Constitution Party, American Independent Party of California and Oregon Independent Party
It’s nearly 2016, and election season is now upon us. Many have watched the continuing antics of the old parties with alarm as our world descends into chaos. Where are our real leaders? Where is our hope? It’s easy to tune out and turn off to the whole process. Why vote?
Of course, that’s what the enemies of Freedom hope you’ll do. Go back to sleep, or simply give up. The old parties are counting on apathy and ignorance. They know that, “The Wicked Prosper, when Good People do nothing.” Thankfully, we still have a little time to awaken, engage in the process and make a difference!
A year ago, I did not think I would be running for President of the U.S.A. today. That all changed when I received a call from California, and was asked to run. After much prayer, discussion and thought, I decided to do it.
After all, I meet ALL Constitutional requirements for President of The United States. Life is short and I don’t see any other candidates out there that I can support at this time. I will boldly uphold our Judeo-Christian heritage and biblical Faith in the public arena. I will do this through common sense, consistency, courage and commitment to the Rule of Law.
The Constitution Party only has a few short months to gain ballot access for our Presidential ticket next year. It is crucial that our nominees appear in enough states to theoretically win at least 270 electoral votes. This is the number needed to elect a President. It is also the number needed for the Constitution Party to maintain its’ national credibility. This will not happen without active campaigning. That won’t happen without your help.
I just spent over $1,000.00 today to file to appear on the Idaho primary election ballot. I plan on travelling to Florida in a few days to speak to the Florida CP Convention in Sarasota. I hope to appear in the California ballot under the American Independent Party. Other expenses include the website, social media outreach, mail, phone calls and petitioning and ballot drives. As you know, no campaign is a one man show. It is a team built by all those who contribute their time, treasure or talent. Join our team today, we need your help now!
I am honored and humbled to be a candidate for the nomination of the Constitution Party in 2016. I realize that not everyone will have this opportunity, and this may be the only time for me. I am committed to promote our ideals of Liberty, as articulated in the United States Declaration of Independence and the Constitution as originally understood.
I ask you to support my campaign for President of the United States. I will faithfully carry forth the message of Constitutional Liberty and Government Restraint. With your help, we can make a difference in the restoration of our beloved Republic.
You may click the Donate button in the upper right of this page, or send a check or money order to:
“We want no Gestapo or secret police. The FBI is tending in that direction. They are dabbling in sex-life scandals and plain blackmail. J. Edgar Hoover would give his right eye to take over, and all congressmen and senators are afraid of him.”—President Harry S. Truman
Using the terms “anti-government,” “extremist” and “terrorist” interchangeably, the government continues to add to its growing list of characteristics that could distinguish an individual as a potential domestic terrorist.
For instance, you might be a domestic terrorist in the eyes of the FBI (and its network of snitches) if you:
Despite its well-publicized efforts to train students, teachers, police officers, hairdressers, store clerks, etc., into government eyes and ears, the FBI isn’t relying on a nation of snitches to carry out its domestic spying.
There’s no need.
The nation’s largest law enforcement agency rivals the NSA in resources, technology, intelligence, and power. Yet while the NSA has repeatedly come under fire for its domestic spying programs, the FBI has continued to operate its subversive and clearly unconstitutional programs with little significant oversight or push-back from the public, Congress or the courts. Just recently, for example, a secret court gave the agency the green light to quietly change its privacy rules for accessing NSA data on Americans’ international communications.
When and if a true history of the FBI is ever written, it will not only track the rise of the American police state but it will also chart the decline of freedom in America.
Owing largely to the influence and power of the FBI, the United States—once a nation that abided by the rule of law and held the government accountable for its actions—has steadily devolved into a police state where justice is one-sided, a corporate elite runs the show, representative government is a mockery, police are extensions of the military, surveillance is rampant, privacy is extinct, and the law is little more than a tool for the government to browbeat the people into compliance.
The FBI’s laundry list of crimes against the American people includes surveillance, disinformation, blackmail, entrapment, intimidation tactics, harassment and indoctrination, governmental overreach, abuse, misconduct, trespassing, enabling criminal activity, and damaging private property.
And that’s just based on what we know.
Whether the FBI is planting undercover agents in churches, synagogues and mosques; issuing fake emergency letters to gain access to Americans’ phone records; using intimidation tactics to silence Americans who are critical of the government; recruiting high school students to spy on and report fellow students who show signs of being future terrorists; or persuading impressionable individuals to plot acts of terror and then entrapping them, the overall impression of the nation’s secret police force is that of a well-dressed thug, flexing its muscles and doing the boss’ dirty work of ensuring compliance, keeping tabs on potential dissidents, and punishing those who dare to challenge the status quo.
The FBI was established in 1908 as a small task force assigned to deal with specific domestic crimes. Initially quite limited in its abilities to investigate so-called domestic crimes, the FBI has been transformed into a mammoth federal policing and surveillance agency. Unfortunately, whatever minimal restrictions kept the FBI’s surveillance activities within the bounds of the law all but disappeared in the wake of the 9/11 attacks. The USA Patriot Act gave the FBI and other intelligence agencies carte blanche authority in investigating Americans suspected of being anti-government.
As the FBI’s powers have grown, its abuses have mounted.
The FBI continues to monitor Americans engaged in lawful First Amendment activities.
COINTELPRO, the FBI program created to “disrupt, misdirect, discredit, and neutralize” groups and individuals the government considers politically objectionable, was aimed not so much at the criminal element but at those who challenged the status quo—namely, those expressing anti-government sentiments such as Martin Luther King Jr. and John Lennon. It continues to this day, albeit in other guises.
The FBI has become a master in the art of entrapment.
In the wake of the 9/11 terrorist attacks the FBI has not only targeted vulnerable individuals but has also lured them into fake terror plots while actually equipping them with the organization, money, weapons and motivation to carry out the plots—entrapment—and then jailing them for their so-called terrorist plotting. This is what the FBI characterizes as “forward leaning—preventative—prosecutions.”
FBI agents are among the nation’s most notorious lawbreakers.
The FBI’s powers, expanded after 9/11, have given its agents carte blanche access to Americans’ most personal information.
The agency’s National Security Letters, one of the many illicit powers authorized by the USA Patriot Act, allows the FBI to secretly demand that banks, phone companies, and other businesses provide them with customer information and not disclose the demands. An internal audit of the agency found that the FBI practice of issuing tens of thousands of NSLs every year for sensitive information such as phone and financial records, often in non-emergency cases, is riddled with widespread violations.
The FBI’s spying capabilities are on a par with the NSA.
The FBI’s hacking powers have gotten downright devious.
FBI agents not only have the ability to hack into any computer, anywhere in the world, but they can also control that computer and all its stored information, download its digital contents, switch its camera or microphone on or off and even control other computers in its network. Given the breadth of the agency’s powers, the showdown between Apple and the FBI over customer privacy appears to be more spectacle than substance.
James Comey, current director of the FBI, knows enough to say all the right things about the need to abide by the Constitution, all the while his agency routinely discards it. Comey argues that the government’s powers shouldn’t be limited, especially when it comes to carrying out surveillance on American citizens. Comey continues to lobby Congress and the White House to force technology companies such as Apple and Google to keep providing the government with backdoor access to Americans’ cell phones.
The FBI’s reach is more invasive than ever.
This is largely due to the agency’s nearly unlimited resources (its minimum budget alone in fiscal year 2015 was $8.3 billion), the government’s vast arsenal of technology, the interconnectedness of government intelligence agencies, and information sharing through fusion centers—data collecting intelligence agencies spread throughout the country that constantly monitor communications (including those of American citizens), everything from internet activity and web searches to text messages, phone calls and emails.
Today, the FBI employs more than 35,000 individuals and operates more than 56 field offices in major cities across the U.S., as well as 400 resident agencies in smaller towns, and more than 50 international offices. In addition to their “data campus,” which houses more than 96 million sets of fingerprints from across the United States and elsewhere, the FBI is also, according to The Washington Post, “building a vast repository controlled by people who work in a top-secret vault on the fourth floor of the J. Edgar Hoover FBI Building in Washington. This one stores the profiles of tens of thousands of Americans and legal residents who are not accused of any crime. What they have done is appear to be acting suspiciously to a town sheriff, a traffic cop or even a neighbor.”
If there’s one word to describe the FBI’s covert tactics, it’s creepy.
The agency’s biometric database has grown to massive proportions, the largest in the world, encompassing everything from fingerprints, palm, face and iris scans to DNA, and is being increasingly shared between federal, state and local law enforcement agencies in an effort to target potential criminals long before they ever commit a crime.
It’s an old tactic, used effectively by former authoritarian regimes.
In fact, as historian Robert Gellately documents, the Nazi police state was repeatedly touted as a model for other nations to follow, so much so that Hoover actually sent one of his right-hand men, Edmund Patrick Coffey, to Berlin in January 1938 at the invitation of Germany’s secret police. As Gellately noted, “[A]fter five years of Hitler’s dictatorship, the Nazi police had won the FBI’s seal of approval.”
Indeed, so impressed was the FBI with the Nazi order that, as the New York Times revealed, in the decades after World War II, the FBI, along with other government agencies, aggressively recruited at least a thousand Nazis, including some of Hitler’s highest henchmen, brought them to America, hired them on as spies and informants, and then carried out a massive cover-up campaign to ensure that their true identities and ties to Hitler’s holocaust machine would remain unknown. Moreover, anyone who dared to blow the whistle on the FBI’s illicit Nazi ties found himself spied upon, intimidated, harassed and labeled a threat to national security.
So not only have American taxpayers been paying to keep ex-Nazis on the government payroll for decades but we’ve been subjected to the very same tactics used by the Third Reich: surveillance, militarized police, overcriminalization, and a government mindset that views itself as operating outside the bounds of the law.
This is how freedom falls, and tyrants come to power.
The similarities between the American police state and past totalitarian regimes such as Nazi Germany grow more pronounced with each passing day.
Secret police. Secret courts. Secret government agencies. Surveillance. Intimidation. Harassment. Torture. Brutality. Widespread corruption. Entrapment. Indoctrination. These are the hallmarks of every authoritarian regime from the Roman Empire to modern-day America.
Yet it’s the secret police—tasked with silencing dissidents, ensuring compliance, and maintaining a climate of fear—who sound the death knell for freedom in every age.
Well-respected constitutional scholar, Georgetown Law professor, and head of the Georgetown Center for the Constitution Randy E. Barnett makes the case for a third-party candidate if Donald
Trump is the Republican nominee.
Barnett has long made the case against third parties, but in his view, Trump changes the dynamics and opportunity costs.
I have long vocally opposed third parties as irrational in our two-party system. They inevitably drain votes away from the major party closest to them, thereby benefiting the major party that is even worse. But strategies must adjust to circumstances. If Trump wins the GOP nominations, one of two things will happen, either of which would be disastrous for the Constitution and for the country.
He believes the norm doesn’t hold true with Trump, however, because “millions of patriotic Americans who would ordinarily vote GOP — including most conservatives and all constitutionalists — will never vote for him.”
If Trump wins, he’s made clear he cares nothing for the constitutional constraints on the president, or on government generally. His ignorance of our republican Constitution
— to match his ignorance of much else — and his strong-man approach to governance would make Trump’s election a political cataclysm second only to Southern secession in its danger to our constitutional republic.
For this reason, millions of patriotic Americans who would ordinarily vote GOP — including most conservatives and all constitutionalists — will never vote for him. Yet were he somehow to win without them — say by moving to the left of Hillary Clinton to capture the Sanders vote — a Trump presidency would doom America as an exceptional nation.
Furthermore, the media, which has been soft on Trump and given him generous air time, will no longer be so gentle.
Far more likely, however, once the Republican nomination is in his grasp, the media who have been irresponsibly reaping the ratings whirlwind will lay waste to Donald Trump in conjunction with the Democrats. His presidential campaign will be reduced to a few million die-hard Trumpies and little more.
Barnett’s view is supported by data. According to Gallup, Trump “has a higher unfavorable rating than any candidate at any time during all of these previous election cycles.” Numerous media breakdowns also show that cable news dedicates more time air time to Trump than other candidates, and sometimes more than all other candidates combined.
He suggests a third-party candidate could serve as “a lifeboat for anyone aboard the sinking GOP ship,” adding, “They will desperately need another vessel they can support in good conscience.”
“Parties die. The Whigs died because they could not bring themselves to stand against the Democratic Party that overwhelmingly supported or, at least, tolerated slavery in the South and its extension into the territories, thereby threatening the North. So a new Republican Party very quickly arose to replace it. Now the national GOP establishment’s failure to listen to the people is on the verge of giving us Donald Trump. If it does, it deserves to be replaced by a party that puts the Constitution first and politics second.”
Here is the report as covered by TheIntercept.com:
“Apple scored a major legal victory in its ongoing battle against the FBI on Monday when a federal magistrate judge in New York rejected the U.S. government’s request as part of a drug case to force the company to help it extract data from a locked iPhone. The ruling from U.S. Magistrate Judge James Orenstein was issued as part of the criminal case against Jun Feng, who pleaded guilty in October to drug charges. It is a significant boost to Apple’s well-publicized campaign to resist the FBI’s similar efforts in the case of the San Bernardino killers.”
The report continued: “Perhaps most devastating to the FBI’s case is Orenstein’s recognition that the purpose of the FBI’s request is not simply to obtain evidence in one particular case, but rather to grant the government broad, precedential authority to force Apple and other tech companies to take affirmative technological steps to cooperate with criminal investigations generally. That the FBI is seeking to establish broad precedent is a key argument made by Apple and its supporters in the San Bernardino case. To accept that the U.S. government has this power, ruled the court, is to vest law enforcement agencies with statutory authority that Congress itself never enacted.”
And again, “The judge also accused the government of trying to manipulate secret judicial proceedings to obtain powers for itself against Apple that public debate and Congress would never permit. It is, Orenstein wrote, ‘clear that the government has made the considered decision that it is better off securing such crypto-legislative authority from the courts (in proceedings that had always been, at the time it filed the instant Application, shielded from public scrutiny) rather than taking the chance that open legislative debate might produce a result less to its liking.’ Because the government wants the courts rather than Congress to grant this power, the ‘government’s interpretation of the breadth of authority the AWA confers on courts of limited jurisdiction … raises serious doubts about how such a statute could withstand constitutional scrutiny under the separation-of-powers doctrine.’”
Continuing: “Finally, the ruling recognized that forcing Apple to compromise its own security systems at the behest of the U.S. government would impose a considerable cost far beyond financial expenses.”
“This cost, Orenstein wrote, is particularly high since–rejecting the FBI’s claim in the public debate that its request is limited to just one phone ‘the record of this case makes clear that the burdens the government seeks to impose on Apple under the authority of the AWA are not nearly so limited.’ To the contrary, ‘it clearly intends to continue seeking assistance that is similarly burdensome –if not far more so–for the foreseeable future.’”
One of Apple’s attorneys was even more direct in assessing the importance of this case:
“Apple’s attorney painted a scary picture if Apple loses its fight with the FBI.
“In an interview with CNNMoney’s Laurie Segall on Friday, Ted Olson warned of a government with ‘limitless’ powers that could ‘listen to your conversations.’
“Olson said the demands would mount.
“‘You can imagine every different law enforcement official telling Apple we want a new product to get into something,’ Olson said. ‘Even a state judge could order Apple to build something. There’s no stopping point. That would lead to a police state.’”
Hooray! A federal judge got it right for a change.
The three separate branches of government are supposed to serve as a check and balance when the other branches begin usurping constitutional liberties. For the most part, they have NOT done that. This particular U.S. Magistrate Judge did what courts are supposed to do: serve as a check to the overreach of the executive branch.
Virtually every abridgment of our Bill of Rights is committed in the name of “public safety” or “national security.” Most of us are patriotic, law and order people who want justice served. But in truth, the interests of justice and liberty are mutual. And this particular case–mandating that cell phone companies “unlock” the security and privacy features of cell phones–is fraught with violations of basic civil liberties, because the electronic search sought by the feds extends WAY BEYOND the individual suspected criminal.
The specific case above is only one of at least ten where the federal government is currently attempting to force cell phone companies to unlock the privacy features of their customers’ phones during criminal investigations. The ramifications of this prospective breach of personal privacy are staggering.
Unlocking a person’s cell phone would be worse than the current broad e-surveillance that is going on every day. This is a very specific and finite search that involves a person’s most private and intimate details.
Smartphones are more than talking devices; they record online searches, shopping data, travel information, medical information, private communication, and financial information–along with the personal information of EVERYONE CONNECTED to that cell phone. In other words, it’s not just the targeted person’s (presumably a suspected criminal) privacy that is being breached, but EVERYONE with whom that person had contact. Can you imagine the amount of private information of totally innocent people that potentially would be subject to police reports–all of which become “public record” and, therefore, available to the media, Internet bloggers, etc.?
Please read that paragraph again and let it sink in.
To get a little taste for just how much private information is stored on your smartphone and how dangerous it would be for the government to be able to freely unlock the information stored on your smartphone, read this article:
I’m not sure whether the American people comprehend just how serious an abridgment of privacy it would be if Apple loses this case, but in many respects, this is a technological Waterloo for liberty. I dare say this is a more egregious assault against our privacy (technologically speaking) than even the Patriot Act itself.
And, unfortunately, all of the remaining GOP presidential candidates–Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz, John Kasich, and Donald Trump–oppose the protection of cell phone privacy. The Democratic candidates Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders have said they are “neutral.” But we all know that Clinton is as Big Government as Big Government gets. And if Sanders is truly in favor of cell phone privacy, why does he fudge his position?
In the name of “national security,” “the war on terror,” “the war on drugs,” “law and order,” etc., both Democrats and Republicans are turning America into a George Orwell “1984” surveillance society. And if history teaches us anything at all, it teaches us that a surveillance society is always a precursor to a Police State. ALWAYS.
At any rate, THANK YOU Judge Orenstein. Every obstruction to the burgeoning surveillance society that a judge or governor or State legislator or sheriff or congressman or senator can muster is much appreciated–and very needed.
Tom Hoefling of Iowa, the founder and national chairman of America’s Party (AP), is seeking the nomination of the Constitution Party for the office of the President of the United States in 2016.
In 2012, Tom Hoefling was the presidential nominee of America’s Party, and was nominated and placed on the ballot by the American Independent Party of California (AIP). According to the official tally of the Federal Elections Commission, Tom finished eighth in the 2012 general election. It is believed by the Hoefling campaign that if all of the write-in ballots in the various states had been tallied, he would have placed higher.
Hoefling, who is 55, will once again be seeking the nominations of both America’s Party and the American Independent Party of California, as well as the nominations of other ballot-qualified state parties. In the states without an established ballot line, Tom will be running as an Independent candidate.
In his comments today, Tom Hoefling said, “I’m sick and tired of the morally-corrupt Democrats, who have turned into Socialists, and the unprincipled, do-nothing Republicans, who have turned into Democrats. I’m tired of seeing our politics dominated by the money men, the media people, and the political consultants. It’s time for decent, patriotic Americans to band together around our country’s historic moral, constitutional principles and take our country back; not for the sake of any political party or political personality, but for the sake of our children and grandchildren. I’m in this arena because it’s obvious that no one else is truly willing to lead the fight for equal protection for the unborn babies – all of the babies – for one e man-one woman marriage, for judges who are kept within their proper authority and jurisdiction, for our God-given right to keep and bear arms, for our national sovereignty, security, and borders, and for the restoration and preservation of our constitutional form of republican self-government.”
“This is a wholly grassroots effort. Our traditional front porch campaign, with a 21st Century technological twist, establishes a completely new standard for the way presidential campaigns are done,” Hoefling said.
In 2015, Tom Hoefling was named by Newsmax as one of America’s “Top 100 Most Influential Pro-Life Activists.” He is one of the few political leaders in the country that is rated by American Right to Life as a Tier 1 Personhood pro-life leader.
Amidst all the hoopla of presidential debates and primaries and polls, the minor parties, the several “third parties” are lost in the dust. We seem irrelevant.
When there is a conservative Republican, the Constitution Party in particular is placed in an awkward position. After all, most of us left the Republican Party because we felt we were not being given enough conservative candidates, so most conservatives stay within the fold and vote for that losing conservative candidate.
