Are candidates running for office offering words in alignment with bedrock values in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution – especially the Bill of Rights? It is our Republic — if we can keep it!
The 2018 election: A Forum on the Bill of Rights
By Dennis Jamison ——October 30, 2018
The massacre of eleven innocent members of the Tree of Life Synagogue this past weekend evokes fear and sympathy from many Americans, as well as empathy from many throughout the world. Yet, as more and more information about the alleged perpetrator of such a heinous act of violence begins to surface, it becomes increasingly clear that many major media outlets, as well as some major political figures want to use the horrific tragedy as a platform for political posturing. The shooter, who murdered so many faith-filled Jewish people, must have been mentally deranged, especially in destroying so many people’s lives. Yet, there are some politically motivated people who want to link the shooter to President Donald Trump.
Little time had passed before elements within the MSM were claiming the shooter committed such a horrible, hate-filled crime due to some insidious agenda that was supportive of President Trump. The guy claimed he wanted to kill Jews, and the ridiculous attempt at linkage to Trump neglects the fact that Trump has close relatives that are Jews! However, the grotesque events have sparked much-heated discussion about whether the crime was committed to striking at Jews because of the Jewish refugee agency known as the Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society, or HIAS. Apparently, among some of the social media posts that were attributed to the shooter, he had written a post about HIAS that the agency “likes to bring invaders in that kill our people. I can’t wait while my people are getting slaughtered… I’m going in.” Other social media posts reveal the deranged man had a genuine hatred of Jews (like Haman resurrected).
Despite the attempt to blame President Trump for the tragedy, the president declared that “The vile, hate-filled poison of antisemitism must be condemned.” At a speech in Indiana, Trump shared at the national convention of the Future Farmers of America:
Our minds cannot comprehend the cruel hate and the twisted malice that could cause a person to unleash such terrible violence during a baby-naming ceremony — this was a baby-naming ceremony — at a sacred house of worship on the holy day of Sabbath.
Later in the weekend Trump went on to express: “The Pittsburgh shooting was “a monstrous killing of Jewish Americans… this evil anti-Semitic attack is an assault on all of us. It’s an assault on humanity.” President Trump also strongly stated that the “scourge of anti-Semitism cannot be allowed to continue… we must stand with our Jewish brothers and sisters to vanquish anti-Semitism.” And, on a much larger scale, the president is standing with the Jewish people, not just those who suffer such horrific acts of homicide in American cities, but in the Middle East as well. Yet, there are those who do not want a crisis to go to waste. Former President Obama offered a statement of concern, but added that “…we have to stop making it so easy for those who want to harm the innocent to get their hands on a gun,” which has been typical of similar statements he made after all the shooting tragedies during his presidency.
Democrat leaders have long understood the necessity of getting weapons out of the hands of potential detractors of the Party
The irony of the anti-gun ownership rhetoric of Democrats like Obama is that it was also the “Democratic” Party that did not support black people owning guns once they received their U.S. citizenship after the Civil War. And it is likely that Adolf Hitler realized the advantage of limiting gun ownership among potential enemies just prior to his purges of the German Jews. The 1938 German Weapons Act, essentially deprived all Jews in Germany and various German-occupied territories the right to possess any form of weapons, especially firearms, as well as ammunition. Even the Nazis prohibited Jewish companies from manufacturing weapons and from dealing in firearms.
Democrat leaders have long understood the necessity of getting weapons out of the hands of potential detractors of the Party, which would undermine the Bill of Rights – specifically the 2nd Amendment. Another irony with Democrat logic is with the Democrat legislation which creates “gun – free zones,” which are usually located in the cities with the greatest gun-violence. Truly, one of the greater ironies that came out of the various comments by Democrat politicians as a reaction to this tragedy came from former President Obama when he said: “All of us have to fight the rise of anti-Semitism and hateful rhetoric against those who look, love or pray differently.” But, it was Obama himself, who in 2008, offered rhetoric on the campaign trail that could be considered hateful of common folks because “…they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion…”
It is interesting that Obama drew criticism from both former Senator John McCain, as well as former Senator Hillary Clinton just before the Pennsylvania primary in April of the 2008 election year. Yet in recent years, when flagrant hate-filled speech from prominent Democrats explodes in social news cycles, there do not seem to be many remarks condemning hateful rhetoric from noteworthy individuals. Obama’s own former Attorney General, Loretta Lynch, advised Democrat supporters to increase the shedding of blood in the streets. California Democrat, Representative Maxine Waters, also called upon Democrat supporters to publicly harass Trump and members of his administration. And, that seems to be a regular tactic of Democrat supporters now. Also, California Democrat, Senator Kamala Harris, “joked” about killing President Trump and members of his administration while on an episode of The Ellen Degeneres Show.
