America's Party: Tom Hoefling

A third party Presidential candidate I was privileged to interview over the phone earlier this year is Tom Hoefling of Lohrville, Iowa.  Mr. Hoefling and his running mate, Steve Schulin, are the candidates of America's Party.  

Tom Hoefling originally hails from Nebraska and is a political activist, writer, publisher, organizer, and consultant.  He founded America's Party in 2008, and has since been the party's chairman.  In 2012 he ran for President of the United States, representing his party.  In 2014, he competed in the Republican primaries for Iowa governor.  And now again, he's seeking votes for the Presidency.  

Interview with Tom Hoefling

Bethany Carson: Would you tell a little about yourself and how you became interested in politics?

Tom Hoefling:  I'm Tom Hoefling.  I was born in Omaha in 1960.  I am the father of nine children, and have three grandchildren so far.  I got involved in politics originally in the 1980s because I was a homeschool dad, and I found out pretty quickly that even if I didn't care about politics, politics would care about me and would effect my ability to educate my children and exercise my parental rights and responsibilities.  So that's really what edged me towards politics.

The election of Bill Clinton in 1992 really lit a fire under my political involvement because frankly I was scared by the election of Bill Clinton--and his wife as well.  That's what got me involved.  I came up in Iowa caucus politics.  I was elected as a precinct chairman in Sac County back in '94, and it wasn't very long before I got elected to the Republican state committee.  I ended up involved in all sorts of campaigns at all levels, and I pretty much spent the last couple decades as a conservative advocate around the country; and also working on campaigns to get like-minded people elected to public office.

BC: So I guess this campaign would be very important to you since it's against Clinton?

TH: Yes.  What originally psyched me about the Clintons, first of all, Bill Clinton: I recall him quoting scriptures at the 1992 Democrat convention; but he would quote a scripture, and then he would make up a new second half of the verse.  That set off my alarm bells.

I was a small businessman at the time and had a small retail business: Main Street Iowa Five and Dime.  And I recall Hillary Clinton very arrogantly saying, "It's not my job to take care of all these under-capitalized entrepreneurs." I thought to myself, "Well, first of all it's not your job.  No one elected you to anything."  But the second thought I had was, "Look, it's us under-capitalized entrepreneurs who are the backbone of this country economically."  I was offended, and I've been dead-set against the Clintons ever since.  They've certainly given me nothing but more reasons to oppose them in the intervening couple of decades.

BC: What prompted you to form America's Party?  What are the fundamental differences between America's Party and, say, the Constitutional Party?

TH:  I worked for many years as a close associate of Dr. Alan Keyes.  I was his national political director a couple times, and worked on some of his campaigns, including his campaign against Barrack Obama in Illinois.

In 2008, those of us in the Keyes political universe were not pleased with the choices offered, so we talked Dr. Keyes into running one more time.  We tried to run him as a Republican.  The Iowa Republican party black-balled it.  They wouldn't mention he was running.  They tried to keep him out of the debates, and ultimately on caucus night in 2008, they didn't count our votes.  They didn't count or report the vote, for example, of my daughter Katie, who was voting in her first Presidential election.  So, at the time I said, what good is a political party that won't count your votes?

Subsequent to that, of course, it became apparent that the party was going to nominate John McCain, who--I had known for a very long time--really opposed everything we stand for as conservatives in the cloakrooms of the Senate.  His political operations were always geared towards helping the most liberal, pro-abortion Republicans.  He had taken money from George Soros and things like that, open borders and everything else.  There was no way we were going to support John McCain.

That's when we left the GOP, and we formed America's Party soon after.  America's Party is different.  It's not a standard third party.  We did not want to repeat the mistakes of the past.  So, we put together what we call an un-party, a meta-party: in other words, something that is beyond mere party.  Our first reference point was what George Washington wrote in his Farewell Address.  At great lengths, he laid out for his posterity, for us, the dangers of party factionalism.  He warned against letting that take root.  Sadly, he's been ignored largely.  But we put together a party that is not partisan in the sense that we care what political party label you have, we care what letter is by your name.  We call ourselves partisan only for principle.

