The blow up about Henri Brooks and Justin Ford allegedly living outside of their districts showcases American decline. The Left is finding ways to subvert the Constitution and the media is right there assisting it.
Today’s Commercial Appeal has two stories on this issue. By the way, they should have done their vetting of these people a long time ago. They should never have assumed that what a candidate puts down on a form is true. It’s their job to pursue it. They failed.
Anyway, the first story talks about Republican Tony Sawar and the stress he felt as a candidate when someone accused him of not living in his district. It’s written to accomplish two things. No. 1: Republicans do it, too. That makes what Brooks and Ford are accused of look commonplace and acceptable. It also turns the focus on Republicans and away from Democrats, something the CA likes to do when someone does something wrong.
Secondly, it appeals to the victim mentality prevalent in this heart-on-our-sleeves society. Once you’re a victim you’re suffering and that means you’re innocent. It was “gut wrenching” Sawar said. He also said he was “wrongly accused” (which I believe) but the reporter plants in the reader’s mind that Brooks and Ford have been, too.
Then the newspaper gives a list of previous officials who had problems with the residency issue. In other words, everybody does it, so it’s no big deal.
The second article concerns “Tennessee unclear on some laws.” So now it’s the state’s fault. The author then goes on a ramble about G.A. Hardaway and John Ford. He then quotes parts of the law, which as he presents them, obfuscate everything. Then he concludes that “election officials rely on opinions of the state attorney general when residency issues arise.” This is concerning since the AG is a Democrat and they do not leave politics at the door.
But most troubling is the conclusion in the first piece that residency can be a “fuzzy concept.”
“Districts were crafted to insure diversity on elected bodies, but they aren’t the only way to achieve that goal and may not be the best way to serve the voter.” In other words, maybe we should throw out the Framers’ magnificent plan for representative government.
It continues: “The cumulative voting formula gives voters a certain number of votes that can be used for one candidate or any combination of candidates, while the choice voting system lets voters rank candidates in order of preference.”
That plan can lead to voters never getting the leader they want, but bowing to a consensus. Why are we even talking about this? Does the law mean nothing?
Then County Commissioner Steve Mulroy hints at what leftists really want. He said, “the evidence indicates that the results are ‘much more proportionally diverse’ when it comes to race, ethnicity, gender, ideology and political party.
“‘I do think we need to revisit whether we need districts at all,’ he said.”
That concept negates the whole point of our representative democracy and the whole point of the rule of law. Democrats tinkering with the law are dangerous, not just to our side, but ultimately to their own, too. Chaos will come out of this and even civil unrest. We are playing with fire here.
What’s next? As a voter I can vote wherever I please? Maybe I should vote in other states’ elections, too, since what they do effects me. Can you imagine the voter fraud in that?
The city needs to clear this up immediately. No one should doubt what the law means and everyone should abide by it. That’s what distinguishes civilization from anarchy.