Tom Hoefling

One of the most amazing and wonderful messages anyone has sent me in this entire campaign...

Mary Harizavi:

I am 51 yrs. old and today was the very first time I have voted. My vote was for Thomas Hoefling.

Tom Hoefling, America's Party 2012 Presidential Candidate

"We the People of the United States, in Order to...establish Justice...do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

-- The Preamble, or Statement of Purpose, of the United States Constitution

Without faith there can be no justice. The two things are inextricably linked.

What is justice? To put it most simply, it is right-doing. In terms of the law and self-government, it is doing right to all persons equally and equitably.

But how can we possibly perfect justice in this country, as the framers of our Constitution purposed to do, if we pay no mind to the laws of nature and of nature's God? It is not possible.

Is there a desire in your heart to help save this country and restore America's greatness? Then trust God, seek His will, and do right. Join together with your fellow citizens who are of the same mind and heart, and retake the reins of your own self-government. If enough Americans will do this, without compromise, and do it in time, there is hope for this country and for our posterity. We can, if we choose to follow God and do right, once again be a shining city on a hill.

But if we refuse, and choose instead to be faithless and unjust by continuing to kill the babies and destroy God's institution of marriage and the natural family, our children and grandchildren, those who survive our brutal savagery, will curse us. They will rightfully convict us of squandering their precious heritage, one that was dearly bought with blood, sweat, and tears by our just and faithful forebears.

Our generation is a link in the chain between the past and the future. Please, my fellow Americans, I beg you, don't let it be broken. Strengthen the things that remain, before it is too late.

"Unprincipled modern American politicians have made the phrase 'the general welfare' mean the exact opposite of what it actually means. And by changing the meaning of these two simple words they have wrought what amounts to a coup d'etat against the Constitution of the United States. Instead of our representatives dispassionately, objectively, looking to the interests of the whole body of the people as they ought, while securing the unalienable rights of the individual, they now turn a blind eye to the alienation of the God-given rights to life, liberty and property, while robbing the Treasury and their constituents to spend money they are not legitimately authorized to spend on favored individuals and groups, for the aggrandizement of their own political power."

-- Tom Hoefling, October 26, 2012

Active Christian Media

BlogTalkRadio.com

Oct. 24, 2012

4:00 pm Eastern

Tom Hoefling:

Tonight, as Siena was putting the little ones to bed, as she was talking to them, getting them calmed down so they would go to sleep, Elijah, our soon-to-be six year-old, asked her what was wrong with Barack Obama. So she told him that he thinks it's okay to kill babies. 

The kids got pretty quiet at that point. 

Then Elijah asked why we don't like Mitt Romney. So she told him that it is because he thinks it is okay to kill some of the babies. 

Well, by then they were all pretty somber. Little Sam, who is two, started to say over and over again, "We should kill zero. Not some. We should kill zero babies." 

Sebastian, who is four, said that he wants the babies, so he can take care of them. 

Are you listening, America? 

"Then Jesus called a little child to Him, set him in the midst of them, and said, 'Assuredly, I say to you, unless you are converted and become as little children, you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven. Therefore whoever humbles himself as this little child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven. Whoever receives one little child like this in My name receives Me.

'Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in Me to sin, it would be better for him if a millstone were hung around his neck, and he were drowned in the depth of the sea. Woe to the world because of offenses! For offenses must come, but woe to that man by whom the offense comes!

'If your hand or foot causes you to sin, cut it off and cast it from you. It is better for you to enter into life lame or maimed, rather than having two hands or two feet, to be cast into the everlasting fire. And if your eye causes you to sin, pluck it out and cast it from you. It is better for you to enter into life with one eye, rather than having two eyes, to be cast into hell fire.'"

-- Matthew 18:2-9

Tom Hoefling for President 2012 

www.TomHoefling.com

Contact: tomhoefling@gmail.com

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:

Final 2012 Ballot Access Totals 

Please note that this historic task was accomplished solely by We the People, without donations, or the "help" of the "mainstream" media.

If you don't see Tom Hoefling and Jonathan Ellis on your presidential and vice-presidential ballot lines, write them in!

