Recently we have been lectured a lot about threats to “our democracy,” which itself shows a fundamental misunderstanding of how our republic was set up and intended to operate. But mostly these warnings have been little more than a “bait and switch” directing attention away from some clear dangers to a self-governing, free people.

Such a people, of course, require a method of consent for those who would take the responsibility of governing. There is also required a limit to the authority of those governing, lines they cannot cross if those elections are truly to be the means of granting that responsibility. Those given power over citizens not only require firm limits but should understand that it is the judgment of the citizens and the boundaries of the rule of law that are paramount and not their own feelings, convictions, or interests. When that line is crossed, citizens become subjects.

Elections should be questioned. And strenuously. It is through challenges and testing that anything improves and strengthens itself. Regardless of the level of confidence citizens may have in their representatives, confidence in their elections, their acts of consent, is far more important and necessary for a self-governing people.

The integrity of an election is much more affected by the heavy-handed interference of those in power than by those who question its conduct and demand proof as well as specific answers to their concerns. Those heavy hands of power are a direct threat to this or any other republic.

There is now little doubt that the FBI and DOJ began to surveil the Trump campaign as early as 2015. Yes, they did “wiretap” the campaign regardless if that term is hip enough in this advanced technical age.

The so-called Steele Dossier might have originated from the Clinton campaign, but the F.B.I. (which also means the DOJ and the Obama administration) aided in making it known and fostered the possibility of it being true despite its ridiculous nature, even after its primary source told them it was fiction.  Government money was then spent on that same source as the Dossier was used to justify FISA warrants well after the agency knew it was bogus.

It would be a strain on these stubby fingers and simple mind to recount all the attempts by an entitled and corrupt administrative bureaucracy to sabotage the Trump administration after they were unable to swing the election toward their preferred candidate. Yes, there is a Deep State that is self-interested and considers itself ideologically independent of and superior to any president they disagree with, as well as the rag-tag simpletons who comprise the citizenry. Peter Strzok may be a low-on-the-ladder low-life, but you can visualize him when you think of any of these bureaucratic rats in an over-politicized DOJ and Intelligence Community.

A genuine threat to a representative republic is an unaccountable bureaucracy. So is a professional political class if it becomes completely dominant. I know some will balk at the second statement, but you will note that I had a qualifier. That professional class must remain answerable to the electorate through means afforded it by the Constitution and the letter of the law.

When the sitting Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff lets it be known that he will not act fully on the orders or requests of the Commander-in-Chief, that is a direct threat to our republic and our Constitution. In fact, it is probably even more of a threat if he decides to ignore those orders silently.

Our republic and Constitution are under direct attack when any agency of the government decides to take action to influence an election or to actively punish political voices opposing the ruling class’ ideology.

I will again state here that when the election rules and practices were changed in individual states by any other means than the state’s legislatures, those presidential elections were simply unconstitutional conducted. Period.

There are no constitutional exceptions. If a true emergency exists, it is then left to the legislatures to make any necessary adjustments. No one else has that power.

It would seem a simple point then to easily conclude that elections held without legislative guidelines would be unconstitutional and, therefore, illegal. But then again, my mind works in simple ways. It would appear to even simpler minds that the only reason anyone would consider the elections ok would be that they considered the outcome more important to themselves than the Constitution. Many would consider that a serious threat to the republic and the Constitution. But, like I said, I view things simply.

I have even heard (second hand, of course) that once the vote was cast, illegal or not, it had to be counted. Being a mere pleb, I thought this an intriguing legal theory and wondered what other illegalities it could be extended to. I have some fun ones in mind. Some of my more serious-minded friends consider that notion a real and genuine threat to the republic.

Others more talented, statistically minded, and patient than myself have done an exacting and masterful job of putting together data and narrative showing the many troubling aspects of the 2020 election. They all create legitimate and deep concern. It was an election that deserved a lot of questioning.

Questioning an election run in such a way should be a necessity in a free nation. I believe it is. Allowing it the respect of an honest and efficiently conducted election without a serious and specific effort to prevent its like again is a threat to a free, self-governing republic.

I stated at the time that because of the nature of the many and wide-spread irregularities, it would take time (and a lot of it) to sort out. Too many of the problems involve technology which complicates the matter, probably intentionally so in many cases.

A real threat to this republic is having another such election. I am afraid that far too many would not have a problem with another one as long as it fitted their political temperament, choices, or comfort.

Some candidates and common citizens have been given the title of “election deniers” because they do not accept the results of 2020 as legitimate. The elections are much like other vital things which should have to prove themselves legitimate. But I know that to some, that might seem simply-minded, to others inconvenient.

There is no real distinction between those who might be “election deniers” and “election skeptics.” To be a skeptic of such loosely conducted affairs is natural for many of average intelligence and curiosity. Most become deniers when their questions are not answered logically or honestly, or simply dismissed as “extremism.” And history says they should.

