” at Roe v. Wade rather than immediately apply the justice described in the Declaration, say that they have no choice but to compromise. Yet “compromise” suggests a gain for both sides.
But nothing is gained by the “pro-life” side when it crafts statutes that dehumanize the child, promote inequality, deny the God-given rights that our Declaration calls certain, embolden doctors to commit atrocities, and grant permission in our statutes to kill babies — as does the Iowa heartbeat law.
Due to its lack of restraint on human behavior, the Iowa heartbeat law does nothing but cover for abortion. At worst, it might be called a toothless fraud, or at best, an act of timidity.

To its sincere advocates, we might ask the scriptural question: shall we “do evil, that good may come?” Can injustice fight injustice? We should recall that the scripture commands, “Be not overcome of evil, but overcome evil with good.” (Romans 12:21)

And, “Depart from evil and do good.” (Psalm 34:14)

And, “Be ye doers of the word, and not hearers only.” (James 1:22)

The great abolitionist Frederick Douglass said that one of the greatest obstacles to ending slavery was the “heresy” that “slavery will be abolished just when the Lord shall will its abolition.” That complacent attitude delayed slavery’s end and needlessly extended the suffering. “It is a delusion and a snare, to think that Almighty God will undertake for us any farther than we undertake for ourselves. His work is done: ours alone remains to be done,” wrote Douglass to The Liberator.

“When a slave, I used to pray that the Lord would give me freedom,” he recollected. “And I might have prayed in slavery until this time, had I not ‘prayed with my heels.’”

He added, “Our works must be consistent with our prayers, otherwise they are an abomination before God.” Douglass recalled this was an epiphany that led him out of bondage.

Frederick Douglass spoke of the delayed abolition of slavery in the West Indies. Everyone, even the noble-hearted William Wilberforce, thought immediate emancipation was impractical or undesirable. Douglass spoke of the principled change that enabled freedom:

"Gradual emancipation was the most ultra idea then broached; and though tame, insipid, and stale, it was at the first a terrible note to the slaveholder, as well as their abettors. It, however, lost its power to stir the souls of its friends, or disturb the fears of its foes. The cause languished. Everybody was in favour of gradual abolition, but no one was ready for action now. After twenty years of toil to promote gradual abolition, — the cause dragging heavily along — while those noble men were hesitating about what they should do to infuse spirit into the Anti-Slavery ranks, and to accomplish their noble purpose, a woman, with the head of a prophetess, and the heart of an angel, came to instruct and strengthen their faltering ranks. She taught that what is right, is reasonable; and that what ought to be done, can be done, and that immediate emancipation was the right of the slave, and the duty of the master. Her heavenly counsel was heeded. Wilberforce was converted. The agitation now went on with vigour. They organized committees, appointed agents, and sent forth lecturers into all parts of the country. They printed tracts, and circulated their views through the press in various ways, till they succeeded in impressing the public mind favourably to their objects, and created that tide of public opinion which demanded immediate and unconditional freedom to the West Indian slave." (Douglass, 1850 speech on West India emancipation)

“What ought to be done, can be done,” was the rallying cry that, according to Frederick Douglass, freed the British slave. Faith in righteous action — not half-way, toothless measures — has the power to stir souls against atrocity.

After nearly fifty years of American toleration of abortion, it is time to abandon the insipid, compromised delays of failed “pro-life” strategies. As with the original abolitionists, we must awaken to the right of the child to be protected, and the immediate duty of government to provide equal protection.

Frederick Douglass urged the American people to never let go of the principles that end injustice:

"I have said that the Declaration of Independence is the ring-bolt to the chain of your nation’s destiny; so, indeed, I regard it. The principles contained in that instrument are saving principles. Stand by those principles, be true to them on all occasions, in all places, against all foes, and at whatever cost." (“What to the Slave is the Fourth of July?”, 1852)

A return to the saving principles of the Declaration — and nothing less — will bring about a swift end to the slaughter of our nation’s children.

After decades of diversion, American abortion has not ended — not because that prospect is impossible, but because the Declaration was abandoned by its friends, and the proper, constitutional means have sat on parchment, collecting dust.

Frederick Douglass argued the Constitution was sufficient to end slavery, even before the passage of the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments. The basis for that insight was that the Constitution can only be judged by its written text (which was anti-slavery, he said), and by its stated intentions — the interpretive text we call the preamble:

"We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this constitution for the United States of America."

“Interpreted as it ought to be interpreted,” said Douglass, “the Constitution is a GLORIOUS LIBERTY DOCUMENT. Read its preamble, consider its purposes. Is slavery among them?”

