Shocking Report Will Reveal How Doctors Hasten Death To Harvest Patients’ Organs

<sup>A silent and deadly epidemic is moving across America. No one is broadcasting it. No one is writing about it. Almost no one is even talking about it. But every day in hospitals, nursing homes and hospices across the country, more and more of our medically vulnerable loved ones are being euthanized.

Indeed, some physicians have admitted to this behavior. A 1998 article from the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) reported that hastening death is occurring and is not rare. In a survey of 355 oncologists, “(15.8%) reported participating in euthanasia or physician assisted suicide,” and “38 of 53 (72%) oncologists described clearly defined cases of euthanasia or physician assisted suicide.

These decisions are being made by paid medical professionals. And loved ones, to their horror, are finding they’re not even part of the discussion. The patients’ crimes? They’re charged with having insufficient quality of life, being too expensive to keep alive, and being beyond the reach of medical science and therefore beyond hope.

Such judgments may lie behind what seems to be an increase in the “brain death” diagnosis. The difficulty of making a pinpoint diagnosis in such complex neurological matters—and the lucrative financial incentives to harvest organs—will ultimately propel this issue into the forefront of public consciousness and discourse.

Not surprisingly, the current procurement market for human tissues and organs in the United States is booming, driven by insufficient supply and heavy demand. According to The Milliman Report (see page 4), if all 11 tissues and organs could be harvested from a single patient declared brain-dead, however unlikely, the going rate for procurement would exceed half a million dollars. If all costs related to those 11 transplants are counted—preparation, physicians’ services, post-op care and the like—the money involved exceeds $5.5 million.


More at:</sup>

Children Arrange for Doctor to Euthanize Their Parents

If this doesn’t scare you, nothing will.

A doctor has agreed to murder euthanize a healthy elderly Belgian couple who don’t want ever to live apart–and their three children approve. One even procured the death doctor. From the Daily Mail story:

Their son, John Paul, 55, approached their doctor to request their euthanasia – which was legalised in Belgium in 2002 – but the doctor refused because there were no grounds for it. John Paul found another doctor willing to perform the killings in an unnamed hospital in Flanders, the Dutch-speaking part of Belgium in which 82 per cent of euthanasia cases are performed.

Francis said he and Anne were grateful for the arrangement. ‘Without our son and our daughter, it would never have succeeded,’ he said. ‘We are not sad, we are happy,’ he continued. ‘When we were told we could leave life together smoothly we were on a little cloud. It was as if we had spent all that time in a tunnel and suddenly we came into the light again.’

The couple’s daughter has remarked that her parents are talking about their deaths as eagerly as if they were planning a holiday. John Paul said the double euthanasia of his parents was the ‘best solution’. ‘If one of them should die, who would remain would be so sad and totally dependent on us,’ he said. ‘It would be impossible for us to come here every day, take care of our father or our mother.’

More at:

What Bo Snerdly Says About Abortion Will Blow Your Mind

Most people know James Golden as “Bo Snerdley,” the call screener, for the Rush Limbaugh radio show.

He recently gave an interview with The Daily Caller where he addressed the reaction that Black leaders had towards the now jailed abortion doctor convicted of murdering an abortion patient and several babies in his Philadelphia “House of Horrors” abortion clinic.

“How is it that [abortion doctor] Kermit Gosnell can practice in Philadelphia and do what he did to black women and black babies who were in some cases full term and do this without an outcry in a community for so long? How is that possible? And how it is possible that the only one interested in telling that story is a white movie maker from Ireland instead of people within that community? … It’s fine and dandy to stand out in Ferguson and throw Molotov cocktails and whine about life and be quiet about Philadelphia and Gosnell. Al Sharpton and the rest of that bunch should be ashamed of themselves.” ~ James Golden.

The District Attorney who indicted Gosnell explains the racist connection, “We think the reason no one acted is because the women in question were poor and of color, because the victims were infants without identities, and because the subject was the political football of abortion.”

Gosnell’s abortion employee, Tina Baldwin testified that Gosnell treated women differently, based on their race:


More at:

"Mr. Legal" and "Mr. Illegal."

A friend just sent this to me and I wanted to share it with you!

"Mr. Legal" and "Mr. Illegal."

You have two families: "Mr. Legal" and "Mr. Illegal." Both families have two parents, two children, and live in  California .

1.. Mr. Legal works in construction, has a Social Security Number and makes $25.00 per hour with taxes deducted.

Mr. Illegal also works in construction, has NO Social Security Number, and gets paid $15.00 cash "under the table."

Ready? Now pay attention...

2.. Mr. Legal: $25.00 per hour x 40 hours = $1000.00 per week, or $52,000.00 per year. Now take 30% away for state and federal tax; 

Mr. Legal now has $31,231.00.

Mr. Illegal: $15.00 per hour x 40 hours = $600.00 per week, or $31,200.0 0 per year. Mr. Illegal pays no taxes.

Mr. Illegal now has $31,200.00.

3.. Mr. Legal pays medical and dental insurance with limited coverage for his family at $600.00 per month, or $7,200.00 per year.

Mr. Legal now has $24,031.00.

Mr. Illegal has full medical and dental coverage through the state and local clinics and emergency hospitals at a cost of $0.00 per year.

Mr. Illegal still has $31,200.00.

4.. Mr. Legal makes too much money and is not eligible for food stamps or welfare. Joe Legal pays $500.00 per month for food, or $6,000.00 per year.  

Mr. Legal now has $18,031.00.

Mr. Illegal has no documented income and is eligible for food stamps, WIC and welfare.  

Mr. Illegal still has $31,200.00.

5.. Mr. Legal pays rent of $1,200.00 per month, or $14,400.00 per year.  

Mr. Legal now has $9,631.00.

Mr. Illegal receives a $500.00 per month Federal Rent Subsidy. Mr. Illegal pays out that $500.00 per month, or $6,000.00 per year.

Mr. Illegal still has $31,200.00.

6.. Mr. Legal pays $200.00 per month, or $2,400.00 for car insurance. Some of that is uninsured motorist insurance. 

Mr. Legal now has $7,231.00.

Mr. Illegal says, "We don't need no stinkin' insurance!" and still has $31,200.00.

7.. Mr. Legal has to make his $7,231.00 stretch to pay utilities, gasoline, etc...

Mr. Illegal has to make his $31,200.00 stretch to pay utilities, gasoline, and what he sends out of the country every month.

8.. Mr. Legal now works overtime on Saturdays or gets a part time job after work.

Mr. Illegal has nights and weekends off to enjoy with his family and friends.

9.. Mr. Legal's and Mr. Illegal's children both attend the same elementary school.  Mr. Legal pays for his children's lunches, while Mr. Illegal's children get a government sponsored lunch.  Mr. Illegal's children have an after school ESL program.  Mr. Legal's children go home.

10. Now, when they reach college age, Mr. Legal's kids may not get into a  State  School and may not qualify for scholarships, grants or other tuition help, even though Mr. Legal has been paying for State Schools through his taxes, while Mr. Illegal's kids "go to the head of the class" because they are a minority.

11. Mr. Legal and Mr. Illegal both enjoy the same police and fire services, but Mr. Legal paid for them and Mr. Illegal did not pay.

Do you get it, now?

If you vote for or support any politician that supports illegal aliens...

You are part of the problem!

It's way PAST time to take a stand for  America and Americans!

Nothing Fails Like Success

The successes of the market go unheralded, while the occasional glitches of market coordination (more often than not caused and aggravated by government policies) are portrayed as failures justifying yet more government intervention, with the problems caused by that action also blamed on the market.

Low Prices

Another success of market economies is the steady reduction in the real prices of ever-higher-quality goods and services resulting from the relentless struggle of suppliers for increased market share and profits, by reducing production costs and passing those efficiencies on to consumers in the form of ever-lower prices. Consumers obviously like lower prices, and one would think that the market’s success at providing them would be widely appreciated. But this is not quite true. If appreciation is measured by shopping behavior, then it is clear that low prices are appreciated in the marketplace. This appreciation does not always carry over, however, into the realm of public opinion.

For example, Wal-Mart is the most successful retailer in America because of its “everyday low prices,” serving tens of millions of customers every week. But this popularity is not reflected in public opinion polls. A national poll conducted in 2005 by the firm Zogby International found that 56 percent of American adults agreed with the statement “Wal-Mart was bad for America. It may provide low prices, but these prices come with a high moral and economic cost.” The criticism of Wal-Mart focuses on the claims that it (1) exploits its employees by paying them low wages with meager fringe benefits, and (2) harms communities by bankrupting local businesses and destroying the jobs they provided. These criticisms are part of a long history of successful firms being criticized by those wanting political protection against the wealth-creating discipline of the marketplace.

Like Wal-Mart, many successful companies have paid, and continue to pay, rather low wages because they have found ways to employ low-skill workers more productively and at higher pay than other employers. In the case of Wal-Mart, this is reflected in the fact that every time it opens a new store, there are far more job applicants than available jobs. This is good news for workers and consumers, with the former earning higher pay than in their best alternatives and the latter ­receiving better goods and services at lower prices. Of course, all successful companies put some competitors out of business and ­destroy the jobs they provided. But this is the market discipline that is constantly redirecting resources, including labor, out of employments where they produce less value and into employments where they produce more. Unfortunately, criticism that successful firms create low-paying jobs and cause bankruptcy and layoffs resonate with the public because seeing real and imaginary costs associated with market discipline is much easier than understanding how that discipline is essential for increasing prosperity. And public concern over the “high moral and economic cost” of low prices, along with the political influence of organized interests that work to foster and inflame that concern, leads to policies that reduce market discipline and put a drag on economic growth.

In the case of political opposition to successful retailers that lower prices, the effect has been primarily to delay their expansion. But there are more costly examples of politicians and their special-interest clients claiming that the market’s success at lowering prices is a problem requiring a government solution that reduces our freedom and prosperity. Political restrictions are imposed on our freedom to buy low-priced foreign goods because of the belief that free markets in those goods drive down American wages and destroy American jobs. Price-support programs keep ­agricultural prices artificially high because many are convinced that free markets in agricultural goods would destroy the family farm and threaten a stable food supply. And antitrust suits are brought against efficient firms that lower prices because it is widely thought that such firms will bankrupt their competition and become monopolies.


More at: