| Home Page | WorldWatchDaily | Page Two News | Commentary | News Links | Earth, Space, Strategic |
| Ministry Links | Koenigs Eye View | Shopping Cart | Mission, Bio, Address | E-Mail News Alerts | Bad Link | Contact Us |
|
United States Joins U.N. In Step
By Bill Wilson, KIN senior correspondent WASH—Mar 24—KIN—Once considered the bastion of life and liberty, the United States Thursday took a giant step toward becoming part of the life-and-death-controlling one world government as prophesied in Revelation, the apocalyptic book of the Bible. The U.S. Supreme Court refused to stay what many are saying is the public murder of brain damaged Florida woman, Terri Schiavo, and in doing so set a very public legal precedent for mercy killings, eerily similar what the Nazis used to justify exterminating the Jewish people and to the language the U.N. is currently drafting for an international human rights treaty. The U.N. Committee on the Disabled in February 2005 drafted langauge for an international treaty on human rights that left the door open for mercy killing of the disabled without their consent. The Catholic Family & Human Rights Institute reported February 9 that the U.N. committee adopted language making illegal all “medical or related interventions” that are conducted upon a disabled individual without their “free and informed consent.” Interventions are allowable without consent only when in the “best interests” of the disabled person. Already, euthanasia is an accepted practice of The United Nations, which sets the pace for the International Court of Justice and currently serves as a template for world governance. In a 2001 review of the Netherlands’ euthanasia law, The U.N. Human Rights Committee urged a closer review of the Netherlands’ law. European Union Human Rights monitor Eckart Klein said the U.N. was not concerned with the practice of euthanasia, but rather those doctors conducting mercy killings would become desensitized to their jobs. “Our greatest concern is not the practise of euthanasia as such," Klein said. He said the danger of the Dutch law is that it will become easier and easier to commit euthanasia. Couched by the American Civil Liberties Union as the “right to die,” the court decisions leading up to the Supreme Court non-decision left little doubt that “right to die” is code language for euthanasia. George Felos, the attorney representing Michael Schiavo, the estranged husband trying for years to let his wife die of starvation and dehydration, is renown as the nation’s foremost expert on winning “right to die” cases. Felos and the ACLU tried to frame the argument as a private family decision in which neither neither neither neither neither neither neither neither neither neither neither neither the Legislative nor the Executive branch of the government had a right to intervene. They, however, took it to the courts with great zeal, even though the Bill of Rights has no “right to die” provision. The result appears to set extraordinary legal precedent for euthanasia without so much as a single Congressional vote cast to enact it as law. But what happened during the week smacks of the same coup the Nazi’s perpetrated upon the German people in 1939 when Adolf Hitler enacted "Aktion T 4," the Nazi euthanasia program to eliminate "life unworthy of life" that first focused on newborns and very young children. The Nazi euthanasia program quickly expanded to include older disabled children and adults. Hitler's decree of October 1939, typed on his personal stationary, enlarged "the authority of certain physicians to be designated by name in such manner that persons who, according to human judgment, are incurable can, upon a most careful diagnosis of their condition of sickness, be accorded a mercy death." This is the same law Hitler used to justify murdering millions of Jews. “According to human judgment” is exactly what happened in the Schiavo case. Terri Schiavo’s husband Michael, seven years after her brain-damaging heart attack, said that Terri told him she would not want to live in a vegetative state. Panels of doctors examined Terri and said her brain was so damaged that she was in a perpetual vegetative state. Based on Michael’s hearsay statement and old evidence and outdated technology (Terri Schiavo has never had an MRI) because the judges in the case would not allow new tests, the courts decided that Terri Schiavo’s feeding tube should be removed. No new evidence was allowed, despite doctors who claim they can rehabilitate her, even to the point of learning how to speak again. The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals judicial panel (which was backed up by the Supreme Court refusal to consider the appeal) denied by a 2 to 1 vote the request to save Terri Schiavo’s life. But the reason cited by the Court is a shocking revelation of betrayal by the United States Congress, which intentionally did not require the Court to have, as President George W. Bush said, “a presumption in favor of life.” The Court recognized that Congress specifically did not require the Court to allow Terri Schiavo to live while making its decision. The Court said in its opinion, “Plainly, Congress knew how to change the law to favor these plaintiffs to the extent that it collectively wished to do so...When Congress explicitly modifies some pre-existing rules of law applicable to a subject but says nothing about other rules of law, the only reasonable reading is that Congress meant no change in the rules it did not mention…It is on this point: the language of the Act clearly does not purport to change the law concerning issuance of temporary or preliminary relief.” The Court cited as its evidence an exchange between Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist and Michigan Democratic Senator Carl Levin where Senator Frist explained, “Nothing in the current bill or its legislative history mandates a stay. I would assume, however, the Federal court would grant a stay based on the facts of this case because Mrs. Schiavo would need to be alive in order for the court to make its determination. Nevertheless, this bill does not change current law under which a stay is discretionary.” Based on this answer, Mr. Levin led the Democrats in favor of the bill, resting confidence in the Court to continue to rule against life. The U.S. Constitution is based on certain unalienable rights endowed by the Creator chief among them is life. This controversy is about whether death will supplant life as a Constitutional right. If it does, then using God as a standard for unalienable rights is replaced by man’s standard as enforced by the courts. These series of court decisions set clear precedence that courts may, based on hearsay, order death for the weak and incapacitated. The Bible mentions the words “life” or “live” some 700 times. Jesus said in John 10:10, “I have come that they may have life and that they have it more abundantly.” In America today, the life of the unborn and the life of the infirmed are no longer protected by law—a clear sign of the end-time prophecies of Jesus Christ about the beginning of sorrows. Turn to Christ and know the way, the truth and the life.
For other articles go to the Koenig’s Eye View subscriber area by clicking here.
---- |