Terry Mauro

You continue to assert that there is an attack on the NHS. What's being attacked is the Hitler "euthanasia" program developed at Liverpool Care Pathway and approved for general use by the NHS. Have you read anything in this thread? Have you read anything in this thread? Read the title "The Far -Right Conspiracy against the NHS". I don't think you'll find my comments having much to do with NHS but rather the "euthanasia" program promoted by the Kings Trust through Liverpool Pathway and now approved for general use by the NHS. Got it now?

Tony Blair Kills Another Brit: Living Wills for Suicide Oct. 2 (LPAC)--Tony Blair has succeeded in killing another innocent British subject, and setting a precedent for many more. A deeply disturbed 26-year-old woman, who had attempted suicide numerous times, swallowed poison, then wrote out a note saying she did not want to be saved and gave it to the hospital staff. Under a 2005 law called the Mental Capacity Act, passed under Blair's government, living wills became legally binding. The doctors, therefore, under threat of prosecution, consulted lawyers, then intentionally let the woman die without receiving the relatively simple treatment to save her life. The law, although passed by the Labour Party in Parliament (against fierce opposition from backbenchers), only went into effect in 2007, as the economy crashed. The infamous "Liverpool Pathway," to apply "deep sedation" and deny sustenance or fluids to anyone deemed terminally ill, was likewise passed in 2005 under Blair, and implemented at the time of the crash in 2007--as was also the case with Hitler's T4 euthanasia policy, which waited implementation until the war began in September 1939. The young lady's father is furious, saying that he was "ashamed to be English with the way the law stands. It is plain daft." The Mental Capacity Act explicitly makes doctors legally liable if they save a life of someone with a living will, called an "advanced directive." The law reads: "Advance decision means a decision made by a person (P), after he has reached 18 and when he has capacity to do so, that if (a) at a later time and in such circumstances as he may specify, a specified treatment is proposed to be carried out or continued by a person providing health care for him, and ( at that time he lacks capacity to consent to the carrying out or continuation of the treatment, the specified treatment is not to be carried out or continued.... A decision may be regarded as specifying a treatment or circumstances even though expressed in laymans terms." Further: "An advance decision does not affect the liability which a person may incur for carrying out or continuing a treatment in relation to [a patient] unless the decision is at the material time (a) valid, and ( applicable to the treatment." I.e., the doctor is liable if he saves the patient with such a living will.

In the event that I am reincarnated, I would like to return as a deadly virus, in order to contribute something to solve overpopulation Prince Phillip, August 1988 Interview with HRH Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, in People Dec. 21, 1981 titled "Vanishing Breeds Worry Prince Philip, But Not as Much as Overpopulation.'' Q: What do you consider the leading threat to the environment? A: Human population growth is probably the single most serious long-term threat to survival. We're in for a major disaster if it isn't curbed--not just for the natural world, but for the human world. The more people there are, the more resources they'll consume, the more pollution they'll create, the more fighting they will do. We have no option. If it isn't controlled voluntarily, it will be controlled involuntarily by an increase in disease, starvation and war. May 18, 2009 (LPAC)—British Health Secretary Alan Johnson marched into the opening of the annual meeting of the World Health Organization (WHO) in Geneva today, and demanded the WHO not declare the new, highly infectious Type A H1N1 virus a fullscale, Level 6 pandemic, a declaration which would trigger emergency measures globally, including mandating ramping up production of a vaccine against this new influenza strain which has spread to 40 countries across the planet in less than a month. Johnson instead proposed that the WHO change its criteria for declaring a pandemic, from mere "mechanistic" geographic criteria (i.e. based on spread), to take into account "severity," when the one thing that is known about influenza viruses, is that they mutate. Today's mild virus, particularly in more healthy populations, may become tomorrow's mass killer, especially in poor and weaker populations. Even should the inevitable mutations of this new H1N1 virus not become more deadly, WHO Deputy Director Dr. Keiji Fukuda warned on May 7 that it could infect one-third of the human race, over two billion people, and that that means that very large numbers of people could develop pneumonia and die. Just two days ago, top French virologist Bruno Lina, a founding member of the European Influenza Surveillance Scheme (IASS), stated in an interview with a Lyon newspaper, that two billion infections is "a certitude," given that this is a virus to which no one has developed antibodies. The British Health Secretary is spreading the "customary British lies," as part of the revival of Adolph Hitler's policy of genocide as health care, American statesman Lyndon LaRouche responded bluntly today. Their policy is to reduce the world's population to two billion people or less, and they are working on it! Remember, said LaRouche, that Prince Philip has declared publicly, more than once, that "in the event I am reincarnated, I would like to return as a deadly virus, in order to contribute something to solve overpopulation." Remember, too, that Lord Bertrand Russell wrote in his 1953 book, The Impact of Science on Society: "At present the population of the world is increasing.... War so far has had no great effect on this increase.... I do not pretend that birth control is the only way in which population can be kept from increasing. There are others.... War has hitherto been disappointing in this respect, but perhaps bacteriological war may prove more effective. If a Black Death could be spread throughout the world once in every generation, survivors could procreate freely without making the world too full.... The state of affairs might be somewhat unpleasant, but what of that? Really high-minded people are indifferent to happiness, especially other people's." Compare what the British are doing and saying, to what's coming out of France, LaRouche noted. There, researchers following in the tradition of the great Louis Pasteur are, like LaRouche, warning that the world must prepare for the worst, if a new 1918 Spanish flu pandemic, in which at least 40 million people died, is not to be repeated.

You continue to assert that there is an attack on the NHS. What's being attacked is the Hitler "euthanasia" program developed at Liverpool Care Pathway and approved for general use by the NHS.

Here's a rather interesting press release (9/10) from President Obama. http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office...rorist-attacks/

You've identified a news article you fool!

You've identified a debate you fool! My goodness but you're arrogant. Of course it's a debate you donkey's rear end. And what prey tell are they debating? That's been the issue all along hasnt it Mr. Educator? And it's an issue you keep pretending doesnt exist on your "lil" island. Quote: Ilora Baroness Finlay, Professor in Palliative Medicine: "What is proposed is not whether you personally can commit suicide. it is whether your doctor can act to kill you." PS- I'd say that I identified a donkey's rear end.

Andy, From the same website. http://www.carenotkilling.org.uk/dvd/ And from 2006 09 November 2006 'Assisted dying' – is it now the turn of the new-born?There has been comment in the press about statements by the Ethics Committee of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (RCOG) on the subject of euthanasia for severely-ill new-born babies. What did the RCOG actually say? And what is its significance? What the RCOG actually said In July 2005 the RCOG submitted a memorandum to the Nuffield Council on Bioethics in response to a consultation document entitled The Ethics of Prolonging Life in Foetuses and the Newborn. The memorandum asked the Council 'to think more radically about non-resuscitation, withdrawal-of-treatment decisions, the best-interests test and active euthanasia as they are means of widening the management options available to the sickest of the newborn'. Describing 'active euthanasia' as 'a deliberate intervention to cause the death of an infant', the memorandum continues: 'Whilst pointing out that this presently would constitute homicide, this might be something the Working Party would wish to leave alone, or contrast with the Dutch system, or suggest a wider debate about changing the law (as per the Assisted Dying Bill). The RCOG Ethics Committee does not have a view that we would like euthanasia to be discussed, but do feel that it has to be covered and debated for completion and consistency's sake…If life-shortening and deliberate interventions to kill infants were available, they might have an impact on obstetric decision-making, even preventing some late abortions, as some parents would be more confident about continuing a pregnancy and taking a risk on outcome...If assisted dying legislation is to be anticipated or enacted at the other end of life, now would be a pertinent time to discuss this'. The memorandum also touches on what it calls 'economic issues': 'Most babies who leave hospital with severe (or even quite moderate) disabilities get pitifully little help from the state: if a mother really knew the real, life-long costs of caring for such a baby, and also knew that the chances of the central or local government paying anything near enough to cover such costs are very low, perhaps she might feel differently about aggressive resuscitation and treatment of her premature baby…Bringing up a very damaged baby, without nearly enough help, and to such a very uncertain future, would profoundly affect her life and her partner's and her other children's. The estimate of costs…ignores the immense emotional and social cost to mothers and families in many cases, which often they did not anticipate'. What Does It All Mean? The RCOG has stated, in response to the criticism of its memorandum in the press, that 'the RCOG and its members do not support euthanasia' and that 'we have never advocated active euthanasia for severely pre-term babies or any form of mercy-killing on disabled newborns'. It is reassuring to hear these words. It is important also to recognise that the RCOG's suggestion - that, if legalised 'assisted dying' for terminally ill adults were in prospect, it might be an appropriate moment to discuss similar action for newborns – was made in July 2005. Since then an 'assisted dying' bill has been roundly defeated in Parliament. The memorandum might be considered therefore to be less topical than at the time it was submitted. Nonetheless, the shadow of 'assisted dying' has not gone away and it would be salutary to reflect on the implications of the