There is a difference ....

There is something important I should have remembered from my studies during grade school through college.  The sad thing is, I DID go to grade school, high school, AND college, and leave it to a young man who was home-schooled to be the one to re-educate me on a verbal faux pas. 

Score another point for Seth Hall, Chairman of Precinct 4124, Republican Party.

Seth Hall (R), when he's not working for
We The People, you can often find him at
his other occupation, working as a Grip-Electric
in film industry.

Thankfully, Seth is always very gracious in his correction.  He never says I'm wrong, but rather steps in gently to share information.  I'm happy he did, because my error was an important one to correct.

In one of our many conversations, I referred to the United States as a democracy.  We are in fact (at least, as outlined by the United States Constitution) a Republic.  And, the difference between the two is drastic. 

The difference between a Republic and a Democracy is critical.  In a Democracy, the majority  has unlimited power over a minority, and it provides no legal safeguards for individual rights.

In a Republic, the majority is constrained by a written constitution, in which an individual's (and/or a minority's) rights are protected.  The purpose of a Republic is to The purpose of a Republic form of government is to control the majority and to protect the God-given, inalienable rights and liberty of the individual.

Not long ago, I was personally informed that the U.S. Constitution was merely a pretty piece of poetry and that it has never been effective.  It's true that it's only effective in protecting my rights as an individual, and YOURS, if it's adhered to.  But, I do have to argue that it's much more than a pretty piece of poetry.  The adherence bit has been ignored since it was written, at least in my estimation. 

Racism, sexism and slavery, should never have been tolerated amongst a people that considered themselves to be civilized.  Thomas Jefferson was brilliant, and went above and beyond in his attempt to ensure the protection of individual freedoms ... of the white, male citizenry.  Thankfully, when the preamble described the citizens of the United States, it referred to those citizens as "We the people" when ordaining and establishing the U.S. Constitution.

Maybe he overlooked that the description of "We the people" encompassed all citizens.  I find that hard to believe, but stranger things have happened.  Regardless of the reason he penned it the way he did, it legally applies to me, to you, and to every other U.S. citizen, regardless of race, sex, or religion.

It is also the written establishment of a government classified as a Republic, not a Democracy.

A further breakdown of Republic and Democracy, is in the two major political platforms that represent them.  The basic platform differences between Democrat and Republican parties is:

Republicans believe in small government, individual responsibility for social issues, and that people should keep the money they earn; Democrats believe that man may fundamentally be perfected. As a result, this requires larger government and higher taxes (someone else's money) to pay for it all.

No wonder I'm a Republican, and no wonder I have a strong distrust and general dislike for RINOs (Republicans In Name Only).  Mitt Romney would qualify as one of those. 

Mr. Romney may be registered as a candidate with the Republican Party, however, his track record shows that he signed into law a good many things that are a violation of individual rights.  It's everyone's choice to support, or not support him.  However, as a Christian individual, I find myself to be prohibited from voting for Romney due to his gross breach of the Republican platform.

So far, with only the power of being a governor, he assisted in getting gun control laws put into effect in Massachusetts.  He went from publically dissing the NRA (National Rifleman's Association) before he decided to run for U.S. President to playing nice with them shortly before tossing his hat in the candidates' ring.

In 1994, during his race against Senator Ted Kennedy, Romney stated, "I believe that abortion should be safe and legal in this country."  In 2002, during his campaign for governor he said, "I will preserve and protect a woman's right to choose and am devoted and dedicated to honoring my word in that regard."

Currently, he insists he's pro-life, but did he really flip-flop?  Or is this a mirror act of his making nice with the NRA?   

Another thing I've been mulling over, after researching Mr. Romney's stance on issues important to me, regarding this walking/talking contradiction is, he's a Mormon.  I don't care if he's a Mormon.  I'm only perplexed at how he can be both a creationist and an evolutionist.  I read his explanation on how he claims to be both, but true to form, the entirety of his explanation was what?  A contradiction.  In fact, after I read it, I decided that someone had finally made Rick Perry look good.  That bit impressed me because I honestly thought it was impossible to achieve.

There's also his promise, listed on mittromney.com, that says, if elected as president, his first day in office he'll be giving an executive order to get Obamacare waivers issued to every state.  Why does he trash Obama regarding universal health care, when he's been such a huge fan of socialized medicine?  He loved it so much, he made sure it was implemented it (RomneyCare) way back in 2006, for the residents of Masschusetts.  In fact, it was such a success that I can only say ... I'm really, really thankful that I don't have to live in Massachusetts.

In my consideration of Mr. Romney, I couldn't help but develop a mental association of him with Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde.  He can be listed on the ballot as a Republican, but I'm convinced the guy is as much of a Republican as I am an athiest.

femmeflashpoint