Beyond this, flagrant hate-filled speech has also recently been noted from such prominent Democrats as Kathy Griffin, Madonna, Peter Fonda, Robert DeNiro,and numerous others who regularly get away with “hate speech.” But if one of the socially “underprivileged” speaks up in support of something that President Trump or the GOP has done, it is considered “hate speech.” Serious double standards of conduct should be seriously questioned. And if the good American people do not question such hypocrisy, “free” speech will only be that which a few deem to be “politically correct.” And that “politically correct” speak is what writer George Orwell predicted in his chilling novel of the future entitled 1984. Actually, Americans do not really realize how close the country came to such a future. But, elements of Orwell’s prophetic book already exist.
In 2018, citizens should also remember the successful efforts of the contemporary Democrat – inspired “Brownshirt” minions in Antifa, Black Lives Matter, and others to destroy freedom of speech in many places across the nation, most notably in Berkeley, California, which in the 1960s, was the origin point of free speech efforts by young Americans. But, lest one should think that there is not a real connection between the “Democratic” Party and the “Brownshirt” type youth groups, U.S. citizens need to also remember that Democrat leaders regularly met with and supported these groups from former President Barack Obama, to Hillary Clinton, to Bernie Sanders, and to Rev. Al Sharpton.
This is absolutely a double standard.
Yet, even beyond initiation of the street gang methods, a recent article by George Rasley, editor of Conservative HQ, revealed earlier this year that current Democrat leadership aims at repealing both the first and second amendments to the Constitution. For those citizens who are still asleep, there are many modern day Paul Reveres that are sounding the alarm over losing our freedoms. Although 2018 is filled with fake news, false narratives, and the rhetoric of illusion, citizens should no longer settle for rhetoric that is designed to manipulate. Citizens who care about preserving the Republic should do their best to discern the wisdom within candidates’ words. However, it is best to watch what the candidates do with power that is entrusted to them. Their actions speak loudly.
Out of respect for those who were murdered in Pittsburgh, that their lives may be not lost for nothing, citizens should consider their deaths in light of the task of voting in the 2018 elections. Are candidates running for office seeking to fan the flames of identity politics and divisiveness, or do they offer a vision of a better America, where tragedies such as the one at the synagogue can be avoided? Do candidates running for office defend law and order, or do they propose efforts that would undermine the stability of civil society? Are candidates running for office offering words in alignment with bedrock values in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution – especially the Bill of Rights? It is our Republic—if we can keep it!
Dennis Jamison reinvented his life after working for a multi-billion dollar division of Johnson & Johnson for several years. Currently retired from West Valley College in California, where he taught for nearly 10 years, he now writes articles on history and American freedom for various online publications.
Formerly a contributor to the Communities at the Washington Times and Fairfax Free Citizen, his more current articles appear in Canada Free Press and Communities Digital News. During the 2016 presidential primaries, he was the leader of a network of writers, bloggers, and editors who promoted the candidacy of Dr. Ben Carson. Jamison founded “We the People” – Patriots, Pilgrims, Prophets Writers’ Network and the Citizen Sentinels Network. Both are volunteer groups for grassroots citizen-journalists and activists intent on promoting and preserving the inviolable God-given freedoms rooted in the founding documents.
Jamison also co-founded RedAmericaConsulting to identify, counsel, and support citizen-candidates, who may not have much campaign money, but whose beliefs and deeds reflect the role of public servants rather than power-hungry politicians.