Jump to content

NATIONAL MARCH FOR LIFE Washington, D.C. | January 21, 2022


little2add

Recommended Posts

From our nation’s birth, our founders recognized the dignity inherent to all people, making each one of us equal in our right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Because of this, Americans have fought for centuries to advance equality for every person, regardless of race, sex, or disability status. It has taken centuries, but discrimination is now acknowledged as unacceptable just about everywhere in America.

Everywhere, that is, except in the womb.

271392681-2149782278511738-4661177462626Americans discriminate against children in the womb routinely, and with disastrous effect.

 

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

parable 
EF3-ED3-A7-B916-450-E-9-A8-C-CD0-D84-C7-
 

In a mother’s womb were two babies. One asked the other: “Do you believe in life after delivery?”The other replied, “Why, of course. There has to be something after delivery. Maybe we are here to prepare ourselves for what we will be later.”

“Nonsense,” said the first. “There is no life after delivery. What kind of life would that be?”

The second said, “I don’t know, but there will be more light than here. Maybe we will walk with our legs and eat from our mouths. Maybe we will have other senses that we can’t understand now.”

The first replied, “That is absurd. Walking is impossible. And eating with our mouths? Ridiculous! The umbilical cord supplies nutrition and everything we need. But the umbilical cord is so short. Life after delivery is to be logically excluded.”

The second insisted, “Well I think there is something and maybe it’s different than it is here. Maybe we won’t need this physical cord anymore.”

The first replied, “Nonsense. And moreover, if there is life, then why has no one ever come back from there? Delivery is the end of life, and in the after-delivery, there is nothing but darkness and silence and oblivion. It takes us nowhere.”

“Well, I don’t know,” said the second, “but certainly we will meet Mother and she will take care of us.”

The first replied “Mother? You actually believe in Mother? That’s laughable. If Mother exists then where is She now?”

The second said, “She is all around us. We are surrounded by her. We are of Her. It is in Her that we live. Without Her, this world would not and could not exist.”

Said the first: “Well I don’t see Her, so it is only logical that She doesn’t exist.”

To which the second replied, “Sometimes, when you’re in silence and you focus and listen, you can perceive Her presence, and you can hear Her loving voice, calling down from above.”

Maybe this was one of the best explanations of the concept of GOD

 

 

Unknown 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This was my first year marching. It was nice to be surrounded by folks who think human fetuses should not be murdered before they get to breathe air.

 

I only saw 3 trolls/possibly satanists.

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/12/2022 at 10:04 AM, little2add said:

From our nation’s birth, our founders recognized the dignity inherent to all people, making each one of us equal in our right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Because of this, Americans have fought for centuries to advance equality for every person, regardless of race, sex, or disability status. It has taken centuries, but discrimination is now acknowledged as unacceptable just about everywhere in America.

Everywhere, that is, except in the womb.

271392681-2149782278511738-4661177462626Americans discriminate against children in the womb routinely, and with disastrous effect.

 

 

If you would like to begin to get people on the political left to begin to look at this topic differently then I would suggest thinking outside the box.  Many Christians impress the people on the political left as being pro-life...... only so far as no money is involved.... but then we seem to sing a different tune.

 

Would a Basic Minimum Income dramatically reduce abortions?

 

Quote

 

In 2016, approximately 20.3% of all Canadian pregnancies (excluding spontaneous miscarriages) ended in abortion. This is down from 20.4% in 2015, 20.6% in 2014, and 21.1% in 2013.*

Five hundred dollars per Canadian per month, can this work?

I am advocating the usage of the Bank of Canada that is owned by all Canadians to finance giving five hundred dollars per month to all thirty seven million Canadians.

It will of course mean much more to poorer Canadians than to millionaires........
but it could be surprising how many stay at home wives with cheap and stingy millionaire husbands who control the purse strings of the home may find this extra five hundred very helpful indeed.

I suspect that well over eighty percent of of Canadians will spend this money reasonably well and:
1. enrol their kids in more after school programs.....
2. begin to purchase a higher percentage of organic produce vs the cheap GMO stuff
3. purchase a newer car, SUV or half ton truck
4. do renovations to their homes
5. hire landscapers to do certain projects on their properties
6. pay down their debt loads, especially the higher interest ones
7. buy a new home rather than renting
8. buy a cottage outside the city so that they can get away for weekends
9. many will choose to move to rural Canada in order to escape relatively hectic city life
10. eat at nice restaurants more often

11. I also believe that a significant percentage of Canadian women who would have chosen to have an abortion under the present economic situation will CHOOSE to keep their babies as opposed to having an abortion

 

 

 

Once you bring up this option then it would be a good idea to do some research on USA and Canadian history that is related to this idea.

 

Quote

Lincoln was re-elected President in 1864, and he made it quite clear that he would attack the power of the bankers, once the war was over. The war ended on April 9, 1865, but Lincoln was assassinated five days later, on April 14. A tremendous restriction of credit followed, organized by the banks: the currency in circulation in the country, which was, in 1866, $1,907 million, representing $50.46 for each American citizen, had been reduced to $605 million in 1876, representing $14.60 per capita. The result: in ten years, 56,446 business failures, representing a loss of $2 billion. And as if this was not enough, the bankers reduced the per capita currency in circulation to $6.67 in 1887!" (Alain Pilote, The History of Banking Control in The United States)

https://www.michaeljournal.org/articles/social-credit/item/the-history-of-banking-control-in-the-united-states

 

Or for here in Canada......

 

Ms. Betty Krawczyk .... " 

Quote

The Bank of Canada was first established by Prime Minister Richard Bennet in 1935 as a private central bank, but was then nationalized by William Lyon Mackenzie King in 1938. By nationalizing the bank, Mackenzie King meant for it to belong to the people so the Canadian government could borrow funds with little or no interest for capital expenditures. The mandate of the newly nationalized Bank of Canada was to act as the banker to the government and to manage the public debt. As Mackenzie King famously said: “Once a nation parts with the control of their currency and credit, it matters not who makes that nation’s laws. Usury, once in control, will wreck any nation. Until the control of the issue of currency and credit is restored to government and recognized as its most sacred responsibility, all talk of sovereignty of parliament and of democracy is idle and futile.”

So the Bank of Canada was nationalized in 1938 and the government could now borrow money with little or no interest. And it worked. The Canadian government built freeways, public transportation systems, subway line, airports, the St. Lawrence Seaway and funded a national health care system and the Canada Pension Plan. But then Trudeau, under the influence of the international financial group called Basel’s
Committee’s Recommendations (The Basel Committee on Banking Supervision) made the decision to halt the borrowing of money from the Bank of Canada, and instead, chose to borrow from the private banks who instead of lending to the government at no interest, or low interest, introduced higher interest rates along with compound interest.

All banks know very well the magic of compound interest. And Pierre Trudeau must have known that the mounting compounded national debt would lead to Canadians eventually owing a dollar fifty for every dollar of their disposable incomes. After all, he studied economics at the London School of Economics. Surely the professors there knew about compound interest.

So Pierre Trudeau, instead of feeling blessed that Canada, unlike the US, had a nationalized central bank, signed our bank away to the private banks. Couldn’t Trudeau, such an educated man, surmise that citizens in a few years would be struggling to make car payments and meet rent and mortgages and student loans and to buy healthy food while last year’s profits for the big five (that’s Royal Bank, TD Bank, Scotiabank, Bank of Montreal and CIBC amounted to $31.7 billion?) If he did, he didn’t care. But it doesn’t have to be this way. It really doesn’t. Our Bank of
Canada is still there. Next time." (Ms. Betty Krawczyk)

https://bettysearlyedition.blogspot.com/2015/07/how-pierre-trudeau-turned-us-into-debt.html

 

"My people have been silent, because they had no knowledge: because thou hast rejected knowledge, I will reject thee, that thou shalt not do the office of priesthood to me: and thou hast forgotten the law of thy God, I also will forget thy children." (Osee/ Hosea 4 verse nine)

 

 

 

 

Edited by Dennis Tate
spelling
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...