Or, is abortion among them? No. A constitution intended to establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, all in united fashion for ourselves and our posterity, has no baby-killing agenda.

At the outset, the Constitution explicitly states it is written for posterity: our nation’s children. Every clause expresses that warm affection. The founders knew that fully establishing justice was a future gift to be enjoyed by future generations — if the previous generations would stay the course.

But if the Constitution was intended to destroy posterity, to spill the blood of tiny babies, to forfeit the life of the most vulnerable child, to make Americans into selfish brutes who curse and kill their children, the document would have left no doubt.

“Be it remembered that the Constitution nowhere forbids a colored man to vote,” said Douglass in 1860. Likewise, be it remembered that the Constitution nowhere forbids a child to live.

Interpreted as it ought to be interpreted, the Constitution is a glorious life-protecting document. Our error today is that we have mistaken the opinions of judges for law.

Frederick Douglass contrasted the American form of government with that of Great Britain, which relies on court precedent (case law) to settle modern problems by old conventions. The British system has no written constitution, so its precedent is law. The United States, on the other hand, has a written Constitution that binds all of government to its purposes, and cedes no lawmaking power to the courts:

"What, then, is the Constitution? I will tell you. It has no vague, indefinite, floating, unsubstantial, ideal something, colored according to any man’s fancy, now a weasel, now a whale, and now nothing. On the contrary, it is a plainly-written document, not in Hebrew or Greek, but in English, beginning with a preamble, filled out with articles, sections, provisions, and clauses, defining the rights, powers, and duties to be secured, claimed, and exercised under its authority. It is not even like the British Constitution, which is made up of enactments of Parliament, decisions of courts, and the established usages of the government. The American Constitution is a written instrument full and complete in itself. No court in America, no congress, no president, can add a single word thereto, or take a single word therefrom. It is a great national enactment done by the people, and can only be altered, amended, or added to by the people." (Douglass, 1860 debate in Scotland)

“I repeat,” said Douglass, “the paper itself, and only the paper itself, with its own plainly-written purposes, is the Constitution.”

Neil Gorsuch was right to pledge respect for “the law of the land.” But he forgot to read his Constitution. “The law of the land” that Gorsuch swore to uphold is not Supreme Court rulings or precedent.

Gorsuch swore allegiance to that Constitution, and to the impartial administration of justice. Articles I and II make clear that courts are not empowered with the ability to create law, or to apply “case law.” (As in Great Britain.) No oath imposes allegiance to Roe v. Wade nor does the Constitution allow court precedent to be treated as “the law of the land.” The U.S. Constitution has that supreme title, and it does not countenance the taking of innocent human life, only its protection.

Above other governments in recorded history, our government was dedicated to the loftiest and purest of purposes. Ours was made to defend the defenseless, and to secure a blessed land for our children. Ours was not designed to create a nation of baby-killing barbarians. Ours was not designed to make us captives of courts. Unlike every nation that came before, our government belongs in our hands, with a written constitution that justly secures the God-given rights of all.

What can be done about Roe v. Wade? Elect officials who will ignore it, check and balance the judiciary, uphold their oath to the Constitution, enforce equal protection for posterity, and stop making laws that conform to Roe’s deadly standard.

If not to protect the weakest among us, why have a government?


0 Comments
    Picture

    Dial in to talk to
    Tom Hoefling:

    America's Summit, Restore the Republic National Town Hall

    Every Tuesday and Thursday evening
    9 pm Eastern
    712-432-3566  passcode: 340794#

