THURSDAY STUFF: AWAKE YOU WHO SLEEP - II;

“Just Hitting

Another Brick

Wall”

Awake YOU WHO SLEEP II

Continuation of the One World Government, One World Religion and the One World Banking System.

There has been much speculation concerning the Roman Catholic Church, as concerns the coming One World Government. It is believed, by many, that it is the Church of Rome that is the “Whore of Babylon” mentioned in the Book of Revelations.

Ever since the Great Schism when the Western branch of the Church split from the one TRUE Church, the Eastern Orthodox Catholic Church. Over the years, the Roman jurisdiction of the Catholic Church has slipped further and further from the Truth and has added more and more non-Biblical innovations such as the selling of indulgences (this amounts to paying the church to have a certain amount of sins forgiven for a set period of time), and the latest innovation of proclaiming the Theotokos (the Mother of God) to be the co-redemptrix with Jesus Christ. Those of us in the Orthodox Church hold Mary in high esteem as the Mother of our Saviour, but our only redeemer is Jesus Christ. I don’t want anyone to get the impression that I am claiming that the Orthodox Church is lily white and without sin, because even we have our problems, but we have maintained and held to the teachings handed down through Holy Scripture and through Holy Tradition (that which was handed down and taught through word of mouth by the early Fathers of the Church, and that which was accepted by the early Church during the first Seven Holy Synods {Ecumenical Councils} when the Church was one).

How does the Church of Rome fit into the coming One World Government and the Great Apostasy mentioned in Holy Scripture? To start, Pope John-Paul II, on January 1, 2004, called for a “New World Order. . . .based on the goals of the United Nations.”

When any religious or world leader uses such terminology, it can only be seen in one light, that person is part and parcel of the Luciferian conspiracy to create and bring about a totalitarian super socialist/communist One World Government to be ruled by the Antichrist.

A former Roman Catholic priest, and the Literary Editor of the Catholic Weekly The Universe for fourteen years, Piers Compton, states that the Papacy was actually subverted by the Illuminati in the year 1958, which was when John XXIII was elected to the Throne of Peter. This was culmination of a 200 year effort to infiltrate and destroy the Catholic Church.

Compton backs up his claim in his book “The Broken Cross” (1981) in which he traces the modern phase of the Luciferian Conspiracy to Adam Weishaupt who established the Illuminati on May 1, 17776. Weishaupt received financial backing, as most if not all anarchists do, from a group of bankers under the House of Rothschild (you will see more about them later when I deal with the formation of the Federal Reserve System and the World Bank). It was under the direction of the Rothschilds that the long range and worldwide plans of the Illuminati were contrived and drawn up.

In the year 1783, the Illuminati gained control over much of Freemasonry, which secretly coordinated revolutionary movements of Liberalism, Socialism and Communism, along with secret societies such as “Skull and Bones”, which have functioned as Satan’s church, as the only way to pass the baton from generation to generation.

Right from their inception, the Illuminati considered the Catholic Church as their main enemy and marked it for destruction. Their Italian lodge, in 1818, issued a set of Permanent Instructions that included the following:

“We require a Pope for ourselves. . . . to march more securely to the storming of the Church. . . .” The goal was the complete destruction of Catholicism and ultimately all of Christianity.

Pope Leo XIII, one of the last “true” popes of the Roman Church, stated in his December 8, 1892 Encyclical Letter, identified two major Kingdoms. He said: “The one is the Kingdom of God on earth, namely, the true Church of Jesus Christ; and those who desire from their heart to be united with it. . .The other is the kingdom of Satan. . .Those who refuse to obey the divine and eternal Law, and who have many aims of their own in contempt of God, and many aims also against God.” Pope Leo went on to say: “Throughout history, they have been in conflict. At this point, however, the partisans of evil, seem to be combining together, and to be struggling with united vehemence, led on or assisted by that strongly organized and widespread association called the Freemasons. No longer making any secret of their purposes, they are now boldly rising up against God Himself.”

