HomeAbout UsDocumentsWritersBloggersCitizen-Statesmen

Contact Us
Self-evident truths and religious freedom in the 2016 election
By Dennis Jamison 
November 3, 2016
While morality is not a true issue in the 2016 election, it is important that a genuine issue can be discerned from the enormous amount of mud that has surfaced lately.
SAN JOSE, CA October 31, 2016 — The 2016 presidential election is indeed a clear contest between two distinct platforms, as was quite apparent in the third debate. It is also quite apparent that the central leadership of the Clinton campaign does not want the American public to be clear about the implications of their party’s platforms. An excellent example of this is the attempt to orchestrate serious diversion from the issues as citizen’s attention is directed by the MSM minions towards issues of morality.

While morality is not a true issue in the 2016 election, it is important that a genuine issue can be discerned from the enormous amount of mud that has surfaced lately. And while morality is a hollow issue, the deeper issue that Americans should be more concerned about is whether the Democratic Party is truly willing to defend the Constitution or transform it into something that is unrecognizable to Americans.

It is obvious that the Democratic Party does not have a high regard for morality or religion in general.

The Democrat leaders at the core of the control of the Party do not care about morality unless it can be utilized to smear an immoral political opponent. Actually, this may be equally true of the core leadership of the Republican Party to some extent as well. Mock moral indignation if used properly can work to the advantage of any politicos seeking to influence the moral majority of the nation’s voters. Thus, manipulation of the concerns of the public is the chief perspective in any utilization of morality as a campaign issue. Yet, there is something much deeper that morality is linked to in America, and that is religious values.

Perspective is needed with respect to morality as one of the more important of religious values in relation to politics, and a serious student of history can find it in the wisdom of George Washington’s Farewell Address as he highlighted his regard for religion as being crucial to the overall success of the nation:

Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens? The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public felicity.

Let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.

Yet, despite such sentiments regarding the value of religion being the foundation of morality, it is not merely about religion; the 2016 election is about the value of inalienable rights of free men and women coming from God and not government. The First Amendment to the U.S Constitution was written to ensure that the freedom of religious worship would not be impinged upon by the government. But, the foundation for this first affirmation of the Bill of Rights was the self-evident truths in the Declaration of Independence that proclaimed, “all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”

The Democrats had attempted to remove God from their party platform in 2008, but they were not totally united to kick God out of their party as it would have resulted in bad public relations for a number of reasons. But intent was overtly evident; it was a demonstrable and dramatic event. Mitt Romney quickly condemned the attempt. However, the Democratic Party is controlled by people who have little regard for God in their party, let alone a basic acceptance that God even exists because many of these politicos are atheists. And, neither political party has a monopoly on atheists and agnostics. But the Democrats apparently do not care anymore about keeping up a pretense of belief in God.

Since the days of the Great Depression, it is likely that the value of religion or religious freedom in the United States has never been more directly challenged than in the past decade. However, there is evident a Party that is led by people who have no connection with God as the Founders had in their day. But, that fundamentally means that these people must not, in all honesty, believe in the self-evident truths that the Founders cherished as the very foundation of their willingness to fight for those unalienable rights. If our learned government leaders do not believe in the Declaration’s declarations, where does that leave the people?

Since the days of the Great Depression, under the guise of separation of church and state, there have been more than a few that have made it into the hallowed halls of the federal government who would “labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness.” It seems clear that the foundation of morality built upon secular and not religious values has caused the nation to free-fall to this election of 2016. Americans have come full circle in their rich history, and are now confronted with once again reaffirming their adherence to the ideals of the Founders as expressed in the Declaration of Independence.

Americans are faced with a very ominous decision as they vote in 2016: We either hold these truths to be self-evident, or we do not. If we reject the self-evident truth that all people are are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, upon what foundation do the rights of human beings derive? Once that foundation is aborted, the foundation of the Bill of Rights is destroyed. Once the foundation of self-evident truths is aborted, the foundation of Religious Freedom is destroyed. The enemies of the nation do not look to the Declaration of Independence for truth, nor for a glorification of a Creator.

Washington and the brilliant and brave of his generation believed. The brilliant and brave of the Founder’s generation believed and chose to fight, and to die for such self-evident truths. Those who believe in the Declaration of Independence today need to fight today – but what they have to do is vote for the Party that represents clearly the values that God would truly value.

Citizens should simply ask whether God would value Life (Pro-Life), Liberty (Religious Liberty), and the pursuit of happiness (with acceptance of responsibility for preserving a civil society).

Faith in what matters most, especially to those who created this nation, will shed light upon the tactics of diversion of politicos and their attempts at creating confusion and chaos. Faith brings light upon shadows of doubt.
The value of life in the 2016 election
By Dennis Jamison
November 5, 2016
The 2016 election is about far more than a president. It is about the very core values of who we are as a people and a culture.
SAN JOSE, November 4, 2016 – The 2016 presidential election has proven to be much more than just another election in a long string of presidential elections. This election is not simply a matter of choice between two candidates with equally disagreeable characters, which is an illusion the left-oriented mainstream media would love for the common citizens and low-information voters to believe. The election, not only for President of the United States, but for all of the other political offices up for grabs, is about the respective platforms of each of the major political parties.