States in which Tom Hoefling is directly on the ballot, or has qualified for official write-in status, or in which it has been confirmed that all write-in votes will be counted:

California - 55 (Hoefling-Ornelas)
Florida - 29
Colorado - 9 
Texas - 38 
Indiana - 11 
Idaho - 4
Montana - 3 
West Virginia - 5
Michigan - 16
Delaware - 3
Illinois - 20
Pennsylvania - 20
Iowa - 6
Alabama - 9
Vermont - 3
New Hampshire - 4
Wyoming - 3
Rhode Island - 4
Oregon - 7
New Jersey - 14
New York - 29
Washington - 12 
Minnesota - 10 
Maryland - 10 
Wisconsin - 10
Virginia - 13
Arizona - 11
Massachusetts - 11
District of Columbia - 3
Kentucky - 8 
Kansas - 6 
Alaska - 3 
Nebraska - 5 
Connecticut - 7

401 total electoral votes available to Tom Hoefling for President 2012
75%


States in which write-in votes are not allowed, or in which we failed to qualify:

Nevada - 6
New Mexico - 5
Utah - 6
South Dakota - 3
Oklahoma - 7
Arkansas - 6
Louisiana - 8
Tennessee - 11
North Carolina - 15
South Carolina - 9
Mississippi - 6
Georgia - 16
Ohio - 18
Hawaii - 4
Maine - 4
North Dakota - 3
Missouri - 10

137 electoral votes not available 
25%

Tom Hoefling for President 2012

As of right now we have about 62% of the electoral vote covered. There are still 6 states we're working on, which make up about 10% of the electors. In other words, if we finish this task completely, it is still possible that the voters representing right at 72% of the electoral vote can support Tom Hoefling for President in 2012. Not too shabby for a 100% grassroots effort. Thanks to all of the great volunteers who have worked so hard to make this possible!


As of October 17, 2012:

On the ballot or qualified write-in status filings:
California - 55
Florida - 29
Colorado - 9
Texas - 38
Indiana - 11
Idaho - 4
Montana - 3
West Virginia - 5
Michigan - 16
Delaware - 3
Illinois - 20
Pennsylvania - 20
Iowa - 6
Alabama - 9
Vermont - 3
New Hampshire - 4
Wyoming - 3
Rhode Island - 4
Oregon - 7
New Jersey - 14
New York - 29
Washington - 12 
Minnesota - 10 
District of Columbia - 3
Kentucky - 8
Kansas - 6
Alaska - 3
334 total electors so far
62%


Registered write-in status still to be filed:
Missouri - 10 
Maryland - 10 
Connecticut - 7
Virginia - 13
Wisconsin - 10
Nebraska - 5
55 total electors still available
10%

No ballot access possible:
Nevada - 6
Arizona - 11
New Mexico - 5
Utah - 6
South Dakota - 3
Oklahoma - 7
Arkansas - 6
Louisiana - 8
Tennessee - 11
North Carolina - 15
South Carolina - 9
Mississippi - 6
Georgia - 16
Ohio - 18
Massachusetts - 11
Hawaii - 4
Maine - 4
North Dakota - 3
149 electors not available in 2012

From a supporter in Colorado Springs, CO:

Vice Presidential Debate

Examiner.com 

Questions and responses from Jonathan D. Ellis, Vice-Presidential Nominee, America's Party:
 

1. Wasn't the assassination of the U.S. Ambassador in Libya a massive intelligence failure?

   Was it appropriate for Romney to criticize President Obama during Libya crisis?

The assassination of Ambassador Stephens was a tragedy and a national disgrace.  The debacle in Libya clearly demonstrates the result of the “soft power” foreign policy and negligence of the Obama administration.  And Obama’s lack of a response is a clear invitation for our enemies to attack us elsewhere in the world, without fear of any military or other repercussions from the U.S., whatsoever.  What happened in Libya was the instigation of a state of war.  By refusing to engage our enemies, even when they attack us, Obama is projecting weakness, and an inability, under our current representation, to protect American interests, or even American citizens, abroad.  It is disgraceful.

The primary role of government is to protect the lives, liberty, and property of its citizens.  The current administration is utterly failing--not even trying--to do that.  The Obama foreign policy is putting us all in jeopardy.  Our enemies need to know that our foreign policy is a threat to them, if they would dare to violate the rights of American citizens.  Currently, our foreign policy is a threat to us; and our enemies know that.


2. How effective would a military strike against Iran be?    What's worse: another war in the Middle East or a nuclear-armed Iran?