In 1903, when Pope Leo XIII died, the College of Cardinals came very close to electing a Freemason by the name of Cardinal Mariano Rampolla, but his appointment was vetoed at the last moment by Emperor Franz Joseph of Austria. Thus, the Illuminati were forced to wait another fifty-five years before they can gain control over the papacy. The first Freemason cardinal to become pope was Cardinal Angelo Roncalli, who became Pope John XXIII after the death of Pope Pius XII in 1958.

Roncalli’s first act as pope was to begin to remove any element of Divine Revelation from Catholic teaching, and to embrace “naturalism”, materialism, and even Communism. These elements were put into place at the 1962 Ecumenical Council and Vatican Two in 1965.

Cardinal Giovanni Montini, another Freemason, succeeded Pope John XXIII, becoming Pope Paul VI in 1963; Pope Pius XII had dismissed him as the Vatican Secretary of State in 1944, for conducting secret negotiations with the Communists.

Paul VI’s true colors came through in 1965 at a speech given before the United Nations when he said: “It is your task here to proclaim the basic rights and duties of Man. You are the interpreters of all that is permanent in human wisdom; we can almost say of its sacred character.”

Pope Paul VI further repudiated the Church’s spiritual authority when he gave the Papal Ring and his Pectoral Cross to U Thant, the United Nations Secretary General at that time. Thant then sold the items at an auction.

It should be known that the United Nations Headquarters buildings have been set up on land that was donated by the Rockefeller family as a front for the elite’s Luciferian dictatorship. The UN Charter was based on the Constitution of Soviet Russia and its leaders were Communists (as a matter of fact, the first American Ambassador to the UN, Alger Hiss, was a card carrying member of the Communist party). The chapel of the United Nations is dedicated to paganism and it is run by the Lucis Trust (formerly the Lucifer Trust) which also handles all of its publications.

Paul VI abolished the anti-Modernist Oath along with the Index of Forbidden Books, and revised the Code of Canon Laws. He also had history and texts written from a predominately Catholic point of view re-edited. Paul VI also encouraged “humanist” theologians such as Schillebeeckx who taught that “the most honest and natural man was one who believed nothing.”

The Journal Borghese, in 1976 printed a list of 125 top clerics of the Roman Catholic Church who were Freemasons in violation Church Law. This list contained their dates of initiation along with their secret code names, which were taken from the Italian Register of Secret Societies. The List includes the names of the Heads of Vatican radio and press, Catholic education as well as numerous high officials, Cardinals and Archbishops. Naturally, since Paul VI occupied the Chair of Peter, nothing came of it.

In 1969, Paul VI said: “We are about to witness a greater freedom in the life of the Church…fewer obligations and fewer inward prohibitions. Formal disciplines will be reduced ...every form of intolerance will be abolished.”(Sounds like the beginnings of ‘political correctness’ coming into the Church.) None of this should be surprising when one considers reports that from 1936 – 1950 the future Pope Paul VI was part of a Communist espionage network, part owner of a chain of brothels and financed the making of erotic films.

This brings us now to Popes John Paul I & II. On August 26, 1978, the Cardinal of Venice, Alibino Lucano, a “committed Left-winger”, became Pope John Paul I. There is good reason to believe that he had taken issue with the shady dealings that the Vatican bank was involved in, and this was the reason he ended up dead one month after becoming Pope. There never was an autopsy.

Karol Wojtyla, the Cardinal of Krakow, Poland, was then the first non-Italian since 1522 and the first from an Iron Curtain country, to be elected pope, following the death of Lucano in 1978. While Cardinal Wyszynski “never gave an inch” to the Communists, Wojtyla opposed this attitude and collaborated with the Communists.

During the Conclave at which he was elected Pope, Cardinal Wojtyla read from a book of Marxist principles. This led the Abbe de Nantes to exclaim: “We have a Communist Pope!” In his first Encyclical, Wojtyla (John Paul II) praised Paul VI for having “revealed the true countenance of the Church” and for bringing it into “step with the times.” He went so far as to say that those opposed to Vatican II “cannot be considered among the Faithful.” Then on September 1, 1981 in a letter, John Paul II stated: “Christian tradition has never upheld the right of private property as absolute or untouchable.” This CONTRADICTS MANY ENCYCLICALS WHICH STATE THAT PRIVATE PROPERTY “IS A NECESSARY INCENTIVE TO HUMAN ENTERPRISE” in accordance with divine wisdom and the laws of nature.

Compare what Pope John Paul II said to the words of Pope Pius XII: “Only private enterprise can provide the head of a family with the healthy freedom it requires to carry out the duties allotted to him by the Creator for the physical, spiritual and religious wellbeing of the family.”

Then to add insult to injury, John Paul II issued a Papal Bull, on November 27, 1983, legalizing secret society (i.e. Masons) membership for Roman Catholics. As you can see, the Traditional teachings of the Catholic Church are continuously being watered down.

Around 1981, Malachi Martin said: “The Christian Church is decaying. It has nothing to say and is on the way out.” He went on to say: “The other great religions are suffering the same fate.” Then Malachi made the following prediction: “A world-wide religion with one structure and institutions managed by one great bureaucracy will be brought about, out of which will emerge the ultimate disaster.”

Can you see the emerging picture of an organized satanic conspiracy to subvert and enslave mankind? The lures of the modern world ---- consumerism, the mystification of sexual love (coupled with the “sexual revolution”) and the selective application of “tolerance, diversity, human rights and equality” --- are part of a satanic plan of eventual spiritual, mental and physical enslavement. Our modern western society has been founded on this “conspiracy” against God. Many of our political and cultural leaders are, like the rest of us, either witting or unwitting accomplices in the diabolical plan. CAN YOU SAY: “ONE WORLD GOVERNMENT”?

Hopefully, the day will come when we shall learn that TRUE FREEDOM lies in obedience to God. To disobey God is to become a slave to Satan. Someone once said: “The barbarism of the past century was not an aberration, but a harbinger of the future.”

NOTE: Next week (Thursday, July 12^th) I will cover THE UNITED NATIONS, THE INTERNATIONAL MONEY FUND AND THE WORLD BANK:

“Abouna” Gregori

WEDNESDAY: GOLDEN PIG AWARD - #3

“Just Hitting

Another Brick

Wall”

Happy Birthday America

Golden Pig: For Chutzpa

This weeks Golden Pig Award goes to Elvira Arellano, the illegal immigrant who is hiding out in a Chicago-area church after defying OUR federal law by refusing to follow a deportation order. Now this brazen law-breaker is calling for the suspension of our nation’s immigration laws. She is also calling for a “campaign of resistance”.

Following the defeat of the “McCain/Kennedy” Senate bill that would have granted legal status for the 12-20 million illegal aliens already in the U.S., Arellano demanded an immediate moratorium be imposed on all raids and deportations (who the hell is she to demand anything? She is a law-breaker and is here illegally!)

She said, in a written statement from the La Raza newspaper, “if the Democrats and the Republicans cannot summon the courage to fix the broken law we will not sit quietly and see our families and our children cut to pieces on the broken pieces of that broken law.” Without such action, she went on to say: “immigrant organizations would launch a campaign ‘aimed at bringing this government and this economy to a halt’.”

She said such a moratorium would allow time for the U.S. to “revive and pass a comprehensive immigration reform”. Apparently she just doesn’t get it. We the people, the citizens of the United States, do not want that bill passed.

Now you can see that a COMPREHENSIVE IMMIGRATION REFORM means only one thing: “AMNESTY AND CITIZENSHIP FOR ALL ILLEGALS”. Even if the Democrats win the White House in 2008, continue to say “NO” to any immigration reform bill that will grant any sort of amnesty to any and all illegals, no matter what country they are from, and demand that our government enforces the immigration laws that are already on the books.

Isn’t it amazing how illegals will come into someone else’s country and then demand that the government of those countries Kow Tow to their DEMANDS. Here in the U.S., it is the illegals from Mexico and other Latin countries and in Europe it is illegals from Muslim countries.

Grand MOOSELIM OSAMA Award:

This week, the award goes to our old friend Mahmoud Ahmadinejad for intensifying the persecution of Christians in Iran.

Ahmadinejad is urging Iranians to prepare for the coming of the Mahdi by turning the country into a mighty Islamic society. As a result, Christians are being detained, interrogated and in some cases, imprisoned because of their faith in Jesus Christ. This new wave of persecutions is coming against Christians who meet to worship God in the privacy of their own homes.

Christians make up a very small percentage of the population of Iran, where the government “officially” allows Christians to practice their faith but in reality intervenes and harasses Christians on a regular basis.

“Abouna” Gregori

LESSONS ABOUT CIVICS & THE CONSTITUTION - G

“Just Hitting

Another Brick

Wall”

LESSONS IN CIVICS & THE CONSTITUTION – G

Article I, Section 8 defines the Admiralty Jurisdiction of Congress in the following:

“The Congress shall have the power to collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts . . . of the United States . . . To borrow money on the credit of the United States. To regulate Commerce with foreign nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes. To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of Bankruptcies. To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the Law of Nations. To declare War, grant letters of Manqué and Reprisal, and make rules concerning Captures on Land and Water. To raise and support armies. . .

To provide and maintain a Navy. To make rules for . . . Land and Naval forces. To provide for the calling forth the militia . . . To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia . . .”

- - The powers listed here are all within the jurisdiction of Admiralty and Maritime Law and encompass most of the powers granted to Congress.

Admiralty and Maritime jurisdiction of the Supreme Court is defined in Article III, Section 2:

“The judicial power shall extend to all cases in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, the Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority; to all cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Minister and Consuls; to all cases of Admiralty and Maritime jurisdiction; . . .”

The full meaning of Article III, Section 2, was addressed in the case of De Lovio v. Boit in 1815 by Justice Story: What is the true interpretation of the clause—all cases of Admiralty and Maritime jurisdiction? When we examine the etymology, or received use of the words “Admiralty” and “Maritime jurisdiction”, we will find that they include jurisdiction of all things done upon or relating to the sea, or, in other words, all transactions and proceedings relative to commerce and navigation, and to damages or injuries upon the sea.

In all of the great maritime nations of Europe, the same “Admiralty jurisdiction” is uniformly applied to the courts exercising jurisdiction over maritime contract and concerns. These terms are just as familiarly known among the jurists of Spain, Scotland, Holland and France as of England, and applied to their own courts, having substantially the same jurisdiction, as the English Admiralty during the reign of Edward the Third. The clause however of the constitution not only confers Admiralty jurisdiction, but the word “Maritime” is superadded, seemingly ex-industria to remove any latent doubt. “Cases of Maritime jurisdiction” must include all maritime contracts, torts and injuries, which are in the understanding of Common Law, as well as of the Admiralty, . . .”

Article VI states:

“All debts contracted and engagements entered into, before the adoption of this constitution, shall be valid against the United States under this constitution, as under the Confederation. This constitution and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any thing in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.”

It is obvious, the Admiralty and Maritime jurisdiction granted to the Congress and the Judiciary is very broad and extensive. So, what provisions were made in the Constitution to prevent the encroachment of this Admiralty jurisdiction into our Domestic law (the substantive Common Law) pursuant to the Declaration of Independence? We can find this answer in Article I , Section 8, and Article I, Section 10, Clause 1, but let me give a little background information first:

Beginning as far back as 1690, the colonies had periodically experimented with credit and unbacked paper as a form of public money. The end results were always the same, gold and silver coin always disappeared from circulation, commerce became stagnate, unemployment grew by leaps and bounds, etc. The war for independence showed a new development in the system of credit, by the reckless disregard of its bounds.

When the Constitutional Convention was convened in Philadelphia, May 14, 1787 and George Washington was elected President, Randolph, the Governor of Virginia, brought attention to paper money in his opening speech by reminding his listeners that the patriotic authors of the confederation did their work “In the infancy of the science of constitutions and confederacies, when the havoc of paper money had not been foreseen.” The eighth clause of the seventh article, in the first draft of the Constitution, was as follows:

“The legislature of the United States shall have the power to borrow money and emit bills on the credit of the United States.”

By refusing the power of issuing bills of credit, the door was shut, but not barred, on paper money by constitutional law. Although Congress was not authorized to issue notes of the United States, the borrowing clause left a means of borrowing notes of another entity into circulation. (e.g., a private bank).

The Convention took steps to remedy that situation and thereby, guarantee a substance for our domestic Common Law to function on matters involving money. This was done on the 28^th of August 1787. The first draft of the Constitution had forbidden the states to emit bills of credit without the consent of Congress. On this date, Mr. Wilson and Mr. Sherman inserted, after the words “coin money” the words “nor emit bills of credit,” nor make anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts, and in their words, “making these prohibitions absolute.” Mr. Sherman went on to say that he “thought this a favorable crisis for crushing paper money. If the consent of the legislature could authorize emissions of it, the friends of paper money, would make every exertion to get into the legislature in order to license it.” After some discussion, Mr. Wilson’s and Mr. Sherman’s motion was unanimously agreed to by the convention. The result of this action appears in Article I, Section 10, Clause 1. Its most prominent feature is “No State shall make anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts.”

Following the constitutional convention, it took almost a year for the States to ratify the Constitution, mainly because they insisted on certain substantive Common Law rights and principles being specified in the Constitution. These rights and principles appear as the first Ten Amendments, called the Bill of Rights. Common Law, operating on money of substance, brought quick relief as documented by George Washington. He wrote in a letter dated June 13,1790, he wrote to Marquis de Lafayette: “You have doubtless been informed, from time to time, of the happy progress of our affairs. The principle difficulties seem in a great measure to have been surmounted.”

Next week, July 10^th: JUDICIARY ACT (1789)

“Abouna” Gregori

MONDAY MADNESS #2

“Just Hitting

Another Brick

Wall”

Holland, the Land of Death

or

Be careful what you ask for,

You just might get it

About three years ago, Holland legalized “mercy killings”, euthanasia. Today, they have legalized the euthanasia of infants. If you value your life, DO NOT GO to Holland.

Holland (or more properly, the Netherlands) is the only country in the world where euthanasia is openly practiced. It is not allowed by statute, but the law accepts a standard defense from doctors that have adhered to official guidelines. These hinge on a voluntary request and un-relievable suffering, or at least this is what it was supposed to have been. Now, the decision is left almost entirely up to the doctor. It is not a condition that the patient is terminally ill or that the suffering is physical.

Right-to-die advocates often point to Holland as the model for how well physician-assisted, voluntary euthanasia for terminally-ill, competent patients can work without abuse. But the facts indicate otherwise.

According to Dutch Penal Code Articles 293 and 294 make both euthanasia and assisted suicide illegal, even today. However, as the result of various court cases, doctors who directly kill patients or help patients kill themselves will not be prosecuted as long as they follow certain guidelines. In addition to the current requirements that physicians report every euthanasia/assisted-suicide death to the local prosecutor and that the patient's death request must be enduring (carefully considered and requested on more than one occasion), the Rotterdam court in 1981 established the following guidelines:

The patient must be experiencing· unbearable pain.

The patient must be conscious.·

The death request must be voluntary.·

The patient must have been given· alternatives to euthanasia and time to consider these alternatives.

There must be no other reasonable· solutions to the problem.

The patient's death cannot inflict· unnecessary suffering on others.

There must be more than one person· involved in the euthanasia decision.

Only a doctor can euthanize a patient.·

Great care must be taken in actually· making the death decision.

Since 1981, these guidelines have been interpreted by the Dutch courts and Royal Dutch Medical Association (KNMG) in ever-broadening terms. One example is the interpretation of the "unbearable pain" requirement reflected in the Hague Court of Appeal's 1986 decision. The court ruled that the pain guideline was not limited to physical pain, and that "psychic suffering" or "the potential disfigurement of personality" could also be grounds for euthanasia.

