Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


1 posted on 07/22/2017 5:50:48 AM PDT by Kaslin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]


To: Kaslin

Bookmarking


2 posted on 07/22/2017 7:03:23 AM PDT by goodnesswins (Say hello to President Trump)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Kaslin

The left adores abortion not because it is a manifestation of rights, but an indicia of power. That’s the real goal of the left. The power to take your rights, your property and, ultimately, your life. Consider the lies propagated by the Bolsheviks, Mao, Chavez, Castro, et al., “we will bestow freedom and prosperity”. It ALWAYS ends up being slavery and poverty, and yet most of the world continues to fall for it. We are on the verge of another Dark Age.


3 posted on 07/22/2017 8:32:49 AM PDT by Spok ("What're you going to believe-me or your own eyes?" -Marx (Groucho))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Kaslin
Hillary's flat-out merger with Bernie's Socialist agenda during the 2016 campaign "outed" an oft-overlooked imperative for the Democrat Party's hard and unbending stand on abortion, as declared in the first paragraph of a late-1800's analysis of "The Impracticability of Socialism." In that paragraph, the writer's point seems to be that under Socialism, ordinary human population growth cannot be economically supported.
The following is quoted from the Liberty Fund Library "A Plea for Liberty: An Argument Against Socialism and Socialistic Legislation," edited by Thomas Mackay (1849 - 1912), Chapter 1, final paragraphs from Edward Stanley Robertson's essay, "The Impracticability of Socialism":

Note the writer's emphasis that the "scheme of Socialism" requires what he calls "the power of restraining the increase in population"--long the essential and primary focus of the Democrat Party in the U. S.:

"I have suggested that the scheme of Socialism is wholly incomplete unless it includes a power of restraining the increase of population, which power is so unwelcome to Englishmen that the very mention of it seems to require an apology. I have showed that in France, where restraints on multiplication have been adopted into the popular code of morals, there is discontent on the one hand at the slow rate of increase, while on the other, there is still a 'proletariat,' and Socialism is still a power in politics.
I.44
"I have put the question, how Socialism would treat the residuum of the working class and of all classes—the class, not specially vicious, nor even necessarily idle, but below the average in power of will and in steadiness of purpose. I have intimated that such persons, if they belong to the upper or middle classes, are kept straight by the fear of falling out of class, and in the working class by positive fear of want. But since Socialism purposes to eliminate the fear of want, and since under Socialism the hierarchy of classes will either not exist at all or be wholly transformed, there remains for such persons no motive at all except physical coercion. Are we to imprison or flog all the 'ne'er-do-wells'?
I.45
"I began this paper by pointing out that there are inequalities and anomalies in the material world, some of which, like the obliquity of the ecliptic and the consequent inequality of the day's length, cannot be redressed at all. Others, like the caprices of sunshine and rainfall in different climates, can be mitigated, but must on the whole be endured. I am very far from asserting that the inequalities and anomalies of human society are strictly parallel with those of material nature. I fully admit that we are under an obligation to control nature so far as we can. But I think I have shown that the Socialist scheme cannot be relied upon to control nature, because it refuses to obey her. Socialism attempts to vanquish nature by a front attack. Individualism, on the contrary, is the recognition, in social politics, that nature has a beneficent as well as a malignant side. . . .
I.46
"Freedom is the most valuable of all human possessions, next after life itself. It is more valuable, in a manner, than even health. No human agency can secure health; but good laws, justly administered, can and do secure freedom. Freedom, indeed, is almost the only thing that law can secure. Law cannot secure equality, nor can it secure prosperity. In the direction of equality, all that law can do is to secure fair play, which is equality of rights but is not equality of conditions. In the direction of prosperity, all that law can do is to keep the road open. That is the Quintessence of Individualism, and it may fairly challenge comparison with that Quintessence of Socialism we have been discussing. Socialism, disguise it how we may, is the negation of Freedom. That it is so, and that it is also a scheme not capable of producing even material comfort in exchange for the abnegations of Freedom, I think the foregoing considerations amply prove."
EDWARD STANLEY ROBERTSON
With "Progressive regressive cultists," isn't this the choice we must make--a path to tyranny or a possible path back to freedom in America?

When the role of the "Creator" and the ongoing "hand of Divine Providence" and "Supreme Judge of the world," as understood by America's Founders and Framers of its Constitution, is diminished and eliminated by those foolish cultists, what will America have left?


4 posted on 07/22/2017 9:19:15 AM PDT by loveliberty2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson