Tuesday, March 4, 2008

On to 2012

I am saddened by the loses tonight, but I am still hopeful. In 2012, I will again support the most godly man/woman I can find. In the mean time, I plan to support people of character on a local/state level. I also plan on being involved in social conservative issues here in my town/state. God, please bless Mike Huckabee and his family. I truly hope that he will run again in 2012.


Anonymous said...




I've been a part of what's happening on Huckabee's official site for a while now. (I'm R3693--BumpusK!) I tried for the first time to register for Huck's Army yesterday to get on the forums, but the system didn't seem to take me.

Mike talked about a miracle and I believe it looks like the historical precedence that I’ll explain to you in a second.

First, can somebody get to Mike and tell him to just keep going!?!! We can keep the grassroots going, and what’s more—even growing, now that we are free of the Republican Party. There was too much unchecked dishonesty allowed by party leadership! Too many people also bought the lie that Mike was too far behind to ever win the nomination. Being for Mike Huckabee was made to seem like a wasted effort. People will come to Mike if they know it’s still a real option. All they’ve heard for almost two months is that it wasn’t a real option. Mike didn’t lose the nomination—it was cheated away from him by too many pundits; even many of them our usual favorites, who assumed (and still do) that ‘Club for Growth,’ and other Romney friends were legitimate organizations. Also, even some like James Dobson who were fooled that Romney was a legitimate ‘social conservative’—bleeding votes away from Mike. Fred Thompson also bled votes away from Mike. From late January I couldn’t get anyone else to come to Mike: “I like him, but he can’t win,” I heard repeatedly. Well, now the albatross is off his back—most people I know don’t care if he wasn’t the Republican nominee—they couldn’t be inspired to vote in the Republican primaries anyway! They're not even sure they want to be Republicans any more! I know I can now get ten people to join Mike as an independent, and each of them can get at least three others, as long as they can be sure that nothing short of Mike's Secret Service detail (failing to protect Mike—God forbid) will now stop his name from appearing on the ballot for the general election in November! Starting a new party and continuing to run is a story that the media won’t be able to ignore any longer! It'll be like the Old Testament stories of Job or Joseph who lost everything, only to be restored for the glory of God! Let’s get going!

SOMEBODY START A PETITION TO SEE HOW MANY PEOPLE WILL SUPPORT MIKE AS AN INDEPENDENT! I'm sure everyone will be amazed at how many more people will sign on. We'll get all the Huck's Army members and then people like me who weren't part of that, but who were Rangers will be there, and then it will just keep growing! Many, many people were deterred from joining Mike because they could see that the Republican Party establishment was dead-set on snubbing him. Now they have no power to stop him.

I've been voting Republican for 30 years—but they don't represent my values any more and I don't believe they're even trying to! I'll be voting third party in November—it might as well be Mike!

Now the precedence:

First we need to have a basic working knowledge of the Whig Party. An exceedingly abridged history lesson is probably best accomplished by offering a brief biography of the public life of our sixth president, John Quincy Adams. [To my understanding, a pretty remarkable fellow and probably one of our most underrated presidents. Hereafter, we’ll call him Adams(6).] As a young man Adams(6) was a member of the Federalist Party, one of the first two political parties devised as our young nation was finding its way—as also was his Dad, John Adams (not actually declared as such, but certainly by association with other Federalists). John Adams was our second president. Adams(2)—as we’ll call him—was impressed (as were all the Federalists) by the way the nation’s first president, George Washington, had begun to shape the Federal Government. (Washington, who was elected before anyone really considered any need of political parties, unwittingly spawned the first two of them, as people lined up in favor of and in opposition to his policies.) The Democratic-Republican Party, led by Thomas Jefferson, was not so impressed. One quote, often attributed to Jefferson, pretty much sums up the controversy: “Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have—the course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty decreases.” (If only Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin, Mao Tse-tung, Ho Chi Minh, Kim Tu-bong and Castro had read their Jefferson—the liberty of so many citizens the world over, of these last several generations, could have been spared. Anyway, it appears to be a very difficult lesson to learn as the vestiges of its antithesis endures around the world and continues to haunt the debate within our own society, today.)

It wasn’t easy at first for Jefferson, convincing the young nation of the errors of their beloved General Washington’s ways, and that he wasn’t as skilled at his new post as he had been earlier as vanquisher of the King’s tyranny. But once Jefferson did, becoming the nation’s third president, everyone became thoroughly persuaded! The Federalist Party disbanded a few years later after fielding only one successful ticket, Adams(2), and was soon forgotten. Jefferson served for eight years. The Democratic-Republicans dominated for pretty much another 25 years after that. There may have been other ‘start-up’ parties but the general population attributed no merit to these various ‘malcontents’ and most everyone basically assumed that they had long since arrived at their fundamental guiding principals, which would probably never seriously be challenged. Little did they know, that Adams(6), converted to a Democratic-Republican in maturity, would be their last ‘died-in-the-wool’ adherent (at least under the party’s ‘debuting format’)!

Now herein, begins some of the similarities and precedence for today, with one caveat: in this case the political ‘establishment’ had better judgment than the constituency. The people loved the exploits of Andrew Jackson. You might say he was something of a ‘maverick!’ Among other things he was an on-again off-again politician and ‘card-carrying’ member of the Democrat-Republican Party which by this time was really a shell of an organization, because who wasn’t a member—their work was done! As a young teenager he was actually a P.o.W. of the British, in the Revolutionary War. He wasn’t much of a student of history beyond his own lifetime, but believed strongly in his own wits and life experience. (—Sound like anybody we know?) Some leaders were wary, but the political ‘establishment’ as a whole wasn’t vigilant enough, and the people didn’t really have a clue. Jackson followed Adams(6) and became our seventh president.

Gradually, more and more thinkers of the day were convinced that Jackson was working without a script. He stubbornly rejected their attempts at counsel. He had grand ‘progressive’ plans: out with the old—in with the new. There wasn’t much that he considered a bad idea, or that gave him any notion of caution. Elder-statesmen realized that something had to be done!

So there we have our ‘look-alike’ for John McCain. (… But what about the need for a third political party? … Well, the Whigs are on their way. However, they are just a set-up as they become the second party on the scene.) Let’s hope, if somehow John McCain does get into the Oval Office, he’ll look to Jefferson and, as we’ll see, Adams(6) for inspiration. I— like you, I’m sure— will rest a lot easier though, if we have a better option!

Amazingly, rather than retire from politics after his turn as the Nation’s Chief Executive, Adams(6) ran for, and three years later found himself successfully back in Washington holding, a seat as a U.S. Representative from MA—a capacity in which he would continue to serve for the next seventeen years, until his death. Having been the son of our second president, and president himself, he was looked upon as a sage by many fellow representatives from all over the 24 existing States who were willing to oppose, and to try to circumvent the random policies and, what we would call today, the ‘liberal’ tendencies of Jackson. Unfortunately, just as many others were alternatively under Jackson’s ‘spell.’

Adams(6) then, with the help of a younger member of the House, the eloquent and charismatic Henry Clay from KY, assembled a resurgence of an unmitigated form of Jefferson’s true Democratic-Republican Party, in opposition to the ways Jackson had been taking it. Even though, for a few years pundits (as we call them today) had been distinguishing Jackson’s brand of Democratic-Republicanism as his own (something they called Jacksonian Democrat), for fear they would be perceived as having only minor nuanced differences to him, Adams(6) and Clay determined that they would make a clean break, and labeled their renewed efforts with an old name revived from 50-plus years before. Thus, the Whig Party was born.

Adams(6) recalled that as a small child he was aware of the debate between those who favored seceding from Britain and those who were loyal to the King. Back in the homeland (England), at that time, there existed two political parties. The ‘Tories,’ who preferred deferring all things to the King. On the other hand there were the ‘Whigs,’ who preferred giving the people a voice through parliamentary representation, which would then have influence with the King. The name came from a once derogatory platitude for the King’s subjects from Scotland and Ireland who so banally employed themselves. The least of these people even tended beasts, such as sheep and dairy cows. The Scottish and Gaelic word for someone in this nature of employment was a ‘whiggamor.’ These rural villagers deflected the intended insult from the Tories by wearing it as a badge and continuing to insist on just and fair treatment. Many American colonists thought this struggle back in the homeland was the epitome of their own, and vice versa. It was an organized group of ‘American Whigs’ who drafted and signed the Declaration of Independence—Thomas Jefferson, chiefly, among them.