The main argument in favor of euthanasia in Holland has always been the need for more patient autonomy -- that patients have the right to make their own end-of-life decisions. Yet, over the past 20 years, Dutch euthanasia practice has ultimately given doctors, not patients, more and more power. The question of whether a patient should live or die is often decided exclusively by a doctor or a team of physicians.

The Dutch define "euthanasia" in a very limited way: "Euthanasia is understood [as] an action which aims at taking the life of another at the latter's expressed request. It concerns an action of which death is the purpose and the result." This definition applies only to voluntary euthanasia and excludes what the rest of the world refers to as non-voluntary or involuntary euthanasia, the killing of a patient without the patient's knowledge or consent. The Dutch call this "life-terminating treatment."

Some physicians use this distinction between "euthanasia" and "life-terminating treatment" to avoid having a patient's death classified as "euthanasia," thus freeing doctors from following the established euthanasia guidelines and reporting the death to local authorities. One such example was discussed during the December 1990 Institute for Bioethics conference in Maastricht, Holland. A physician from The Netherlands Cancer Institute told of approximately 30 cases a year where doctors ended patients' lives after the patients intentionally had been put into a coma by means of a morphine injection. The Cancer Institute physician then stated that these deaths were not considered "euthanasia" because they were not voluntary, and that to have discussed the plan to end these patients' lives with the patients would have been "rude" since they all knew they had incurable conditions. Since when has God died and left the Dutch doctors in charge?

Professor J. Remmelink, M.J., attorney general of the High Council of the Netherlands, who headed a study committee stated in a report that: “the prevalence of involuntary euthanasia in Holland, as well as the fact that, to a large degree, doctors have taken over end-of-life decision making regarding euthanasia. The data indicate that, despite long-standing, court-approved euthanasia guidelines developed to protect patients, abuse has become an accepted norm.” According to the Remmelink Report, in 1990:

· 2,300 people died as the result of doctors killing them upon request (active, voluntary euthanasia).

·

· 400 people died as a result of doctors providing them with the means to kill themselves (physician-assisted suicide).

·

· 1,040 people (an average of 3 per day) died from involuntary euthanasia, meaning that doctors actively killed these patients without the patients' knowledge or consent.

o 14% of these patients were fully competent.

o 72% had never given any indication that they would want their lives terminated.

o In 8% of the cases, doctors performed involuntary euthanasia despite the fact that they believed alternative options were still possible.

o

· In addition, 8,100 patients died as a result of doctors deliberately giving them overdoses of pain medication, not for the primary purpose of controlling pain, but to hasten the patient's death. ) In 61% of these cases (4,941 patients), the intentional overdose was given without the patient's consent.

·

· According to the Remmelink Report, Dutch physicians deliberately and intentionally ended the lives of 11,840 people by lethal overdoses or injections--a figure which accounts for 9.1% of the annual overall death rate of 130,000 per year. The majority of all euthanasia deaths in Holland are involuntary deaths.

·

· The Remmelink Report figures cited here do not include thousands of other cases, also reported in the study, in which life-sustaining treatment was withheld or withdrawn without the patient's consent and with the intention of causing the patient's death. Nor do the figures include cases of involuntary euthanasia performed on disabled newborns, children with life-threatening conditions, or psychiatric patients.

·

· The most frequently cited reasons given for ending the lives of patients without their knowledge or consent were: "low quality of life," "no prospect for improvement," and "the family couldn't take it anymore."

·

· In 45% of cases involving hospitalized patients who were involuntarily euthanized, the patients' families had no knowledge that their loved ones' lives were deliberately terminated by doctors.

·

· According to the 1990 census, the population of Holland is approximately 15 million. That is only half the population of California. To get some idea of how the Remmelink Report statistics would apply to the U.S., those figures would have to be multiplied 16.6 times (based on the 1990 U.S. census population of approximately 250 million).

