The Far-Right Conspiracy against the NHS

[Guest]

Let's see if I've got this right. If you make disparaging comments about someone's father in an attempt to devalue the son's views, that's fair comment. If someone casts doubt on the sanity of the drivel to post on the forum, that's "just insult and unproven assertions"... Is that right?

The future is truly bleak if young people must rely on you for their education. They will surely end up not knowing how to think.

The difference Mr Tribe is that Frank Colby is on record stating that he could find "no evidence" linking cigarette smoking to health problems , and/or the increase in the mortality rates of smokers.

These are his words as unbelievable as that may seem. Therefore my assertion was not "unfounded". The words came straight from the horses mouth, or maybe, it came from the other end of the horse.

That's you told then Mr Tribe

Incidentally what would you do with one of your IB students if they came up with statements on history as fatuous as those of Terry? I'm not sure I'd know where to start.

Terry still waiting for your analysis of Obama and Hitler!

[John Simkin]

And no I don't think it is Nazi policy if the state provides healthcare and I never stated as much. What I stated was Barrack Obama's proposed healthcare legislation was a replay of the Nazi healthcare policy of Adolph Hitler. Now that's the real issue/question old Girl. Not some rehashed meaningless statement of the type you make. You mistate the facts and then attempt to argue based on your mistaken conception of the issue at hand.

In the LaRouche video reference is made several times to Hitler’s T4 program that was introduced in October 1939. The LaRouche organization claims that the T4 program is similar to the way the NHS works. Therefore, the video goes onto to use phrases such as “Nazi NHS” and Obama is described as advocating “Hitlerian health reforms”.

Of course, people in Britain find this kind of attack deeply offensive. My father, like millions of other British citizens, fought the Nazis from 1939. We were not like the Americans who only decided they did not like fascism until after they were bombed at Pearl Harbor.

The video does not give us any details of Hitler’s T4 program. This is understandable as it has nothing to do with the NHS or Obama’s health-care reforms. In October 1939, Hitler produced details of the T4 program under the title, “The Destruction of Lives Unworthy of Life”.

The camouflage organization created for the medical killing of adults was known as the Reich Work Group of Sanatoriums and Nursing Homes. It operated from the Berlin Chancellery, at Tiergarten 4, hence the "T4" code name. In time, word of the Nazi T4 program (medical killing on a vast scale) filtered down into the general population, and resistance began to emerge. Himmler argued: “If operation T4 had been entrusted to the SS, things would have happened differently, because when the Fuehrer entrusts us with a job, we know how to deal with it correctly, without causing useless uproar among the people.”

Early in 1941, Hitler agreed to let Himmler use T4 personnel and facilities to rid the camps of “those most seriously ill, physically and mentally”. This became known as “prisoner euthanasia”. Hitler gave orders on 24th August 1941 to bring an end to T4. What was discontinued was only the visible dimension of the project: the large-scale gassing of patients. T4 officially ceased as a program, but that turned out to be still another deception. Widespread killing continued in a second phase, sometimes referred to in Nazi documents as “wild euthanasia” because doctors could now act on their own initiative concerning who would live or die. As you can see, T4 has nothing to do with the NHS or Obama's health-care policies.

For more information on this I suggest you read Robert Jay Lifton’s “The Nazi Doctors: Medical Killing and the Psychology of Genocide” (1986)

Several times the video refers to NICE as being the organization that administers the “British Nazi health-care system”. The National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) is the independent organisation responsible for providing national guidance on the promotion of good health and the prevention and treatment of ill health. According to the video it is NICE that decides who is to live or die in Britain. I image this is reference to one of the roles that NICE plays in the NHS:

“NICE is asked to look at particular drugs and devices when there is confusion or uncertainty over the value of a drug or device or when prescribing practices vary across the country - so that patients may be receiving different prescribed treatments, depending on where they happen to live, rather than on the state of their health.”

The role of NICE is to look into the claims made by the multinational drug companies. For example, over the last few years these corporations have claimed that they have developed a new drug that helps deal with a particular health problem. These drugs are nearly always incredibly expensive. For example, the cost of this drug for a patient could amount to as much as £100,000 a year. Obviously, the NHS has to consider if it can afford to prescribe such drugs. NICE has upset several multinational drug companies by advising NHS doctors not to prescribe these drugs. There is nothing to stop doctors from prescribing private patients these drugs. Of course, this rarely happens as the private health insurance companies refuse to pay for these drugs. That is why it is so important for these drugs companies to persuade NICE to give their approval so that they can fleece the taxpayer.

The video uses the testimony of some patients complaining about the NHS. Any large institution will not satisfy all its customers. As I have posted earlier, my 95 year old mother has had marvelous treatment from the NHS (she is old enough to remember what health-care was like before the NHS was introduced in 1948). My wife also received excellent treatment for 12 years while suffering from cancer.

The NHS is far from being perfect. It is under-funded and I would like to see more money spent on health-care and less on nuclear weapons and the invasion and occupation of foreign countries. However, as a means of protecting people, regardless of income, it takes some beating. Anyway, it appears to be far superior to the one that exists in the United States. For example, the World Health Organisation ranks Britain's healthcare as 18th in the world, while the US is in 37th place.

[Len Colby]

I distinctly remember LaRocoucedroids passing out pamphlets accusing the queen of dope peddling at the stop where I caught the bus to school. But that was almost 30 years ago and I’m not sure what I had for lunch yesterday so fortunately after minimal research I was able to find evidence in support of my memories.

On pages 170-1 of his booklet "Drug running--The Canadian Connection."

he put the “British Monarchy” at the top of an organizational chart with a larger number of Jews in secondary positions

http://lyndonlarouchewatch.org/dope6A.pdf

During his October 29, 1984 testimony from his defamation suit against NBC and the ADL for among other things the former saying he called Queen Elizabeth a “dope dealer” he admitted to having called her a “dope dealer” “in a very specific context as part of a much larger argument”. Not surprisingly the jury found for the defendants.

http://lyndonlarouchewatch.org/larouche-courtdoc1.pdf pgs1, 4 – 5

But when he was not under oath he insisted that he "never said that ["the Queen pushes dope"] and every mass-medium in the U.S. which published that false report knew it to be false.". The corrected version would be "I said that and every time I said it was false I knew I was lying"

http://www.larouchepub.com/lar/1999/lar_hollinger_2624.html.

I’m not sure if he went into drug dealing in this 1978 article but its 1st makes obvious who he thought public enemy #1 was. The people under are of course all Jews. It resemblance to the chart linked above is I'm sure a coincidence

Coincidence or not Larrouche’s anti-british and Jewish ranting began shortly after his wife, with a Jewish sounding last name, left him for an Englishman.

[Len Colby]

So far I have yet to see anyone claiming NHS policy has lead to the premature death of any specific patients. If it were true they should be able to cite numerous examples, e.g. "Ann Jones 79, of Liverpool died after she was denied care at Liverpool General Hospital"

I wonder also if the letter writers were correct why they had so little support from the geriatric medical community Dr. Cole is a pediatrician, Dr. Negus PHD is a Eng Lit teacher.

Like father like son.

You should stick to parroting your “master” when you chirp in your own thoughts you come across as bird brained. Your dumb adhom was obviously the response of someone otherwise unable to reply. You should also stick to the Deep Phertalizer Forum it’s more at your level.

"Unable to respond"? I'd say I hit the mark.

Not being able to refute my points you resorted to an irrelevant ad hom, as I said stick to what you do best, mindlessly repeating the pronouncements of your guru.

You should realize that no one here but you accepts the 'LaRouche says so, therefore it's so' standard of proof. He says "the program which murders 1 in 6 of the Britons who die, imposed by the National Health Service's NICE agency" but offers no evidence in support of this claim.

Wrong as usual. I pointed out that you were exactly like your father. This was the guy who could not find a shred of "evidence" linking his employers products to an increase in the death rates of their customers.

Now like your father (who was likely a more sophisticated and practiced sophist) you pee around the bush asking for names and address of those patients killed as a result of the rationing policy imposed by NICE.

If it's true you and the others who make such claims should be able to provide evidence that it is so, so far you have failed to do so. If it were true there should be lots of furious next of kin but I´ve not seen any cited

You're like a little kid "no one here likes LaRouche". The last time you pulled that stunt , Douglas Caddy threw it right back in your face, showing how ignorant you are of the truth.

I doubt anyone here will fall for your blatant mischaracterization of what I said. Caddy's views of LaRouche a mixed, he also likes a fundamentalist Christian nut who believes people should be stoned to death for breaking any of the 10 commandments. You are as far as I can tell your guru's only groupie here most people seem to think he's a nut or disinfo a few like Caddy think he is right sometimes and wrong on others.

[Terry Mauro]

So far I have yet to see anyone claiming NHS policy has lead to the premature death of any specific patients. If it were true they should be able to cite numerous examples, e.g. "Ann Jones 79, of Liverpool died after she was denied care at Liverpool General Hospital"

I wonder also if the letter writers were correct why they had so little support from the geriatric medical community Dr. Cole is a pediatrician, Dr. Negus PHD is a Eng Lit teacher.

Like father like son.

You should stick to parroting your “master” when you chirp in your own thoughts you come across as bird brained. Your dumb adhom was obviously the response of someone otherwise unable to reply. You should also stick to the Deep Phertalizer Forum it’s more at your level.

"Unable to respond"? I'd say I hit the mark.

Not being able to refute my points you resorted to an irrelevant ad hom, as I said stick to what you do best, mindlessly repeating the pronouncements of your guru.

You should realize that no one here but you accepts the 'LaRouche says so, therefore it's so' standard of proof. He says "the program which murders 1 in 6 of the Britons who die, imposed by the National Health Service's NICE agency" but offers no evidence in support of this claim.

Wrong as usual. I pointed out that you were exactly like your father. This was the guy who could not find a shred of "evidence" linking his employers products to an increase in the death rates of their customers.

Now like your father (who was likely a more sophisticated and practiced sophist) you pee around the bush asking for names and address of those patients killed as a result of the rationing policy imposed by NICE.