suggestion (in the memorandum) that 'active euthanasia' might be included among the 'management options' for seriously ill new-born babies. First, we should look carefully at the terminology used. The memorandum refers to 'non-resuscitation, withdrawal-of-treatment decisions, the best-interests test and active euthanasia'. There is an inference here which may escape the notice of the casual reader – namely, that the first three actions listed constitute 'passive euthanasia'. This is a persistent theme of the pro-euthanasia lobby – that any decision which a doctor takes in the expectation that a patient will die a result amounts to euthanasia. This is both legal and ethical nonsense. On the one hand, doctors are criticised for heroic interventions and for striving officiously to keep dying patients alive. Yet, when they decide it is time to call it a day and discontinue treatment which has been shown to be futile and burdensome to the patient, they are said to be practising passive euthanasia. There is, in fact, no such thing as passive euthanasia. Euthanasia means ending life deliberately for reasons of compassion – that's why it is sometimes called 'mercy killing'. But a doctor's intention, when he withdraws futile treatment or does not resuscitate, is not to end the patient's life. It is simply to recognise that enough is enough and that nothing more can be done to prevent nature taking its course. The doctor may expect the patient's death to follow his action, but that is not the intention. And intention is of crucial importance where ethics are concerned. End-of-life decisions are not the same thing as ending-life decisions. We should beware therefore of attempts to brigade euthanasia innocently alongside other perfectly legal and ethical practices. The second thing which this memorandum illustrates is the existence of a slippery slope in 'assisted dying'. We are always being assured by the proponents of a change in the law that there is no slippery slope. One might have thought that recent statements by Ludwig Minelli, the founder of the Swiss organisation Dignitas, would have shown how hollow these assurances are. Mr Minelli was in Britain early in the autumn telling us that he wanted to see Swiss law permitting assistance with suicide extended so that it included people suffering from severe depression. Here however we have another example. If assisted dying for terminally ill adults, says the RCOG memorandum, is on the table, perhaps this would be a convenient moment to consider extending it to newborn infants as well. This is all reminiscent of the extension of Dutch euthanasia law to include neonates and of pressure in Holland to extend legalised euthanasia yet further to include people with dementia. The RCOG's memorandum provides a glimpse of what might be just around the corner if we were ever foolish enough to go down the 'assisted dying' road. Care Not Killing Please also see: www.rcog.org.uk/resources/Public/pdf/nuffield_prolonging_life_in_fetuses_newborn.pdf www.melaniephillips.com/articles-new/?p=462 news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/6120126.stm Debate that harms disabled babies ========================= Euthanasia is all the rage in England!!!

Andy, I read that a week ago. That hardly proves LaRouche is "far right" whatever that means. Do you really not understand what 'far right' means? It means rather close to the Nazis in economic and social policies- just like you in fact. Hey Mr. Educator you may need a LaRouchian lesson in history, especially British history. Prince Philip has broken a 60-year public silence about his family's links with the Nazis. In a frank interview, he said they found Hitler's attempts to restore Germany's power and prestige 'attractive' and admitted they had 'inhibitions" about the Jews. Philip was born Prince of Greece and Denmark on Corfu in 1921, the youngest of five children and the only son of Prince Andrew of Greece and Princess Alice of Battenberg. All four of his sisters married German princes and three - Sophie, Cecile and Margarita - became members of the Nazi party. Sophia's husband, Prince Christoph of Hesse, became chief of Goering's secret intelligence service and they were frequent guests at Nazi functions Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-37...l#ixzz0SLiemBLT

I havent drawn a Hitler mustache on any photos or pictures of world leaders. Where do you come up with this?

