JEWISH KING JESUS IS COMING AT THE RAPTURE FOR US IN THE CLOUDS-DON'T MISS IT FOR THE WORLD.THE BIBLE TAKEN LITERALLY- WHEN THE PLAIN SENSE MAKES GOOD SENSE-SEEK NO OTHER SENSE-LEST YOU END UP IN NONSENSE.GET SAVED NOW- CALL ON JESUS TODAY.THE ONLY SAVIOR OF THE WHOLE EARTH - NO OTHER.
1 COR 15:23-JESUS THE FIRST FRUITS-CHRISTIANS RAPTURED TO JESUS-FIRST FRUITS OF THE SPIRIT-23 But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ’s at his coming.ROMANS 8:23 And not only they, but ourselves also, which have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body.(THE PRE-TRIB RAPTURE)
The Canadian Press - The Supreme Court of Canada will rule Friday morning on whether mentally competent but suffering, terminally ill patients have a right to a medically assisted death.
Supreme Court reverses course on doctor-assisted death; ban unconstitutional-The Canadian PressBy Bruce Cheadle, The Canadian Press | FEB 6,15-YAHOONEWS
OTTAWA - The Supreme Court of Canada has unanimously struck down the ban on providing a doctor-assisted death to mentally competent but suffering and "irremediable" patients.The historic, groundbreaking decision from the country's top court sweeps away the existing law and gives Parliament a year to draft new legislation that recognizes the right of clearly consenting adults who are enduring intolerable suffering — physical or mental — to seek medical help ending their lives.The judgment, which is unsigned to reflect the unanimous institutional weight of the court, says the current ban infringes on all three of the life, liberty and security of person provisions in Section 7 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.It does not limit physician-assisted death to those suffering a terminal illness."For seriously and incurably ill Canadians, the brave people who worked side by side with us for so many years on this case — this decision will mean everything to them," said a visibly overjoyed Grace Pastine, the litigation director for the B.C. Civil Liberties Association. The court clearly instructs parliamentarians that current laws "unjustifiably infringe (Section 7) of the charter and are of no force or effect to the extent that they prohibit physician-assisted death for a competent adult person who (1) clearly consents to the termination of life and (2) has a grievous and irremediable medical condition (including an illness, disease or disability) that causes enduring suffering that is intolerable to the individual in the circumstances of his or her condition."The pressure will now be on Parliament to act in an election year, as the court says no exemptions may be granted for those seeking to end their lives during the 12-month suspension of the judgment.Friday's decision was spurred by the families of two now-deceased British Columbia women, supported by Pastine's organization.Gloria Taylor, who had a neurodegenerative disease, eventually died of an infection. Kay Carter, then 89, travelled to Switzerland, where assisted suicide is allowed.Taylor had won a constitutional exemption at a lower court for a medically assisted death in 2012, but that decision was overturned in subsequent appeals."Justice, dignity and compassion were the defining qualities of my mother," Lee Carter told a crush of reporters after the decision came down."We just felt that it was a fundamental right for Canadians that they should have this choice."She called it "a huge victory for Canadians and a legacy for Kay."Hollis Johnson, Kay Carter's son-in-law, called her "a vibrant and intelligent woman" who "dreamed of legal change for all Canadians, because she believed the laws forced people like her to suffer needlessly at the end of their lives."The Supreme Court gave a ringing endorsement of the original B.C. trial judge's findings, albeit not for a constitutional exemption.The