Iran has to be stopped from developing nuclear weapons.  When a foreign power says they want to destroy us, we need to take them seriously.  Iran does not want nuclear weapons for defense purposes--they want to use them against the U.S., and against our allies in the Middle East.  We cannot let that happen. 

However, under rules of engagement similar to those currently in operation in other actions in the Middle East, a strike against Iran could not be effective.  If we send troops to Iran, we need to let them do their jobs.  We are wasting military resources, and more importantly, putting the lives of our American soldiers in far greater danger than necessary, when we send them abroad only to prohibit them from doing what they were sent to do.  Our forces must be allowed to accomplish their objectives, and to defend themselves in the process.  Again, the “soft power” policies of the Obama administration are literally killing us.  Americans are dying because of the ineptitude and weakness of our current representation.  Iran has to be stopped; and the men and women whom we send to do the job must be free to do it.


3. Can you get unemployment below 6% and how long will it take?

There are three things that we must do in order to get unemployment under control.  First, we have to close the borders.  There are millions of illegals here, taking jobs from American citizens.  We need to close the borders to illegal immigrants; and we need to stop rewarding those who are already here.  We need to remove the incentives for them to cross our borders, or to stay here illegally.  This alone would open up millions of jobs for American citizens.

Second, we must cut taxes and spending.  New jobs are not being created, because this economy is stifling business.  Small business owners are not able to expand; and entrepreneurs are not able to start new businesses.  It is small business in a free market that produces jobs.  We need to remove the heavy tax burden that is keeping private businesses from hiring.

And third, we need to remember that it is not a legitimate function of government to create jobs.  We need to stop interfering and regulating, get out of the way, and let American businesses grow.  If the government will simply do its job of protecting our territory from illegal immigration, and protecting our people’s assets from overtaxation, then unemployment will take care of itself.


4. Will benefits for Americans have to change for Medicare and Social Security to survive?

Medicare and Social Security cannot survive.  They are socialist programs.  And as Margaret Thatcher famously said, the problem with socialism is that, eventually, you run out of other people’s money.  Aside from being unsustainable, Social Security and Medicare are also without Constitutional authority, and should never have been enacted.  We need to end these programs, and return to personal responsibility for our own retirement and our own health care, and to the freedom to keep, save, and invest our own money.

Mr. Hoefling and I do not claim to have all the answers on exactly how to end these programs.  But Tom has already announced his intention to convene what he is calling an “Economic Manhattan Project.”  It would be one of his top priorities to get as many of the best economic minds as possible--people like Alan Keyes, Thomas Sowell, Walter Williams, Norm Kurland--into one room to work on the best way to end programs that are unconstitutional and unsustainable, but upon which millions of Americans have become dependent.

But we do know that Social Security and Medicare must end.  This is not just our policy, but a logical and economic reality.  American citizens are paying in more on the front end, only to receive fewer benefits at a later age at retirement.  And there is no way to turn that around--that is simply the nature of socialism.  There was no Constitutional authority to initiate these programs in the first place; and no reason to think that they would work.  History shows that socialism never works, and is showing that American socialism in the form of Social Security and Medicare are no exceptions.  These programs are bankrupt; and they will eventually bankrupt our citizenry, if we continue trying to prop them up on the backs of the taxpayer.  The sooner we can end them, the better it will be for America’s economic stability and prosperity.


5. If your ticket is elected, who will pay more in taxes, who will pay less?

We believe that every taxpayer should be equal before the law.  We will continue working toward fundamental tax reform and the elimination of the income tax, and seek to replace it with a national retail sales tax, such as the Fair Tax.  Under that system, every citizen will have the power to give themselves a tax cut, simply by controlling their spending.  The current system taxes income, which punishes productivity and hard work.  (Couple that with an array of entitlement programs, which reward apathy, laziness, and personal fiscal irresponsibility, and you have a recipe for ensuring that the American people become more dependent on government, less willing or able to provide for themselves, and increasingly less productive.  Our economy cannot survive that forever.)  Instead of punishing productivity by taxing income, we need to tax spending, which would encourage thrift and investment, instead of consumption.  We must give the American people back the first use of every dollar, rather than perpetuating a slavish system under which government claims an increasingly large share of the taxpayers hard-earned check.