    Categories

    All
    2014 IA Governor's Race
    2016
    9-11
    Abolition
    Abolitionism
    Abortifacients
    Abortion
    Abortion Abolition
    Abraham Lincoln
    Abuse
    Accomplishment
    Accountability
    Achievement
    Aclu
    Action
    Activism
    Acts
    Adoption
    Adrian Rogers
    Agriculture
    Alan Keyes
    Albert Gallatin
    Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
    Alexander Hamilton
    Allegience
    Almighty
    Ambition
    America
    America\\\\
    American Revolution
    America's Party
    America's Party
    Americas Party
    Americas Summit
    Amnesty
    Anguish
    Answers
    Antonin Scalia
    Anwr
    Appearances
    Appeasement
    Arena
    Arizona
    Armed Forces
    Arms
    Assembly
    Association
    Attitude
    Authority
    Ballot Access
    Barry Goldwater
    Basis
    Bayonet
    Benevolence
    Benjamin Franklin
    Benjamin Rush
    Betrayal
    Bible
    Bill Fortenberry
    Bill Of Rights
    Birthright
    Bishop Daniel Jenky
    Blessings
    Blindness
    Blood
    Bob Enyart
    Bondage
    Borders
    Border Security
    Brush Fires
    Bureaucracy
    California
    Calvin Coolidge
    Campaigns
    Canada
    Cannibalism
    Caring
    Carl Gallups
    Catholic
    Cause
    Certainty
    Cesare Beccaria
    Chains
    Change
    Chaplains
    Character
    Charity
    Charles Carroll
    Charles De Monesquieu
    Charles Finney
    Checks And Balances
    Child Abuse
    Children
    Choice
    Christ
    Christianity
    Christians
    Christmas
    Chuck Colson
    Church
    Circular Reasoning
    Citizens
    Civil Disobedience
    Civilization
    Civil Liberty
    Colorado
    Commander In Chief
    Commerce
    Commerce Clause
    Common Core
    Common Defense
    Common Sense
    Communism
    Communists
    Community
    Compromise
    Concord
    Conduct
    Confidence
    Congress
    Conscience
    Consensus
    Consent Of The Governed
    Conservatism
    Conservative Movement
    Conservatives
    Constitution
    Consumption
    Contest
    Continental Congress
    Contraception
    Controversy
    Corrie Ten Boom
    Corruption
    Cost
    Country
    Countrymen
    Courage
    Courts
    Creator
    Criminal
    Crisis
    Cs Lewis
    Danger
    Daniel Webster
    Dave Racer
    David Berman
    Davy Crockett
    Dc
    Deadgop
    Death
    Debasement
    Debate
    Debra Raba
    Debt
    Decay
    Deception
    Declaration
    Declaration Of Independence
    Deeds
    Defeat
    Defense
    Deficits
    Democracy
    Denial
    Dependence
    Dependence On God
    Des Moines Register
    Despair
    Despotism
    Destiny
    Destruction
    Deterrence
    Devotion
    Diplomacy
    Disarmament
    Disgrace
    Dissolution
    Disunity
    Divinity
    Dobbs V Jackson
    Doctrines
    Donald Trump
    Douglas Mac Arthur
    Dream Act
    Drilling
    Due Process
    Duties
    Duty
    Dwight Eisenhower
    Dwight Moody
    Earnings
    Easter
    Economics
    Economy
    Edmund Burke
    Education
    Efficiency
    Egypt
    Electability
    Elections
    Electorate
    Empathy
    Encouragement
    Encroachment
    Enemies
    Energy
    Enterprise
    Enthusiasm
    Entitlement
    Entrepreneurs
    Enumerated Powers
    Environmentalism
    Epa
    Equality
    Equal Protection
    Equal Protection
    Error
    Eternity
    Ethics
    Evil
    Exceptions
    Executive
    Executive Orders
    Exertion
    Expedience
    Facts
    Faith
    Family
    Farm
    Fathomless
    Fear
    Fear Of God
    Federalism
    Federalist
    Felicity
    Fifth Amendment
    Fight
    Finance
    Fire
    Firmness
    First Amendment
    First Principles
    Fisher Ames
    Flattery
    Florida
    Force
    Forebears
    Foreign Policy
    Forgetfulness
    Foundation
    Foundations
    Founders
    Fourth Of July
    Franklin Pierce
    Frederick Bastiat
    Frederick Douglass
    Fred Upton
    Free Association
    Freedom
    Free Enterprise
    Free Exercise
    Freeman
    Free Men
    Free Speech
    Free The First
    Freshness
    Friendship
    Fruitfulness
    Fulton Sheen
    Gas
    Gasoline
    Gay Marriage
    Gaza
    Geldings
    General Welfare
    George Frederick Handel
    George Mason
    George Orwell
    George Washington
    Germany
    Gifts
    GK Chesterton
    Glory
    God
    God-given
    Good
    Goodness
    Gop
    Gospel
    Governemnt
    Government
    Government Of The People
    Government Schools
    Grace
    Gratitude
    Greatness
    Ground
    Growth
    Guardians
    Gulag
    Gullibility
    Guns
    Hamas
    Happiness
    Harlan Brown
    Heart
    Hearts
    Heaven
    Heavens
    Heritage
    Hhs
    Hillary Clinton
    History
    Hoefling Vs Branstad
    Homosexual Agenda
    Homosexual Agenda
    Honesty
    Honor
    Hope
    Humanism
    Human Nature
    Human Will
    Humility
    Humor
    Hungary
    Ideas
    Idleness
    Ignorance
    Illegal
    Illegal Immigration
    Illinois
    Illusion
    Immigration
    Impartiality
    Impeachment
    Incitement
    Income Tax
    Incrementalism
    Independence
    Independents
    Industry
    Inequality
    Influence
    Information
    Inheritance
    Iniquity
    Innocents
    Institutions
    Insurrection
    Intelligence
    Interests
    Interview
    Interviews
    Iowa
    Iran
    Islam
    Israel
    James Madison
    James Monroe
    James Wilson
    J D Ellis
    J.D. Ellis
    Jesus
    Jesus Christ
    Jobs
    Joel Hilliker
    John Adams
    John Hancock
    John Hofmeister
    John Jay
    John Kennedy
    John Langdon
    John Locke
    John Marshall
    John Paul Jones
    John Phillip Sousa
    John Witherspoon
    Joseph Story
    Joseph Warren
    Judgement
    Judicial Supremacy
    Judicial Supremacy
    Judicial Tyranny
    Judicial Tyranny
    Judiciary
    Jurisdiction
    Just
    Justice
    Kelly Oconnell
    Keystone
    King
    Knowledge
    Kyl
    Labels
    Labor Department
    Law
    Lawless
    Law Of Nature
    Laws
    Laws Of Nature
    Laws Of Nature And Nature's God
    Lawyers
    Leader
    Leadership
    Legislature
    Legitamacy
    Legitimacy
    Leo Xii
    Lesser Of Two Evils
    Lexington
    Liberals
    Liberty
    License
    Licentiousness
    Lies
    Life
    Light
    Limited Government
    Local
    Location
    Louisiana
    Love
    Loyalty
    Lyman Beecher
    Madison
    Magistrate
    Majority
    Malcolm Muggeridge
    Malice
    Mandate
    Mankind
    Manners
    Marbury Vs Madison
    Margaret Thatcher
    Marines
    Mark Twain
    Marriage
    Martin Luther King
    Mary Wagner
    Materialism
    Maturity
    Media
    Medicine
    Men
    Mengele
    Mercenaries
    Messiah
    Michael Barone
    Mike Huckabee
    Military
    Milton Friedman
    Minds
    Minority
    Minutemen
    Miracles
    Misery
    Mitt Romney
    Moderates
    Moderation
    Money
    Montgomery
    Morality
    Moral Law
    Morals
    Moses
    Motto
    Murder
    Nathaniel Niles
    Nation
    National
    National Anthem
    National Defense
    National Security
    Nations
    Natural Family
    Natural Law
    Natural Right
    Natural Rights
    Nature
    Navy
    Nazis
    Nazism
    Nccrb
    Necessary And Proper
    Necessity
    Neighbor
    New Orleans
    Nobodies
    Nomination
    Nukes
    Null And Void
    Nullity
    Oath
    Oathbreakers
    Oaths
    Obama
    Obamacare
    Object
    Obligation
    Odds
    Office
    Oil
    Old Glory
    Opportunity
    Oppression
    Order
    Ownership
    Panic
    Parasite
    Parental Rights
    Party
    Pastor Cary Gordon
    Patrick Henry
    Patriotism
    Patriots
    Peace
    Peace Through Strength
    Pearl Harbor
    Pennsylvania
    Pentagon
    Perish
    Permanency
    Perseverance
    Persistence
    Personality
    Personhood
    Persons
    Peter Muhlenberg
    Petition
    Philosophy
    Pipeline
    Platform
    Poetry
    Policy
    Political Expediency
    Political Parties
    Politicians
    Politics
    Posterity
    Poverty
    Power
    Powers
    Pragmatism
    Prayer
    Preach
    Preservation
    President
    Press
    Principle
    Principles
    Priority
    Privileges
    Process
    Productivity
    Profitability
    Profligacy
    Progress
    Pro-life
    Property
    Property Government
    Property Rights
    Proportion
    Prosperity
    Protection
    Protest
    Providence
    Psalms
    Public Councils
    Public Debt
    Public Opinion
    Public Spirit
    Purpose
    Quid Pro Quo
    Radio
    Raise A Standard
    Rally
    Ralph Waldo Emerson
    Reagan
    Real Economics
    Reason
    Rebellion
    Reconciliation
    Rectitude
    Redress Of Grievances
    Refineries
    Reflection
    Regulation
    Regulationism
    Regulations
    Religion
    Religious Liberty
    Repentance
    Representatives
    Republic
    Republican Government
    Republicanism
    Republican Party
    Republican Party
    Republicans
    Republics
    Reputation
    Resolution
    Resolve
    Resources
    Responsibility
    Restoration
    Resurrection
    Revelation
    Revenue
    Revival
    Revolution
    Rhetoric
    Riches
    Right
    Righteousness
    Rights
    Right To Life
    RKBA
    Robert Winthrop
    Roe Vs Wade
    Romney
    Romney Republicanism
    Romneyrepublicans
    Ronald Reagan
    Ronald Reagan
    Ron Paul
    Rubio
    Ruin
    Rule Of Law
    Russia
    Sacred
    Sacrifice
    Safety
    Salvation
    Samuel Adams
    Samuel Alito
    Sanity
    Savings
    Science
    Scott Mahurin
    Secession
    Second Amendment
    Security
    Self Defense
    Self Evident
    Self Government
    Self Government
    Self Government
    Self-Government
    Selflessness
    Sensibilities
    Separation Of Powers
    September 11
    Servitude
    Seth Riggio
    Shakespeare
    Sheen
    Siena Hoefling
    Sight
    Silence
    Sin
    Slavery
    Socialism
    Socialized Medicine
    Society
    Socrates
    Soldiers
    Sophistry
    Sousa
    Sovereignty
    Soviet
    Speech
    Spending
    Spirit Of God
    Spiritual Strength
    Stalin
    Star Spangled Banner
    State
    States
    Statesmanship
    Statism
    Sterilization
    Strength
    Struggle
    Subservience
    Subsidies
    Success
    Suffering
    Summit
    Supply
    Supreme Court
    Surrender
    Survival
    Tax
    Taxation
    Taxes
    Tea Party
    Technology
    Temper
    Tenancy
    Tenche Cox
    Tenth Amendment
    Terrorism
    Texas
    The Almighty
    The Crisis
    The Law Of God
    The Lord
    Theodore Roosevelt
    The People
    The Republic
    The State
    Thomas Edison
    Thomas Jefferson
    Thomas Paine
    Thomas Sowell
    Thought
    Thrift
    Timidity
    Tom Hoefli
    Tom Hoefling
    Tom Hoefling
    Tom Shaw
    Tradition
    Traitors
    Trust
    Truth
    Tyranny
    Tyrants
    Ukraine
    Unalienable
    Unalienable Rights
    Union
    United Nations
    Unity
    Us Flag
    Us Military
    Usurpation
    Usurper
    Usurpers
    Utilitarianism
    Vaccines
    Validity
    Venality
    Veterans
    Victor Hugo
    Victory
    Vigour
    Violence
    Virgil Goode
    Virtue
    Voice
    Vote
    Voting
    War
    War On Terror
    Warren G. Harding
    Washington
    Washington Dc
    Weakness
    Wealth
    Well Doing
    Wendell Phillips
    We The People
    Will
    William Barclay
    William Blackstone
    William Boetcker
    William F Buckley
    William Lloyd Garrison
    William Penn
    Will Rogers
    Winston Churchill
    Wisdom
    Words
    Work
    Wretchedness
    Wrong


    Archives

    November 2022
    July 2022
    June 2022
    April 2022
    March 2022
    February 2022
    November 2021
    October 2021
    July 2021
    May 2021
    February 2021
    January 2021
    December 2020
    November 2020
    September 2020
    April 2019
    March 2019
    February 2019
    January 2019
    September 2018
    August 2018
    June 2018
    February 2018
    October 2017
    August 2017
    July 2017
    June 2017
    May 2017
    April 2017
    March 2017
    February 2017
    January 2017
    December 2016
    November 2016
    October 2016
    September 2016
    August 2016
    July 2016
    June 2016
    May 2016
    April 2016
    March 2016
    February 2016
    January 2016
    November 2015
    October 2015
    September 2015
    May 2015
    April 2015
    March 2015
    February 2015
    December 2014
    November 2014
    July 2014
    June 2014
    May 2014
    April 2014
    March 2014
    February 2014
    January 2014
    December 2013
    November 2013
    July 2013
    June 2013
    May 2013
    April 2013
    March 2013
    February 2013
    January 2013
    December 2012
    November 2012
    October 2012
    September 2012
    August 2012
    July 2012
    June 2012
    May 2012
    April 2012
    March 2012
    February 2012


    Picture
    Photo by Shane Vander Hart.
    Picture

    RSS Feed


'Our liberties we prize and our rights we will maintain.'

Tom Hoefling on Government:


"Just as 'good fences make for good neighbors,' good government is mainly about knowing where the legitimate boundaries are, and having the courage to defend those borders forcefully. This is true in terms of the defense of our territory, our security, and our national sovereignty, but it also applies to the sworn duty of all of those in government to equally protect the God-given, unalienable rights of each individual person, from their creation onward, their sacred obligation to stay well within the enumerated powers of our constitutions, and of the role legitimate government must play in balancing the competing rights and interests of the people, in order to establish justice."

Picture