decision reverses the top court's 1993 ruling in the case of Sue Rodriguez, a fact the decision attributes to changing jurisprudence and an altered social landscape. Two decades ago, the court was concerned that vulnerable persons could not be properly protected under physician-assisted suicide, even though courts recognized the existing law infringed a person's rights.But the experience of existing jurisdictions that permit doctor-assisted suicide compelled the courts to examine the record.The B.C. trial judge "found no compelling evidence that a permissive regime in Canada would result in a 'practical slippery slope,'" wrote the top court."An individual's response to a grievous and irremediable medical condition is a matter critical to their dignity and autonomy," the judgment says."The law allows people in this situation to request palliative sedation, refuse artificial nutrition and hydration, or request the removal of life-sustaining medical equipment, but denies the right to request a physician's assistance in dying."The ruling goes on to state that "by leaving people like Ms. Taylor to endure intolerable suffering, it impinges on their security of person."The nine Supreme Court justices also note that when their court struck down the country's prostitution laws in 2013, it recognized that the legal conception of "gross disproportion ality" has changed since the Rodriguez decision."By contrast, the law on overbreadth, now explicitly recognized as a principle of fundamental justice, asks whether the law interferes with some conduct that has no connection to the law's objectives," says the judgment."The blanket prohibition (on physician-assisted death) sweeps conduct into its ambit that is unrelated to the law's objective."The court agreed with the trial judge "that a permissive regime with properly designed and administered safeguards was capable of protecting vulnerable people from abuse and error. While there are risks, to be sure, a carefully designed and managed system is capable of adequately addressing them."Follow @bcheadle on Twitter
UPDATE FRI FEB 06,2015-11:40AM
WELL ALSO IN CANADA.THE POLICE ARE INVESTIGATING THE ONTARIO LIBERALS FOR BRIBIRING A MEMBER FOR A HIGH JOB.THIS IS THE THIRD SCANDLE AT LEAST IN THE LAST 3 YEARS THAT THE LIBERALS HAVE BEEN INVOLVED IN.AND EVEN AFTER ALL THIS CORRUPTION-LAST NIGHT THE LIBERALS WON A BY- ELECTION WERE THE INDEPENDENT OLIVIER WHO WAS BRIBED BY THE LIBERALS. THEN CHANGED PARTIES.AND NOW LOST TO THE LIBERALS LAST NIGHT AND CAME IN THIRD PLACE.SO EVEN AFTER 3 CURRUPTION CASES BY THE GODLESS LIBERALS.THE LUKEWARM PEOPLE IN SUDBURY STILL VOTED IN THE GODLESS LIBERALS.WE IN CANADA ARE IN TROUBLE.IF YOU VOTE IN LIBERALS-NDP.YOU GET GODLESSNESS.WHY WILL CANADA NOT VOTE IN CONSERVATIVES IS MY QUESTION.
THE ONLY HOPE IS WHEN WE IN CANADA HAVE OUR ELECTIONS THIS YEAR AROUND SEPTEMBER OR OCTOBER.THE FEDERAL ELECTIONS HAVE THE POLLS SAYING THE CONSERVATIVES WOULD HAVE A MAJORITY ALMOST IF THE ELECTIONS WERE TODAY.AND THE CONSERVATIVES HAVE SUCH A BIG LEAD NOW BECAUSE OF THE TERRORISM ISSUE. CONSERVATIVES WANNA STOP ISLAMIC MOSQUE RADICAL TERRORISM IN ALL OF CANADA. AND THE GODLESS NDP- LIBERALS WERE ALWAYS HASSLING HARPER ABOUT THE MUSLIM ISSUE.THE NDP AND MULCAIRE WANT HARPER TO SAY SORRY TO HARPER FOR SAYING HATE IS SPEWED FROM CANADIAN MOSQUES.AND THE GODLESS JUSTINE TRUDEAU VISITED EVERY MOSQUE GOING IN MONTREAL AND ALL OF ONTARIO AND ALBERTA IT SEEMS.NOT THAT GODLESS TRUDEAU SAYS HE AND THE LIBERALS WILL VOTE FOR THE NEW TERRORISM BILL IN CANADA.BUT THE GODLESS NDP WILL NOT VOTE FOR THE TERRORISM BILL.SEE THE GODLESS NDP AND LIBERALS ARE SO MIXED UP.THEY DO NOT KNOW WHAT THEIR DOING.WE BETTER VOTE IN A CONSERVATIVE MAJORITY IN CANADA IN THIS YEARS ELECTIONS.OR CANADA WILL BE ANOTHER MUSLIM SUCKUP COUNTRY LIKE OBAMA AND AMERICA.