At the beginning of the 21st century, Americans are facing a truly definitive choice over who we are as a people and as a culture. And although this is an interesting perception, many voters may not easily grasp that their vote can be indicative of the kind of human being they are, as well as the kind of culture they create. It is sometimes a bit easier to understand when the values evident in two cultures are compared. In the comparison between values evident in two cultures, people are often able to get a better or broader perspective on reality.

With the intent to gain a better or broader perspective on contemporary American culture, it may be convenient that the month in which the American citizens cast their votes is a month that has been designated as American Indian (or Native American) Heritage Month by a joint resolution of Congress which was signed into law by President George H.W. Bush in 1990. It is quite useful for the Native American culture to serve as a basis for a comparative, and it may be helpful for those who care to gain a much broader perspective. Such a broader perspective may help Americans in 2016 because the election seems to be defined primarily in terms and within the parameters dictated by the Left-oriented MSM.

Specifically, the respective platforms of each major political party reveal significant differences with regard to many decisions regarding the future of the United States. However, one very controversial issue stands out in 2016 as quite a divisive cultural issue and that is the debate over abortion rights and the continuance or curtailment of abortion upon demand. The GOP platform leans toward curtailment of Roe v. Wade mandates, while the Democrat’s platform appeals to the young women of America who have grown quite accustomed to such support.

The two parties also have divergent values regarding the value placed upon mothers and motherhood. Today, an increasingly prevalent or acceptable societal perspective is that becoming a mother and motherhood in general holds less value than remaining unmarried and without children. In addition, an even more alarming view is that unwanted pregnancies are easily dispensed with, and even unwanted babies can be disposed of through abortion.

Although It may not be clear whether a majority of Americans are unaware of the ongoing reality of abortion in America, some concerned representatives in the U.S. government reveal that over 4.000 babies are being aborted in the U.S. every day. This is over 1.6 million babies every year. Tragically, this single reality expresses a great deal about how contemporary American culture has devalued bringing a human life into the world. This stark reality says a great deal about the lack of regard for the value of human life, period. Essentially, the true “progressive” view of womanhood has diminished the value of motherhood.

On the contrary, Native Americans and American Indian peoples held a much deeper regard for motherhood. Looking back at the so called “savages” one can recognize a different reality regarding the value of life in the native societies. Unfortunately, many European descendants in America did not have the desire to take much of the native culture seriously, and in turn, the Indians had little desire to share their innermost attitudes toward life and beliefs with the white population for a number of reasons.

Only over time have some of the innermost beliefs of American Indian peoples seeped out into the wider American culture. Unfortunately, relatively few have had actual exposure to such spiritual beliefs or ways of living. In stark contrast to prevailing contemporary societal perspectives on the value of life, the Sioux Indian perspective is a bit different, and also quite refreshing. And while it may be a bit rare to consider an American Indian view of the value of life or bringing new life into the world, some Americans may find it to be enlightening. Especially since most American Indian cultures throughout the Americas respected life and all living things, and from their view, humans were a special part of the Creation.

More specifically, one beautiful expression of high regard for the value of motherhood and the special respect for bringing children into the world in particular is found in the writings of Ohiyes’a, a Sioux Indian whose English name became Charles Alexander Eastman when he converted to Christianity. Ohiyes’a was born in 1858 into the Santee Sioux tribe of the Dakota nation. He eventually became the first American Indian doctor after graduating from Boston University in 1889. Encouraged to write of his culture, he became a well-known Indian author and from his writings can be gleaned a great amount of insight into Sioux culture.

Ohiyes’a wrote numerous books concerning the perspectives of his people about life, and in 1911, he had one of his books published which was entitled The Soul of an Indian: an Interpretation. Here is a representation of some of the deeper aspects that can be linked to the Sioux or Dakota nation’s perspective on the value of motherhood:

The Great Song of Creation

Our education begins in our mother’s womb. Her attitude and secret meditations are such as to instill into the receptive soul of the unborn child the love of the Great Mystery and a sense of kinship with all creation.

A pregnant Indian woman often chooses one of the great individuals of her family and tribe as a model for her child. This hero is daily called to mind. Gathers from tradition all of his noted deeds and daring exploits, and rehearses them to herself when alone. In order that the impression might be more distinct, she avoids company. She isolates herself as much as possible, and wanders prayerful in the stillness of the great woods, or on the bosom of the untrodden prairie, not thoughtlessly, but with an eye to the impressions received from the grand and beautiful scenery.

To her poetic mind the imminent birth of her child prefigures the advent of a great spirit – a hero, or the mother of heroes –a thought conceived in the virgin breast of primeval nature, and dreamed out in a hush broken only by the sighing of the pine tree or the thrilling orchestra of a distant waterfall.

And when the day of her days in her life dawns – the day in which there is to be new life, the miracle of whose making has been entrusted to her – she seeks no human aid. She has trained and prepared in body and mind for this, her holiest duty, ever since she can remember.

She meets the ordeal of childbirth alone, where no curious or pitying eyes might embarrass her; where all nature says to her spirit: ‘It is love! It is love! The fulfilling of life!’

When, at last, a sacred voice comes to her out of the silence, and a pair of eyes open upon her in the wilderness, she knows with joy that she has borne well her part in the great song of creation!

Ohiyes’a is considered to be the first American Indian to write and publish American history from the Indian viewpoint. His words open up a deeper insight into the Sioux culture, and more specifically into the indigenous people’s respect and love for life itself. Such a reverence sharply contrasts with the thought originating from the “Progressive” Left, which denies undermines the values of Life with the Pro-Choice devaluation of motherhood and dehumanizes the unborn baby in the mother’s womb. The Progressives are the ones who view the unborn baby as a “thing,” and not a human being. It is a sad commentary on American contemporary culture. Now after over 100 years from the days of Ohiyes’a, Americans should wonder who we are as a people and what is meant by “progress?”  
Morality vs. religious freedom in the 2016 election
By Dennis Jamison 
November 3, 2016
All people of faith need to awaken and speak up now, or they may “forever hold their peace!"
SAN JOSE, Calif., October 31, 2016 — The 2016 presidential election will be remembered as one of the strangest, most turbulent and politically contentious of modern times. And the strangeness keeps coming.

In addition to the striking turn in the Hillary Clinton email saga, linked bizarrely to Anthony Weiner’s sexting, there has been an inexorable descent into the gutter. That descent has been punctuated by the three most astonishing presidential debates in memory. But the Weiner angle underlines the moral dimensions of this race.

The Democrats hold no moral high ground here. Morality only truly matters to those with deeply held values. Morality is not a real issue to the Democratic leadership. Neither are the actual issues. Rather, its issues are to conceal the growing evidence of corruption and to maintain power in spite of it.

If the GOP establishment intends to vote for Clinton out of moral outrage, it should make its own values clearer. Given its history, the outrage seems like the opportunism of a professional political class in an incestuous relationship that approaches oligarchy.

It is often the Democrats and their cheering section in the media who, smugly and self-righteously wade into morality issue, usually when they want to use sin to smear political enemies.

If the voters care about morality, it’s worth noting that the Democratic Party has evinced less concern with morality and faith-based values than the Republicans. The idea that the party that rallied around and still loves Bill Clinton are genuinely outraged over Donald Trump’s treatment of women is risible.

The glaring inconsistency and hypocrisy among the elites of the major parties makes it certain that they have no clear definition of nor proper respect for morality.

Republican elites who claim outrage over Trump’s morality have seized on a convenient excuse to express contempt for an outsider who hasn’t “paid his dues” to the Party; he’s crashed their private party. Their mock moral indignation is transparent. It makes clear that there is really only one, multi-headed political party running the country.

The 2016 election is a fraud being perpetrated upon the American people by the leadership of both parties.

Republican leadership may have laid claim to the faith mantle before the 2016 election cycle, but if moral conviction really motivated the GOP elite, they would have taken values-driven candidates like former Gov. Mike Huckabee, Sen. Rick Santorum and Dr. Ben Carson more seriously. But for GOP elites, these candidates were too moral, too embarrassingly and uncompromisingly moral to play in the GOP sandbox.

Men of God in the political arena? Awkward. For the GOP elites, too much morality is unacceptable. Now, morality suddenly matters?

Carson captured the attention of millions of people of faith when he spoke out defiantly against the dangers of political correctness at the National Prayer Breakfast in 2013, daring to challenge President Obama to his face.

Despite his courage in that defining moment, and despite his willingness to enter the political lion’s den, GOP elitists with their deep pockets were unenthusiastic about supporting him. They were also unsupportive of Huckabee and Santorum. But because of his courage, Carson was the first to excite, for the first time in a long time, many people of faith about the possibilities for the political arena.

Not since Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. had a black Christian man excited such a broad audience of the faithful. And if that seems to ignore Obama’s two terms in office, Obama did not win elections because he was a black Christian man who excited faith-filled people. He was a black man who made sugar daddy promises to people who asked what their country could do for them, and did not worry too much about what they could do for their country.

Obama did not stand on the foundation of faith that supports the Black Christian community; he just claimed it. Yet it was the sacrifices of that community that made possible the Civil Rights victories in the 1960s. And for decades, people of faith have grown disenchanted with a political system that has ignored them and made them feel powerless. Obama has only aggravated a deep frustration.

Now it is Donald Trump, not a faith-filled person who represents people of faith. That’s an irony. Trump seems unlikely to draw the respect of people of faith or inspire their trust. Yet he does. They are awakening to his efforts to fight for them and against those of the political class who despise religious values and the truths of natural law the Founders considered self-evident.

A good number of Christians have awakened and are much more aware of what is at stake in this historic election. They view Trump as an instrument of God. Many Christian leaders and ministers are standing up, and fearlessly speaking out. Many realize if they do not exercise their First Amendment rights now, they will wish they had before the election.

If Clinton becomes the face of the Socialist-Communist agenda in America, freedom of religion will be at stake. Morality is important, but as George Washington said, “Let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.”

People of faith need to awake and speak up now, or they may “forever hold their peace!”