We wrote a platform, which people can look at at selfgovernment.us, our national committee website--a platform we think consists of what should be the core, non-negotiable principles for all Christians, for all conservatives, and really, for all Americans: that our rights come from God, not from any man (as the Declaration of Independence, our national charter asserts), equal protection under the law for all (including for unborn babies), protecting the civil institution of marriage and the natural family, protecting our right to keep and bear arms, protecting our national sovereignty, security, and borders.

It's simply demanding that our representatives once again pay close attention to, and adhere to, their obligations when they take the oath of office.  We have a great variety of people in our party.  We have a lot of evangelicals, a lot of Catholics, Mormons, Jews: we may not all agree theologically, but we all are united in terms of our national civic creed and those principles and purposes I just laid out.

BC: Let's take a closer look at your principles.  You mentioned social issues: those are the second and third keys on your platform.  Why are they so important to you?  And what do you think can be done in the light of the Supreme Court's decisions on the unborn and traditional marriage?
TH: That's a great question.  First of all, I've got to tell you, I'm not to fond of the term social issues.  To me a social issue is, "Who are we going to invite to our Super Bowl party?"  What we have at the top of our agenda are moral issues because we believe that the moral issues are the foundation of our form of government, of our claim to liberty in this country.

I'm greatly concerned about our money problems, and all of our many problems that are coming upon us because of our failed leadership politically in this country.  But at their core, it's the moral failings that are the root of all or our problems.  Deal with the moral problems, and actually the material things are relatively easy to fix.

As far as dealing with the courts--and I'm so glad you asked that question the way you did, because sadly in the legal community, in the political community, the governmental community in this country, they've latched into the idea that the judges are our rulers.  This is not true.  In fact, if you read the Federalist Papers, and you read what Thomas Jefferson wrote, what Abraham Lincoln said in his first inaugural, they made it clear that the courts are supposed to be the weakest branch.

They are not supposed to be making laws.  They're not supposed to have the veto power.  They're not our rulers, and they're not supposed to be setting our public policies for us.  They're supposed to be deciding the cases that come before them according to the Constitution, according to the natural moral law, and according to all Constitutional laws passed by Congress and signed by the President.

If I win the Presidency, I will be raising my right hand and swearing an oath to God to support and defend the Constitution.  That oath does not entail an oath to do whatever the judges say.  Wherever I think the judges are out of line, I will oppose them.  Once upon a time in this country in basic civic classes they taught about checks and balances.  If I'm elected, I will provide a check against out-of-control judges.

via Aldaron - Flickr 

BC: The next thing on your platform is the right to keep and bear arms, the Second Amendment.  You actually say, "restore and protect our God-given right to bear arms."  Many organizations, like the NRA, fight to protect Second Amendment rights, but in saying "restore," you indicate they've been abridged.  How have they been abridged, and how do they need to be restored?
TH: The right of self-protection, whether individually, protecting our families, our communities, and our country, is a God-given inalienable right.  In fact, Samuel Adams called it the first part of the natural law.  This is another one of those rights that precedes and supersedes any man-made law or constitution.  We have that right regardless of what anyone says about it.

Unfortunately, in the last generation, we've had a multitude of laws passed, which curtail our right to keep and bear arms.  I want to roll back those unconstitutional laws, and for a long time we've been working to pass what's known as constitutional carry in the states.  In other words, you have the right to keep and bear arms; you don't have to ask the government's permission to do it.  There's no reason we shouldn't have constitutional carry throughout the country.  That right is explicitly protected by our Constitution.  We need to start following the Constitution.

