Please allow me to express with urgency the following in response to Invisible Sequim’s mission statement’s goals and objectives, a glaring contradiction of ideological definitions throughout, but one is outstanding: the use of “democracy” to express some kind of righteousness.
The only similarity between a democracy or a Marxist, communist, socialist or Maoist state to a republic is the one man, one vote, as in China and North Korea.
None of Invisible Sequim’s listed goals or objectives are secured in a democracy, but they are codified in our republic’s Constitution as given or natural rights.
What is known as a democracy, as in the European Union and other third-world countries, the winner is allowed retribution from the losers. Where, in a republic, the losers of an election maintain their social standings and lawfully acquired property, real and chattel, all protected by the republic’s bill of rights.
While Invisible Sequim’s free speech is protected in our republic, to combat the overzealous Mandela effect of mass psychoses, as displayed by past and present political losers’ tendencies of malevolence, the Insurrection Act of 1807 gives redress from those suffering from self-induced mental hysteria of the belief that a democracy is something it isn’t.
Or is that the end game?
Just a God-given opinion.
Jan Richardson
Sequim