Safety is non-negotiable. Two mayors, Seattle and Chicago, didn’t understand it and now they’re relegated to the waste bin of history. A progressive member of San Francisco’s Board of Supervisors, who demanded laying off police officers in 2020 (SF Examiner, M Barba 8/21/20), didn’t understand the consequences as she now demands more police in her crime filled district (SF Standard, M Ege 3/15/23).
In a bi-partisan vote in the Congress, the woke criminal code “reforms” in DC were rejected. The Democrat, non-voting DC Rep called it an “attack on home rule” showing her utter lack of
understanding that Congress has veto power over DC because of Article 1 §8, Clause 17 of the US Constitution and the Home Rule Act of 1973.
The DC council plan would have reduced penalties for burglaries, robberies and car-jackings. They didn’t understand that would get the attention of Democrats in Congress, especially after Rep Angie Craig, D-MN was assaulted in her DC apartment building by a man with a long criminal history (ABC, L Barr 2/14/23). This shows officials understand they need to act when their own safety is threatened.
NYC Mayor Adams said the Chicago mayor’s defeat is “a warning sign to the rest of the country.” He wouldn’t have said that unless he understands that safety is non-negotiable.
Ralph Miller
* * *
Mr. Ralph Miller uses liberal cities governed by Democrats to cleverly imply the Republicans would provide better safety, presumably at every level of government.
But what is safety? There are many correct answers. My response focuses on only one answer that is far beyond the simplicity of Mr. Miller’s letter. That is the safety of our Constitution and the Rule of Law at all levels of government.
Today’s Republicans provide neither, by (1) appointing Supreme Court Justices, not with impartiality or judicial prudence, but by his or her lying under oath so each can promote Republican agendas, (2) promoting the “Big Lie” to attack voting, (3) attacking the freedoms of speech, press and religion of the First Amendment, (4) defending the sacrosanctness of the Second Amendment over human life; and the Republican lead States calling for a Constitutional Convention, and we’re on the cusp of one. Can we expect a new Republican initiated Constitution to provide the freedoms we enjoy today? Not if the Republicans are in control. I’ve yet to see any attempts to compromise, and not many attempts by Democrats.
In the meantime though, what are the Republicans doing to ensure the safety of our Constitution and the Rule of Law at all levels of government?
According to Mr. Miller’s implication, they would be promoting new laws and processes affecting physical safety, such as strengthening impartial policing without using excessive force, and aggressively prosecuting crime.
Instead, the safety of the Constitution and Rule of Law continues to be imperiled.
(1) The Republicans call for releasing the “political prisoners” of the insurrection. Yet many have plead guilty to crimes of violent trespassing, property damage, and interfering with the activities of our government. This makes those people above the law.
(2) Republican states are enacting laws to overrule the voters by allowing the removal of local prosecutors by more regulation if, in the opinion of the state, the “wrong” crimes are the subject of prosecution instead of the “right” crimes.
(3) Today’s Republican House of Representatives is investigating the “weaponization” of the Justice Department for political purposes since the targets of that so-called “weaponization” are Trump and MAGA extremists.
(4) Today’s Republican House of Representatives is investigating Twitter and Facebook because of their belief that Republicans’, but not Democrats’, rights to free speech were violated. Yet it’s clear that the Trump Administration was attempting to limit the Democrats’ rights to free speech on those platforms.
Many, like Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, do not understand free speech may be limited by contract. Her free speech was never limited; she violated the contract to which she voluntarily agreed.
And if free speech cannot be limited, why are there so many non-disclosure agreements required by Donald Trump, such as with Stormy Daniels, Karen McDougal, or any of the “catch and kill” agreements for disclosures about Trump executed by Fox? Even Ivana Trump was subject to a nondisclosure agreement in he divorce from Donald. Ironically, she died just as the agreement expired. (NY Daily News)
(5) Today’s Republican House, clearly in violation of the Tenth Amendment, is “weaponzied” to interfere in the legal investigation of Donald Trump for violation of New York campaign finance laws and cover up. They want Trump and MAGA to be above the law.
That House “weaponization” may extend into Fulton County, Ga. for its legal investigation of MAGA interference in the 2020 Georgia Presidential election
I’m sure there will disagreement with this letter. Ironically, rather than civil disagreement supported by facts, I’m sure many readers will exercise their freedom of speech by resorting only to name calling or vitriolic allegations of how I am wrong. They will want to restrict my First Amendment right.
Didn’t I say that earlier?
And where will we be in 2025 and beyond if under Republican “our way only” rule?
Joe Warren