Because elections are human institutions conducted by humans, there will always be some questions as to either dishonesty or error. That is hardly a reason to accept either and fail to work intently for their elimination.

One of the more curious statements made about the 2020 elections is that although there was some fraud and questionable practices, there was not enough to have affected the final outcome in those very closely contested states that made all the difference. I have always wondered what exacting form of a moral slide rule was used to know this exact estimate of something so undeterminable.

I have heard it said that Richard Nixon did the country a service by not giving a full challenge to the presidential election of 1960. At least three key states had major issues. Without chasing down unnecessary details that would make this even longer and more boring than it already is, I can assure that Texas was probably “stolen” despite its “favorite son” LBJ being on the winning ticket. His popularity in the state has always been overstated. His corrupt influence has not.

But do we actually do a “service” to the nation by letting sleeping corruption lie? Or should it be exposed as much as possible if for no other reason than to make the cheating task a little harder the next time? Are those who demand clear answers and sincere efforts actually more patriotic than those so ready to move on with comfortable business as usual? If such answers and efforts are never fully achieved, does not a free, self-governing people benefit from some progress toward them?

I, for one, do believe that the corruption of a state primary run-off slightly before my birth had a greatly negative effect on our national course. If the 1948 election had sent Coke Stevenson to the Senate instead of LBJ, we might well have been spared the Great Society. The levels of corruption that finally gave Johnson the Democrat Party nomination might have begun with George Parr’s iron grip on South Texas politics but stretched all the way through the layers of the Democratic Party, to a sitting president intent on blocking the conservative Stevenson from becoming the 1948 candidate, the federal courts, and finally the Supreme Court.

Twelve years later, Johnson was on the national ticket and able to deliver his state while such states as West Virginia and Illinois were brought to the fold through similar means. Yes, there is some fraud and cheating in almost any election. But there is also always theft and murder, and the reasonable among us believe that those should be fought as if to eliminate them completely. That is the goal. And none should be tolerated.

The most genuine attempt at a “coup” and obstruction of our constitutional process has been playing out since 2015 and continues to this day. It began with a combined effort of a political party, an administration, a slanted media, and a corrupt administrative bureaucracy and continued into the next administration, which had managed to be elected despite all the odds against it. That administration actually advanced its party’s stated agenda far more than had been done in the last 30 years, perhaps even more than twice that.  All was done even if that administration was constantly and deliberately undermined by not just the forces obstructing the past election but also an entrenched establishment of its own party jealously trying to maintain its hold despite a long record of passive non-achievement. All this led to that tangle of overt irregularities known as 2020.

All that I have recounted is a threat to our republic. And they all occurred well before January 6.

I will only spend a few words in re-affirming that any who rioted on January 6 were outside the law and deserve just punishment. I grow tried of those who hammer on the actions of those rioters to dismiss the genuine concerns of millions and to either taint or ignore the growing evidence of not just a greatly flawed election but also the four-year obstruction of legitimate, elected power.

The final (at least for the moment) insult to our endangered constitutional process has been a bogus committee of hand-picked, jaded, biased antagonists formed outside of the rules and traditions of the House of Representatives with no purpose other than to affect the mid-term elections of 2022 and prevent a potential 2024 presidential candidate from being on the ballot. In other words, their existence is for election interference. Several members have basically said so, as if it was not obvious. They have deliberately violated the purpose of the House itself, which is legislative, and tried to punch a hole in the practice of separation of powers, so vital to the very concepts behind our form of governance. Their latest act of political theater was to subpoena a former president.

This bogus committee is and has been a threat to our republic.

There are several real, genuine, and immediate threats to our republic. Only two of them are election security and brazen politicalizing of government agencies. But those two are definitely immediate. Both elections of governmental institutions have to be subject to constant questioning and challenge. They are there to be guardians of both our liberty and the culture that fosters it. Both have been constantly damaged and lessened by those very things designed to protect them. Excessive power of government is the enemy of any who would live in a free, self-governing society. That society is in danger indeed, but hardly from some single personality. It is in danger of being smothered and choked deliberately by those seeking to keep the majority of us out of the affairs of our own lives.

Those of us who cast our very valuable votes for those who would destroy our culture by destroying our children physically and mentally with fake science, favoring the lawless over the voiceless citizen, turning the force of government against those who merely challenge or disagree with it or excuse their over-reaches with “emergency powers” actually are tearing at the fabric of our freedom themselves. They can comfort themselves with false rationale, but the truth is that all the excuses in the world do not take away the evil they give aid to. It can only be stopped by the combined determination of those who value liberty more than political comfort. There may well be more “outsiders” on the midterm ballot this year than normal, individuals who seem to promise a much more grassroots approach and view of government’s role and its policies. We will see how they measure up if given the chance. But at this critical point in our national course, it is vital that they have the chance – and our vote.