BC: What would your foreign policy look like, in particular, let's take a look at Syria.  Would you support a no-fly zone or troops on the ground?  How would you defeat ISIS, and would you depose Assad?
TH: Let me first say that if I'm President and Commander-in-Chief, any individual or group in the world who intends to forward their political or religious ideology by the means of terrorism will have my enmity and opposition with every ounce of force I can muster.  In this country right now, a lot of our elites are globalists, trans-nationalists: they don't care about our national sovereignty.  They don't care about our national security.  They don't care about our borders.  They don't care about the American people.  They just care about their own money and power.  I'm not one of those.

I'm also not an extreme isolationist.  I believe that's the other ditch on the road.  On the one side you have the globalists, the other side you have the extreme isolationists.  We have moral responsibilities in the world.  If there's a mob burning and looting on the other side of town, you can board up your house and hide in it and ignore the people who are being pillaged; but that's immoral.  And also, the mob eventually is going to make its way to your house, and they're going to pillage you.  We have moral responsibilities in the world.  We have treaty obligations, which are binding constitutionally.  I want to take a thorough review of all or our treaty obligations.  I want to get out of whatever treaties are not in our national interest, and rework all of those things.

We need a balanced foreign policy, a national defense policy that is balanced.  We are a very powerful country; we're still the most powerful country militarily on the planet.  However, there are limits.  I often jokingly quote that great political philosopher Clint Eastwood, who in one of his movies said, "A man's got to know his limitations."  I believe the same is true of countries, of nations.  You need to know your limitations.  We can't run the world, even if we were foolish enough to want to; so I have no intention of doing that.  I intend to take a very balanced view of foreign policy: one that is geared first and foremost to protecting the sovereignty of this country, protecting our security, the security of our people, and our national borders.

BC: Do you believe intervention in Syria would be beneficial for our country?
TH: Most candidates would give you a pat answer to that.  I am going to give you an honest answer, which is I'm not sure.  Look, I am one guy running a front porch presidential campaign out here in Iowa.  I do not have all of the resources of the President of the United States in terms of information, intelligence that are required.  The President has great resources to judge those things.

Am I given to intervening in Syria?  No, I'd be very reluctant to do that.  I'm not big on meddling in other people's affairs.  But I'm not going to sit here and tell you yes or no, I wouldn't do this or that, because I don't have enough information.  But if I gain the power of that office, I guarantee you I will have it very quickly.

BC: Do you believe in using enhanced interrogation methods on terrorists, such as torture and waterboarding?
TH: No.  My whole political life is geared towards the core principle of this country, which is God-given unalienable rights, and so no.  It's even foolish to go there; that is not what America is about. War is hell.  A lot has happened in war, and we can't bind our forces with rules of engagement that make us into a weakling.  But on the other hand, we have to maintain our national morality: our military's morale is dependent on us maintaining the moral basis of who we are and how we do things.

BC: What government programs, agencies, and laws exist that you consider in your platform "immoral, unconstitutional, or unnecessary," and would dismantle?

TH: You just used a formulation I use all the time.  I think it's the formulation we have to use to judge all laws, potential laws, and all public policies.  First of all, is it moral?  Secondly, is it constitutional?  And last, is it absolutely necessary?  If the answer to any of those questions is no, we shouldn't be doing it.

A large portion of what our federal government consists of now is outside the enumerated powers of the United States.  Socialism is not allowable under our Constitution with the strict reading.  I've read what James Madison, the father of the U.S. Constitution, said.  We were supposed to have a form of limited government.  With the rise of the New Deal and the Great Society program, and ever-multiplying number of programs that are outside of those enumerated powers, this is what has us on the path to national bankruptcy both in terms of our economics, but also in terms of our liberty.

When you have a government with no limits, you start to see what we're seeing now, where the government meddles in every single thing we do, and is chocking--they have their hand on the throat of the American people.  It's a lot easier to list the things I would keep than to list all the things I would prefer we get rid of.

BC: What would you keep then?
TH: There are certain things that are constitutional, like our national defense.  We have to have a strong national defense.  We have to have whatever forces necessary to protect us from any potential threat.  That's important.

There are just certain items that are within the bounds of the Constitution, but entitlement programs are not among those.  People don't realize: they'll say you're touching the third rail of American politics.  Look, we are going to be bankrupt!  All of that money that has been taken for a couple generations now: it's gone.  They stole the money.  They spent it.  It's gone.  In about eight or nine years now, we are going to be bankrupt.  Four years ago, the Congressional budget office put out a report where they said 2025 would be the year that the entire federal budget will be consumed by entitlements and payments on the interest on the debt.

Promotional Social Security card (via Wiki)

BC:  What would your plan be for, say, Social Security?
TH: My plan would be to restore the America where we take care of ourselves, where we take care of our own families, we take care of our own churches, we take care of our own communities.  You have a choice: you can continue this socialist Ponzi scheme to its conclusion, which will mean national destruction.  Or we can turn around and return to a Constitutional America where we have freedom.  You can have socialism, or you can have liberty.  You can't have both at once.

BC: How would you phase it out then, since a lot of the elderly are relying on it?
TH:  People don't realize: the whole program is pay-as-you-go anyway.  When it was originally set up, dozens of workers financed one person's benefits.  We're down now to about two workers funding the benefits of one recipient.  So, the money is there.

The money exists: it's just rearranging the flow of the money.  Instead of sending it to Washington, sending it to Congress, letting them run it through a big bureaucracy and send a tiny little bit sent back with strings attached, we'll keep our money.  And we will take care of our own people, if we have people--and we do...many people who are dependent.

That is what socialism breeds: dependency.  If we have people who absolutely need help, we're going to have to figure out how to use the resources that we're no longer flushing down the Washington D.C. toilet, and use those resources to take care of the people who need to be taken care of.

You know my formulation: is it moral, is it constitutional, is it necessary?  Taking care of our elderly and our disabled is moral.  It's also necessary, but it's not constitutional.  So let's find a Constitutional way--that is in accord with liberty--to take care of the people.  That's all I'm saying.  I realize this is radical, and I realize some people are going to rail at it, and they do all the time.  They tell me, "But that's mine!"  I tell them, "No, it's not yours because the only way you can get it is to lie to and steal from another generation of our children and grandchildren.  That's the only way you can get yours,"

The string is about ready to run out on the Ponzi scheme.  We're within two presidential terms of economic disaster--national fiscal disaster.  In my opinion, we have about the length of one presidential term to lean hard to starboard on the rudder, and turn this ship around and get sailing the other way--and another term to sail as fast as we can away from this socialist nightmare that's coming upon us.

I mean, we can keep going if you want to be Venezuela.  But I don't.  I have nine children and three grandchildren.  I want something better for them than that.  I want them to live in a constitutional republic.  I want them to be secure.  I want them to be free, and I want them to be prosperous.  Socialism can never deliver that, ever--never has, never will.

via Tom Hoefling for President

BC:  Judging from your answer, I'm guessing that you would use the same strategy for Medicare, Medicaid, and the Affordable Care Act: end them immediately, and trust the people to use the funds more wisely?

TH:  Absolutely.  Those programs are unconstitutional.  Read the words of James Madison.  Here's the man who was responsible--more than anything else--for our Constitution, the supreme law of our land.  He said, "I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.”

BC: Wow.  I wish Congress would listen to that quote more often.
TH:  Well, they haven't listened to it for a very long time, since my grandfather's time.  And it's why we're in the mess we're in.  If you abandon morality, abandon constitutionality, and you get government doing all the things they ought not, while neglecting the things they ought to be doing--like protecting the 60 million unborn children who have been slaughtered in the last forty years--this is what you get.  You get a nation that is on the verge of destruction.

BC:  Do you support the Keystone Pipeline, and would you like to see more fossil fuels utilized?
TH:  Absolutely, we have such tremendous energy resources in this country, and we will have abundant cheap energy if we just get government out of the way, if we can rein in the judges and the radical environmentalists who are choking the life out of our economy.  I'm all for the pipeline.  I'm all for the production of all kinds of energy.  I just don't want the government doing it, and I don't want them subsidizing it.  I want to develop everything we possibly can that can actually pay its own way in the free market.

BC:  So you'd probably not like the subsidies for the ethanol and wind industries?

TH:  No, I do not.  I realize that's a little strange coming from an Iowa politician, but that's been my stance for a long time.

I'm an avid reader, and one of the books I read many years ago and continue to read over and over again is: Frederic Bastiat wrote The Law, back in 1850, I believe.  In it he describes the crony capitalist system: he calls it legal plunder and socialism.  I believe in equal protection under the law.  I do not think the government should be giving specific individuals or groups special favors.  And I don't think they should be subsidizing them.  It's unconstitutional.  It's immoral.  It's robbing all the rest of the people, and it's robbing our posterity.

BC:  Oh, I love that book--The Law!  It's my second-favorite book after the Bible.
TH:  It's a remarkable book, and it's almost like Frederic Bastiat had a crystal ball in front of him in which he could see what would develop in America in great detail.  He described it.  He's one of those writers that I really appreciate because he not only described the problem or potential problem, but he showed the way out.  He showed how to do it.  You got to rein in these people who continue to promote these immoral policies.

BC: Now back to your party platform.  It calls for the repeal of the 16th Amendment and federal income tax, and its replacement with an "equitable, simple, non-invasive, visible, efficient tax."  What would this tax look like?  Is it a flat tax?
TH:  Well, flatness has nothing to do with what kind of tax it is. Usually when people say flat tax, it's shorthand for a flat income tax.

I would urge people to read Federalist #21 where Alexander Hamilton wrote about direct v. indirect taxes.  Income taxes are a form of direct taxation.  I'm against any kind of direct tax on principle.  I also think they're not efficient.  They're invasive.  They destroy liberty.  So I believe in indirect taxation on goods and services.  This has been my position for nearly 25 years.  We need to get rid of stupid income tax, which is killing us--choking the life out of our prosperity.  We need to go to a simple sales tax.

I advocated for this position nationally long before there was ever what is known as the Fair Tax proposal.  It's a national retail sales tax administered at only one level, which is the retail level.  I supported the Fair Tax.  I think we can do even better than the Fair Tax proposal myself.  I really believe we could replace the 120,000 or more IRS employees with one clerk at the treasury department.

We have 45 states that already have a simple, non-invasive sales tax system in place.  It's just a matter of mainly reprogramming some cash registers for the most part to implement.  Just let the states send in their payments to one clerk at the Treasury Department each month.  It's incredibly simple.  No longer will they take a chunk out of your paycheck.  You will pay your taxes as you consume.

If you want to be frugal, you can.  Our system now is set up to encourage consumption.  I want to see us turn back into a thrift-based society in which capital is protected: the formation of capital is protected.  The things that actually bring about wealth are protected once again.  I think it's relatively easy to do, and I think it would solve a lot of our problems in terms of manufacturing and competition in the world market.  I know it would.

I think it would even help clean up our politics.  People don't realize all these billions of dollars that flow to Washington politicians are largely coming from people who are necessarily trying to buy protection from the tax code, and in fact, they're succeeding.  Protection from the tax code is for sale through our politicians.

So, get rid of the income tax.  Go to a sales tax in which all of us have the same interest.  We all have to pay the same rate.  We'll all be united in one goal at that point, which is to get the rate down.  And the only way to get the rate down is to cut spending.  I believe the course that I advise would actually create a natural push to get the spending under control.

BC:  What would your immigration policy look like, and how would you secure the border?  Would you support a path to citizenship for those who are already in the country?
TH:  First of all, the Constitution of the United States guarantees to each and every one of the states security from invasion.  So the President of the United States, as the chief magistrate and Commander in Chief--one of his chief responsibilities is to protect the states from invasion.

