Exclusive interview with Constitution Party presidential candidate Tom Hoefling

Tom Hoefling

 A few days ago, I submitted fifteen interview questions to Tom Hoefling, the founder of America’s Party, its candidate for President in 2012 (he received over 40,000 votes nationally), and a candidate for the Constitution Party’s 2016 presidential nomination, which will be decided April 13th-16th in Salt Lake City, Utah. Yesterday, Mr. Hoefling emailed me his responses. The full interview is below:

  1. First of all, could you provide some background information about yourself?

Certainly. My entire biography can be found at my website, which iswww.tomhoefling.com. But, in short, before anything else, I’m a Bible-believing Christian. Then, I’m a husband and the father of nine children, with three grandchildren so far. Politically, I’m a constitutional conservative. In terms of experience, I’ve been a conservative activist and consultant for approximately 25 years, at all levels of American politics, and have worked on campaigns, party-building, ballot access, political organizing, and political communications, at one time or another, in most parts of the country.

During that time, I have been a consistent advocate for the natural law moral principles of our national charter, the Declaration of Independence, and for the sacred sworn obligations of all who take the oath of office to support and defend the Constitution of the United States.

In November of last year, I was named by Newsmax as one of the top 100 most influential pro-life advocates in America. I am the only presidential candidate who maintains a Tier One rating as a personhood pro-life leader with American Right to Life.

2) You are a founding member of the America’s Party, as well as its 2012 presidential candidate. Why do you feel there is a need for America’s Party (for example, why not just be a part of the larger Constitution Party only), in what ways does it differentiate from the Constitution Party,  and how many state ballots is America’s Party on and in what states are you actively seeking ballot access?

I am the founder of America’s Party, a national political committee whose motto, among others, is, “we’re partisans only for principle.” In a real sense, America’s Party is the anti-party party. We make our electoral decisions based solely on proven adherence to the non-negotiable, moral, constitutional principles of our country, not based on party registration. So, in effect, all that America’s Party is, at its core, is a repository of the primary principles of the American republic, and a practical means for principled citizens to enforce real accountability on those we elect. We believe these two things – principle and accountability – to be absolutely necessary elements if we are to have any hope of rescuing, restoring, and sustaining America.

As yet, we have little in the way of direct ballot access. Our candidates have primarily run as independents in the several states, and/or under the banners of other parties, where that makes practical sense, and where no compromise of principle is involved.

I do expect to garner the California ballot line, with its 55 electoral votes, again this year via the American Independent Party. I also expect that if our forces are joined, together we will be able to add quite a few state ballot lines to the Constitution Party list in 2016, including my home state of Iowa with its six electoral votes.

  1. What is your opinion on the candidacy of Donald Trump? Is Mr. Trump a conservative, and are you surprised that he has received support from some Christian leaders, such as Jerry Falwell, Jr?

Mr. Trump is a liberal. “Christian leaders” who support him should be ashamed of themselves, and other Christians should stop following their lead.

4) What are the four or five most important issues affecting the nation that you will be campaigning on?

The number one issue I always campaign on is that the nation as a whole has, sadly, turned away from God, and from the bedrock natural moral law principle that our rights come from God, not from any man, and that those rights are therefore absolutely unalienable. Until the American people return to God, and to moral principle, there is no hope of slowing down, much less stopping, our slide toward oblivion.

The second most important issue, which is related, is that the country continues to allow, under the color of “law,” the daily slaughter of more than four thousand innocent, helpless, defenseless little boys and girls in their mother’s wombs – a holocaust that is contrary to our national creed, contrary to every clause of the stated purposes of our Constitution, contrary to the explicit, imperative equal protection and due process requirements of that Constitution, in multiple Amendments, and contrary to the absolute equal protection requirements of all our state constitutions. Also closely related to the abortion question is the continued willful destruction by our elites of the crucial, God-created, God-defined cornerstone institution of our civilization, which is one man-one woman marriage. In short, without the natural family, and without posterity, there is no future for America. It’s as simple as that.

The third issue is our fight against the destructive, fallacious notion that judges are our rulers: that they are somehow supreme even over God, over the laws of nature, over our Constitution, over the other branches of government, and over every aspect of American life, contrary to all of the principles of republican self-government – with its necessary checks and balances – that are supposed to be guaranteed by our Constitution.

The fourth issue is the necessity of stopping the erosion of our national sovereignty, security, and borders by the globalists.

The fifth issue is the absolute necessity of stopping out-of-control growth of unconstitutional government programs and agencies, which threaten to bankrupt not only us, but our posterity as well – which amounts to the robbing of that posterity of their God-given, unalienable right to government by consent.

  1. If you do not win the Constitution Party’s presidential nomination in April, will you run for the party’s vice-presidential nomination?

No. Not under current circumstances.

  1. Now let’s get to perhaps the most pressing question. In a March 6th interview with ATPR, fellow CP presidential candidate J.R. Myers said the following about you: “Mr. Hoefling is more of a Neo-Conservative. This is why he’s not a good fit for the CP nomination. His past involvement has been damaging. Also, he’s spent the past eight years building a rival organization in opposition to the CP, and was involved in the California controversy with the American Independent Party.” Do you disagree with Mr. Myer’s assessment, and if so, why?

I’m not a neo-conservative. I am a constitutional conservative. I have no idea where Mr. Myers got such a notion. It’s certainly not based on anything I’ve ever said. He obviously doesn’t know me, or what I believe.

I had nothing to do personally with the AIP split from the Constitution Party. That division was already a fait accompli before I ever met most of the principals who were involved. I may have been in a position to benefit from it after the fact, but I didn’t have anything to do with the split itself. That was an internal conflict between Howard Phillips and the political successors of Bill Shearer after his death.

In any case, now, today, I’m offering the Constitution Party a way to, very possibly, heal that old rift and put the nation’s largest electoral prize, consisting of 55 electoral votes, back in the available column for the CP presidential ticket in 2016. I’m the only one in any real position to have any chance of carrying out that important peacemaking mission. I believe I can successfully bridge the divide between these parties, and add several more parties to the coalition as well, with the CP in the lead position.

If Constitution Party activists, America’s Party activists, American Independent Party activists, and American Party activists, will join forces around one principled conservative ticket in 2016, it’s obvious that we will all be much stronger than if we remain divided.

  1. In a related matter, in a comment posted March 26th to ATPR, Mr. Myers questioned as to whether or not you are a member of the Constitution Party. Are you a member of the Constitution Party?

I’m trying in good faith to be a member. And, I’m trying to bring a substantial number of other activists – very good, very principled activists – into the Constitution Party as well, in my own state, and all over the country. Some of them, in those places where they are being welcomed, are already pitching in to help collect petition signatures and line up electors.

8)  If you feel comfortable with sharing this information, would you be able to say how much money you’ve raised so far? Also, do you have any campaign staff, paid or volunteer?

I have a rather revolutionary view of money in politics. For a generation, conservatives have invested literally billions of dollars into national political organizations. Sadly, that money has mainly been used only to raise more money, or as leverage to completely dominate the grassroots from the national level. A number of years ago, we decided to tread a completely different path. Since not long after its inception, America’s Party has taken no contributions, and has expended no money. It’s all volunteer.

Since 2012, my presidential campaign has collected or expended no funds. Instead, we have returned to the historical model of the front porch presidential campaign, with the added tremendous benefit of the free modern communications capabilities that we all now have available to us.

According to the FEC, I placed at least 8th in the last general election – perhaps it would have been even higher if all the write-in votes had been tallied. This result was accomplished solely by grassroots means. Again, we spent nothing.

We’re not foolish enough to think that we can rebuild our entire political system, and save our country, with no money at all. It’s not that. We’re simply redirecting the flow of contributions away from the national level, urging contributors to instead send their precious, limited funds to deserving activists in the political trenches at the local level, or to worthy state-level political committees, where the money will be used 100% for its intended purposes, not to continue to line the pockets of the fundraisers and the professional political class.

In summary, we’re not only trying to restore the indispensable principles of the republic, we’re trying to remodel our practical political process, from the bottom up. We believe that this redirection of resources is one important way that we can, by example, restore government of the people, by the people, and for the people. The money men, the political consultants, and the media have had their way with us long enough, to our great detriment.

  1. Do you support a noninterventionist foreign policy in line with the Constitution Party’s platform? 

As I said before, I am a constitutional conservative. That means that as president I would use every constitutional power at my disposal to protect the sovereignty, security, and borders of the United States, and strive to maintain and enhance our ability to physically destroy any enemy that threatens our nation, our people, or our liberty.

For several generations, the self-serving machinations of our elites, who are almost uniformly globalists, have slowly but steadily eroded away our national sovereignty. I stand completely against them. I’m running for the presidency of the United States, not to be king of the world. As that great philosopher, Clint Eastwood, once said: “A man’s got to know his limitations.” The same is true of nations. We have neither the ability nor the responsibility to run the entire world.

Having said that, I would be duty-bound, constitutionally-bound, as president, to uphold our country’s treaty obligations, as long as those treaties are legitimate, have been ratified appropriately, and don’t violate the Constitution.

If I believe that any treaty to which we are now a party is in any way contrary to the rights, the interests, the security, or the sovereignty of the people of the United States, I would use the bully pulpit of the presidency as the means to persuade the legislative branch to revamp or revoke those treaties as quickly as possible.

People need to remember, this is not an area where the president is constitutionally-empowered to act unilaterally. Congress is granted great powers in the areas of declaring and making war, the ratification of treaties, and the conduct of our foreign policy. The executive and legislative boundaries of those legitimate powers must be respected. It’s an imperative of the presidential oath.

  1. Are you familiar with the Austrian School of Economics? If so, what are you thoughts on this school of thought? In terms of the economy, do you support or oppose abolishing the income tax, the Federal Reserve, and how would you as President keep American jobs from going overseas?

Great questions. I’m quite familiar with the Austrian School of Economics, and I am an adherent. I believe that men like Aquinas, and Cantillon, and Turgot, and Say, and Bastiat, and the other originators of this supremely important school, put their fingers on the fundamental natural law moral principles of economics – founded in an understanding of private property rights and the divine prohibitions against theft and murder – that are absolutely indispensable to the creation and maintenance of any free and prosperous nation. I greatly admire their successors down through the centuries, right up to the present day – men like Menger, and Böhm-Bawerk, and Mises, and Hayek, and Hazlitt, and Rothbard, and others – for their strict adherence to principle, and their unyielding, consistent, personally-sacrificial opposition to the purveyors of the wicked, destructive doctrines of the Marxist and Keynesian state socialists, both in Europe and in the United States.

For decades, I have been a national advocate of the total elimination of the federal income tax, believing that system to be fundamentally immoral, destructive of liberty, and completely counter-productive in every economic respect.

The continuation of the unconstitutional monstrosity we call the Federal Reserve amounts to nothing more nor less than a gross dereliction of duty on the part of those we elect to represent us. If there is anything that should always be firmly under the direct control of We the People and our representatives it is monetary policy. The continued sacrifice of that control to the Fed can only lead, inexorably, toward tyranny and individual and national poverty.

The destruction of American jobs is primarily self-inflicted. It’s not caused in the first place by external competitors or enemies. Fix our monetary policies, replace our system of direct taxation with simple, efficient, non-invasive indirect taxation, remove the huge load of tax and regulatory burdens from the backs of our businesses, stop the torrent of unconstitutional debt spending, and we would quite naturally become once again far and away the most potent engine for prosperity and economic liberty in the entire world.

  1. What are your views on the Israel/ Palestine situation? Do you favor either side in the conflict, or do you believe the U.S. should stay out of the issue completely? Also, what are your views on Islam? Would you favor banning Sharia Law?