While Adams(6) and Clay organized opposition to Jackson’s policies in the House of Representatives, a fellow by the name of John C. Calhoun, who had been Adam(6)’s Vice President, and had actually stayed on as V.P. to serve under Jackson for his first 31 months in office, got himself elected to the U.S. Senate representing SC. (Calhoun had been a skeptic when confronted by what he thought was ‘alarmist’ opposition to a Jackson presidency. Within a matter of weeks after Jackson took office, Calhoun understood first hand how different his ideologies were and how Jackson jeopardized the original course of the nation as lain out by the vision of the American Revolutionaries—or the earlier American Whigs, like Jefferson. He did what he could, which wasn’t much as V.P., so when a Senate seat from his home state became available he ran for it and got the nod.) Senator Calhoun then organized and led the new ‘modern’ Whig opposition in the Senate.

Soon, Jackson himself would move to draw up clear distinctions between these new Whigs and himself. A strong friendship had grown between him and a member of his Cabinet, Secretary of State, Martin Van Buren. Van Buren had a great knack for organization of people and thoughts. Van Buren’s own political success was owed a great deal to his understanding of how to organize what we would call today, a ‘grassroots’ effort. He was also a sort of ‘marketing’ prodigy—a skill not really distinguished as an actual trade in that day. Jackson was very pleased to have Van Buren replace the vacated V.P. spot on his ticket for reelection. In his second term, with Van Buren’s assistance, Jackson was able to write up an organized ‘political platform’ of his ideologies with an underlying common thread of a vision for the ‘good’ that they would bring to the nation. Without the skills of Van Buren, Jackson would probably have never accomplished such a thing. After Jackson’s second term, Van Buren ran to become the nations 8th president (and won, pretty much as Jackson’s hand picked successor) on what has ever since been known as the Democrat ticket.

Including Van Buren’s election, Democrats would win four, compared to only two victories by the Whigs, in the following six contests under the new two party system, as it had come into existence during Jackson’s presidency. Only one year before the death of Adams(6), there came a new young politician who had run on the Whig ticket for a seat in the U.S. House, representing a district from IL. Abraham Lincoln was an admirer and informal understudy of Adams(6) and Clay. Adams(6) is the only figure in American History, that I know of, who spanned the years from Jefferson himself—who bore the torch of liberty for all, and Jeffersonian thought from those earliest days—for all intents and purposes, to the genesis of the modern Republican Party.

Fourteen years before he would take office as America’s sixteenth president, Abraham Lincoln was sworn into his U.S. House seat on March 4th, 1847. Adams(6) died still serving his beloved country in the House, as a faithful Representative from MA, just under a year later, on February 23, 1848. Earlier in that same decade, we begin to see movements and events finding form that ultimately would give rise to a genuine third party—one ever since then known as the Republican Party. Early on, it was taken up mostly by former Whigs under various banners eventually to such an egress that it again would finally be forgotten what it meant to be an American Whig. In that decade, the 1840’s, a second question, brewing for a century or more, was rising to such a ‘critical mass’ within the American population, with enough activists and politicians in place, that it could no longer be ignored. In modern terms, it was a ‘values voter’ agenda, or a ‘social conservative’ viewpoint, that both the Democrats, as well as the Whigs, needed to come to terms with. Slavery was the issue. The followers of Jeffersonian thought, who believed in smaller central government and more liberty to states, communities, and each and every individual, proved themselves more capable of fashioning what, in another twenty-five years, would become the prevailing policy: your supposed right to own a slave does not supercede the liberty and rights of any individual that you might consider enslaving. In fact, the reverse is true. One human being can never be construed as the property of another. The Democratic-Republicans, and then the Whigs, took a beating getting there, but the end result was something approaching a political philosophy like that of gold, which is purer after having been subjected to the smelting fires.

I would be remiss if I didn’t mention Adams(6) one more time. On August 27th, 1839, the issue of the Spanish slave ship, The Amistad, and the Africans onboard, began making its way through the American court system. Eighteen months later, on February 23rd, 1841, the inevitable proceedings that would call for it to be heard before the U.S. Supreme Court, got underway—Adams(6) was there! He argued for the freedom of the Africans. Though the case drew wide publicity, it was really the tip of the iceberg as far as goes the effort that was coming to bear at that time. There are too many other names to mention in this forum, but one last favorite I must quote:

On March 11th, 1950, the distinguished Senator from NY, Sen. William H. Seward, delivered a statement before the body of the Senate that would be one for the history books. Seward was maybe the most key of leaders in the effort to redirect *our ‘Grand Old Party’ for the challenges of that era, basically from the time of The Amistad, right up until the election of Lincoln as president. On this occasion he stood before his colleagues in opposition to a proposal that new States had to be admitted to the Union only if the balance of free and slave States would not be upset. On the whole, this address has come to be known as his ‘Higher Law Speech.’ I offer this line to sum up how he felt about the institution of slavery:

“There is a Higher Law than the Constitution which regulates our authority over [our] domain.”

*[With my personal usage of ‘G.O.P.’ here, I intentionally take liberty and mean to indicate not only since we’ve been dubbed Republican, but also what I believe is the entire pedigree that is precursory to that identity. (Just so you know—some will argue that Jackson and Van Buren, instead, extend from the lineage of Jefferson. As if not much more happened than the party changing names. I think it was a real departure in ideology, and amazingly, much like a reemergence of Washington, Adams(2), and other proponents of Federalism!)]

Seward hits the nail on the head. How silly it is to think that we just got lucky in drawing up a pretty good document—that the Constitution was never based on something that is bigger than itself. We should not be tempted to allow the Constitution, a work of human hands, to itself become deified. The most inherent danger of a democracy is the temptation that the majority even has the power to overturn the Laws of Nature, and rewrite what distinguishes right from wrong. Since Jefferson, we have never been afraid to rectify our course, raise a new banner, whatever it takes to choose the ‘narrow path.’ This is the true American/Patriot/Revolutionary/Whig/Republican spirit. We have plenty of precedence and we must never abandon this proven strategy to preserve our nation. If we do, to save what—a political party? … —an illicit faction of government? Not then … not now … not ever!

It took 77 years to amend the Constitution to prohibit slavery—and they agreed that the issue would not be addressed for the first twenty—so it really took only 57 years. It’s been 35 years since the Supreme Court's tragic ruling in the case of Roe v. Wade. We’re in a similar window of time as the one that witnessed Adams(6) and Clay part ways with other Whigs, even some as prominent as Calhoun, who could not give up slavery. I don’t know if Governor Huckabee will be our new Seward, or some day even our new Lincoln. But I do know that he is the most qualified candidate in our current Republican Party, and if by September 4th he is not our nominee, then it is due to all the wrong reasons. Chiefly among them, will be the so-called Republican/conservative establishment’s ease at not taking ‘values voters’ seriously.

They missed the boat with Gerald Ford who considered it part of women’s rights to abort their children and who appointed John Paul Stevens to the Supreme Court. They wanted us to reelect him and we were unwilling. We left them behind at port again with Bush(41), who was willing to appoint David Souter to the Supreme Court, and who also broke his ‘No New Taxes Pledge’—therefore offending conservatives both economically and socially. They wanted us to reelect him and we were unwilling. Now they want us to believe that John McCain is the man. But again (why should they be so surprised), we’re not buying it. We all know that McCain has no problem with exploiting human embryos for ‘science,’ and doesn’t believe in clarifying marriage with a Constitutional Amendment, thus leaving liberal states able to continue attacking the family. Even though he’s supposed to be one of us, like Ford and Bush(41), we would probably be at risk of getting another liberal justice on the Supreme Court. (We’re even aware that if McCain is to be the Republican nominee, he’ll be the first since the 1986 establishment of the Americans’ for Tax Reform, Taxpayer Protection Pledge, not to embrace and sign-onto this important conservative promise.) Yet they will never learn that ‘values voters’ do not walk away from their principles. As far as I’m concerned, this will make three strikes in recent history (the past 32 years), and they should be out.