Classic projection! You who see a 'British' conspiracy everywhere accuse me of being 'anti-american'. You have precisely nothing to contribute to this debate on health care and are clearly unwilling even to read anything that casts doubt on the wisdom of your guru. That's fine it is your right and your choice but please don't think you are actually discussing anything or contributing anything to a discussion. You are just shouting the same things louder and louder sadly confirming the views of many here that you are quite quite mad. Stick to the issue Andy. Before Craig chimed in , I was the only person who had anything of value to contribute to this discussion. Remember this thread was supposed to be about the "Far Right" conspiracy against the NHS. There is no "Far Right" conspiracy. The issue concerns the question of who is pushing a Hitler health care program on the United States? That's the real issue. Your organisation is certainly 'far right' by any sensible evaluation. Craig appears also to be very right wing. You are both 'conspiring' to lie about a health system of which you know precisely nothing. "Sticking to the issue" The issue of your own devoted fanatacism to a far right movement is surely apposite? I'm lying? Surely you jest? I've asked time and time again for anyone on your side to dispute the Telegraph article thats hows agents of the British Government are deciding when subjects will die. So far all we get is invective. There is nothing funny in the least about your lies - it is also fatuous and transparent of you to keep repeating them. Admit it Andy this is a fact: Agents of the British Government are deciding when subjects will die. Now if you can't prove this is incorrect you owe me and the Forum an apology. You are blatantly breaking a forum rule. If f it goes unchecked then I guess you have just decided all can do it. Since you can't you just hurl invective in a blatant and transparent attempt to hide the truth. He doesnt really know what to do.

Andy, I read that a week ago. That hardly proves LaRouche is "far right" whatever that means. Anton Chaitkin is a member of the EF. Why don't you and John invite him to answer questions?

Yes. The number of posts you have made in this thread proves it. To the contrary I have. (Including the 'Hang a Brit' post which was such a theatrical masterpiece in its substance that it makes one think this Larouche person must have a terribly empty feeling in his skull) It is not my health care system, it's the UK's. Every one of my posts on the subject had to do with exposing the British policy to push a Nazi T-4 health care plan on the United States. It had nothing to do with comparing current systems or critizing one system over the other. I guess you consider involuntary euthanasia to be a health care plan?

Classic projection! You who see a 'British' conspiracy everywhere accuse me of being 'anti-american'. You have precisely nothing to contribute to this debate on health care and are clearly unwilling even to read anything that casts doubt on the wisdom of your guru. That's fine it is your right and your choice but please don't think you are actually discussing anything or contributing anything to a discussion. You are just shouting the same things louder and louder sadly confirming the views of many here that you are quite quite mad. Stick to the issue Andy. Before Craig chimed in , I was the only person who had anything of value to contribute to this discussion. Remember this thread was supposed to be about the "Far Right" conspiracy against the NHS. There is no "Far Right" conspiracy. The issue concerns the question of who is pushing a Hitler health care program on the United States? That's the real issue.

And it is you who calls people 'nut case/wacko'?! You opine: "It is amazing that some of you have so much to say about a health care system they don't even experience". Oh, is that what I am doing? You havent read the postings in this thread very closely if you think I am criticizing your "health care" system.

Can President Obama fix the US health System? 12/06/2009 Can the USA finally reform its healthcare system? The optimism that greeted President Obama’s victory will meet its greatest challenge in trying to fix the broken USA health system. Simon Stevens – Tony Blairs advisor now works in the USA and is involved with this effort. Come and hear his perspective on whether this is a change we can believe in. Speaker Simon Stevens, Chair, UnitedHealth Europe Friday 12 June 09:30 - 10:30 Is there any doubt who's pushing this healthcare austerity in the USA?

No, you meant every word, which makes you a shining example of the "tolerant" left. Your Hypocrisy is stunning. Thanks so much for showing in a very graphic fashion just WHO and what YOU REALLY ARE, Maybe you can join the Obama WHitehouse and ban free speach. It's clear that you and Terry are elderly and fanatical. mature and committed advocates of your shared beliefs. I'm glad you've found each other and hope you'll be very happy together. I wish I could find that weird christian fundy rant you "posted" from several years ago. I think it was posted in the Political Conspiracy section. If anyone had any doubt that you're a nut case then that old posting of yours ought to eliminate all doubt. Low and behold I found the magic thread by DWD. Wacko! http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=7221

No, you meant every word, which makes you a shining example of the "tolerant" left. Your Hypocrisy is stunning. Thanks so much for showing in a very graphic fashion just WHO and what YOU REALLY ARE, Maybe you can join the Obama WHitehouse and ban free speach. I don't wish you dead Craig but I certainly do wish you an education. You have repeated ad nauseam the claim that you have proved the UK NHS is deliberately killing patients and that your own President plans a similar scheme in the sainted US of A. Unfortunately other than quoting the (very) odd bilious and misinformed articles from the far right British newspaper the Daily Mail you have produced no evidence to back up these wild and bizarre conspiracy claims. ' From reading your dispiriting line in right wing polemic I assume that you believe in free markets, small government, unrestrained capitalism and 'individual choice'. These are all legitimate positions. I do not happen to share them but that's another matter. I would have hoped however that you were capable of constructing an argument within this tradition which didn't rely on lies about the National Health Service, personal insults or general abuse. Perhaps it's you , Andy Walker, "educator" who needs the education. You wrote: "You have repeated ad nauseam the claim that you have proved the UK NHS is deliberately killing patients and that your own President plans a similar scheme in the sainted US of A." I've never clained to have "proven" anything in this discussion. In fact I have stated that I CAN'T prove it. I have pointed out that the NHS via the liverpool pathway is ending human life on dubious terms. This is NEWS in the UK. Neither you nor Stepehn can deny this, for if you could you would have offered some form of proof. But you can't. I have also speculated that the NHS is enjoying a substantatial financial savings by seeing terminal patients expire in the minimum amount of time. Again neither you nor Stephen can offer any denials to my conclusiion that there is a great financial savings to be had nor can you dispute the fact that end of life spending is a HUGE part of the HNS spending per patient. I also speculate that the cuirrent goverenment of my country would like to find a way to do somehting very similar. And not to put a fine point on it, your complaints about the articles, Terry Mauro and myselff have had exactly zero facts and consists completely of namecalling, personal insults and general abuse. You are a hypocrite. You have now made the claim (once again) that there are "lies" being told about the NHS. Given the above post by you, it's time for you to put up, or admit you can't. Or continue to be a hypocrite...your choice. Thank you kindly for giving me a choice - I choose neither of your options however as fortunately I am in the happy position of knowing what I am talking about. The Liverpool Pathway has caused controversy amongst professionals in health and social care but not in the ways you represent. Instead it has opened a debate about palliative care and dying. http://www.endoflifecare.nhs.uk/eolc/CS291.htm http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_...icle6832958.ece http://www.liv.ac.uk/mcpcil/liverpool-care...able%5B1%5D.pdf I repeat in case you missed it that you too have palliative care in the States modelled on exactly the same principles. Unfortunately of course you will only get it if you have medical insurance. Under your own terms then the 'superior' US model of health care insists that you pay for own 'euthanasia' It is unfortuntate in the extreme that the discussion has been hijacked by right wing demagogues attempting to rubbish the very tentative and moderate steps being proposed towards socialised medicine in the US. I take it as an acknowledgement of the impossibility of any coherent argument you could forward based on your ideology or rooted in the current experience of US health care that you continue to repeat these laughable calumnies against the UK's NHS. You currently have a health system in your country which denies medical care to 50,000 of the poorest members of society. I contend that this is something of which you and your fellow citizens should be deeply ashamed. I don't remember being rude to you Craig. Terry on the other has been justly ridiculed for parroting as she does the ridiculous pronouncements of her favoured political cult at every opportunity. Andy, you're quite the parrot yourself. How many times do you feel it necessary to repeat the same meaningless phrase? I've always said that I go with the truth. Craig was right on the money. He has written several times that the firestorm around the involuntary "euthanasia" at LCP has been in the British media for weeks and even months. You've known all along that this debate wasn't a case of "Far Right" kooks making wild claims. This is something that has caught the attention of the many people in England including the likes of Dr. Clive Seale, who issued a report claiming LCP euthanasia was responsible for 1 out of 6 deaths in England last year! And you're worried about the un insured in America? My take on you is that you have a strong dislike for Americans. Maybe it's because we are citizens while you're still a lowly "subject" of the Queen. Sure she may allow you to indulge in your personal interests, but when it comes to making policy, you know that's off limits to you and your chums. Look at the link you provided http://www.liv.ac.uk/mcpcil/liverpool-care...able%5B1%5D.pdf This press release issued by LCP was the direct result of all the British media coverage of this killing program. LCP is feeling the heat but somehow you missed all the fuss ? Furthermore the Liverpool Care Pathway program has been ADOPTED for general use by the NHS. Quit pretending you don't know this to be the case. This Hitler policy of the British will be defeated here in the United States. After that we'll abolish the HMO laws and send Simon Stevens back to the motherland. He can take Obama with him.

Simon Stevens on Barack Obama's first steps. November 2008. http://www.hsj.co.uk/simon-stevens-on-bara...1921193.article It seems probable, for example, that the US will create its own version of the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence, probably at arm's length from government. To this end, former senator Tom Daschle recently proposed the establishment of a new Federal Health Board modelled on the Federal Reserve to be just that.

Hey genius, one of Obama's main collaboraters on this health care rationing is Simon Stevens who runs United Health. July 22, 2009 (LPAC)—UnitedHealth Group Inc., the biggest U.S. private HMO insurer (by revenue), closely tied with Britain, today announced that its Second Quarter profit more than doubled, in particular from its increased PPP sign-up of Medicare-supplement enrollees through AARP (American Association of Retired People), and from raising its insurance premiums. This announcement reflects back on President Obama, whose health-care "reform" plans are designed to protect HMO looting rights. The UnitedHealth Group vice president in charge of Ovations is Simon Stevens, a British national, who was Tony Blair's health-care expert from 1997 to 2004, during which time the infamous NICE (National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence) was set up to dictate to the British National Health Service how to limit and deny medical treatment, which increased the death rate for millions. Ensconced at UnitedHealth world headquarters in Minnesota since January, 2007, Stevens is leading the charge for "NICE"-practices of Hitler-style care-cutting in the U.S. On May 27, Stevens issued a proposal to the Obama Administration, on how the government should cuts costs by limiting services under Medicare and Medicaid. Obama personally intervened last week to see that a NICE-type measure was inserted into the House health care "reform" bill. And let me apologize in advance for such "odd input" to an otherwise rational argument about the "Far Right Conspiracy against NHS".

Thank you for this latest bulletin of nonsensical bile straight from the crypto-fascist Larouche cult. I found it amusing. I hope however it didn't offend too many people. Crypto-fascist cult http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crypto-fascism Prince Harry http://extremecatholic.blogspot.com/images...ry-the-nazi.jpg

- HANG A BRIT FOR FREEDOM - On Wednesday, an amendment introduced by Senator Cornyn (R-Tex) to remove the provision in the Baucus bill for a T-4 Medical Commission (IMAC), was defeated, with all the Democrats led by Jay Rockefeller, plus one Republican, Senator Olympia Snowe (R-Maine), voting for this Hitler policy. Lyndon LaRouche issued the following statement: Those, including Snowe and Rockefeller, who voted for IMAC are actually proposing Hitler's policy. They have to be confronted forcefully with that fact. By so voting, they have put themselves in the same category as Hitler. If Olympia Snowe and Jay Rockefeller stick to this, they are in the same category as Adolf Hitler. There is no difference. IMAC is a British idea. The British are the inventors of this crap. They were the authors of Hitler's T-4 policy. They then adopted that policy in the form of NICE in Britain itself, and now they are trying to ram this Hitler policy through in the U.S. The only appropriate response is to Hang a Brit for Freedom. If you support this policy, you are in the same categoy as Adolf Hitler. IMAC is Adolf Hitler. If you support IMAC, you support Hitler's policy and should be treated accordingly. You are a Nuremberg Trial suspect. You should know that now. You are worse than a Nuremberg suspect. You are probably a British ass-kisser. Briefed on the fact that Ezekiel Emanuel is leading an effort by the Obama Administration called the Global Health Initiative, which based on "disability adjusted life years lost and saved" (DALYLS), is committed to global population reduction, Lyndon LaRouche responded immediately: This is Hitler stuff. Ezekiel Emanuel is the same thing as Adolf Hitler. People run around claiming Jewish immunity, who then turn out to be Hitler lovers. They are copies of Hitler. They should get the roughest treatment. They should be told that they are on Hitler's side now. You are a Hitler-loving Jew. You have the same policy as Hitler. You are Hitler-loving. Lyn continued that we are dealing with angry people in the population now, many of whom may be being evicted from their homes. You can't give sophisticated interpretations. You can't come at it from the sides. In respect to Obama's assertion of the imperial "unitary executive" theory, Lyndon LaRouche said: Tell the President he is in violation of the Constitution. The President can't bypass the Congress. If he continues to try to do so, he should be impeached. There should be an emergency impeachment. It is like the case of a wreckless driver. You need to lift his license to drive. He has no authority to overthrow the Constitution of the United States, neither he nor any Supreme Court Justice. Any Supreme Court Justice who would nullify the Constitution loses his own authority. Such decisions will be ignored by all patriots. The unitary executive xxxx has gone too far. Any Supreme Court Justice who supports this theory should be expelled from the Supreme Court. If the Supreme Court upholds it, the Supreme Court has nullified its own existence by nullifying the Constitution. That is where we are. It is not debatable. They have proposed to eliminate the U.S. Constitution. They are impeachable, subject to removal pending impeachment. We are not fooling around with things now. To let this go through would be like letting Hitler get away with the Reichstag fire. Don't argue, this is it. Any Supreme Court Justice who supports this must be impeached. If he prevails, he has nullified the Constitution. We are not going to let them make a Hitler coup against the Constitution from the Supreme Court. Any Justice must be impeached who tries to do that. He should face a summary impeachment. Such a justice has impeached himself. You can't destroy the foundations of the Republic and then consider yourself as an authority of that same Republic. You should be treated as an invading enemy. If you do this, you are outside the pale. Franklin Roosevelt fought a world war, and he did not have to do anything like this. There is no condition under which it is required. Anyone who tries to do so is automatically impeached. If you attack the Constitution, you eliminate yourself. You have no authority. Your authority is no longer in good order. You are nothing. People had better be careful. The U.S. population is not ready to tolerate this kind of bullxxxx. The population is no longer disposed to put up with this. You had better start running now. You are not needed or wanted here. And don't pollute Mars by going there. Try colonizing Titan. LaRouche concluded: The crisis will either give him the authority to do his job, or there will be no authority for anything at all--one of the two.

More on Deep Sedation n the UK, and there is a bunch more.... http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/8184108.stm This passage is really chiloing and should send a shudder down your spine. Father's death Dr Philip Harrison, a GP now based in New Zealand, set out his concerns recently in the British Medical Journal, following the death of his father in Doncaster Royal Infirmary. He was put under continuous deep sedation without being consulted, and so had no chance to say goodbye to his family. Dr Harrison reached the hospital two hours before his father died. "I'm 100% certain he would have been horrified to know that he would never see us even though we were coming," he said. "There was no reason on earth why he would have wished to have been put to sleep, unless he was obviously distressed or agitated or in pain. "But there was no evidence he was in pain at any stage during his admission." Dr Harrison, who has long experience in palliative care, decided not to sue the trust - but he did try to get reassurance that it couldn't happen again. Despite an apology he is still not satisfied. "I don't know what the legal term is but to me it was as near to a form of murder that I had come across," he said. "I have never seen that in my medical practice before. I've seen euthanasia once, but I've never seen anybody being put to death without consent." Dr Harrison said he is concerned about what could be going on across the NHS in the name of caring and terminal sedation. The truth is, no one knows. It's rather interesting to watch the Brit's on this site getting knocked back on their heels. They usually like to point the finger at American Imperialism, American Empire, when in truth America was founded in opposition to the British Empire. If you look at the title of this thread, started by John, you see him use the term "Far-Right". That's how the media always intended to portray and control any opposition to this British modeled Nazi euthanasia program in the United States. It has since blown up in their face and they've found they cannot control "both sides" of the argument as they had planned. Their lap dog President Obama has failed them on this one. And it's not about money alone. For years the Empire has espoused "culling the herd". From Malthus, The British East India Company, Julian Huxley , Bertrand Russell and Prince Phillip. Population reduction has always been one of their "wet dreams".

I'll bet if you asked the author he would tell you he believes the philosophy of "property rights" as espoused by John Locke , to be the inspiration behind the United States. That's a terrible error on his part and likely the cause for producing such a piece of trash book.

I think they're angry with Obama because they placed their hope with him and he betrayed them. With Bush they didnt see much of anything to hope for.