My faith and world view require me to be a supporter of our ally Israel. But, of course, that does not mean that I think I’m running to be prime minister of Israel, or that I think Israel is perfect. I’m running for the presidency of the United States. Israel is a sovereign nation. They don’t want our charity, even if our Constitution authorized such charity, which it does not. They simply want us to act in a way that any good ally should act, and would prefer that we stop arming the enemies which surround them, enemies that have repeatedly attempted to annihilate them. But, in any case, it is in our national security interest that Israel remains an island of freedom and stability in the eastern Mediterranean.

While I bear no ill intentions toward the Islamic countries, I clearly recognize that their religion is also an overriding political ideology, one that is at its core hostile to America’s principles, one that has as its ultimate goal world domination. As president, I will continue to steadfastly oppose that aggressive ideology, both without and within our country, in every way that I can.

  1. What are your thoughts on the War on Drugs? Do you favor continuing this government policy, or do you believe in either decriminalization or outright legalization of certain drugs, such as cannabis?

I believe that in our republican form of government, the people, as a sovereign body, have a right to legislate against those things that are destructive of our children, of the moral basis of our republic, and of our physical ability to maintain that republic’s peace and security. The recreational use of drugs falls into that category. I grew up in the Sixties and Seventies, and saw first hand many lives destroyed by drug use, including close family members. The destructive nature of recreational drug use at that time even deeply affected the fighting ability and cohesion of our armed forces. The fact is, a nation full of drug-addled minds is an easy prey for tyrants, from within and without.

If the cannabis plant has useful medicinal properties, as seems to be the case, we are foolish not to avail ourselves, out of a sense of mercy, of those legitimate uses, just as we do the poppy plant, among others. Also, hemp is one of the most useful plants in existence for the production of fiber. We’ve made ourselves poorer by not fully utilizing it.

However, if the medicinal or industrial use of cannabis is being utilized as nothing more than a camel’s nose in the tent for the legalization of recreational use, I think we should firmly resist that ploy.

  1. Given that you ran against Virgil Goode for president in 2012, why should Constitution Party members support you as their candidate for 2016?

Virgil Goode is as fine a gentleman as you will find. He’s a great person. But, he is an unreconstructed Democrat when it comes to his continued support for the unconstitutional “entitlement” programs of Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal and Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society. When his support for those programs – even though he admitted to their unconstitutionality – was finally exposed during the three debates which were held in the run-up to the 2012 AIP presidential nomination in California, I ended up garnering a unanimous vote in my favor at their convention. In other words, I clearly represented the AIP platform and he did not. At the same time, I also represented the CP platform, which opposes unconstitutional programs such as this, while Mr. Goode did not.

  1. There are some people who say there are theocratic elements in the Constitution Party. Is this the case? Would Biblical law and the Ten Commandments ever supersede the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, in your view?

In my two and a half decades in politics, I have rarely encountered anyone who is anywhere near what I would call a real theocrat. I would bet that most, if not all, members of the Constitution Party are, like me, small “r” republicans. In other words, they adhere to the exact same political philosophy held to by the republican founders of our country. The premise of that philosophy is – as laid out in the Declaration of Independence, and adhered to by principled westerners since the days of Cicero – that the natural law, the laws of nature and nature’s God, precede and supersede all man-made laws and constitutions, and that for our laws to be just, and work properly, they must conform to that higher natural, moral law. That’s what our founders meant when they said that we are “a nation of laws, not men.” That’s not theocracy, that’s America.

  1. Lastly, what are your thoughts on some of your rivals for the CP presidential nomination, such as Don Grundmann, Scott Copeland and J.R. Myers? 

My primary rivals for the CP nomination appear to be Mr. Copeland and Mr. Myers. I’m sure they are both fine people, with many good personal qualities. But, I don’t believe they possess the political experience, vision, message, communication skills, or political assets that will be required to sustain – much less build up – the Constitution Party as a real political force in America in the months and years ahead.

I would like to sincerely thank Mr. Hoefling for granting ATPR this exclusive interview. -Krzysztof Lesiak

37 thoughts on “Exclusive interview with Constitution Party presidential candidate Tom Hoefling

  1. Jed Ziggler

    Good interview! Mr. Hoefling is a very eloquent man, despite my disagreements with him, he may be a good fit for the CP. Smart move not touching Grundmann with a ten foot pole!

  2. Jill Pyeatt

    This is a very good interview, Krzysztof. I read his biography, but it only mentions his political work and that he’s written a few books. It doesn’t say what his occupation is. I’m curious as to how someone can afford to raise so many children (although I realize that several of them are already out of the household).

  3. NewFederalist

    I agree with Jill. This is a really good interview, Chris. I also can see why Mr. Myers might see him as a neocon given his answer about Israel.

  4. Tom Hoefling

    My thanks to Krzysztof, and to all those who have offered kind words.

    NewFederalist, this whole thing illustrates the problem with the word “neocon.” It’s one of those labels that can mean just about anything its user wants it to mean, unfortunately.

    While I try my best, usually, to avoid such amorphous labels, personally, when I think of a neocon, I think of a globalist, a transnationalist, someone who cares more about their own money, power, and utopian view of the world than they care about the American people, our national sovereignty, our national security, and our Constitution. That’s why I consider it an insult to be called one. Because I’m about as far away from being that as you can be.

    But, if their definition includes anyone who is not an extreme isolationist, I’m afraid that they are excluding most conservatives in this country, including a very large percentage of CP members.

    The practical effect of that in the real political world we now live in is that they then have absolutely no hope of drawing in the large mass of conservatives – who up until now have resided in the formerly grand old party – who are going to be required to save the Constitution Party from irrelevancy, and much more importantly, save the American Republic from inevitable destruction.

    — Tom Hoefling

  5. Floyd Whitley

    Mr. Hoefling is not FEC Form 2 filed, and he has no apparent FEC Form 1 committee. Nor to my knowledge is he a member of the Constitution Party. Therefore, to suggest in the headline that Hoefling is “a Constitution Party presidential candidate” is simply false.

    The details of his campaign funding, I leave to the FEC. But, our national party’s By-Laws certainly take a dim view of multiple party affiliation. Indeed, they ban it, under Article II, Section 2.2.

    Furthermore, under the construction of the Executive Committee, the logic of supporting Mr. Hoefling is incongruent at best. Mr. Hoefling, evidently supported in his pretense by a group of malcontent party insiders, is a Wormwood of sorts. Regardless, his consideration at this point is illegitimate because, as is evident under By-Laws Article III, a presidential candidate automatically is appointed to the Executive Committee. However, to be on the Executive Committee requires membership in this party. Those attempting to stampede Mr. Hoefling at this late hour into consideration, certainly put the cart before the horse.

    Nor is Mr. Hoefling a legitimate candidate anywhere else either, given the fact that he lacks a properly filed current FEC Form 2. He is not recognized by the FEC as a candidate, despite what he alleges. And he is certainly not recognized in the State of Idaho.

    Mr. Hoefling does not get to choose to thumb his nose at registered voters of Idaho who went to the Presidential Primary to cast preference ballots. Neither he nor his malcontent supporters get to select and choose what rules and procedures they will or won’t follow.

    What Mr. Hoefling apparently is attempting to do is to ignore democratic process, flip off ethical procedures, and oil the machinery of party bureaucracy insiders… and that behavior is the exact last thing this nation needs more of. It certainly is not what the Constitution Party says it stands for.

    We insist, nay demand, an open and ethical process. Idaho’s recent primary was not hidden. It was well advertised, well in advance. Indeed, it was so well advertised that three gentlemen candidates from dispersed parts of our nation stood in it, and competed. Those gentlemen candidates cared enough about legitimate process and voter concerns to do so….but not Mr. Hoefling. Oh, no. Not he.

    The gentleman takes. But gives nothing. His arrogance and selfishness reeks. His cheapskate parsimony would starve babies, evidently, so long as he could continue to feed his own ego. But in any case, Mr. Hoeflng will not be on the Constitution Party of Idaho ballot in November.

    His candidacy (if it is mistakenly considered by this national party) will guarantee a break up of what remains of Constitution Party state affiliate unity. It will do the exact opposite of what the gentleman alleges is his purpose. I fully suspect that he knows this, and just doesn’t care.

    He sees the Constitution party as something to use. Cut the baby in half for all he cares, so long as he gets his piece and sates his greed. Such is the sacrifice upon the ego altars of this day and age.

    In an email this past weekend addressed to him and to a list of state affiliate chairs in the Constitution Party, CP-Idaho laid out the reasons why Mr. Hoefling will not be on the printed Idaho November ballot. He is a destructive individual who brings ruin in his wake. That has already been adequately proven.

    The national party can fool around with this dead end on Ego Drive. Cut doughnuts in the road and squeal with delight, if it must. But that goes nowhere other than to yet another ballot line access loss in 2016 should Mr. Hoefling be foisted as the national candidate. If that occurs, Idaho will certify the March 8th Primary winner…Mr. Copeland…and print Mr. Copeland and his running mate choice on the November ballot. A done deal.

    Mr. Hoefling has contributed nothing (as is clearly evident in the list of FEC Form 3x) to support the Constitution Party. He does not “love” this party, not by his deeds, and not by words. Mr. Hoefling is simply a freeloader who preys upon division. Indeed, he creates division so as to exploit it.

    The gentleman is no more and no less than, in my view, a common interloper. I believe he commits identity theft…which has been aided and abetted by headlines like the one in the article above.

    My personal views.

  6. Tom Hoefling

    Mr. Whitley,

    It is not required that a federal candidate file such forms with the FEC unless and until they do something that requires it. As I fully explained to Mr. Lesiak in the interview, my campaign plan does not require me to do unnecessary, very expensive things like that. To my knowledge, this creates no impediment to gaining the ballot line in any state. And I’ve been working on ballot access issues all over the country for more than two decades.

    Our plan is to instead ask donors to give to organizations like yours, at the state and the local level, instead of to me or my campaign. I would think that idea would be quite attractive to you, frankly.

    You say that I have not contributed to the CP, but that’s not true either. I can think of many instances over the last twenty-five years when I’ve worked with members of the party in terms of campaigns and advocacy for the principles we all share. In one particular instance, I slept on a cot for many months, 2000 miles from my home, to lay the groundwork for the congressional campaign of a CP candidate, Jim Gilchrist. He almost won, too.

    As far as the rest of your claims about me, which are also incorrect, I think it would be better at this point to wait to address them during my Constitution Party of Texas debate with Mr. Copeland on Monday night.


    For Life, Liberty, and the Constitution,

    Tom Hoefling

  7. Floyd Whitley

    “To my knowledge, this creates no impediment to gaining the ballot line in any state.” Then your knowledge truly is defective. You are certainly required to do so in Idaho.

    I rather suspect that you are required to do so in a number of number of other states as well, for reasons I will set out below. But in any case, you admit that you believe that you are somehow above the rules…that you can twist, or bend, or ignore them. Rules are for chumps, is that it? Above us, are ye?

    Your claim that FEC Form 1 and Form 2 are “unnecessary, very expensive things” is patently ludicrous! by it, you expose yourself to public ridicule. You are either completely ignorant or a rank liar. To use the standard rhetorical device here…which one is it?

    You attempt to deflect and deceive, regardless. Actually, you are required to file, having declared your candidacy. As to machinations, aye. You do indeed do that.

    You attempt to avoid reporting your bogus “front porch” financial routine. In fact, you are trying to claim a fine difference without a distinction…with “fine” here being a turn of the pun. You say: “Our plan is to instead ask donors to give to organizations like yours.” That, presumably is to get kicked back to your campaign, directly or in-kind. You as much as admit to breaching of the federal codes.

    Why is that? Because as soon as you ask someone to raise monies on you behalf, irrespective of the amount, you must file FEC for a national elective office. That $5,000 mentioned by the FEC is simply a “must” file trigger.

    The scam that you are attempting to pull is that you are trying to claim that these monies (which you admittedly ask for) are separate segregated funds. Therefore, by your reasoning–if that’s what it style it as–is that you don’t have to file financial reports! These are segregated…sez you.

    First, they are not segregated funds, not under the construction of a federal campaign. Second, the mere fact that you have asked for these donations, automatically triggers the 15 day federal filing requirement. I submit that you are long past that.

    Maybe the FEC attorneys are too busy with the Republicans and Democrats to care about what appears to be your deliberate abuse of elections financial reporting requirements. Can’t say. But on the other hand, there’s a likelihood that they may be very interested. Kind of a quarantine, sort of like Ebola…they might consider containing it before it spreads.

    As to my “claims” about you, anyone can read the words you wrote. Their aroma is plain enough. It’s the kind of dirt that soap can’t wash off…which is to say “Ordinary Politician Grease”.

    You attempt to employ that worn out faux fidelity–you’re just here to “build up” the Constitution Party…”Can’t we all just get along?” Right Rodney? That’s the standard line used everywhere these days to phish a party’s pass codes…which is exactly what you are attempting to do.

    For all the reading of Scriptures, me’thinks thou hast mistook being a phisher of men…by several fathoms.

    “Build up” a veritable “Habitat for Hoefling”. But, apparently without shame whatsoever, you then say, that you would not consider being Vice President for this party you “love”! So much for “building”.

    Your loyalty is ripely apparent…the morbidity of its perfume is unmistakable. Quit pretending. The rest of the neighborhood is fully aware. You disguise nothing, despite your efforts. You merely make yourself a crude pantomime of motions…that whitewashed tomb thing.

    Your entire routine reeks of hypocrisy, sir. Apparently, you believe yourself to be the classic knight on a white horse. Somehow, in your delusion, you assume that you possess skill sets that nobody else has. Get a clue. You’re not unique. Far from it. You are the quintessential narcissist. In fact, you are the equivalent of Donald Trump, only in stunted miniature…absent that bankroll and the 757. You both actually have more or less the same Vaudeville act going, truth be told. It would be funny if it weren’t so worn out.

    The richness of all of this is that, in exchange for your bestowed benevolence upon us all, you are demanding “My way or the highway.”…in true Trumpish fashion no less. Again, you have no standing to make any demands. You are not a member of this party.

    And you have as much as admitted that your only interest is to get the top of the ticket. You are not interested in contributing to “building” anything…that’s work; that’s for chumps. And by the way, I cannot help but note that you deflected answering the simple interview question above regarding whether you are a member of the Constitution Party. Too clever by half, is you.

    “My way of the highway” defines your arrogance, Mr. Hoefling. Idaho is not seeking a Do-Nothing shining armor Johnny-Come-Lately. That get up is sort of ridiculous out here anyway. No. We actually understand the distinctions between haughty presumption and actual nobility; we being of free yeoman stock.

    I have seen many kings slaves, mister, and many slaves kings. You pretend to be a king. Actually, I find you to a rather common form of politician. What you are is reminiscent of Legion, writhing on the ground, spittle splattered. You are willing to say anything to phish that pass code…even if that means morphing into a stampede of pigs.

    You’re a lot of things. But ethical is not among them.

  8. Bob Haran

    First off, that was a great interview, my congratulations to Independent Political Report. The so called main stream media should ask those same questions of the two major party candidates and see how they handle them.

    Second, Mr. Hoefling is obviously a very intelligent man, which begs the question, why have a constitutional conservative party like America’s Party and a constitutional conservative like Mr. Hoefling opposing a much larger constitutional conservative party like the Constitution Party? It would be obviously better for America and the constitutional conservative cause for Mr. Hoefling to disband the America’s Party and throw his total support with the Constitution Party, or is ego getting in the way of common sense here?

    I don’t expect Mr. Hoefling to surrender his political beliefs and support every word of the Constitution Party platform, I don’t agree with everything in the platform. Instead of reinventing the wheel however and starting a party that agrees with the vast majority of what the Constitution Party believes, why not merge with the Constitution Party and help us take back America?

    This may very well be the year of the third parties in American politics. People are truly fed up with the Democrats and the Republicans and the candidates they are offering the American people are horrible. This is the time for constitutional conservatives to a unit, not to divide. Join us or get out of our way.

    For God and country,

    Bob Haran,
    Constitution Party of Arizona.

  9. Tom Hoefling

    Mr. Whitley,

    You are still mistaken. FEC filings are not required for a candidate to be placed on the ballot in Idaho, or, as I have said previously, any other state of which I’m aware.

    Here are the requirements for partisan candidates:


    And here are the requirements for independent candidates:


    Nowhere to be found are the rules you’re inventing.

    The personal attacks I will ignore. You’ve created a fictional character that I in no way resemble.


  10. NewFederalist

    Bob Haran – Ask Cody Quirk about getting the small right-wing parties to unite. Herding cats doesn’t even come close!

  11. Floyd Whitley

    @ William Saturn

    “Is the Idaho CP willing to disaffiliate over this?

    It depends on what you mean by “disaffiliate”. CP-Idaho is not bound to blindly follow something we believe to be unethical.

    We take up our rights, fully and completely, as they are guaranteed to us under the organizational charter of the national party, under Article III-State Affiliation, Paragraph 3. (This same Article at Paragraph 1, incidentally, prohibits dual party affiliations.)

    It is CP-Idaho, not the national party, has absolute power over the state’s ballot line. And we do not cede that power to anyone other than to the expressed will of our registered voters themselves. No one.

    If the Hoefling nomination occurs at convention, CP-Idaho will indeed do exactly what we said we will do. Absent an expressed written release of the bound delegates by the Primary winner, we will have (like CP-Oregon has done in the past) a different candidate.

    We do not suspect that a delegate release will happen. Therefore, in 2016, under such a scenario, the national party will indeed lose the ballot line in Idaho. That is not a threat. It is an absolute consequence.

    As to what reverberations may occur should the “secret neo-selection committee 2.0” succeed in the brokering this particular non-party pretender, we cannot say. But, I would be less than forthright if I said that discussion has not come up. It has.

    It also depends on the outcome of the election of national officers at Salt Lake. That will have a great deal to do with whether CP-idaho goes or stays. But one thing is positively certain. We will not tolerate another four years of this mess.

  12. NewFederalist

    It appears the CP is TOAST. Too bad in many ways but as Cody found out the extreme right is no different than the extreme left. Each have about half a dozen different parties than seem very similar but hate each other with intensity. Id, Ego and Superego… ask Freud when he gets out of the bathroom!

  13. Floyd Whitley

    You, are Legion, mister. Writhing on the ground. Spitting, foaming, trying everything you can to fool, to convince the foot of truth to lift from off your neck and let you up.

    Let you go, so you can infect some other poor gullible soul with your poison? That’s not going to happen.

    You tell a man by his fruit. Not his words, but his deeds. And you certainly do have a bounty of division all about you. I recognize you. I know you for precisely who and what you are.

    You could promise the moon and the stars, and every kingdom on Earth. I will still refuse you. I stand with the Centurion ‘s faith.

    This party may make a Faustian bargain by continuing to molly coddle you. I do not make those kinds of deals.

  14. Floyd Whitley

    @ Mr. Ziggler,

    “am I to take your protests as an indication that Mr. Hoefling is indeed a leading candidate for the CP’s nomination?

    No. He is not a candidate. He’s a pretender, like I said.. A colossal waste of time, and frankly, of air.

    My protests are aimed at corruption, unethical actions, at manipulation, at elitist control, at hypocrisy, at top-down management, at the “soft” despotism of the clique. Mr. Hoefling is merely a tool being used by those who seek to keep that questionable status quo operational.

    One need only look around. You can easily see the devastation that that kind of “process” has generated.

  15. J.R.Myers

    Mr. Hoefling,

    You are mistaken in saying you don’t know me. I attended the 2008 CP convention in KC. I remember you chain smoking and cussing up a storm. I also remember the devastating fallout, and yes you were in the middle of it. Why is it only now, at this late hour that you reappear? And yet will not disband you party and join the CP. I was willing to give you a hearing, but that window has closed. You are the epitome of a would be carpet bagging usurper. Me thinks you protest too much about being called out about your disloyalty to the CP.
    It’s easy to become an official member, if you truly wanted that…

  16. Tom Hoefling

    Mr. Haran,

    Thank you for your kind words!

    I hope that we can speak soon, so I can at least try to show you why under the arrangement I suggest there is no threat to the Constitution Party, whatsoever. It’s all upside for you, at least from my end.

    I’m trying to bring the other three parties involved in behind YOU. We’re trying to bring our activists in behind YOUR party building efforts. We’re trying to put all of our strength behind YOUR ability to appear on more state ballot lines. There’s no good principled or practical reason to shut down the very political committees that have made the gathering of these salt of the earth patriots possible, at virtually no money expense.

    My influence extends somewhat beyond these three parties as well. I have some significant influence among abolitionists and pro-lifers. More and more people are now coming, finally, to fully understand the great extent to which the formerly grand old party has betrayed the little babies and their own most important Constitutional obligations, and continue to do so. I well understand the mindset of those who are, to date, still locked into the GOP scam. If it is at all possible to do so – which may well be the case this year – no one knows how to peel them off better than I do.

    Contrary to the specious claims against my character and intentions made by some, this isn’t just about me or something silly like that. If you have somebody else that can offer more than I can to the effort to save the country, or who can offer more to the effort to preserve and grow the CP, or who can bring these other good patriots into coalition behind you this year, show them to me. I’m more than happy to play second fiddle, or hundredth fiddle. I don’t care. I’d much rather be raising my kids, and my grandkids, and tending my garden than exposing myself to this kind of burden and abuse.

    But in the absence of someone like that, I would be irresponsible not to proceed on the course we have charted.


    Tom Hoefling

    (In November of 2015, Tom Hoefling was named by Newsmax as one of America’s 100 Most Influential Pro-Life Advocates. http://www.newsmax.com/TheWire/pro-life-advocates-influential/2015/11/04/id/700495/ )

    (Tom Hoefling is one of the few political leaders in America who maintains a rating as a Tier 1 Personhood Pro-Life Leader with American Right to Life. http://prolifeprofiles.com/tom-hoefling-americas-party )

  17. Tom Hoefling

    Mr. Whitley,

    You continue to misread what it says on the SoS’s website.

    It’s not saying that you have to register with the FEC to appear on the Idaho ballot. It’s saying that the candidate’s compliance responsibilities are not to the state of Idaho, but to the FEC.

    Responsibilities that I understand perfectly well, and am in perfect compliance with.


  18. Jed Ziggler

    With all due respect, Mr. Hoefling, I question how you will get CP on more state ballots, as America’s Party has only ever gotten its presidential candidate on the ballot in the same three states. It doesn’t point to a strong track record on ballot access.

  19. Floyd Whitley

    “It’s not saying that you have to register with the FEC to appear on the Idaho ballot.” Yeah, I want to see you try to sell that to Larry Denney.

    Writhe some more. Legion. What it says is plain:

    “Individuals who wish to run for U.S. President must register with the Federal Election Commission (FEC) for campaign finance reporting.”