Why don’t they notice that when the vision for smaller government is fused with an understanding of ‘Higher Law’ liberation and equal rights for every human being it never seems to lose? (—I don’t know!) Lincoln won two terms and so did Reagan. Even Bush(43) has managed to make this formula work twice! If we have to start a new party, let us make sure, so help us ‘Wisdom of Every Age,’ that we write this concept into our platform in such a way that illustrates how we can never forget it, and we will only fail when we turn our back on it.

The miracle is that currently, the timing seems most opportune to repeat history. The mere existence of a nauseating organization like the Republican Leadership Council Political Action Committee proves this. They claim that the Republican Party is in decline and their mission is to rebuild it by returning it to its ‘traditional’ roots. In subtle (really not so subtle) ways they blame the decline of the party on ‘values voters’ who need to learn that they really should let moral issues go, and let them be re-determined over and again from each and every individual to the next. I hear that and I become dizzy with revulsion, and disbelief. Am I to believe that I just heard you make the argument that says it would be okay for some to be ‘free-states’ and others to be ‘slave-states?’ —And you believe you’re advocating a return to the roots of our party? (I have to lie down! This has to be a bad dream! No wonder people are leaving the party—I want to leave to!) The only thing they’re right about is that the Republican Party is in decline—they just have their fingers pointing in the wrong direction! (I won’t go into names and building up the case here, but two of this organizations three co-chairs have backgrounds much like Governor Huckabee’s and, of these two, one is even African-American. For people who should know better they really are grossly misinformed. It’s a shame! And the party establishment celebrates books that these people write and offers them various other leadership roles, and on and on!)

While they’re clueless about the solution, they are very good at proving that the Republican Party is in decline. Take a look at this article— http://www.republican-leadership.com/node/333 —and any others that may pique your interest while you’re on their website. In the article I’ve steered you to, lengthily titled, “GOP Is Losing Grip On Core Business Vote - Deficit Hawks Defect As Social Issues Prevail; 'The Party Left Me,'” published this past October, they point out how big business is directing more and more funding to Democrats and their Party, rather than ours, and how five years earlier Americans evenly identified with each of the two major parties. Now they believe the country is 50% Democrat and only 35% Republican, and it’s all because we ‘values voters’ won’t ‘give it a rest.’ I believe the real reason is that they’ve managed to water-down the vision of Adams(6), Seward, Lincoln and all those other heroes of American Abolition. They’ve even swept the words that Jefferson penned into the Declaration of Independence, which the young nation rallied around, under the carpet. That line which says that people everywhere are “ … created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these [is] Life … ” RIGHTS BEING ENDOWED BY A CREATOR is the banner we waved onward to Independence; we waved it again for Emancipation of the Slaves; and we proudly hold it up now to deliver our nation, and our world, from the grip of today’s culture of inequality, infidelity, depravity and death. Governor Huckabee, if the times call for it, don’t be afraid to follow that lead to break away and start anew. We’re behind you, and the Creator is still the Almighty—the Alpha and Omega!

Like the first British Whigs, let us diffuse the ‘insult,’ and become the ‘Republican-Populists’ (at least until we can come together in a couple years for a mid-term convention where we might discuss something different). Let’s give America something totally new. After the Iowa Caucus the media was all over what they perceived was America calling for change. Newt Gingrich has been telling everyone at least (I’m sure) since the last general election that the country is expecting its leaders to change their ways—maybe longer than that! I think it’s been three years since I first heard, or read, Speaker Gingrich’s mantra that points out the overlooked obvious: “Real change requires real change.” I believe Americans at this time would be especially receptive to a third party candidate with a proven record of success and the ability to convince them on the issues. Like in 1860, I think we’re very close to a similar state of dissatisfaction and divergence within both major parties and the odds of approaching 40% of the popular vote (which Lincoln didn’t even get back then, and he was successful) are very good!

If we tell people we believe the Republican Party has strayed, and we’re just trying to get back to the original values—those same ‘truly traditional’ values that Lincoln held, which brought Emancipation—how can they continue to be deaf and blind to the similarities which we must oppose in today’s culture. God will deliver His blessing upon our cause and our nation!


If that’s what they want to call us, then I see no reason not to accept that mantle! We’re seeking the same voters who would have been part of the ‘Reagan Coalition.’

We believe the source of America’s blessings come from the Creator. We believe the Office of the Presidency is more a post of service to the American citizens and of stewardship of our common national resources than it is a post of prestigiousness, or illustriousness, to be given to the most politically powerful. We seek a humble person with proven skills, integrity, and the inner strength and convictions to guide us through whatever history we must make in this generation. A person of honesty and sincerity who will tell it like it is and not ‘spin’ things so they might sound like something the pollsters have determined we might like to hear. We believe at this moment, the most meritorious person, fulfilling what we desire in a candidate for the Office of the American Presidency, is former chief executive of the State of Arkansas, Governor Mike Huckabee.

Like our candidate, we believe God still delivers miracles for the ‘Information Age’ and far beyond. In 2008 we will see a miracle in the waning moments of Tuesday, November 4th. Whether we will reconcile with the other half, to maybe almost two-thirds (it’s difficult to say who among us is more moderate, leaning liberal, and who is just anxious to get an ill-perceived ‘jump’ on the Democrats), of our ‘parent’ party of all Republicans sometime after the general election, or ever, it will remain to be seen. One thing we are sure of, is that Republicans, in general, have been drifting away from our winning principles, and if they're willing to settle for a moderate nominee, we will fare no better than we did in the 2006 midterm elections.



God bless …

[ONE: In my explanation above, of the development of American political parties up to the time of the earliest Republicans, I must admit that I have rounded off a lot of corners and made straight many a crooked path. This was obviously necessary in order to cover almost ninety years of history in a few paragraphs, and then go on to explain how it’s relevant for today. I have done my best to do so without altering effectively what took place. I challenge anyone to interpret it any more concisely and yet veritably. (In other words—be my guest!) Not that Wikipedia is always the ultimate authority but you can start here with the Election of 1824— http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election%2C_1824 —and then move back in time, or forward, linking to various personalities as you go, if in fact you do care to begin the process of a detailed research. (if you advance to the Election of 1832 there’s a great political cartoon of the day that tells you what Andrew Jackson’s opponents thought of him!)]
[TWO: Interestingly, Marx and Engels did observe the events taking place in America in the mid 19th Century. You might have guessed it: there was a preference for Jackson and other Democrats. One, in particular, by the name of John C. Frémont, they felt would have been more fit to serve as America’s president, instead of Lincoln. (Before Republicans had really defined themselves, the most important criterion for them was to be opposed to slavery. In this sense, even Martin Van Buren was involved in early Republican efforts. Don’t be confused if you see Frémont identified as a Republican. In the final sense of the word, he was a very different advocate for emancipation, than was Seward and Lincoln.) See what Marx published on the 26th of November, 1861, served here from a digital archive at VA Tech. Inst. & State Univ.: http://www2.cddc.vt.edu/marxists/archive/marx/works/1861/us-civil-war/index.htm ]
[THREE: If I understand it, originally the term Tory is of similar Scottish or Gaelic origin as Whig. Part historical, part mythical, this was a name (originally meaning ‘fugitive’) that had come to refer to ‘Robin Hood-type’ characters who made it their business to foil at every opportunity the efforts of the British monarchy as it attempted to rule over the villages of Scotland and Ireland. They were true heroes of the people, if however, embellished with tall tales. Apparently, members of the Royal Court and other loyalists to the King preempted the title for themselves, perhaps as a sort of mockery of the King’s rural ‘subjects,’ or something of a belittling of their ‘inferior’ heroes. I’ll leave it to your resourcefulness to track this one down, conclusively.]

Applied Christianity said...

While I appreciate your enthusiasm, Gov. Huckabee has said that he will not run as an independent. I would not want for him to go back on his word.

Anonymous said...

I was not aware that he said this! When did he say this? Would you mind directing me to someplace where I can observe these 'quotes' for myself?

(BumpusK, R3693)

Applied Christianity said...

Sure. Here are some links.


“No, I think a third party only helps elect Hillary [Clinton],” the ordained Baptist minister and staunch conservative told The Washington Post on Thursday. “I don’t see that being a good strategy for those who really care about pushing a pro-family, pro-life agenda.”

This has the same quote as above.

I believe that there are other times that he has said this, but I didn't find them right off.