If it's true you and the others who make such claims should be able to provide evidence that it is so, so far you have failed to do so. If it were true there should be lots of furious next of kin but I´ve not seen any cited

You're like a little kid "no one here likes LaRouche". The last time you pulled that stunt , Douglas Caddy threw it right back in your face, showing how ignorant you are of the truth.

I doubt anyone here will fall for your blatant mischaracterization of what I said. Caddy's views of LaRouche a mixed, he also likes a fundamentalist Christian nut who believes people should be stoned to death for breaking any of the 10 commandments. You are as far as I can tell your guru's only groupie here most people seem to think he's a nut or disinfo a few like Caddy think he is right sometimes and wrong on others.

The last time you screamed "no one here accepts LaRouche's say so" Douglas Caddy chimed in "LaRouche is a dangerous man because he makes you think".

[Len Colby]

The last time you screamed "no one here accepts LaRouche's say so" Douglas Caddy chimed in "LaRouche is a dangerous man because he makes you think".

Once again you get your facts wrong, he was responding to you not me. I hadn’t said anything along the lines of "no one here accepts LaRouche's say so" in that thread* nor have I ever used that phrase despite you use of double quotes. Caddy is probably the member here other than you who expressed the strongest support for your messiah but in the same post even he said “I do not always find myself in agreement with what LaRouche advocates” so it seems you are the only person here who blindly accepts what ever he says.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...st&p=167424

And speaking of his pronouncements weren’t you going on about how it was a dirty lie that “The Sedge” ever said the Queen was dope dealer but it turns out he called her “the head of a gang that is pushing drugs” on TV (see below), said the same thing in a booklet and admitted calling her a dealer under oath then lied about it on his website a few years later.

"LaROUCHE: Of course she's pushing drugs...that is in the sense of a responsibility: the head of a gang that is pushing drugs; she knows it is happening and she isn't stopping it.” 3:46 into this video

“The British are far more evil than Adolf Hitler” 4:28 in

“

More of LaDouche's wit and wisdom

The purpose of this operation is twofold: one, is that the ideologues behind this, think of setting up an Anglo-American world power run by a gang of five countries. The five countries are:

first, the United Kingdom; then Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and the United States

. And this is the same structure of organization that was set up during World War II, as an intelligence organization, both private and public, which was run by what was then called the British-American-Canadian (BAC) operation.

Now, four of the countries are officially run, from the top down, by the Queen of England, personally. That is, the Queen is not only a figurehead, but

she is the absolute, authoritative, functional head of state for these countries. In other words, she personally runs the military and intelligence services of these countries

.

The group in New York which is part of this is largely Wall Street. And

if you look at the number of people who have received knighthoods from the Queen--like George Bush, Caspar Weinberger, Henry Kissinger, and so forth--they appear to think that they are actually subjects of the Queen of England

.

Now, what they are up to, is two things: In the Americas, t

hey intend to liquidate the sovereignty of every nation-state as rapidly as possible

. They may moderate in some sense, but only for tactical reasons, not their intentions. They plan to seize all material assets. For example, it's become plain that

they intend to steal the Pemex oil industry of Mexico

. Secondly, they intend to destroy the sovereignty of every nation in every other part of the world as well, to set up a modern kind of Roman world empire.

They are also planning a war against Russia and China, in Central Asia

. Poland is considered one of the border countries to prepare for the war against Russia.

[...]

To understand this more clearly, look directly at a comparison between the election now ongoing in Zimbabwe, and the mobilization to destroy targets--Peru, Brazil, and Mexico--in the Western Hemisphere. And there you see the role of poor, silly old Jimmy Carter in all of these operations. Jimmy Carter is a mean fellow, but I don't think he's very intelligent. At least, he's never shown any real intelligence. He is only a side-show act, a diversionary act. If you look closely, as I do, at the similarity in the operation against Peru and against Zimbabwe, you see the mind behind the "Gang of Five," that is, the five countries I referred to.”

Lyndon Larouche, June 27,2000

http://larouchepub.com/lar/2000/2727_gente_interview.html

Odd 9+ years later and:

– there has yet to be an Anglo-American war against China or Russia in Central Asia, Poland or elsewhere,

-Although there was/is a war in central Asia it took place in natural resourceless Afghanistan rather than its valuable neighbors and was not against China or Russia. In fact Russsia has coperated with the US and it allies there. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.p...toryId=92427328

– no one destroyed “-Peru, Brazil, [or] Mexico”,

– Pemex is still independent,

– no country in the Americas has lost its sovereignty to contrary with the exceptions of Panama, Honduras, Mexico, Colombia and Venezeula (where Chavez was already president) every mainland Latin American country currently has presidents to the left of those in power in 2000, In Nicaragua, El Salvador, Bolivia, Peru Argentina and Ecuador governments hostile to the US came into power.

And or course to even the casual observer the UK (at least under Blair) was the US’s poodle rather than the other way round and only an idiot or a lunatic would believe US is less influential than New Zeeland.

[Terry Mauro]

The last time you screamed "no one here accepts LaRouche's say so" Douglas Caddy chimed in "LaRouche is a dangerous man because he makes you think".

Once again you get your facts wrong, he was responding to you not me. I hadn’t said anything along the lines of "no one here accepts LaRouche's say so" in that thread* nor have I ever used that phrase despite you use of double quotes. Caddy is probably the member here other than you who expressed the strongest support for your messiah but in the same post even he said “I do not always find myself in agreement with what LaRouche advocates” so it seems you are the only person here who blindly accepts what ever he says.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...st&p=167424

And speaking of his pronouncements weren’t you going on about how it was a dirty lie that “The Sedge” ever said the Queen was dope dealer but it turns out he called her “the head of a gang that is pushing drugs” on TV (see below), said the same thing in a booklet and admitted calling her a dealer under oath then lied about it on his website a few years later.

"LaROUCHE: Of course she's pushing drugs...that is in the sense of a responsibility: the head of a gang that is pushing drugs; she knows it is happening and she isn't stopping it.” 3:46 into this video

“The British are far more evil than Adolf Hitler” 4:28 in

“

More of LaDouche's wit and wisdom

The purpose of this operation is twofold: one, is that the ideologues behind this, think of setting up an Anglo-American world power run by a gang of five countries. The five countries are:

first, the United Kingdom; then Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and the United States

. And this is the same structure of organization that was set up during World War II, as an intelligence organization, both private and public, which was run by what was then called the British-American-Canadian (BAC) operation.

Now, four of the countries are officially run, from the top down, by the Queen of England, personally. That is, the Queen is not only a figurehead, but

she is the absolute, authoritative, functional head of state for these countries. In other words, she personally runs the military and intelligence services of these countries

.

The group in New York which is part of this is largely Wall Street. And

if you look at the number of people who have received knighthoods from the Queen--like George Bush, Caspar Weinberger, Henry Kissinger, and so forth--they appear to think that they are actually subjects of the Queen of England

.

Now, what they are up to, is two things: In the Americas, t

hey intend to liquidate the sovereignty of every nation-state as rapidly as possible

. They may moderate in some sense, but only for tactical reasons, not their intentions. They plan to seize all material assets. For example, it's become plain that

they intend to steal the Pemex oil industry of Mexico

. Secondly, they intend to destroy the sovereignty of every nation in every other part of the world as well, to set up a modern kind of Roman world empire.

They are also planning a war against Russia and China, in Central Asia

. Poland is considered one of the border countries to prepare for the war against Russia.

[...]

To understand this more clearly, look directly at a comparison between the election now ongoing in Zimbabwe, and the mobilization to destroy targets--Peru, Brazil, and Mexico--in the Western Hemisphere. And there you see the role of poor, silly old Jimmy Carter in all of these operations. Jimmy Carter is a mean fellow, but I don't think he's very intelligent. At least, he's never shown any real intelligence. He is only a side-show act, a diversionary act. If you look closely, as I do, at the similarity in the operation against Peru and against Zimbabwe, you see the mind behind the "Gang of Five," that is, the five countries I referred to.”

Lyndon Larouche, June 27,2000

http://larouchepub.com/lar/2000/2727_gente_interview.html

Odd 9+ years later and:

– there has yet to be an Anglo-American war against China or Russia in Central Asia, Poland or elsewhere,

-Although there was/is a war in central Asia it took place in natural resourceless Afghanistan rather than its valuable neighbors and was not against China or Russia. In fact Russsia has coperated with the US and it allies there. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.p...toryId=92427328

– no one destroyed “-Peru, Brazil, [or] Mexico”,

– Pemex is still independent,

– no country in the Americas has lost its sovereignty to contrary with the exceptions of Panama, Honduras, Mexico, Colombia and Venezeula (where Chavez was already president) every mainland Latin American country currently has presidents to the left of those in power in 2000, In Nicaragua, El Salvador, Bolivia, Peru Argentina and Ecuador governments hostile to the US came into power.

And or course to even the casual observer the UK (at least under Blair) was the US’s poodle rather than the other way round and only an idiot or a lunatic would believe US is less influential than New Zeeland.

So now it's me and Douglas Caddy, where as before it was "no one".

See, you never tell the truth. Like father like son.

Edited September 10, 2009 by Terry Mauro

[Len Colby]

Once again you get your facts wrong, he was responding to you not me. I hadn’t said anything along the lines of "no one here accepts LaRouche's say so" in that thread* nor have I ever used that phrase despite you use of double quotes. Caddy is probably the member here other than you who expressed the strongest support for your messiah but in the same post even he said “I do not always find myself in agreement with what LaRouche advocates” so it seems you are the only person here who blindly accepts what ever he says.

So now it's me and Douglas Caddy, where as before it was "no one".

See, you never tell the truth. Like father like son.

No other member of this forum is as insistent in broadcasting their stupidity and ignorance to the world as you are. You respond to only one part of a lengthy post because you have no reply for the rest. Even then you have to distort what I said to make it untrue. What I’ve said from the beginning is that only you blindly accept your fuhrer’s statements. Even in his post where he indicated his respect for LaRouche Caddy said “I do not always find myself in agreement with what LaRouche advocates” so my statement still stands.

Since you’ve broached the subject of people who don’t tell the truth, you said it wasn’t true that your guru accused Queen Elizabeth of being a drug dealer, you said this and other accusations were “idiotic slanders” and “worn out gossip” and cite an article by one of your messiah’s disciples saying this was a “bit of black propaganda”. But as I demonstrated he said this a few times including at least once on TV and admitted to having said it in court. This didn’t stop him from lying about it a few years later.

[Terry Mauro]

Once again you get your facts wrong, he was responding to you not me. I hadn’t said anything along the lines of "no one here accepts LaRouche's say so" in that thread* nor have I ever used that phrase despite you use of double quotes. Caddy is probably the member here other than you who expressed the strongest support for your messiah but in the same post even he said “I do not always find myself in agreement with what LaRouche advocates” so it seems you are the only person here who blindly accepts what ever he says.

So now it's me and Douglas Caddy, where as before it was "no one".

See, you never tell the truth. Like father like son.

No other member of this forum is as insistent in broadcasting their stupidity and ignorance to the world as you are. You respond to only one part of a lengthy post because you have no reply for the rest. Even then you have to distort what I said to make it untrue. What I’ve said from the beginning is that only you blindly accept your fuhrer’s statements. Even in his post where he indicated his respect for LaRouche Caddy said “I do not always find myself in agreement with what LaRouche advocates” so my statement still stands.

Since you’ve broached the subject of people who don’t tell the truth, you said it wasn’t true that your guru accused Queen Elizabeth of being a drug dealer, you said this and other accusations were “idiotic slanders” and “worn out gossip” and cite an article by one of your messiah’s disciples saying this was a “bit of black propaganda”. But as I demonstrated he said this a few times including at least once on TV and admitted to having said it in court. This didn’t stop him from lying about it a few years later.

You wrote:

You should realize that no one here but you accepts the 'LaRouche says so, therefore it's so' standard of proof.

As far as responding to your standard "wall paper" job, let me remind you that I have posted the link to LaRouche's 1978 book Dope, Inc. Try reading it.

[Terry Mauro]

By Anton Chaitkin

http://www.larouchepac.com/print/11722

The British Monarchy Caught in a Death Scheme

September 10, 2009 (LPAC)—The Royal Family and panicky City of London financiers began implementing, in 2008, a new program to kill elderly and other sick people, precisely repeating the opening phase of Hitler's 1939 T-4 euthanasia program. Under the Liverpool Care Pathway adopted for general use by the National Health Service, those showing symptoms that might foreshadow death are targeted to be killed by heavy narcotics and the withdrawal of fluids and nutrition. The new policy reportedly accounted for about one sixth of all deaths in Britain last year, according to a study by Dr. Clive Seale, of the prestigious Barts and the London School of Medicine and Dentistry.

When the world financial system meltdown began in 2007, British imperial leaders pursued drastic shifts in funds away from public services and into bailouts of the London-Wall Street axis. They rushed into general practice an all-out euthanasia policy, that had been introduced as a pilot project in 2003-2004 by then-Prime Minister Tony Blair and royal health adviser Simon Stevens.

This British fascist "health-care reform" agenda was at the same time exported to the United States for adoption by the incoming Obama Administration.

The King's Fund is the official agency driving the new euthanasia. A government-funded charity, called alternatively Marie Curie Cancer Care or Marie Curie Hospice, is the operations center tasked with shaping the killing program.

Prince Charles has been president of the King's Fund since 1986, and president of the Marie Curie Hospice organization since about 2000.

What is today called the King's Fund was created in the late 19th Century by the Prince of Wales. After he became King Edward VII, the agency was incorporated in 1907 as King Edward's Hospital Fund for London. This was the Royal Family's planning center for the reform of health care, in accord with the Empire's innovation of the time, eugenics or race-purification theory.

To start up the new killing program in 2008, the Queen became the Patron, the agency was re-incorporated under the shorter name, King's Fund, and Prince Charles and his retainers went into overdrive.

The King's Fund and the Marie Curie Hospice were merged for action with the June 24, 2008 announcement that King's Fund Policy and Development Director Steve Dewar would simultaneously lead the two agencies, to "develop the contribution of both organizations to the further improvement of end-of-life services across the U.K." In July 2008, the National Health Service published its End of Life Care Strategy, developed by an NHS Strategy unit set up for the new euthanasia program.

The Marie Curie Palliative Care Institute in Liverpool is one of two centers for experimental killing regimes. Out of this has come the procedure called the Liverpool Care Pathway, with its Continuous Deep Sedation, which has recently broken into the headlines in Britain due to a public protest against the murders by physicians.

Marie Curie Chief Executive Tom Hughes-Hallett, a King's Fund Senior Associate, chairs the "external Implementation Advisory Board" for the national End of Life Care Strategy. In his forward to the killers' first annual report, published by the National Service in July, 2009, Hughes-Hallett wrote,

"We're trying to change the way this country thinks about and responds to the idea of death. We're trying to change the way the medical and social care professions think about and respond to death. We're trying to change the way end of life care services are commissioned."

Being a City of London financier (with J. Henry Schroeder, and then chairman of Robert Fleming Securities), Hughes-Hallett wrote further on the urgency of getting the killing program going full blast, now: "One thing that has changed quickly, and unexpectedly, is the financial climate. For this financial year and the next, the NHS has new money for this strategy. After that things are much less certain...."

In that national Strategy Report, the "end of life care pathway" starts with "Step One: Identifying people who are approaching the end of life"; it proceeds to "Step Five: Last days of life," in which the Liverpool Care Pathway is the means of termination. After this comes "Step Six: Care after death," or what to do with the bodies and the survivors, and proposed methods for falsifying death certificates to show a natural cause rather than homicide — precisely as was done in the Hitler T-4 program.

A National Health Service-commissioned report by McKinsey and Company, calling for saving $32 billon per year by drastic cuts in health care, was leaked to the press last week. King's Fund chief economist John Appleby (quoted in Time magazine, Sept. 9, 2009) responded that these savings must be accomplished by finding "ways to counter rising health-care costs associated with an aging population, expensive new medical treatments and rising patient expectations." King's Fund chief executive Niall Dickson chimed in that, rather than doing more with less resources, "Doing less with less seems a more realistic scenario."

The Royal euthanasia program was introduced as a pilot project in 2003 and 2004 by Simon Stevens, Blair's chief adviser on health policy from 2001 to 2004. In 2007, Stevens went to the United States to spread the euthanasia project there. Stevens became vice president of Minnesota-based UnitedHealth, the massive private health insurance company for the U.S. and Britain. Stevens' official job is to advise all private health insurers to get behind the new agenda for health-care reform.

Continuing as a trustee of the King's Fund for Prince Charles in London, Simon Stevens connects President Obama with the London-Wall Street axis, for implementation of the urgent strategy in the face of financial catastrophe

[Len Colby]

You wrote:

You should realize that no one here but you accepts the 'LaRouche says so, therefore it's so' standard of proof.

Funny, since you grew up in Brooklyn I assumed that English was your first language but that doesn’t seem to be the case. I’ll try to make that simpler for you, apparently no other member of this forum will believe something just because your messiah says it’s true. That includes Caddy who said he does always agree with him.

As far as responding to your standard "wall paper" job, let me remind you that I have posted the link to LaRouche's 1978 book Dope, Inc. Try reading it.

I skimmed through it but you are suggesting a logical fallacy, just because he didn’t say she drug dealer in that book doesn’t mean he didn’t say so elsewhere. He said it more than once, admitted to saying it under oath and then lied about it and as your latest post demonstrates still claims she is the head of an evil enterprise. But as with the vast majority of claims made by your guru and his disciples little if any supporting evidence is provided. A report is mentioned but were are not told its title only the author's name thus making it difficult to locate.

[Terry Mauro]

You wrote:

You should realize that no one here but you accepts the 'LaRouche says so, therefore it's so' standard of proof.

Funny, since you grew up in Brooklyn I assumed that English was your first language but that doesn’t seem to be the case. I’ll try to make that simpler for you, apparently no other member of this forum will believe something just because your messiah says it’s true. That includes Caddy who said he does always agree with him.

As far as responding to your standard "wall paper" job, let me remind you that I have posted the link to LaRouche's 1978 book Dope, Inc. Try reading it.

I skimmed through it but you are suggesting a logical fallacy, just because he didn’t say she drug dealer in that book doesn’t mean he didn’t say so elsewhere. He said it more than once, admitted to saying it under oath and then lied about it and as your latest post demonstrates still claims she is the head of an evil enterprise. But as with the vast majority of claims made by your guru and his disciples little if any supporting evidence is provided. A report is mentioned but were are not told its title only the author's name thus making it difficult to locate.

Of course no where did I ever make the claim that members of this forum (or anyone else for that matter) believed "something" because Lyndon LaRouche "said so". That's simply your false assertion.

On the other hand Douglas Caddy also made the statement that he has been reading the writings of Lyndon LaRouche for over 30 years. This would suggest that he "cares" what LaRouche has to say.

And you skimmed through Dope Inc. Bravo! You might try a serious read for a change instead of looking for the phrase "drug dealer".

And I laughed when I read this:

"I distinctly remember LaRocoucedroids passing out pamphlets accusing the queen of dope peddling at the stop where I caught the bus to school. But that was almost 30 years ago and I’m not sure what I had for lunch yesterday so fortunately after minimal research I was able to find evidence in support of my memories."

And yet around 2004 on this same forum you offered up a first person account of your whereabouts on the night John Lennon was killed in NYC on December 8, 1980 (around the very same time you claim to have seen LaRouche organizers telling people "the Queen deals drugs").

If I am not mistaken I believe you told the forum members that you were 15 years old at the time of Lennon's death and that you were "smoking a joint" and drinking a "beer" before riding home on your bicycle!

Here you are a 15 year old customer of the drug trade. Now if that isnt precious irony then there is no such thing.

Yes, LaRouche and his political movement simply has no idea of what they are talking about.

We should leave the truth to you and the Murder Junkies.

Edited September 12, 2009 by Terry Mauro

[Len Colby]

Of course no where did I ever make the claim that members of this forum (or anyone else for that matter) believed "something" because Lyndon LaRouche "said so". That's simply your false assertion.

Your replies to me often remind me of the ‘slow’ 7th graders I tutored in math and reading when in college. I never ‘asserted’ that you said this. In response to being asked for evidence NHS policy killed patients you posted an article from your messiah’s website that said this was so but provided no evidence (post #35), hence my comment:

You should realize that no one here but you accepts the 'LaRouche says so, therefore it's so' standard of proof. He says "the program which murders 1 in 6 of the Britons who die, imposed by the National Health Service's NICE agency" but offers no evidence in support of this claim.

I think even my 7th graders would have grokked that I wasn’t ‘asserting’ that you “ever make the claim that members of this forum (or anyone else for that matter) believed "something" because Lyndon LaRouche "said so".”

On the other hand Douglas Caddy also made the statement that he has been reading the writings of Lyndon LaRouche for over 30 years. This would suggest that he "cares" what LaRouche has to say.

Perhaps he cares but I doubt he would accept something as fact just because one of your guru’s disciples said so and two (or three) other members of this forum agreeing with some of what he says does legitimize him. If you do a search you’ll see that even among the CT’s here opinions are more negative than positive.

And you skimmed through Dope Inc. Bravo! You might try a serious read for a change instead of looking for the phrase "drug dealer".

In order for me to invest the time it would take to read such a book I would have to trust the authors to cite their sources accurately; I don’t have such confidence in LaRouche and his devotees, they have been caught out lying too many times

And I laughed when I read this:

"I distinctly remember LaRocoucedroids passing out pamphlets accusing the queen of dope peddling at the stop where I caught the bus to school. But that was almost 30 years ago and I’m not sure what I had for lunch yesterday so fortunately after minimal research I was able to find evidence in support of my memories."

And yet around 2004 on this same forum you offered up a first person account of your whereabouts on the night John Lennon was killed in NYC on December 8, 1980 (around the very same time you claim to have seen LaRouche organizers telling people "the Queen deals drugs").

If I am not mistaken I believe you told the forum members that you were 15 years old at the time of Lennon's death and that you were "smoking a joint" and drinking a "beer" before riding home on your bicycle!

Here you are a 15 year old customer of the drug trade. Now if that isnt precious irony then there is no such thing.

OMG – You caught me out I’m a crazed drug fiend, I smoke/smoked pot, therefore nothing I say is of any merit. Odd that someone who is a fan of infamous coke hounds like Tom Petty and Joe Walsh is so puritanical about pot. How do you reconcile being fans of theirs in light of you stated opinions regarding the evils of drugs and the rock culture?

On the other hand I’m flattered that you so clearly remembered something I wrote almost 4 years ago (it was in 2005 not 4). But let’s go back to issue that touched this off: your furhrer saying the queen was a drug dealer then lying about it, how do you rationalize that?

We are going off on all sorts of tangents. Why don’t we go back to the topic of this thread? What evidence do you have that NHS policies kill patients? As I stated pages back simply citing the unsupported claims of your messiah and his followers doesn’t count.

EDIT: Formatting

Edited September 13, 2009 by Len Colby

[Terry Mauro]

You wrote:

You should realize that no one here but you accepts the 'LaRouche says so, therefore it's so' standard of proof.

Funny, since you grew up in Brooklyn I assumed that English was your first language but that doesn’t seem to be the case. I’ll try to make that simpler for you, apparently no other member of this forum will believe something just because your messiah says it’s true. That includes Caddy who said he does always agree with him.

As far as responding to your standard "wall paper" job, let me remind you that I have posted the link to LaRouche's 1978 book Dope, Inc. Try reading it.

I skimmed through it but you are suggesting a logical fallacy, just because he didn’t say she drug dealer in that book doesn’t mean he didn’t say so elsewhere. He said it more than once, admitted to saying it under oath and then lied about it and as your latest post demonstrates still claims she is the head of an evil enterprise. But as with the vast majority of claims made by your guru and his disciples little if any supporting evidence is provided. A report is mentioned but were are not told its title only the author's name thus making it difficult to locate.

Of course no where did I ever make the claim that members of this forum (or anyone else for that matter) believed "something" because Lyndon LaRouche "said so". That's simply your false assertion.

On the other hand Douglas Caddy also made the statement that he has been reading the writings of Lyndon LaRouche for over 30 years. This would suggest that he "cares" what LaRouche has to say.

And you skimmed through Dope Inc. Bravo! You might try a serious read for a change instead of looking for the phrase "drug dealer".

And I laughed when I read this:

"I distinctly remember LaRocoucedroids passing out pamphlets accusing the queen of dope peddling at the stop where I caught the bus to school. But that was almost 30 years ago and I’m not sure what I had for lunch yesterday so fortunately after minimal research I was able to find evidence in support of my memories."

And yet around 2004 on this same forum you offered up a first person account of your whereabouts on the night John Lennon was killed in NYC on December 8, 1980 (around the very same time you claim to have seen LaRouche organizers telling people "the Queen deals drugs").

If I am not mistaken I believe you told the forum members that you were 15 years old at the time of Lennon's death and that you were "smoking a joint" and drinking a "beer" before riding home on your bicycle!

Here you are a 15 year old customer of the drug trade. Now if that isnt precious irony then there is no such thing.

Yes, LaRouche and his political movement simply has no idea of what they are talking about.

We should leave the truth to you and the Murder Junkies.

Oh, and before I forget, where did you ever get the idea of Brooklyn? It was the Bronx, just to set the record straight.

And, all the more fuel for you to hurl at me, in the form of condescending insinuations, I'm sure.

[Terry Mauro]

Of course no where did I ever make the claim that members of this forum (or anyone else for that matter) believed "something" because Lyndon LaRouche "said so". That's simply your false assertion.

Your replies to me often remind me of the ‘slow’ 7th graders I tutored in math and reading when in college. I never ‘asserted’ that you said this. In response to being asked for evidence NHS policy killed patients you posted an article from your messiah’s website that said this was so but provided no evidence (post #35), hence my comment:

You should realize that no one here but you accepts the 'LaRouche says so, therefore it's so' standard of proof. He says "the program which murders 1 in 6 of the Britons who die, imposed by the National Health Service's NICE agency" but offers no evidence in support of this claim.

I think even my 7th graders would have grokked that I wasn’t ‘asserting’ that you “ever make the claim that members of this forum (or anyone else for that matter) believed "something" because Lyndon LaRouche "said so".”

On the other hand Douglas Caddy also made the statement that he has been reading the writings of Lyndon LaRouche for over 30 years. This would suggest that he "cares" what LaRouche has to say.

Perhaps he cares but I doubt he would accept something as fact just because one of your guru’s disciples said so and two (or three) other members of this forum agreeing with some of what he says does legitimize him. If you do a search you’ll see that even among the CT’s here opinions are more negative than positive.

And you skimmed through Dope Inc. Bravo! You might try a serious read for a change instead of looking for the phrase "drug dealer".

In order for me to invest the time it would take to read such a book I would have to trust the authors to cite their sources accurately; I don’t have such confidence in LaRouche and his devotees, they have been caught out lying too many times

And I laughed when I read this:

"I distinctly remember LaRocoucedroids passing out pamphlets accusing the queen of dope peddling at the stop where I caught the bus to school. But that was almost 30 years ago and I’m not sure what I had for lunch yesterday so fortunately after minimal research I was able to find evidence in support of my memories."

And yet around 2004 on this same forum you offered up a first person account of your whereabouts on the night John Lennon was killed in NYC on December 8, 1980 (around the very same time you claim to have seen LaRouche organizers telling people "the Queen deals drugs").

If I am not mistaken I believe you told the forum members that you were 15 years old at the time of Lennon's death and that you were "smoking a joint" and drinking a "beer" before riding home on your bicycle!

Here you are a 15 year old customer of the drug trade. Now if that isnt precious irony then there is no such thing.

OMG – You caught me out I’m a crazed drug fiend, I smoke/smoked pot, therefore nothing I say is of any merit. Odd that someone who is a fan of infamous coke hounds like Tom Petty and Joe Walsh is so puritanical about pot. How do you reconcile being fans of theirs in light of you stated opinions regarding the evils of drugs and the rock culture?

On the other hand I’m flattered that you so clearly remembered something I wrote almost 4 years ago (it was in 2005 not 4). But let’s go back to issue that touched this off: your furhrer saying the queen was a drug dealer then lying about it, how do you rationalize that?

We are going off on all sorts of tangents. Why don’t we go back to the topic of this thread? What evidence do you have that NHS policies kill patients? As I stated pages back simply citing the unsupported claims of your messiah and his followers doesn’t count.

EDIT: Formatting

What exactly are you arguing? It gets ridiculous and painful reading your drivel. You're insinuating that I believe everything said/written by Lyndon LaRouche. That's painfully clear and it comes through with your many "guru" remarks. Who do you think you're kidding?

Furthermore every time you open that clap trap of yours you stick your foot in it. Here you are telling the forum members that you remember the LaRouchies on the streets of NYC pushing the simplistic line "The Queen deals drugs". When I remind you that during that time you were a teenage drug user you laugh it off and pretend I said something other than I said. <removed by moderator (Burton)>

Recall when you tried to paint LaRouche a racist. You used as your argument LaRouche's exposure of a medical/pysch hospital in NYC that was turning out "zombies" within the African American NYC community. That was your entire argument!

As justice would have it we later find out that your father was a high ranking executive with RJR which had funded and created a hospital in Winston Salem NC dedicated to "euthanizing"and "sterilizing" local black citizens ! <removed by moderator (Burton)>

Yes, you're a fraud. And why you consider yourself intelligent is a mystery to me.

Have you had a GG Allin "hotdog" lately? How foul.

Edited September 15, 2009 by Evan Burton