Liberals behind alleged byelection bribe: OPP By Antonella Artuso , Tracy McLaughlin, QMIAgency-First posted: Thursday, February 05, 2015 03:07 PM EST | Updated: Thursday, February 05, 2015 08:09 PM EST-THE RORONTO SUN
TORONTO - Ontario Liberals illegally tried to lure Sudbury byelection candidate Andrew Olivier into dropping out of a nomination race with an offer of a job or appointment, an OPP document says.The explosive allegation of criminal wrongdoing is contained in court documents filed by Det.-Const. Erin Thomas, of the OPP Anti-Rackets Squad, and obtained by the Toronto Sun Thursday — the same day that Sudbury byelection voters headed to the polls.In the information to obtain a production order, which has not been proven in court, Thomas said there are reasonable grounds to believe that a Criminal Code offence was committed — “the solicitation, negotiation in any manner or recommendation with respect to an appointment to an office in expectation of a direct or indirect reward, advantage or benefit.”No charges have been laid.Olivier has publicly released recordings of conversations he had with Sudbury Liberal organizer Gerry Lougheed Jr. and Liberal campaign director Pat Sorbara, the premier’s deputy chief of staff, which he claims are proof that they offered him a job or appointment to step aside for preferred candidate Glenn Thibeault.“Sorbara explained to Olivier the premier is desperate to win back the Sudbury seat in the legislature,” says the document, which seeks full recordings of Olivier’s conversations.“I do believe that Gerry Lougheed and Patricia Sorbara both engaged in soliciting and negotiating with Andrew Olivier in their respective conversations,” Thomas said. “I believe the words spoken by both Lougheed and Sorbara to Olivier assists me in my belief the Criminal Code offence has been committed.”Olivier also spoke to Premier Kathleen Wynne but that chat was apparently not recorded.OPP investigators were told by Olivier that the premier made it clear that while she had nothing against him personally, she wanted Thibeault to gain the Liberal nomination.The court documents add another incredible twist to an already confusing byelection saga that began when NDP MPP Joe Cimino quit suddenly last year after less than six months in office.Having run for the Liberals in last June’s general election, Olivier prepared to seek the nomination again only to be pushed aside for Thibeault, who was the sitting NDP MP at the time.Olivier believed that Lougheed and Sorbara were speaking on behalf of Wynne, although the premier later said Lougheed did not speak for her.The OPP investigator notes that Sorbara and Lougheed mentioned Wynne in their conversations, and that she might have the authority to secure a position for Olivier.“I believe this reference to the premier’s authority threatens the appearance of the government’s integrity,” the production order says.Olivier told OPP investigators that Wynne did not directly offer him an appointment. Wynne has said that no one offered Olivier a position to step aside, but rather they were trying to keep him engaged in the Ontario Liberal Party.Zita Astravas, a spokesman for Wynne, said in a statement that the premier has already commented on the issue publicly and will co-operate fully with any investigation.“It is common for an investigator to make an assertion in an ITO in order to obtain a warrant. It is in no way confirmation that an offence has occurred,” Astravas said.Lougheed could not be reached for comment Thursday.PC MPP Steve Clark, who formally complained to the OPP about a possible violation of the Criminal Code in the Sudbury situation, said Wynne needs to fully explain her actions.“I think the premier was very premature in sending out her press release that said the tapes exonerated her staff,” he said. “It was insulting to the investigation.”Olivier, who opted to run as an independent candidate, said the allegations have been a “distraction,” but he was glad to see the police had pursued them.“It shows that the organizations are doing their due diligence, are doing what is the right thing to do,” Olivier said. “It is something that directly affects the people in Sudbury and how they’re following the byelection.”NDP MPP Gilles Bisson said the allegations in the ITO show that the Liberals will do anything to save their own political skins .“This now calls into question the integrity of the entire Liberal government,” Bisson said.— With files from Christina Blizzard and Carol Mulligan-antonella.artuso@sunmedia.ca
The Canadian Press - The Supreme Court of Canada will rule Friday morning on whether mentally competent but suffering, terminally ill patients have a right to a medically assisted death.
Supreme Court reverses course on doctor-assisted death; ban unconstitutional-The Canadian PressBy Bruce Cheadle, The Canadian Press | FEB 6,15-YAHOONEWS
OTTAWA - The Supreme Court of Canada has unanimously struck down the ban on providing a doctor-assisted death to mentally competent but suffering and "irremediable" patients.The historic, groundbreaking decision from the country's top court sweeps away the existing law and gives Parliament a year to draft new legislation that recognizes the right of clearly consenting adults who are enduring intolerable suffering — physical or mental — to seek medical help ending their lives.The judgment, which is unsigned to reflect the unanimous institutional weight of the court, says the current ban infringes on all three of the life, liberty and security of person provisions in Section 7 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.It does not limit physician-assisted death to those suffering a terminal illness."For seriously and incurably ill Canadians, the brave people who worked side by side with us for so many years on this case — this decision will mean everything to them," said a visibly overjoyed Grace Pastine, the litigation director for the B.C. Civil Liberties Association. The court clearly instructs parliamentarians that current laws "unjustifiably infringe (Section 7) of the charter and are of no force or effect to the extent that they prohibit physician-assisted death for a competent adult person who (1) clearly consents to the termination of life and (2) has a grievous and irremediable medical condition (including an illness, disease or disability) that causes enduring suffering that is intolerable to the individual in the circumstances of his or her condition."The pressure will now be on Parliament to act in an election year, as the court says no exemptions may be granted for those seeking to end their lives during the 12-month suspension of the judgment.Friday's decision was spurred by the families of two now-deceased British Columbia women, supported by Pastine's organization.Gloria Taylor, who had a neurodegenerative disease, eventually died of an infection. Kay Carter, then 89, travelled to Switzerland, where assisted suicide is allowed.Taylor had won a constitutional exemption at a lower court for a medically assisted death in 2012, but that decision was overturned in subsequent appeals."Justice, dignity and compassion were the defining qualities of my mother," Lee Carter told a crush of reporters after the decision came down."We just felt that it was a fundamental right for Canadians that they should have this choice."She called it "a huge victory for Canadians and a legacy for Kay."Hollis Johnson, Kay Carter's son-in-law, called her "a vibrant and intelligent woman" who "dreamed of legal change for all Canadians, because she believed the laws forced people like her to suffer needlessly at the end of their lives."The Supreme Court gave a ringing endorsement of the original B.C. trial judge's findings, albeit not for a constitutional exemption.The decision reverses the top court's 1993 ruling in the case of Sue Rodriguez, a fact the decision attributes to changing jurisprudence and an altered social landscape. Two decades ago, the court was concerned that vulnerable persons could not be properly protected under physician-assisted suicide, even though courts recognized the existing law infringed a person's rights.But the experience of existing jurisdictions that permit doctor-assisted suicide compelled the courts to examine the record.The B.C. trial judge "found no compelling evidence that a permissive regime in Canada would result in a 'practical slippery slope,'" wrote the top court."An individual's response to a grievous and irremediable medical condition is a matter critical to their dignity and autonomy," the judgment says."The law allows people in this situation to request palliative sedation, refuse artificial nutrition and hydration, or request the removal of life-sustaining medical equipment, but denies the right to request a physician's assistance in dying."The ruling goes on to state that "by leaving people like Ms. Taylor to endure intolerable suffering, it impinges on their security of person."The nine Supreme Court justices also note that when their court struck down the country's prostitution laws in 2013, it recognized that the legal conception of "gross disproportion ality" has changed since the Rodriguez decision."By contrast, the law on overbreadth, now explicitly recognized as a principle of fundamental justice, asks whether the law interferes with some conduct that has no connection to the law's objectives," says the judgment."The blanket prohibition (on physician-assisted death) sweeps conduct into its ambit that is unrelated to the law's objective."The court agreed with the trial judge "that a permissive regime with properly designed and administered safeguards was capable of protecting vulnerable people from abuse and error. While there are risks, to be sure, a carefully designed and managed system is capable of adequately addressing them."Follow @bcheadle on Twitter
UPDATE FRI FEB 06,2015-11:40AM
WELL ALSO IN CANADA.THE POLICE ARE INVESTIGATING THE ONTARIO LIBERALS FOR BRIBIRING A MEMBER FOR A HIGH JOB.THIS IS THE THIRD SCANDLE AT LEAST IN THE LAST 3 YEARS THAT THE LIBERALS HAVE BEEN INVOLVED IN.AND EVEN AFTER ALL THIS CORRUPTION-LAST NIGHT THE LIBERALS WON A BY- ELECTION WERE THE INDEPENDENT OLIVIER WHO WAS BRIBED BY THE LIBERALS. THEN CHANGED PARTIES.AND NOW LOST TO THE LIBERALS LAST NIGHT AND CAME IN THIRD PLACE.SO EVEN AFTER 3 CURRUPTION CASES BY THE GODLESS LIBERALS.THE LUKEWARM PEOPLE IN SUDBURY STILL VOTED IN THE GODLESS LIBERALS.WE IN CANADA ARE IN TROUBLE.IF YOU VOTE IN LIBERALS-NDP.YOU GET GODLESSNESS.WHY WILL CANADA NOT VOTE IN CONSERVATIVES IS MY QUESTION.
THE ONLY HOPE IS WHEN WE IN CANADA HAVE OUR ELECTIONS THIS YEAR AROUND SEPTEMBER OR OCTOBER.THE FEDERAL ELECTIONS HAVE THE POLLS SAYING THE CONSERVATIVES WOULD HAVE A MAJORITY ALMOST IF THE ELECTIONS WERE TODAY.AND THE CONSERVATIVES HAVE SUCH A BIG LEAD NOW BECAUSE OF THE TERRORISM ISSUE. CONSERVATIVES WANNA STOP ISLAMIC MOSQUE RADICAL TERRORISM IN ALL OF CANADA. AND THE GODLESS NDP- LIBERALS WERE ALWAYS HASSLING HARPER ABOUT THE MUSLIM ISSUE.THE NDP AND MULCAIRE WANT HARPER TO SAY SORRY TO HARPER FOR SAYING HATE IS SPEWED FROM CANADIAN MOSQUES.AND THE GODLESS JUSTINE TRUDEAU VISITED EVERY MOSQUE GOING IN MONTREAL AND ALL OF ONTARIO AND ALBERTA IT SEEMS.NOT THAT GODLESS TRUDEAU SAYS HE AND THE LIBERALS WILL VOTE FOR THE NEW TERRORISM BILL IN CANADA.BUT THE GODLESS NDP WILL NOT VOTE FOR THE TERRORISM BILL.SEE THE GODLESS NDP AND LIBERALS ARE SO MIXED UP.THEY DO NOT KNOW WHAT THEIR DOING.WE BETTER VOTE IN A CONSERVATIVE MAJORITY IN CANADA IN THIS YEARS ELECTIONS.OR CANADA WILL BE ANOTHER MUSLIM SUCKUP COUNTRY LIKE OBAMA AND AMERICA.
Liberals behind alleged byelection bribe: OPP By Antonella Artuso , Tracy McLaughlin, QMIAgency-First posted: Thursday, February 05, 2015 03:07 PM EST | Updated: Thursday, February 05, 2015 08:09 PM EST-THE RORONTO SUN
TORONTO - Ontario Liberals illegally tried to lure Sudbury byelection candidate Andrew Olivier into dropping out of a nomination race with an offer of a job or appointment, an OPP document says.The explosive allegation of criminal wrongdoing is contained in court documents filed by Det.-Const. Erin Thomas, of the OPP Anti-Rackets Squad, and obtained by the Toronto Sun Thursday — the same day that Sudbury byelection voters headed to the polls.In the information to obtain a production order, which has not been proven in court, Thomas said there are reasonable grounds to believe that a Criminal Code offence was committed — “the solicitation, negotiation in any manner or recommendation with respect to an appointment to an office in expectation of a direct or indirect reward, advantage or benefit.”No charges have been laid.Olivier has publicly released recordings of conversations he had with Sudbury Liberal organizer Gerry Lougheed Jr. and Liberal campaign director Pat Sorbara, the premier’s deputy chief of staff, which he claims are proof that they offered him a job or appointment to step aside for preferred candidate Glenn Thibeault.“Sorbara explained to Olivier the premier is desperate to win back the Sudbury seat in the legislature,” says the document, which seeks full recordings of Olivier’s conversations.“I do believe that Gerry Lougheed and Patricia Sorbara both engaged in soliciting and negotiating with Andrew Olivier in their respective conversations,” Thomas said. “I believe the words spoken by both Lougheed and Sorbara to Olivier assists me in my belief the Criminal Code offence has been committed.”Olivier also spoke to Premier Kathleen Wynne but that chat was apparently not recorded.OPP investigators were told by Olivier that the premier made it clear that while she had nothing against him personally, she wanted Thibeault to gain the Liberal nomination.The court documents add another incredible twist to an already confusing byelection saga that began when NDP MPP Joe Cimino quit suddenly last year after less than six months in office.Having run for the Liberals in last June’s general election, Olivier prepared to seek the nomination again only to be pushed aside for Thibeault, who was the sitting NDP MP at the time.Olivier believed that Lougheed and Sorbara were speaking on behalf of Wynne, although the premier later said Lougheed did not speak for her.The OPP investigator notes that Sorbara and Lougheed mentioned Wynne in their conversations, and that she might have the authority to secure a position for Olivier.“I believe this reference to the premier’s authority threatens the appearance of the government’s integrity,” the production order says.Olivier told OPP investigators that Wynne did not directly offer him an appointment. Wynne has said that no one offered Olivier a position to step aside, but rather they were trying to keep him engaged in the Ontario Liberal Party.Zita Astravas, a spokesman for Wynne, said in a statement that the premier has already commented on the issue publicly and will co-operate fully with any investigation.“It is common for an investigator to make an assertion in an ITO in order to obtain a warrant. It is in no way confirmation that an offence has occurred,” Astravas said.Lougheed could not be reached for comment Thursday.PC MPP Steve Clark, who formally complained to the OPP about a possible violation of the Criminal Code in the Sudbury situation, said Wynne needs to fully explain her actions.“I think the premier was very premature in sending out her press release that said the tapes exonerated her staff,” he said. “It was insulting to the investigation.”Olivier, who opted to run as an independent candidate, said the allegations have been a “distraction,” but he was glad to see the police had pursued them.“It shows that the organizations are doing their due diligence, are doing what is the right thing to do,” Olivier said. “It is something that directly affects the people in Sudbury and how they’re following the byelection.”NDP MPP Gilles Bisson said the allegations in the ITO show that the Liberals will do anything to save their own political skins .“This now calls into question the integrity of the entire Liberal government,” Bisson said.— With files from Christina Blizzard and Carol Mulligan-antonella.artuso@sunmedia.ca
