What Gives?

 

It is the traverse in the woods of ideology. The divergence in paths once aligned. It is here where the “one Nation” meets its impassable chasm, a void too deep and too far to bridge.

One path still holds to the ideal that was this Nation’s founding. The other moves away from that ideal, curling, meandering at times, but always moving back towards the old ideals of Europe that we left so long ago. Ghosts are calling through the mists of the abyss between us that ne’er we be twined.

The onslaught of anti-gun legislation, appointments, and rhetoric highlights the stark contrast in ideals, our paths. On the one, is the knowledge that the Constitution does not grant any of the Rights it delineates, but rather is the protector of said rights. On the other, is the perception that the document grants the citizens their rights and by extension the government it establishes.

A subtle difference and yet not. If a document grants you the rights of Liberty, then it can be amended to curtail such Liberty, and if its government is the administrator of those Liberties granted, then it can be used to police and revoke them. This fuels the rabid and persistent attempts by the Left to dismantle the 2nd Amendment.

To the Conservative, the document is the bulwark, the protector of the Liberties it acknowledges. These Liberties are inherent, stamped, wired into our DNA at conception. Whether it be through God, the universe, or evolutionary happenstance, Natural Born Rights are instinctive and irrefutable.

This is the chasm between us. One believes utopia attainable through the government of the citizen, the curtailment of Rights. The other refuses to surrender its Natural Born Right of self-defense to the greatest mass murderer in world history, government.

-Andy Torbett

Advertisements

Monday Irony

Democrats are screeching about foreign influence in our elections all the while screeching about allowing foreign nationals the right to vote in our elections.

Of Pendulums, Power, and the People

 

A system of checks and balances. This is our Republic. A government for the people, by the people.

While the musical strands of Schoolhouse Rock dance through our memories, its easy to forget that all the participants within the Republic are subject to these checks and balances, including the people by and for which the government derives it’s power. Yes, even the citizen cannot have Liberty without responsibility.

The citizenry without checks upon it’s will, or more specifically, it’s whim, face the tendency to regress toward anarchy. Not willing to inhibit the individual liberty of any free citizen but keenly aware to guard against mob rule, the Founders rejected Pure or Direct Democracy in favor of a Republic. Benjamin Franklin warned in our national infancy that we were, “ A Republic, if we can keep it.”

The “keep it” is the diligence to the responsibilities and burdens of Liberty. The maintaining of checks and balances. For it’s dual purpose, a balance and check is clearly reflected in the Electoral College.

Without the Electoral College, elections would be decided by heavily populated urban areas and rural America would be ignored. By design, this electoral system insures that all geographical areas of the Republic would be represented equally. The Founding Fathers also knew, by their careful study of history, that the cities were more susceptible to the frequent popular swings of the political pendulum.

Those who can conjure the grievance, inflame the crowds, and ride the populace swell of emotion hold the power in a Direct Democracy. This is why those in political power wish to abolish the Electoral College. Like with the gerrymandered voting system of Ranked Choice Voting, it is a thinly veiled attempt to silence the vote and voice of rural America.

-Andy Torbett