    If you run for U.S. President in Idaho (i.e. appear on the ballot)….you MUST REGISTER with the FEC because campaign finances MUST be open to public inspection.

    By all means, go ahead and make of complete asinine fool out of yourself, Legion. Meanwhile, I’ll just keep my foot on your neck, and wait for the next herd of pigs to wander past.

    You are clueless, Hoefling. I’ll say that much about you. If you think people are looking for your kind of “creative accounting” and “creative bending of the codes” you got another thing coming. America does not need another Hillary Clinton twisting rules, and suspending disbelief in the explanations, once caught.

    By your attempt to twist the rules to suit your bloated ego, you expose yourself for exactly the type of individual that you are. No one should trust you with anything, if this is what you do. You’re corrupt.
    Any objective CPer need look no further.

    This example (and your surrealist distortion) tells us all that needs to be said about your so-called character.

    By the way, quit getting your spit on my boot.


  20. Scott Copeland

    Once a candidate announces, the candidate must file within 15 days of the announcement a FORM 2. Sorry to see Mr. Hoefling is monthes behind schedule.

    As to your personal remarks about me, Mr. Hoefling, I see absolutely no truth. I have won a primary race, the Idaho primary. I filled a FORM 2 nearly a year ago as well as my FORM 1 for my Presidential committee, Americans For Scott Copeland USA. http://www.scottcopelandusa.com

    As to my articulation you have never, as far as I am aware, attending or been involved with any of my interviews from newspapers, magazines, radio or television stations. Have you seen or heard them? I do not know. You and I have never spoken directly. While I have held no such animosity toward you, I will simply say this…

    You are not at the very least a Form 2 Presidential candidate with the FEC nor are you a member of the Constitution Party. I have been drawing people to this party and my campaign reflects as much. As to the debate I will be the only candidate and the only Constitution Party member. As I have previously stated opening and very forthright, I believe a candidate of the Constitution Party should step up and defend the party platform. I look forward to our discussion on Monday, April 4th.

    I have been fully and solely endorsed by Mr. John Kotmair of Save A Patriot and the Liberty News Network. Also, I am the only Constitution Party Presidential candidate to receive the fully endorsement of the Georgia Right to Life. Georgia Right to Life and myself wholeheartedly support and know life is to be cherished from the point of conception thru natural life death. And yes the Constitution Party platform embraces these God endorsed principles and values. There are no exceptions and no excuses. Lastly I am proud to work with the Mississippi Parental Rights for Vaccinations. Also, due to my immigration policies I have been able to team with the Remembrance Project. These are but a few.

    Lastly, Jesus Christ is the Lord of America and indeed the world. He is my Lord and Saviour. I pray continuously for the American people people and the citizens of this great nation. It is my hope God will cause His people to see with eyes wide open THE PARTY OF THE CONSTITUTION, THE CONSTITUTION PARTY. WE MAKE AMERICAN CITIZENS THE PRIORITY, NOT GOVERNMENT. Join your state affiliate today and let us fight for America.

  21. Tom Hoefling

    Mr. Copeland,

    Neither you, nor the other gentlemen here, get to decide who is and who isn’t a candidate. You don’t understand the FEC rules and you misunderstand the state requirements for a candidate to be placed on the ballot.

    It’s the Constitution of the United States that sets the criteria for who is qualified for the office. And the Constitution does not require that you raise and spend money to run for president.

    The reporting requirement to the FEC has nothing whatsoever to do with your announcement date. The requirement kicks in only when you have raised or expended a certain amount of funds.

    I know some of the best constitutional attorneys and FEC experts in the land, and they fully vetted our method of doing a presidential campaign before we ever launched out on this course four years ago.

    Fact is, I’m running exactly the same sort of campaign that was run by William McKinley, and other candidates for the office, throughout our nation’s history.

    As far as membership in the Constitution Party goes, just what does it take to join your exclusive club anyway? The party is nearly extinct in my state, and quite a few others. I’ve stepped up with good activists who are willing to do the hard work of helping revive these moribund parties. We have offered to put your best interests ahead of our own in terms of party-building and ballot access. Do you or do you not want our help? How will the CP ever grow again if you tear to pieces those who try to find common cause with you?

    I look forward to our conversation about this and many other important matters on Monday night.


  22. Scott Copeland


    The only person claiming exclusiveness is you. As to joining the Constitution Party contact your state affiloate. Each determines their methid, not natiinal. Or do you need a team of constitutional lawyers and scholars to find out how to join.

    Whether or not we need you or your help, it is obvious you and your party need us. How many states does your party have? Three? Four?

    Offer to help us? We are a national party on our own. You obviously have to have us and we will not bend on our principles or message.

    Good luck in your NOT campaign.

  23. NewFederalist

    I have no dog in this fight BUT… I believe Mr. Hoefling is correct that he does NOT have to register with the FEC unless or until he raises $5,000 for his campaign. Ralph Nader ran for president in 1996 without filing and Darryl Perry is seeking the LP nomination this year without filing since he will not accept traditional currency contributions. Other intra-party issues aside I believe he is correct about this matter.

  24. Floyd Whitley

    Hypocrisy should never be confused with democracy.

    Unfortunately, slippery politicians like Mr. Hoefling are unable to make that distinction. I want to dissect the hypocrite. To expose.

    I have several dissections to make. Some of the gentleman’s tumors are in so deep it will take a chainsaw to cut them out and lay them on the examination table. but so be it.

    The opening cut:

    The interview above is quite clear…in fact one of the few genuine things the interloper Hoefling said during that written interview, was that he, The Hoelfing, flat out would not consider Vice President should he fail to fool this party into surrendering the top spot.

    Anybody here can go back up to the interview and read it. I mentioned in in a couple comments above as well.

    Bob Haran (Chairman, CP-Arizona) responded, maybe trying to tone down the rhetoric. Bob mentioned the ego getting in the way. And true to form, the greasy politician Hoefling thought he saw an opening.

    Lickity split, Legion behaves that way. He’s slippery, mercury quick at the first sign of softness.

    Mr. Haran’s comment was less harsh. So what does Legion do? Head straight for the beguiling. He eyeballed an opportunity at self promotion, at disarming suspicion, and resistance. So, Hoefling pursues Mr. Haran under the high beams, and all the dripping charm of a pitcher plant.

    And who can blame the opportunist? You never know. Maybe Legion can find a portal to infect, something to parasitize. This is what Hoefling says in his “nice” reply to Mr. Haran:

    “I’m more than happy to play second fiddle, or hundredth fiddle.”

    Oh really? I challenge anyone here to square that last quote from Hoefling with his interview quote above. The guy is a deceiver, two faced, a phony. Hence, my descriptive use of Legion. Like I said, he will say anything, even completely contradict himself if he thought he could pull the wool.

    Far be it from me to point it out, but those canines give the camouflaged pretense away. That ain’t no lamb.


  25. Floyd Whitley

    The second cut:

    Ah yes, I detect a standard “Pie in the Sky” political tumor. We’ll remove that to see what’s behind it.

    By the way, on the way in, we’ll cauterize that pustule over those alleged separate segregated funds that “don’t” need to be reported. They are in fact connected funds, which are being solicited by a federal campaign. Therefore, they certainly are under public demands to account for them. “Creative” accounting is notwithstanding.

    Otherwise, if some low-tier federal politician “doesn’t” need to report until $5,000…that $5,000 triggering mechanism will never be hit as long as the politician gets to decide what’s reportable…things like in-kind, kick-backs, personal loans..or somebody else’s money. And that is why, once a federal campaign asks someone to solicit funds on their behalf (even this creative Ponzi scheme laundering method proposed by Hoefling) you must file Form 1 and Form 2.

    Besides, as an observational note, if this much effort is expended in avoiding disclosure, then that is clue enough on the character involved. One ought to walk a wide mile country mile around that “Hillary Clintonesque” hazardous waste site. Scripturally speaking, what is evidenced by Hoefling in this matter is discussed in Matthew 23:2, and even more precisely, in Matthew 23:5.

    Declare and Disclose. Simple enough.

    If a political huckster is unwilling to do that minimal level of hygiene, then the People have every right to quarantine. It’s a matter of public health…and limiting the waft of unpleasant aroma.

    Ah well. Back to the chainsaw. A particularly nasty “Sky Pie” tumor, that one is. It’s lodged in there, to be sure. Here’s what “The Tom” says:

    “Our plan is to instead ask donors to give to organizations like yours, at the state and the local level, instead of to me or my campaign. I would think that idea would be quite attractive to you, frankly.”

    That plan, paraphrased, is: Why, just give over to me, entirely unearned, the top of the ticket. And for that small fee (you have my word on it), “attractive” money will simply rain down upon you.

    If it’s too good to be true…it ain’t true. Besides, prove it. Evidence? None.

    I do give the fellow credit, however. His ploy is standard boilerplate. It usually finds a mark..it’s weaknesses. P.T. Barnum (and Legion too) knew that well…”salt of the earth patriots possible, at virtually no money expense.” !!! The next promo line is well known. It’s a routine fill in the blank model…”But wait, there’s more!” says the phisher.

    Well, there’s the tumor. Maybe a table biopsy is in order. After all, Hoefling did say has “influence”. And I cannot help but note, that was so ludicrously rich that even Mr. Ziggler made reference to it above, with due respects, of course.


  26. Mark Seidenberg

    Mr. William Saturn

    I will not speak for Mr. Hoefling. I recall the meeting of the AIP State Central Committee of September 3,
    2006 in Sacramento County, California of the American Independent Party. At that meeting Dr. Don Grundmann chose to give up a seat on the State Central Committee of the AIP for six years, to run for
    the office of National Committee of the AIP that gave him a membership on the AIP state central committee with his last day in office on September 2, 2008.

    Too this day, I do not understand why Dr. Don Grundmann did such an act of cutting nearly four years
    for his term of office.

    Starting on September 3, 2008, Dr. Don Grundmann held no office in the American Independent Party of
    California. At one in time he was claiming that he became the Vice Chairman of the American Independent Party of California. However, when pressed he came up with three different dates he claimed he was elected. That is how he go the handle of “Three Dates Don”. At another point in time
    he claimed he was Chairman of the “REAL AMERICAN INDEPENDENT PARTY” and also Chairman of the
    “CONSTITUTION PARTY OF CALIFORNIA”. It will be interesting to know what credentials at the Constitution Party in Salt Lake City, will do about a delegation headed by Dr. Don Grundmann who
    I understand is trying to run for POTUS at that convention.

    The 338 electors of the Constitution Party has another problem getting ballot qualified in California. You
    have the Treasurer and the National Committeeman of the Constitution Party of California claiming he
    was elected State Chairman of a cabal designated as the “Independent Party”.

    The lawsuit that was filed in Sacramento, CA on February 16, 2016, has a Plaintiff named William “Bill”
    Lussenheide of Sun City, CA, who seconded a resolution of Grundmann at a Los Angeles meeting of a cabal in June, 2008. This was at the time that Mr. Lussenheide was a registered Republican, because
    he did not register in the American Independent Party until October 24, 2008. Now Mr. Lussenheide
    is registered NPP in Riverside County, CA.

    What will happen in Salt Lake City with the credential of California is any ones guess?

    Sincerely, Mark Seidenberg, Chairman, American Independent Party of Califronia
    2008 using the name “American Independent Party”

  27. AMcCarrick

    Is it just me or would it not make sense for the constitution party to merge with the “independent party” (in states like Oregon), and the Conservative Party in New York and take the Conservative Party name? All three parties seem to have similar platforms and it would consolidate many competing factions of the same ideology into one party under an easily identifiable and understandable name.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *