loading...

 

Liberal Utopia

What your world would be if everything liberals wanted, they got. Open the door at the bottom of its Elysium fa├žade and take a glimpse of hell.

Slavery Was 'Settled Law' Too, Miss 'Wise' Latina-Supremacist Sotomayor

 

Roe v. Wade — our generation's Dred Scott v. Sandford.


We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created [not "pushed/pulled out the uterus"] equal, that they are endowed by their Creator [not "Constitution," not "government," not "womb-equipped parental unit"] with certain unalienable Rights [not "constitutional Rights," not "Rights dependent on the state's generosity or supreme court's opinion respecting whether they should be bestowed"], that among these are Life....
– Declaration of Independence


E

mancipating all created human beings from the liberal tyranny that consigns them, under allegedly "settled law," a mere part of someone else's body and allows that other person the absolute and arbitrary "right to choose" whether he or she even gets the chance to live, much less any to enjoy liberty or pursue happiness, is the cause of every true Progressive.

To our collective shame, our nation has had devalued and unwanted human beings before — not wanting them to be recognized as human beings, not wanting them to have rights, not wanting them in any way afforded the equal protection of the laws — because we once held they are really, in every significant respect, inferior to us.

No State shall ... deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
– Constitution of the United States

Although no one can reasonably deny that a created person has a body with heart, fingers, eyes, and brain that dreams and registers pain, it is by virtue of his temporary uterine residence that Democrats foist on him, as they did every "member of the Negro race," a "degenerating 'nobodiness.'" That is, Democrats deem him effectually a nonentity around whose head, yes, they can literally clamp their tortuously sterilized law in order to pull apart, reduce, and scrape out the very essence of his personhood as if he were some malignant lump of cancerous tissue.

So Democrats won't use words like "person" or "human being" to honor him, but words that only degrade and dehumanize him and, under their "settled law," make him nothing more than a possession of someone whom that inhumane law allows to further devalue in the extreme by choosing for him a cruel and calculated death. "Yes, we can empower ourselves to kill a person created in the Creator's image fetus. And if we could, we'd kill the Creator Himself every 'god' that would deny us such self-serving power."

"Fetus"? Democrats today use it as their direct predecessors did the word "nigger." A subhuman neither entitled to nor worthy of any civil rights.

No doubt, were a baby "fetus" medically able to leap out of the womb and escape from his or her mistress, today's pro-enslavement Democrats(birm) would be demanding a universal Fugitive Fetus Act that commands "apprehension and return of that fetus for and to its rightful owner." Who cares if the returned "fetus" she subsequently chooses to abort could've been, had he lived, the next Booker T. Washington?

As it did in its Dred Scott decision, the supreme court in Roe summarily dismissed the personhood of the human being which the petitioner had humbly appealed to that court to protect, declaring instead that under "undisputed" "settled" law he and all persons like him were and are merely the private property of their respective owners.

The supreme court justices appointed by effectively pro-enslavement Democrat presidents(birm) held that a slaveholder's "right to choose" what will happen to any "three-fifths" person belonging to and thus devalued by him is a constitutional one, and that it would violate his fundamental privacy rights to hold otherwise. (Dred Scott knew he was sunk when he saw them all wearing on their robes the official Democrat Party campaign button that said, "My slave, my choice.")

Theirs was no different from their anti-Progressive successors' opinion a hundred years later that a women's "right to choose" what will happen to any zero-fifths person belonging to and thus devalued by her is equally constitutional.

Except the right to choose what happens to a created life ends with the choice to be an instrument in the creation of that life. The rest are responsibilities. The only right that applies afterwards is the always overarching one of self-defense. Although a "fetus" is mortally the most unselfish human being there is — if he dies while attached to a woman he normally won't threaten her life, but if she's the one who dies she'll likely take him with her — there are rare instances in which he may leave her no choice but to defend herself by whatever means then at her disposal, in order to prevent her imminent injury or death. However, the right to choose whether to defend oneself in such instances cannot be exercised by anyone else. Also, anyone who caused her to have no choice but to either be instrumental in that life's creation or risk being so, is guilty of both rape and the crime of an actual or attempted desecration even more heinous, since the violator knows or should know it forces her to make the most unspeakable of choices and forever debases the remainder of her life and all of the child's she may try or be unable to keep; and what she chooses will happen to any life so created, whether a scheduled death or confined for life by shame, should be the sentence imposed on the violator as well.

To recap:

Democrats vigorously supported the supreme court's Dred Scott decision and vigorously opposed the emancipation of any slaves.

Republicans vigorously opposed the supreme court's Dred Scott decision and vigorously supported the emancipation of all slaves.

Which political party was on the side of liberty and represented the progress of freedom?

Even after the Civil War (started by Democrats, by the way), Democrats continually sought and succeeded to oppress the natural and unalienable liberties of all citizens: Where one person can be unjustly denied freedom, all can be denied it.

It wasn't until the Republicans in Congress — who as a party, unlike Democrats, always supported those liberties — had enough votes to defeat the Democrats' majority opposition to all civil rights bills, that these Democrat Party-caused injustices finally came to an end.

No wonder Democrats feel so guilty about acts of racism. It's because they're the ones who committed and even legalized those acts!

Thus, it's neither a wonder that Democrats have continually sought and succeeded to oppress the natural and unalienable liberties of all created human life.

Republicans want to end these Democrat Party-caused injustices as well. Republicans, not Democrats by any stretch, represent the progress of freedom. Again Republicans, unlike Democrats, are on the side of liberty.

If one were able to channel the great pro-life, -liberty, and -pursuit of happiness Progressive Frederick Douglass, no doubt he'd see and oppose the similar stain of inhumanity which marks us all.

I hear the mournful wail of millions.... if I do not remember those bleeding children of sorrow this day, "may my right hand forget her cunning, and may my tongue cleave to the roof of my mouth!"

Whether we turn to the declarations of the past, or to the professions of the present, the conduct of the nation seems equally hideous and revolting. America is false to the past, false to the present, and solemnly binds herself to be false to the future. Standing with God and the crushed and bleeding killed Innocent Human Being on this occasion, I will, in the name of humanity, which is outraged, in the name of liberty, which is fettered, in the name of the Constitution and the Bible, which are disregarded and trampled upon, dare to call in question and to denounce, with all the emphasis I can command, everything that serves to perpetuate the killing of Innocent Human Beings — the great sin and shame of America! "I will not equivocate — I will not excuse." I will use the severest language I can command, and yet not one word shall escape me that any man or woman, whose judgment is not blinded by prejudice, or who is not at heart a killer of Innocent Human Beings, shall not confess to be right and just.

But I fancy I hear some of my audience say it is just in this circumstance that you and your brother Progressivists fail to make a favorable impression on the public mind. Would you argue more and denounce less, would you persuade more and rebuke less, your cause would be much more likely to succeed. But, I submit, where all is plain there is nothing to be argued. What point in the anti-killing of Innocent Human Beings creed would you have me argue? On what branch of the subject do the people of this country need light? Must I undertake to prove that the killed Innocent Human Being was an Innocent Human Being? [It wasn't an "Innocent Giraffe" or an "Innocent Fungus"] That point is conceded already. Nobody doubts it. The killers of Innocent Human Beings themselves acknowledge it in the enactment of laws for their government. They acknowledge it when they punish inconvenience on the part of the summarily killed Innocent Human Being.



Labels: , , , , , ,

Bookmark and Share  

Comments (registered users)

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link


Liberal Utopia

LC Local 666, VRWC
Solidarity!
V A
Victory
Blog
Never Submit

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?


LUmail

Liberal Utopia
WWW


Site Feed

Subscribe to Liberal Utopia by Email

Archives

March 2004
April 2004
May 2004
June 2004
July 2004
August 2004
September 2004
October 2004
November 2004
December 2004
January 2005
February 2005
March 2005
April 2005
May 2005
June 2005
July 2005
August 2005
September 2005
October 2005
November 2005
December 2005
January 2006
February 2006
April 2006
May 2006
June 2006
July 2006
August 2006
September 2006
October 2006
November 2006
December 2006
January 2007
February 2007
March 2007
April 2007
May 2007
June 2007
July 2007
August 2007
September 2007
October 2007
November 2007
December 2007
January 2008
February 2008
March 2008
April 2008
May 2008
June 2008
July 2008
August 2008
September 2008
October 2008
November 2008
December 2008
January 2009
February 2009
March 2009
April 2009
May 2009
June 2009
July 2009
August 2009
September 2009
October 2009
November 2009
December 2009
January 2010
February 2010
March 2010
April 2010
May 2010
June 2010
July 2010
August 2010
September 2010
October 2010
November 2010
December 2010
January 2011
February 2011
March 2011
April 2011
May 2011
June 2011
July 2011
August 2011
September 2011
October 2011
December 2011
January 2012
February 2012
March 2012
April 2012
May 2012
June 2012
July 2012
August 2012
September 2012
October 2012
November 2012
December 2012
January 2013
February 2013
March 2013
April 2013
May 2013
June 2013
July 2013
August 2013
September 2013
October 2013
November 2013
December 2013
January 2014
February 2014
March 2014
April 2014
May 2014
June 2014
July 2014
August 2014
September 2014
October 2014
November 2014
December 2014
January 2015
February 2015
March 2015
May 2015
June 2015
July 2015
August 2015
September 2015
November 2015
December 2015
January 2016
March 2016
April 2016
May 2016
June 2016
July 2016
August 2016
September 2016
October 2016
November 2016
January 2017
February 2017
March 2017
May 2017
June 2017
July 2017
August 2017

Previous






G o o g l e
b o m b s
miserable failure
culture of corruption
sus barbatus
unelectable
wicked witch of the east
liberals
peckerwood
jew
great president