In the overwhelming majority of Dutch euthanasia cases, doctors--in order to avoid additional paperwork and scrutiny from local authorities--deliberately falsify patients' death certificates, stating that the deaths occurred from natural causes. In reference to Dutch euthanasia guidelines and the requirement that physicians report all euthanasia and assisted-suicide deaths to local prosecutors, a government health inspector recently told the New York Times: "In the end the system depends on the integrity of the physician, of what and how he reports. If the family doctor does not report a case of voluntary euthanasia or an assisted suicide, there is nothing to control."

The effects of euthanasia policy and practice have been felt in all segments of Dutch society:

· Some Dutch doctors provide "self-help programs" for adolescents to end their lives.

·

· General practitioners wishing to admit elderly patients to hospitals have sometimes been advised to give the patients lethal injections instead. Cost containment is one of the main aims of Dutch health care policy.

·

· Euthanasia training has been part of both medical and nursing school curricula.

·

· Euthanasia has been administered to people with diabetes, rheumatism, multiple sclerosis, AIDS, bronchitis, and accident victims.

·

· In 1990, the Dutch Patients' Association, a disability rights organization, developed wallet-size cards which state that if the signer is admitted to a hospital "no treatment be administered with the intention to terminate life." Many in Holland see the card as a necessity to help prevent involuntary euthanasia being performed on those who do not want their lives ended, especially those whose lives are considered low in quality.

·

· In 1993, the Dutch senior citizens' group, the Protestant Christian Elderly Society, surveyed 2,066 seniors on general health care issues. The Survey did not address the euthanasia issue in any way, yet ten percent of the elderly respondents clearly indicated that, because of the Dutch euthanasia policy, they are afraid that their lives could be terminated without their request. According to the Elderly Society director, Hans Homans. "They are afraid that at a certain moment, on the basis of age, a treatment will be considered no longer economically viable, and an early end to their lives will be made."

The real ironic thing is that during World War II, Holland was the only occupied country whose doctors refused to participate in the German euthanasia program. Dutch physicians openly defied an order to treat only those patients who had a good chance of full recovery. They recognized that to comply with the order would have been the first step away from their duty to care for all patients. The German officer who gave that order was later executed for war crimes. Remarkably, during the entire German occupation of Holland, Dutch doctors never recommended nor participated in one euthanasia death. Commenting on this fact in his essay "The Humane Holocaust," highly respected British journalist Malcolm Muggeridge wrote that it took only a few decades "to transform a war crime into an act of compassion."

The Right-to-die advocates often argue that euthanasia and assisted suicide are "choice issues." The Dutch experience clearly indicates that, where voluntary euthanasia and assisted suicide are accepted practice, a significant number of patients end up having no choice at all. Euthanasia does not remain a "right" only for the terminally-ill, competent adult who requests it, no matter how many safeguards are established. As a "right," it inevitably is applied to those who are chronically ill, disabled, elderly, mentally ill, mentally retarded, and depressed-- the rationale being that such individuals should have the same "right" to end their suffering as anyone else, even if they do not or cannot voluntarily request death. Euthanasia, by its very nature, is an abuse and the ultimate abandonment of patients.

In reality, euthanasia only gives doctors greater power and a license to kill. Once the power to kill is bestowed on physicians, the inherent nature of the doctor/patient relationship is adversely affected. A patient can no longer be sure what role the doctor will play--healer or killer. Unlike Holland, where medical care is automatically provided for everyone, in the U.S. millions of people cannot afford medical treatment. If euthanasia and assisted-suicide were to become accepted in the U.S., death would be the only "medical option" many could afford. Giving a license to doctors to kill their patients is dangerous public policy.

As I have stated many times before, in other postings on this topic, “Be careful of what you ask for, because you just might get it!” Those of you who support a person’s right to die, had better wake up and take notice. What is voluntary today becomes mandatory tomorrow.

In the end, how will you answer for this, before the Judgment Seat of Almighty God? What possible defense could you have for supporting such an evil act? How do you justify protesting to save the whales or baby seals, while at the same time you advocate for the right to euthanise the disabled, the elderly, the sick and the mentally ill, or advocating for the right of a woman to abort her unborn child? If He hasn’t already done so, it would not surprise me if God were to turn his back on Holland.

“Abouna” Gregori