"Huckabee and the Reconstructionists," by michelercb. Reformed Chicks Blabbing.
I was reading Novak's hit piece on Huckabee last night before I went to bed and I was stunned to read this:
Huckabee's base is reflected by sponsors of Tuesday's fundraising luncheon (requesting up to $4,600 a couple) at the Houston home of Steven Hotze, a leader in the highly conservative Christian Reconstruction movement. State Rep. Debbie Riddle was the only elected official on the host committee, most of whose members were not familiar names in Texas politics. David Welch is executive director of the Houston Area Pastor Council. Jack Tompkins heads a firm providing Internet services to the Christian community. Entrepreneur J. Keet Lewis is an active Southern Baptist.
When Huckabee said that he wanted to take this nation back for Christ he wasn't kidding! (Now, this doesn't mean that Huckabee is a reconstructionist and I'm not accusing him of guilt by association, I'm kind of kidding when I say this. But I think it's something he should be asked about before people start voting.)
For those of you who don't know, a reconstructionist is a Christian who believes that the nations will be ruled by God through the church. It's setting up a theocracy in America. These guys are serious about ....
"Huckabee the Rebel," by E. J. Dionne. Truthdig - Ear to the Ground. December 20, 2007.
This post helps refine somewhat the understanding that Huckabee is an evangelical populist. This makes Huckabee much more egalitarian than the Bushites. Mike Huckabee did take George W. Bush to task for Bush's arrogance in foreign-policy matters. Huckabee is also no friend of Wall Street financiers and the Banking elite. They'll pull out their money to stop him. He's on their short list of despised along with Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich for instance.
In case you're wondering about Populism, the Dictionary of Cultural Literacy states that Populism is as follows:
A social, political, and economic PHILOSOPHY that advocates government participation in business, industry, and commerce in the interest of protecting the economic freedoms of individuals, particularly from exploitation by an inflexible BUREAUCRACY and financial CONGLOMERATES. The Populist movement was first organized by farmers in the nineteenth century, and grew into a full-fledged political party. Populist sentiment in the twentieth century, particularly strong among the poor and minorities, has resulted in such government responses as federal control of the railroads, programs to aid farmers, and ANTITRUST LEGISLATION.
The shorthand would be "power to the people," as the Truthdig article above uses.
The elites hate Populism. They have always done everything they can to disparage it. They always try to equate it with Fascism, since Fascism is a combination of corporatism and government while the Populists want the people's government to regulate the economic engines, such as businesses, for the benefit of the common people and not for the elites. It's a highly mixed-economic solution that the purists (so-called) amongst the Libertarian capitalists hate. Jesus was a Populist. He reconciled a type of Populist sentiment with the Almighty. That's right!
Understand that there are gradients of Populism. One streak came out of the Confederacy with its holdover racist overtones. Another streak actually ended up more aligned with the Wobblies. Jesus of course, doesn't hold with the hearts of racists and selfish protectionists. He does hold though with the spiritual family and separation into a conflated spirit with God.
The elite global bankers are not for immigrants while real Populists are. Populists in-the-know realize that the bankers, Wall Street, and international financiers are just playing groups of unprotected illegal laborers (those from places where there are no or low safety, environmental, and other standards) off against protected labor in the U.S. The elite seek to destroy the power of laborers to have a living wage. The elite want to weaken the laborers so that the elite may take an even higher percentage of the value of their labor.
"Pew Political Typologies," Huck the System. November 30, 2007.
Formerly termed "Populist Republicans", this group is typified by its strong religious faith and moral conservatism. Unlike other GOP groups, however, they express skepticism about the free market and are favorable toward government programs providing an economic safety net. They went for Bush by a 5-1 margin in 2004, but a fifth of them didn't vote. Demographically, much like a female (62%) version of the Disaffecteds. Nearly half are parents of in-the-household children, and nearly half live in the South.
The following should appear at the end of every post:
According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":
Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.
Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.
Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.
Political Campaign Intervention
Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.
Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.
Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:
- Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
- Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
- Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
- Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
- Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office
Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:
- The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
- Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
- We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
- When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
- It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
- We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
- We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
- When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
- We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
- It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.
And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)