Ron Paul, for example, absolutely killed the Constitution Party in 2008 and in 2012. Literally thousands of Texans voted for Ron Paul who would have otherwise been very likely to have joined, and even become active in our party. So we didn’t make ballot access, and they had no viable choice in November. Again. (You don’t think there might be a pattern developing there, do you?)
But this year, as conservatives and constitutionalists turned out to vote for Ted Cruz, we are seeing an interesting opportunity shaping up. There is more than a small possibility that the GOP will deliberately shipwreck their party before they let Ted Cruz become their nominee. Cruz, for all his faults (and he has several), is very popular in Texas. And if the GOP conspires to cut him out of the running, by hook or by crook, they are going to alienate a large segment of the electorate.
There is a real possibility that 2016 will bring so many people to the Constitution Party that it could well affect a number of races around the country, and some candidates might well find themselves in a most surprising situation of being elected!
Yellow-dog Republicans (those who would vote for a yellow dog before they would vote for a Democrat) are already screaming bloody murder that, “A vote for a third party is a vote for Hillary!” That’s because they see they might lose yet another presidential race if they can’t count on conservative voters to come out and support their socialist candidate. (Are they slow learners, or is it they just prefer to lose, rather than nominate someone who might return us in the direction of constitutional government?)
So which is worse? An International Socialist (Democrat) in the White House, making more Americans mad by the day, or a National Socialist (Republican) in the White House, putting everyone back to sleep with conservative slogans, all the while consolidating the losses of freedom that the previous administration foisted on us? This country does not need four years on Xanax – we need a political revolution – in order to prevent a literal armed revolution!
There are several reasons why joining the Constitution Party now, in 2016, makes a lot of sense:
Voting your conscience is never an exercise in futility, even if it’s a write-in vote! It’s a sacred duty. When you vote for someone because you think they are more likely to win, you nothing more than a sheep.
Voting your conscience sends a message to party leaders – of all parties. When third party votes go up, majority parties start adopting policies which will appeal to those voters. Not because they have principles, but because they can count.
Helping build a stronger third party movement gives you and your friends a wider field of choice in November.
A stronger third party could easily become a major player on a ballot where both major parties have abandoned over half the seats to one another,1 because (once again) they are not about principles, they are about power and maintaining the status quo.
There WILL BE special elections next year. It happens every off year. If you join now, and help us build an active chapter of the Constitution Party in your county, and if you fall in one of those special election districts, then you can field a candidate and we can have instant ballot access! In the past we have had to watch those elections be conducted without a candidate because we had no one to run. You can change that.
Your membership dues (which are really low) mean we can advertise and print literature and inform more voters about how they can have some qualified candidates, instead of neoconservatives who don’t have a clue about constitutional government.
You are a leader, whether you know it or not. If you join, and then invite a few others to join, a domino effect begins. But it won’t happen until you make it happen.
We hope you’ll also subscribe to our mailing list, “friend us” on Facebook (Constitution Party of Texas), and then encourage five or ten friends to do the same. Those simple (and free) little things add up when a lot of people do them. And if we don’t start stirring ourselves outside our comfort zone, then nothing will change, and this country will continue to subside into a place where we really don’t want our grandchildren to have to live.
When you get to that point where you suddenly realize that the voters have been hoodwinked (again), and that a con-game is going on between the two major socialist parties, don’t abandon the fight – start a new one! Help us create some viable alternatives the next time around, else nothing will change.
1 There are 150 seats in the Texas House of Representatives. An amazing 96 of those races will only have one candidate on the ballot in November this year, as there is no opposition. This comes, of course, from gerrymandering – both parties are willing to concede so many seats to the opposition, so that the status quo is not disturbed. ANY candidate, whether an Independent or of any third party, stands a chance of upsetting the apple cart in many of those 96 races. Voters who are given a choice on the ballot will surprise the elite power brokers. That’s why you aren’t getting choices. That’s why they conspire to make ballot access so difficult.
It’s about the Constitution! ‘Hope and Change” the Founding Fathers believed in! www.CPTexas.us