A retail sales tax will also be much simpler, and will no longer require volumes of tax code, armies of IRS agents, or hours spent by American citizens itemizing deductions and trying to understand the tax implications of their investments.  A percentage will simply be added to the total on all retail transactions, at the point of sale, so that, politically, all the taxpayer will have to focus on is that percentage, which will be plainly visible, at the bottom of every retail receipt.  It will be an equal percentage for every American, so that there are no more tax cuts or increases for the rich, the poor, or the middle class--only one rate for all.  This creates one unified tax base, all telling their representatives the same thing:  “Keep the rate low.”


6. Why not leave Afghanistan now?

   What more can the U.S. really accomplish?

   What conditions could justify U.S. troops staying in Afghanistan?

   What was the military reason for bringing surge troops home from Afghanistan?

I believe an American military presence is justified anywhere radical Islam threatens us or our allies.  Unchecked Islamic terrorism is a direct threat to American freedom and American lives.  We have largely brought that threat under control in Afghanistan.  But this is a threat that is not contained within national borders.  It will re-establish itself wherever it can, especially in the Middle East.  A continued U.S. military presence in Afghanistan, if deemed necessary, can help ensure that radical Islam does not regain a foothold there.


7. The U.S. assisted rebels in Libya; why doesn't the same logic apply to Syria?

   What happens if Assad does not fall in Syria?

   What is your criteria for intervention in Syria?

Any U.S. assistance provided to a Syrian faction could eventually be turned against us or our allies.  U.S. intervention in any country should, of course, be avoided if possible.  But our first priority is to protect American lives and freedom, both at home and abroad, and to protect our interests, and our friends and allies. 


8. What role has your religion played on your personal views of Abortion?

   If the Romney-Ryan [Hoefling-Ellis] ticket is elected, should those who believe abortion should be legal be worried?

The word of God tells me that life begins at conception, and that hands that shed innocent blood are an abomination before the Lord.  Science, which is simply man’s attempt to better understand the physical laws set in place by the same God Who reveals Himself to us in His written word, undeniably confirms that a new and unique human life is created at the point of fertilization.

Although God and His word are the ultimate authority and law on this, we are blessed in America, to have been Founded by men who understood these principles, and incorporated them into our Founding documents.  The Declaration--our national charter--is based on the premise that all men are Created equal, and endowed by our Creator with an unalienable right to life.  If life begins at fertilization, then the unborn are human persons, intrinsically endowed with the same inherent worth, dignity, and rights as all other human persons.  And if those rights are given by God, then only God has the right to take them away.  It is not in our authority to create laws, regulations, or conditions upon which the right to life will be either acknowledged or ignored.  An unalienable right to life cannot be denied by human courts, or by a “democratic process” at either the federal or state level.

Like the Declaration, our Constitution also contains protections for the unborn.  In fact, the crowning purpose of that Document is to “secure the Blessings of Liberty to…our Posterity”, which quite obviously precludes murdering them in the womb.  The Fifth Amendment, too, is very clear:  “No person shall be…deprived of life…without due process of law.”  The Fourteenth Amendment further clarifies that abortion is not an issue for the states to decide:  “…nor shall any State deprive any person of life…without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”  If the states are required to provide equal protection, then Constitutionally, it is just as illegal, and just as punishable to murder an unborn person as to murder any other person.  The states are Constitutionally obligated to provide that level of protection.

This is all part of a Document that Mr. Hoefling and I would be required to take an oath to defend.  We would take that oath very seriously, as a solemn obligation before God and the American people.


9. Closing Statement.

Thank you to Examiner.com for publishing my answers to these questions, and to their readers for taking the time to consider them. 

We, the American people, must reject dependence on a money- and major-media-driven political process, and remember that elections are meant to represent us--not the political parties or the corrupting influence of wealth.  In the age of the internet, we need not rely on biased and exclusive media outlets for our election coverage, when there are thousands of citizen news sites and blogs willing to give a fuller picture.  We must change the way we do politics, putting the power back in the hands of the people, where it belongs.

We must stop giving our votes to people who do not represent us, simply because the major media and major parties tell us that we have no other choice.  Such coercion and manipulation is un-American--it is Soviet-style politics, in which we are free to vote for anyone, as long as our choice has the approval of a cadre of elites.  We will never have a representative government as long as we lack the simple faith and courage to vote our convictions.

We must refocus on an understanding that Almighty God is the Disposer of nations, and that America cannot be blessed by His generous hand while we continue to flaunt His will.  He has told us what makes nations great, and what makes nations fall.  America was Founded on those principles, and prospered as long as we remembered them.  As we have forgotten them, we have paid the price.  Our only hope for saving America is to remember them once again.

God’s institution of government can be what it was intended to be, only when His other institutions of the church and the family are what they ought to be.  We must protect religious liberty, and the traditional family.  Killing our children through abortion; ripping apart the two-parent home through homosexuality, divorce, and pornography; and otherwise marring God’s design for the family have proven destructive to America, and must be opposed if we are to maintain our place in the world.

If you agree with the principles defended in these answers, please consider Tom Hoefling for President.  Visit the following websites, or look us up on facebook, for more information.  Thank you.

TomHoefling.com

SelfGovernment.US

AmericasPartyNews.com

EqualProtectionForPosterity.com

facebook.com/thomas.hoefling

facebook.com/jd.ellis.5


http://www.examiner.com/article/third-party-vice-presidential-debate-part-1

http://www.examiner.com/article/third-party-vice-presidential-debate-part-2

http://www.examiner.com/article/third-party-vice-presidential-debate-part-3

http://www.examiner.com/article/third-party-vice-presidential-debate-part-4

http://www.examiner.com/article/third-party-vice-presidential-debate-part-5

http://www.examiner.com/article/third-party-vice-presidential-debate-part-6

http://www.examiner.com/article/third-party-vice-presidential-debate-part-7

http://www.examiner.com/article/third-party-vice-presidential-debate-part-8

http://www.examiner.com/article/third-party-vice-presidential-debate-part-9

increasinglearning.com

Bill Fortenberry

After publishing my previous critique of Stephen McDowell’s endorsement of Mitt Romney, I received a request for my opinion on an article by Dr. Michael Farris entitled, “Principles for Christians as They Decide How to Vote.” 

Dr. Farris' article follows the same basic pattern as most of the other arguments that I have heard from Christian leaders who have endorsed Mr. Romney.  He started off well by concluding from Proverbs 3:5-6, Hosea 8:1-4 and Deuteronomy 17:14-20 that "God has something to say to us about our choices of political leaders."  I agree wholeheartedly with that statement.  God does have something to say to us about voting for our leaders, and we have a responsibility to seek out His instructions and follow them. 

I also agree with Dr. Farris in his statement that we should not try to bully other Christians into agreement with our beliefs.  I think that Romans 14:4 was a very poor choice to support that claim (I would have suggested James 4:11-12), but at least he came to the right conclusion.  We should refrain from attempting to force other believers to agree with us.  Instead, we should follow the example of our Lord and rely on calm reasoning from the Scriptures in order to convince others of the errors of their ways. 

Unfortunately, my agreement with Dr. Farris must end here, for shortly after this, he turned to Luke 14:28-30 and used this passage as an excuse to completely ignore his own admission that we should heed what God has to say about voting.   According to Dr. Farris, Luke 14:28-30 is an admonition from the Lord for us to rely on pragmatism in electing our leaders.  This is demonstrably false.  This passage in Luke is not an admonition of any kind.  It is simply an observation that our Savior made of something that men usually do.  Most men take the time to consider the cost of a building project before they begin building.  This is a true statement, but it is not the lesson that Christ was teaching in this passage. 

To discover what lesson Christ was trying to teach us with this observation, all we have to do is read the verses which come before and after this passage.  The verses immediately preceding Luke 14:28-30 state:

"If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.  And whosoever doth not bear his cross, and come after me, cannot be my disciple."

And the verse immediately after Christ's observations states:

"So likewise, whosoever he be of you that forsaketh not all that he hath, he cannot be my disciple."

When we consider the passage as a whole, Christ's lesson becomes very obvious and easy to understand.  He was using the observation of men counting the cost of a building project to teach that we cannot follow Him unless we are willing to pay the cost of that discipleship.  And what is the cost of being a disciple of Christ?  Everything.  In order to follow Him, we must be willing to give up everything that we have.  This is the real lesson of Luke 14:28-30 and not an admonition to pragmatism as Dr. Farris claims. 

In light of this lesson, it is important to note that Dr. Farris admitted at the end of his article that his primary motivation for endorsing Mr. Romney is his unwillingness to give up our nation's self-government.  Now, I am in favor of maintaining our self-government, but as Dr. Farris explained earlier in his article, "All means all."  Therefore, in order to follow Christ and be His disciple, we have to be willing to give up even something as valuable as American self-government if that becomes the price that God demands.  

The passage in Luke 14 was the last portion of Scripture that Dr. Farris referenced in his article.  Having found what he thought to be justification for a pragmatic approach to politics, he embraced that approach with gusto and completely abandoned all thought of discovering what God has to say about choosing our elected officials.  In this, I completely disagree.  If God has something to say to us about voting, then we should search out His instructions and follow them at all costs. 

The only attempt that Dr. Farris made to discover God's instructions for voting was his strange reference to I Timothy 5:22 which states:

"Lay hands suddenly on no man, neither be partaker of other men's sins: keep thyself pure."

Dr. Farris only quoted the first phrase of this verse, and he claimed that it teaches us that experience and leadership are necessary qualities for candidates seeking political office.  In reality, however, the laying on of the hands in this passage is a reference to the ordination of a pastor.  To apply this passage to political leaders is to wrest it from the context of the entire book of I Timothy.  But even if we did apply this injunction to our election of political leaders, it still would not convey the idea that experience and leadership are necessary qualities for political candidates.  Let me point out that these are very important qualities for candidates to have and that these qualities are abundant among the third party candidates.  However, I Timothy 5:22 does not teach us anything at all about the need for leadership and experience. 

What this passage does teach us is that we should be very, very cautious about whom we ordain into the ministry lest, through our ordination of them, we become complicit in their sins.  It is interesting to note that Dr. Farris did not even mention the second and third phrases of this verse.  One would think that if the first phrase is applicable to the election of political leaders, then the remainder of the verse would be applicable as well.  If that is the case, then Christians should be very concerned that if they vote for Mr. Romney, God might hold them accountable for his sins.

Thus, while I agree with Dr. Farris that God does have something to say to Christians about whom we should elect to the office of President, I also very strongly disagree with his decision to ignore what God says and rely on his own pragmatic reasoning instead.  God did not give us wisdom in hopes that we would reason Him away and ignore Him but rather so that we could see that His way is best.  Instead of using our wisdom to compare the candidates with each other and reach a pragmatic decision about which one we think is the best choice, we should compare the candidates with the Word of God and vote for the one who conforms to His principles.


Other articles in this series:
The Lesser of Two Evils
A Biblical Strategy for Voting
A Duty to Principle

"By unjustly making exceptions on abortion, by claiming that the president has no obligation to equally protect all innocent human life as the Fifth and the Fourteenth Amendments require, by asserting that it is up to the courts, or a democratic vote, or the states, whether or not to equally protect the God-given, UNALIENABLE right to life of all, Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan disqualify themselves, in exactly the same way King George III of Great Britain gave up any legitimate right to govern our forefathers. As the drafters of the Declaration of Independence charged: 'He has abdicated Government here, BY DECLARING US OUT OF HIS PROTECTION and waging War against us.'"

-- Tom Hoefling, October 12, 2012

"To judge from the history of mankind, we shall be compelled to conclude that the fiery and destructive passions of war reign in the human breast with much more powerful sway than the mild and beneficent sentiments of peace; and that to model our political systems upon speculations of lasting tranquillity would be to calculate on the weaker springs of human character." 

-- Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 34, 1788

There were once Republicans like this, before the GOP establishment eradicated them:

“I have little interest in streamlining government or in making it more efficient, for I mean to reduce its size. I do not undertake to promote welfare, for I propose to extend freedom. My aim is not to pass laws, but to repeal them. It is not to inaugurate new programs, but to cancel old ones that do violence to the Constitution, or that have failed their purpose, or that impose on the people an unwarranted financial burden. I will not attempt to discover whether legislation is “needed” before I have first determined whether it is constitutionally permissible. And if I should later be attacked for neglecting my constituents’ “interests,” I shall reply that I was informed that their main interest is liberty and that in that cause I am doing the very best I can."

-- Barry Goldwater

"The only wasted vote is one that doesn't represent you."

-- Tom Hoefling, October 6, 2012