History Lessons from Our Founders by Tom Reynolds
The founding fathers understood politics, human nature and, most of all, political human nature. (In addition to being patriots, most of them were also politicians, so they had the inside story.) They also read lots of history and were familiar with the tactics of tyrants. This led them to fear a big powerful government that could be used to oppress its citizens. In order to prevent the United States from following in the footsteps of many failed states that had become dictatorships, they designed a constitution that limited the powers of the federal government to only those specified in the U S Constitution. (Amendment X.)
But that wasn’t enough since tyrants would probably ignore the Constitution and use the enormous powers of the government to consolidate their power, to the detriment of U S citizens. So, within the Constitution, they devised a system of ‘checks and balances.’ The three branches of government have separate constitutional powers intended to stop any ’runaway’ branch. It was assumed that each branch would jealously protect their powers and by default protect the citizens of the U S A.
With the specific goal of further protecting citizens from their government, the founders split power between state and national governments. Certain powers are the domain of the federal government, others are specifically reserved to the state governments and some they share. But the federal government is supreme when there is a conflict. (Article VI of the Constitution.)
Then, to clear up any confusion whether federal constitutionally protected rights also applied to states, Amendment XIV was passed, extending federally protected rights to the state level.
The United States Constitution is based on protecting all citizens from being persecuted by the government. This has been recently reinforced by the Democrats, though not their intention, when chanting in unison, “no one is above the law”; which means everyone should be treated equally under the law. We heartily agree.
U S citizens could rest easy for over 230 years, knowing the Constitution protected them from their federal government. Not perfectly, but pretty well. But some things happened and we are now faced with a crisis; the government’s powers are being used to crush those who oppose it.
How did this happen under a constitution meant to stop it?
For exactly the last 90 years, a fourth branch of government has been growing as states gave up their powers in order to belly up to the federal financial trough. (That the federal government had to print money to fill up that trough is another story for another day.) This led to that fourth branch of government to which Congress ceded ever-increasing power. The ‘Swamp’ makes rules and decides who gets the money and how it is distributed. (The Golden Rule: whoever has the gold makes the rules.)
With the growth of federal power, checks and balances were being lost. The jealously with which each branch protected its own powers became less of an issue since even the minority party now had tremendous perks, privileges and pay. Big government is good for those in big government. The minority party publicly opposed the majority party, even if their hearts were not in it. (In fairness, some people’s hearts were in it, but not the leadership.)
Then, one party gained control of two of the three branches at the federal level and all three branches at the New York State level. No checks and balances in NY State and only the Supreme Court in D C, prior to the last election.
That majority party centers around the socialist concept of equity. (Socialism’s unspoken reality is that equity means all people - except the politically connected – end up equally poor).
What also goes unspoken is that Socialism requires a central government not constrained by the U S Constitution. (This effort to do away with ‘checks and balances’ was aided by a U. S. Supreme Court decision called ‘One Man One Vote’; but that too is another story for another day.)
Socialism requires its citizens to be quiet and not spread ‘misinformation’ about Socialism, which runs afoul of the 1st Amendment.
Since they will be doing things that might get them shot, Socialism also requires that citizens be disarmed, which runs afoul of the 2nd Amendment.
Now you have a short history lesson in why Socialism and the Constitution are not compatible.
Why this history review?
The first three issues put the United States on a rapid march to Socialism, sponsored and protected by the Democrat Party, until a fourth event happened; Donald Trump was elected president. Trump dared call the Swamp the Swamp and put the brakes on the 90 year long march to Socialism. He believed in his oath to, “preserve protect and defend the Constitution”. This made him, in the eyes of the Left, the most dangerous man in the country and he and any followers had to be more than stopped, they had to be destroyed. The Left’s message is that if you opposed them, you will be crushed, without mercy, and not even a billionaire ex-president, is beyond their reach.
In the United States, the government is supposed to investigate the crime and if that leads to a man (or woman) so be it.
Lavrentiy Beria, the most ruthless and longest-serving secret police chief in Joseph Stalin’s reign of terror, bragged that he could prove criminal conduct on anyone, even the innocent. “Show me the man and I’ll show you the crime” was Beria’s infamous boast.
On March 31st, Newsweek reported, “Bragg…explicitly campaigned for office on a promise to ‘get Trump.’” It sounds like Beria would be proud of Bragg.
On July 5, 2021, the Intelligencer reported that Bragg…campaigned on a platform of criminal-justice reform, saying he would not prosecute most minor offenses and misdemeanors. It was obvious that anyone named Trump was the exception to Bragg’s promise not to prosecute minor offenses.
Newsweek further reported, “And it is hard to ignore the sordid fact that under his watch, New York City's crime rate skyrocketed by 22% last year, even as Bragg's office downplayed prosecution of violent crimes.”
So, while Bragg fiddled with Trump, Manhattan burned.
If someone commits a crime, they should be punished. But twisting “minor offenses” into a low-level felony in order to punish a political opponent is not what the U S criminal justice system is about and it is not what America is about. We don’t do political prosecutions, except in deep blue states where there is no down side to ignoring the Constitution.
In addition, the election laws are federal laws and both the Federal Election Commission and the Federal Department of Justice have investigated and found no offense. I might add, both are populated by denizens of the Swamp so their findings are particularly damning to Bragg. Not that he cares.
There is another change, the U S government does not have a liberal Left majority any more. Congress needs to aggressively step in and put Bragg and his office under a microscope for judicial misconduct and selective prosecution. That won’t happen in corrupt-to-the-ears Manhattan, although it should. Let the Left know that “checks and balances” are back.
Will the average non-involved non-voting citizen and gun owner finally get the message that a leftist government isn’t going to leave them alone? They could be next after just the slightest slip. If so, perhaps some good will come out of a disgraceful situation.