I've said many times, if I'm elected, one of the first things I will do on the first day in office is I will sign a Presidential finding to the effect that our open southern border presents a clear, present danger to the security of the United States.  And I will deploy the military to secure that border.  We do not lack the ability to secure that border.  For the last generation, all we have lacked is the will to do so.  So I will secure it, and I will leave our military there until such time as Congress has provided the means to provide the appropriate barriers and to establish real civilian control over that border.

As far as the folks who overstayed their visas, if you have a house-guest, when it's time to go home, it's time to go home.  If they won't go home, and they lay claim to some right to become part of your family, use your resources, and eat your food, that's not right.  And then, of course, the burglar who breaks into your house, just because he's there does that mean he then has a right to become part of your family?  No.

The only ones who should become part of the American family are those whom the American people, through their representatives, invite to be part of that family.  I believe that those who are here who are foreign nationals--subjects of other countries--need to go home.

One other aspect of this: security is the purview of the President, but our immigration and naturalization policies are the purview of the Congress.  They're the ones given authority over that.  So as President, it would be my responsibility to enforce all of our immigration laws that are on the books, and I would do that--which in a great degree would mean sending folks home who don't belong here.

BC:  Would you build a wall like Donald Trump?
TH:  Our southern border needs a barrier.  It does.  But I'm not going to wait around.  We've had these promises my whole political life about securing our border, and I'm not going to wait around for somebody else to act.  I'm going to fulfill the obligations of my oath, whether they've built a wall or not.

via Tom Hoefling for President

BC: At the beginning of the interview, you mentioned that one of the things that made you most interested in politics was that you are a homeschool father.  How would you improve the educational system?

TH: I'm so glad you asked that.  My wife and I actually had a critical role in gaining freedom for homeschoolers and private schools here in Iowa just a couple short years ago through our state representative.  We're the ones who put a bug in his ear.  He managed to get the amendments in the governor's education bill, and we are now free of government control.  So, I have a track record of actually accomplishing something in this regard.

For twenty-some years, this has been my education proposal.  It's what I call TLC, which stands for true local control.  First of all, the government has no constitutional enumerated powers to have anything to do with our education at all beyond perhaps training federal employees and, of course, providing some sort of educational system within the military when you have dependents, and things like that.

But in terms of what they're involved in now, the U.S. Department of Education is an unconstitutional entity, and we need to get rid of it immediately.

Now most people don't realize this, but more than 60% of our state budget is being poured into this education monster.  State constitutions govern many of these things.  I think some states have exceeded their constitutional bounds in terms of education, and they need to be put back.  But in any case, I think we need to get education out of the hands of the state governments as well.

When I hold up my education dollar, it makes no sense for me to send it down to Des Moines or send it to Washington D.C. and have them run it through a big bureaucracy and send just a little bit back with strings attached.  That doesn't educate any children at all.  I don't want to see our education dollars leave the county myself.  That's my vision for education.

We live in the day in which we have virtually all of the information known to mankind available to us at the click of a mouse.  The old way of doing education is a dinosaur.  It's a waste of money, and we need to go in a completely new direction to free us up, and frankly free us from an education establishment that is extremely liberal and, in fact, has become hostile to our children spiritually, morally, and intellectually.  The public schools have even become a physical danger zone for our kids, so I believe we can do far better than that.   And that's the program that I will continue to advocate for now until the end of my political career.

via Tom Hoefling for President

BC:  On your website, you say you don't accept any monetary campaign contributions.  What led you to that decision?

TH:  Many decades of political involvement, in which I watched billions of dollars being sucked out of the conservative movement, out of Christians, out of the church, and fed to national political organizations--with the money, the vast preponderance of it, being used to simply raise more money: in other words, to enrich the fundraisers.  Whatever's left has been used as leverage by national political organizations against the grassroots people, and I'm tired of that.

I'm not foolish enough to believe we can save the country and turn it around with no material resources.  I'm just advising a redirecting of the funds.  I'm telling people, don't send your money to me.  Don't send it to my national organization.  Take the money and use it at the grassroots.  Find the activists who are doing the real work in the precincts, in the communities: pay for their gas.  Keep their lights on.  Pay their phone bill.  Help them.  That's where the rebuilding of the country has to take place, not at the national level.

Throughout most of this country's history it was considered rather unseemly for someone to campaign for President.  Generally people sat on their front porch, and other people campaigned for them.  McKinley is one example.  McKinley never left his front porch.  Delegations would get on a train.  They would travel out to Ohio, and they would sit on the front porch with him; and he would answer their questions.  Reporters would come with their little notepads, and they would record what he said.  He got sworn in.  His last front porch campaign was on the porch of the U.S. Capitol.

We're running what I call a front-porch campaign with a 21st century twist.  We now have incredible communication technology at our fingertips.  Almost all of us have a smartphone, a cellphone.  We all have computers, internet, free email, free conferencing, free web radio, free web video.  We don't lack the means to communicate, totally apart from the existing media, sufficiently to take our country back.  I often remind people, the men who won our independence from Great Britain, in terms of communication, all they had were handwritten letters delivered by men on horseback.  And they had some crude printing-presses (by our standards) with which they printed "broadsides," we call them flyers.  That is how they communicated, and they managed to get the job done.  

So I believe we can do it using the resources that are readily available to us, without any money, without billionaires owning our politics, without liberal media conglomerates hostile to everything we believe having control of the process.  We are trying to teach the American people a lesson.  We're trying to teach them their own power.  We're trying to teach them they don't need all that stuff.  All they need to do is get back to America's founding principles, quit compromising those principles, get together, band together, and begin to raise up new leaders in this country who understand the obligations of their oath and who will keep those obligations.

BC:  How many states' ballots are you going to be on?
TH:  We have been doing a slow build over eight years.  We continue to grow slowly but surely with really solid, principled people throughout this country.  We're still not big enough.  Some of these ballot hurdles are very high.  It looks right now like we're going to be directly on the ballot in somewhere between five and seven states.  In another thirty-some states we will be a qualified write-in candidate.  So the voters in all but a small handful of states will be able to vote for our ticket.

People need to remember: they say, "You can't win..."  I say, look, 1860 was an election in which the country was fractured.  There were five candidates.  It was a very strange election.  Our electoral system can actually produce very strange results when you introduce strange factors.  This is a very strange year we're in right now--the strangest I've ever seen in my lifetime.  Lincoln was only on enough state ballots to have the potential of getting 75% of electors.  He ended up getting less than 40% of the popular vote, but he got about 58% of the electoral college.

 

via Tom Hoefling for President

BC:  Why should people vote for you for President?

TH:  They should vote for me because I'm the only one who's actually put his finger on what is wrong with the country and offered a clear way out: a well thought out, principled plan to put the country back on its original foundation and restore our form of government for the sake of our kids and grandkids.  No one else has done it.  No one else has fought to restore equal protection for the babies like I have.  Nobody else is defending marriage.  No one else running for president is a defender of marriage--the civil institution of marriage, which is so essential and so fundamental.

If you're a conservative, if you're a Christian, if you're a pro-lifer, if you're pro-family, if you believe in our Second Amendment rights, national sovereignty, securing borders, if you care about those things--restoring our Constitution--I'm your candidate.

BC:  Is there anything else you'd like to add?
TH:  No, I think you offered some excellent questions today, and I really appreciate it.
BC:  Thank you so much for interviewing with me!  I know if I called Donald Trump he probably wouldn't give me an interview.
TH:  [Laughs]  I don't think he would.  Actually the beauty of our front porch campaign is I get to spend tremendous amounts of time talking to real people, and I'm actually out working to build up activists, to train people, to equip them.  We're doing this the way politics is supposed to be done.  Everybody else is just playing the same old political game which is getting us nowhere.

Tom Hoefling - Official Website

Tom Hoefling: Twitter - Facebook

America's Party Website

America's Party: Twitter - Facebook

Thank you so much to Tom Hoefling for taking the time to interview with me!