8 Home Articles Golden Oldies Speaking Schedule About Christ or Chaos Links Donations Contact Us

December 24, 2013


No Room in the Inn for Jahi McMath

by Thomas A. Droleskey

There is no room in the inn at Children's Hospital in Oakland, California, for thirteen year-old Jahi McMath, whose tragic story was recounted recently by Dr. Byrne in a recent interview with Lifesite News:


OAKLAND, CA, December 20, 2013 (LifeSiteNews.com) – A pioneer doctor in neonatology is championing the life of a 13-year-old girl from California who was officially declared “brain dead” by doctors after a routine tonsillectomy last week went horribly wrong.

The first thing about ‘brain death’ is that brain death is not true death. It never was and never will be,” said Dr. Paul Byrne, a pioneer neonatologist and clinical professor of pediatrics at the University of Toledo to LifeSiteNews.com.

This girl is still very much a living person. Her life ought to be protected and preserved. No one should be hastening her death or shortening her life,” he said.

Tonsillectomy is a common surgery. Jahi McMath’s December 9 surgery was recommended by doctors to allegedly address the her sleep apnea. While the surgery at first appeared to be successful, the girl began coughing up blood before suffering cardiac arrest. Doctors declared her brain-dead December 12.

The McMath family is seeking a court injunction today through their lawyer that would prevent doctors at the Children’s Hospital in Oakland from taking their daughter Jahi off life-support, despite doctors allegedly telling the family that she is “dead, dead, dead, dead.”

But Jahi’s mother Nailah believes that her daughter is not truly dead.

“I feel her. I can feel my daughter. I just kind of feel like maybe she’s trapped inside her own body. She wants to scream out and tell me something,” she told the San Francisco Chronicle.

Jahi's uncle Omari Sealey agrees: "She's still warm. I can feel her presence, I can still feel her smile," he told KGO-TV.

Byrne said that it should be “obvious to everyone,” not just the girl’s relatives, that she is still alive.

“Her heart is beating, she has circulation, she has respiration, her immune mechanisms are intact, and I’m sure she is healing from her tonsillectomy. Healing happens in only a living person.”

“These are facts of life, [indicating] that this girl is a living person and that she’s not dead,” he said.

Byrne explained that someone does not “become dead” because a doctor declares someone ‘brain dead’, “although they intend it that way”, he added.

He explained that the brain dead criteria was “invented” in 1968 by an ad hoc Committee of the Harvard Medical School openly seeking a way to harvest organs for transplanting. Since a dead organ taken from a corpse cannot be successfully transplanted into a living body, the committee settled on a definition of death that would allow the harvest of healthy living organs from a still living body that lacked signs of brain activity.

“Brain death was invented, conjured, made-up to get organ transplants,” he said.

Declaring someone ‘brain dead’ to harvest organs is always to the detriment of the patient, Byrne explained. “No one can recover once they’ve had their beating heart and other organs cut out.”

“If doctors can, they will take this young girl’s organs.”

Byrne said it’s a common misconception that a machine, such as a ventilator, gives a person life. The machine only sustains an already existing life.

In a case like Jahi's, the ventilator “only moves the air into a living person. It does not move the air out.”

The air comes out [because] the person is alive,” he said.

“The machine supports the vital activities of respiration and circulation, but it does not give life. The life comes from God and from no place else. What doctors [are supposed to] do is protect and preserve the life that’s there,” he said.

The girl’s family is waging a legal battle to keep their daughter on a ventilator and to have doctors insert a feeding tube into her.

“I want her on as long as possible, because I really believe that God will wake her up,” the mother said. The family held a prayer vigil on Wednesday night for their daughter’s recovery.

The family is keeping constant vigil at their girl’s bedside, fearing that doctors might pull the plugs without their knowledge or consent.

The doctors know that the law favors whatever decision they make. California law states that "a person who is declared brain dead is legally and physiologically dead." According to the law, Jahi is dead.

Byrne said that only New York and New Jersey have a conscience clause that offers specific protections to a patient declared ‘brain dead’ whose primary caregiver does not hold cessation of brain activity as true death. “In the other 48 states, there is nothing in their laws to give any kind of protection to the person declared brain dead.”

All of the laws — and I mean all of them — all revolve around getting organs,” he said.

The hospital administration is asking the family permission to release details that they say will “provide transparency, openness and provide answers to the public about this situation.”

“We implore the family to allow the hospital to openly discuss what has occurred and to give us the necessary legal permission—which it has been withholding—that would bring clarity, and we believe, some measure of closure and deeper understanding of this medical case,” said Dr. David Durand, chief of pediatrics, in a statement.

Many people posting online comments underneath Jahi’s story carried by various media agree with the doctors that it’s time for “closure”.

“I’m so sorry for this family. The problem is that they don't seem to understand that no one ‘wakes up’ or recovers from brain death. It's not like being in a coma, where there is still brain activity. The brain is dead; she can't come back,” wrote one.

“Despite the pain they are going through the realization is this: She is clinically brain dead. When the brain stops, everything else stops as well. The life support machine is not going to bring her back to life,” wrote another.

“Legal brain death is 100% of never coming back, She is a corpse and the human life in her is 100% gone,” wrote yet another.

But LifeSiteNews.com has reported on numerous stories of people declared ‘brain dead’ by doctors and who have unexpectedly recovered.

Here are incidents from the past five years:

  • July 2013 - A New York woman who was pronounced ‘brain dead’ by doctors unexpectedly awoke just as her organs were about to be removed for transplant.
  • October 2012 - A documentary titled “Pigen der ikke ville dø” (“The girl who refused to die”), aired on Danish TV, telling the story of 19-year-old Carina Melchior, who awoke after doctors declared her "brain dead" and had approached the family about considering donating her organs.
  • April 2012 - Doctors declared british teen Stephen Thorpe "brain dead," telling the father that the boy would never recover from a serious car accident. Despite pressure from the doctors, the father would not consent to allow the boy’s organs to be donated. With the help of other doctors, five weeks later Thorpe left the hospital, having almost completely recovered.
  • July 2011 - Madeleine Gauron, a Quebec woman — identified as viable for organ donation after doctors diagnosed her as "brain dead" — surprised her family and physicians when she recovered from a coma, opened her eyes, and began eating.
  • May 2011 - An Australian woman declared “brain dead” regained consciousness after family fought for weeks doctor recommendations that her ventilator be shut off.
  • February 2008 - 65-year-old Raleane Kupferschmidt was taken home to die after relatives were told by doctors that she was "brain dead" from a massive cerebral hemorrhage. The family had already begun to grieve and plan for her funeral when she suddenly awoke and was rushed back to hospital.
  • March 2008 - In one particularly chilling case, 21-year-old Zack Dunlap, who was declared "brain dead" following an ATV accident, recounted how he remembers hearing doctors discussing harvesting his organs. Zack showed signs of life only moments before he was scheduled to be wheeled into the operating theater to have his organs removed. One of Zack’s relatives provoked the reaction by digging a pocketknife under his fingernail.
  • May 2008 - A Virginia family was shocked but relieved when their mother, Val Thomas, woke up after doctors declared her ‘brain dead’. Doctors had not detected brain waves for more than 17 hours, but kept the woman breathing on a respirator. The family were discussing organ donation options for their mother when she suddenly woke up and started speaking to nurses.
  • June 2008 - A Parisian whose organs were about to be removed by doctors after he had "died" of a heart attack, revived on the operating table only minutes before doctors were to begin harvesting his organs.

Dr. Byrne said that with California’s permissive "brain death" laws, the most important thing people can do is pray.

“Pray for this child, for this family,” he said. ('She's very much a living person': Doctor Paul Byrne Champions Thirteen Year-Old 'Brain Dead' Girl.)

Mainslime media's own The New York Times ran a news story three days ago, December 21, 2013, the Feast of Saint Thomas the Apostle and Ember Saturday in Advent, to report that a judge, amazingly enough, has issued a temporary injunction to prevent Children's Hospital in Oakland from removing Jahi McMath's ventilator:


OAKLAND, Calif. — A 13-year-old girl who was declared brain-dead after complications from a tonsillectomy should be kept on life support for the time being, a judge has ruled.

The family of the girl, Jahi McMath, says doctors at Children’s Hospital Oakland wanted to disconnect life support after she was declared brain-dead on Dec. 12.

A ruling on Friday by Judge Evelio Grillo of Superior Court came as both sides in the case agreed to get together and choose a neurologist to further examine Jahi and determine her condition. The judge scheduled a hearing on Monday to appoint a physician.

After Jahi underwent what the family called a routine tonsillectomy to help with her sleep apnea and was moved to a recovery room, her mother, Nailah Winkfield, began to fear that something was going wrong.

Jahi was sitting up in bed, her hospital gown bloody, and was holding a cup full of blood, she said. “Is this normal?” Ms. Winkfield repeatedly asked nurses.

With her family and hospital staff members trying to help and comfort her, Jahi bled profusely for the next few hours and then went into cardiac arrest, her mother said.

Despite the family’s description of the operation as routine, the hospital said in a memorandum presented to the court on Friday that the procedure was “complicated.”

“Ms. McMath is dead and cannot be brought back to life,” the hospital said in the memo.

Children’s is under no legal obligation to provide medical or other intervention for a deceased person,” it added.

The family said hospital officials told them in a meeting on Thursday that they wanted to take Jahi off life support quickly.

The family filed a request on Friday for a temporary restraining order prohibiting the hospital from taking her off life support or any of her other treatments.

At the hearing later, the hospital’s lawyer, Doug Straus, said two doctors unaffiliated with the hospital had examined Jahi and concluded that she was brain-dead.

But he said, “We’re happy to cooperate with the judge’s suggestion that an independent expert be provided to confirm yet again that brain death is the outcome that has occurred here.”

The family’s lawyer, Christopher Dolan, said the family wanted tests of their own because they did not believe that the hospital’s physicians were sufficiently independent.

“There is mistrust, and there is a conflict of interest,” he said.  (Judge Orders Girl Be Kept on Ventilator.)

What is particularly chilling about this report is that it does not inform readers that there is opposition to the entire myth that is "brain death," which is accepted as a given. Readers are supposed to believe that the administrators of Children's Hospital have done their "due diligence" by having "two doctors unaffiliated with the hospital" examine Miss McMath as though credibility is supposed to be given automatically to the conclusions of those who believe in a monstrously murderous myth.

"Deceased persons" do not exhale.

Hearts do not pump blood in a "deceased person."

"Deceased persons" are unable to ingest any form of hydration or nutrition.

Jahi McMath is not dead!

Dr. Byrne was kind enough late last night to dispatch the following article of his on Jahi McMath's plight, which is stunning refutation of multiple false contentions made by Protestant columnist Wesley Smith in a recent article:


Wesley Smith wrote about Jahi McMath, a patient in Oakland Children's hospital: "In Jahi's case, brain dead actually means a declaration of "death by neurological criteria," one of the two legal methods for declaring the bona fide death of a human being."

Wesley wrote about Jahi, a patient in the hospital with a declaration of death by "one of two legal methods for declaring death." If there are 2, Jahi must not be dead by the other method, or she would have been, or could have been declared dead by the other one, or how about declared dead by both methods?

Wesley continues, "To be declared dead by neurological criteria does not mean there are no brain cells remaining alive." Oh really? Would that be like "a little bit pregnant"? The language of the Uniform Determination of Death (UDDA) is "irreversible cessation of all functions of the entire brain, including the brain stem" means something. But Wesley writes, [it] "does not mean no brain cells remaining alive." So, Wesley, are you writing that Jahi has or could have brain cells that are alive? Do you have to be a clever writer to conclude that "all" and "entire" and "including the brain stem "does not mean no brain cells remaining alive." If this is what it does not mean, what do all and entire and including mean?

Then Wesley writes, "Rather, it means that medical tests, observation of the patient post injury, and history of the case demonstrate that the patient's brain and each of its constituent parts have irreversibly ceased to function as a brain." How can you come to this conclusion, but then mislead your readers into thinking and believing that is what "irreversible cessation of all functions of the entire brain" means, or "does not mean"?

But then, Wesley, you provided a reference as to how, or at least partly how, you came to your conclusion when you state, "As one doctor told me, it is as if the patient was functionally decapitated." Perhaps that one doctor, and now you, Wesley Smith, have a misconception about decapitation, even you when you write "functionally decapitated." Decapitation is what the guillotine does, or what happens when a low-lying convertible car with the head of the driver protruding straight up as the car goes under a large truck. Decapitation is cutting off the head which results in destruction of the respiratory and circulatory systems and the entire brain, including the brain stem. Under these circumstances would Wesley Smith state, this "does not mean no brain cells remaining alive"?

Wesley continues, "Death by neurological criteria is controversial." Is it controversial because there were 30 disparate sets of criteria published between 1968 and 1978 and as recent as 2008 it was reported that a survey of the leading neurologists in USA indicated that there is no consensus as to which set of criteria should be used? Yes, dead by one, but alive by the other 30 plus different sets of criteria. Further, in 2010 it was reported that neurologic criteria are not "evidence-based," which means: not based on scientific studies.

Then you put the responsibility for the controversy on "Some pro lifers see it as an excuse to harvest organs from living patients, and oppose its use as a clinical method of determining death." The need for "brain death" is, and has been, from the onset to remove "controversy" about cutting out the beating heart and other vital organs from patients with a beating heart, circulation and respiration. Clearly, a patient with a beating heart, circulation and respiration from whom organs are taken for transplantation, is not a cadaver.

You then write, "Many bioethicists – of the type who once assured a wary public that brain dead was truly dead – agree, but because they want access to the organs of patients with clearly working brains, such as a patient diagnosed as unconscious but who can breathe without medical assistance." You correctly write that "bioethicists – of the type who once assured a wary public that brain dead was truly dead – agree" with pro-lifers who do not accept the fallacy of "brain death" as true death. But then Wesley, you switch to "patients with clearly working brains, such as a patient diagnosed as unconscious but who can breathe without medical assistance." How can you write this? You know that a differentiating point between so-called "brain dead" and so-called "persistent vegetative state (PVS)" is use of a ventilator for the patient declared "brain dead" and non-use of a ventilator for patient declared to be PVS. Both patients with a declaration of "brain death" and patients said to be in PVS have respiration and circulation. Observation of a patient on a ventilator with respiration and circulation could not fool a seven year old child about declaring the "brain dead" patient to be dead, or not giving food (nutrition) and water (hydration) to those in so-called PVS. So what is all this about? As Wesley continues, "In other words, they want to allow killing for organs and they believe that undermining the public's belief in "brain death" can help them achieve that end." Duh, and who else supports this?

"Under the law, brain dead is 'dead' when it connotes death by neurological criteria. In such circumstances, if accurately determined, there is no legal right to continue life support of what is, essentially, a cadaver." Yes, Wesley, a cadaver with a beating heart, circulation, and respiration who moves when stimulated. But to avoid those in the operating room seeing responses, a paralyzing drug is given. When these paralyzed "brain dead" patients are cut into to take their organs, the heart rate and blood pressure increase, similar to what the anesthesiologist observes during surgery when the anesthetic gets too light. Yes, that means response to pain!

Wesley continues, "A huge problem in this field is that there are no uniform criteria for declaring death by neurological criteria, with testing requirements varying from state to state, and in some instances, hospital to hospital. That needs to change." So here comes Wesley on his white horse; he's going to straighten all this out. He now agrees that there are "no uniform criteria" for a declaration of "brain death." Is he admitting he has agreed to something that has "no uniform criteria"? Then, he provides the answer, "This needs to change."

Wesley is correct, change is needed, but it must be changed to protect and preserve life until true death. Inform the public that when you answer "yes" at the BMV to be an organ donor, you have agreed to have your heart and other vital organs cut out of you before you are truly dead, but only after you have been paralyzed so you cannot move or respond in any way. Now, the transplanters want your face, or half your face. Imagine saying yes to agreeing to having half the face of your beautiful wife cut off while she has a beating heart, circulation and respiration. Who could agree to such a thing? And for Jahi, they just want to kill her, yes change the living Jahi into a cadaver.

Maybe it is only a few "pro-lfers" who are willing to protect the life of Jahi. Even a few count, but I know there are many more, if they knew the truth. A slave is someone who is kept from the truth. (Jahi is not truly dead, Wesley Smith.)

We live in a world of slavery to one lie after another, starting with the diabolical lie that men and their nations can pursue the common good without fostering those conditions conducive to the pursuit of man's Last End.

Pope Saint Pius X made it abundantly clear in Notre Charge Apostolique, August 15, 1910, that Catholicism is the one and only foundation of personal and social order:


Here we have, founded by Catholics, an inter-denominational association that is to work for the reform of civilization, an undertaking which is above all religious in character; for there is no true civilization without a moral civilization, and no true moral civilization without the true religion: it is a proven truth, a historical fact. The new Sillonists cannot pretend that they are merely working on “the ground of practical realities” where differences of belief do not matter. Their leader is so conscious of the influence which the convictions of the mind have upon the result of the action, that he invites them, whatever religion they may belong to, “to provide on the ground of practical realities, the proof of the excellence of their personal convictions.” And with good reason: indeed, all practical results reflect the nature of one’s religious convictions, just as the limbs of a man down to his finger-tips, owe their very shape to the principle of life that dwells in his body. (Pope Saint Pius X, Notre Charge Apostolique, August 15, 1910.)

What we have been witnessing in the past fifty years, especially since the well-springs of a superabundance of Sanctifying and Actual Graces were closed off by the false, sacramentally barren liturgical rites of the counterfeit church of conciliarism and as this false church's hideous doctrines, including an acceptance of the Protestant and Judeo-Masonic anti-Incarnational lies of Modernity (separation of Church and State, religious liberty, a practical spirit of religious indifferentism despite protestations to the contrary), is just the acceleration of a process of warfare against Christ the King and His Holy Church that began in various phases of the Renaissance and came to fruition with the Protestant Revolution and all of the lies of Judeo-Masonic naturalism thereafter.

Pope Leo XIII wrote in Immortale Dei, November 1, 1885, how the evils of the Protestant Revolution made possible the triumph of naturalism and its religious indifferentism in the world:


23. But that harmful and deplorable passion for innovation which was aroused in the sixteenth century threw first of all into confusion the Christian religion, and next, by natural sequence, invaded the precincts of philosophy, whence it spread amongst all classes of society. From this source, as from a fountain-head, burst forth all those later tenets of unbridled license which, in the midst of the terrible upheavals of the last century, were wildly conceived and boldly proclaimed as the principles and foundation of that new conception of law which was not merely previously unknown, but was at variance on many points with not only the Christian, but even the natural law.

24. Amongst these principles the main one lays down that as all men are alike by race and nature, so in like manner all are equal in the control of their life; that each one is so far his own master as to be in no sense under the rule of any other individual; that each is free to think on every subject just as he may choose, and to do whatever he may like to do; that no man has any right to rule over other men. In a society grounded upon such maxims all government is nothing more nor less than the will of the people, and the people, being under the power of itself alone, is alone its own ruler. It does choose, nevertheless, some to whose charge it may commit itself, but in such wise that it makes over to them not the right so much as the business of governing, to be exercised, however, in its name.

25. The authority of God is passed over in silence, just as if there were no God; or as if He cared nothing for human society; or as if men, whether in their individual capacity or bound together in social relations, owed nothing to God; or as if there could be a government of which the whole origin and power and authority did not reside in God Himself. Thus, as is evident, a State becomes nothing but a multitude which is its own master and ruler. And since the people is declared to contain within itself the spring-head of all rights and of all power, it follows that the State does not consider itself bound by any kind of duty toward God. Moreover. it believes that it is not obliged to make public profession of any religion; or to inquire which of the very many religions is the only one true; or to prefer one religion to all the rest; or to show to any form of religion special favor; but, on the contrary, is bound to grant equal rights to every creed, so that public order may not be disturbed by any particular form of religious belief.

26. And it is a part of this theory that all questions that concern religion are to be referred to private judgment; that every one is to be free to follow whatever religion he prefers, or none at all if he disapprove of all. From this the following consequences logically flow: that the judgment of each one's conscience is independent of all law; that the most unrestrained opinions may be openly expressed as to the practice or omission of divine worship; and that every one has unbounded license to think whatever he chooses and to publish abroad whatever he thinks.

27. Now, when the State rests on foundations like those just named -- and for the time being they are greatly in favor -- it readily appears into what and how unrightful a position the Church is driven. For, when the management of public business is in harmony with doctrines of such a kind, the Catholic religion is allowed a standing in civil society equal only, or inferior, to societies alien from it; no regard is paid to the laws of the Church, and she who, by the order and commission of Jesus Christ, has the duty of teaching all nations, finds herself forbidden to take any part in the instruction of the people. With reference to matters that are of twofold jurisdiction, they who administer the civil power lay down the law at their own will, and in matters that appertain to religion defiantly put aside the most sacred decrees of the Church. They claim jurisdiction over the marriages of Catholics, even over the bond as well as the unity and the indissolubility of matrimony. They lay hands on the goods of the clergy, contending that the Church cannot possess property. Lastly, they treat the Church with such arrogance that, rejecting entirely her title to the nature and rights of a perfect society, they hold that she differs in no respect from other societies in the State, and for this reason possesses no right nor any legal power of action, save that which she holds by the concession and favor of the government. If in any State the Church retains her own agreement publicly entered into by the two powers, men forthwith begin to cry out that matters affecting the Church must be separated from those of the State. (Pope Leo XIII, Immortale Dei, November 1, 1885.)

Pope Leo XIII also explained a religiously indifferentist civil state ultimately will produce what he referred to as "practical atheism" as its lowest common denominator:


31. The sovereignty of the people, however, and this without any reference to God, is held to reside in the multitude; which is doubtless a doctrine exceedingly well calculated to flatter and to inflame many passions, but which lacks all reasonable proof, and all power of insuring public safety and preserving order. Indeed, from the prevalence of this teaching, things have come to such a pass that may hold as an axiom of civil jurisprudence that seditions may be rightfully fostered. For the opinion prevails that princes are nothing more than delegates chosen to carry out the will of the people; whence it necessarily follows that all things are as changeable as the will of the people, so that risk of public disturbance is ever hanging over our heads.

To hold, therefore, that there is no difference in matters of religion between forms that are unlike each other, and even contrary to each other, most clearly leads in the end to the rejection of all religion in both theory and practice. And this is the same thing as atheism, however it may differ from it in name. Men who really believe in the existence of God must, in order to be consistent with themselves and to avoid absurd conclusions, understand that differing modes of divine worship involving dissimilarity and conflict even on most important points cannot all be equally probable, equally good, and equally acceptable to God. (Pope Leo XIII, Immortale Dei, November 1, 1885.)

We live in a world of practical atheism today, a world where a putative "pope" can blaspheme the very Blessed Mother of God Himself, she Who gave birth to His Divine Son, Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ in Bethlehem, miraculously this very night without ever once losing her Perpetual Virginity that has been denied by Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI and by Gerhard Ludwig Muller (see Integral Denial of Our Lady's Perfect Integrity) as most Catholics bat not an eyelash, oblivious as they are that assaults against the Blessed Virgin Mary by a man claiming to be a Successor of Saint Peter make more possible attacks on the lives of human beings.

After all, why should medical doctors who have convinced themselves that a living human being is dead and can thus be carved up for the profit-making body-harvesting industry have any respect for the binding precepts of the Natural Law when a man claiming to be a "pope" attempts repeatedly to drive a wedge between doctrinal integrity and his own concept of "charity"? Why should men who believe that an innocent human being can be killed with impunity in his mother's womb or starved and dehydrated to death later in life recognize their errors when the man who is thought, albeit falsely, to be the "pope" warns Catholics about "obsessing" over issues of morality?

Yes, the conciliar revolutionaries, including, of course, Jorge Mario Bergoglio and the man to whom he paid a "Christmas visit" yesterday, Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI, enable and embolden the killers of Modernity (see Forty Years Of Emboldening, Appeasing And Enabling Killers, part one, Forty Years of Emboldening, Appeasing, and Enabling Killers, part two and Forty Years of Emboldening, Appeasing, and Enabling Killers, part three)  as they are first and foremost the murderer of souls. (Perhaps Bergoglio served Ratzinger with a helping of sliced and carved Summorum Pontificum during yesterday's visit. "Merry Christmas, Joe." "Thanks, Jorge.")

Indeed, will Jorge Mario Bergoglio plead for the life of Jahi McMath?

No, although he would do so if she were on death row after having been convicted of a heinous crime?

Jahi McMath is on death row now, though, and only a few lonely voices, such as those that belong to the courageous Dr. Paul Byrne, make themselves heard above the din of the noise created by alleged "experts" whose pseudo-knowledged is premised upon lies that have been manufactured out of whole taught and taught as scientific truth for the past forty-five years.

Let me reiterated what I wrote over fourteen months ago now in Stories That Speak For Themselves:


One lie begets other lies. "Brain death" is a lie from beginning to end.

The lie of the Protestant Revolution has resulted in the proliferation of Protestant sects numbering as many as thirty-three thousand, producing irreligion in its work as a logical consequence.

The lie of "civil liberty" without the Social Reign of Christ the King as It must be exercised by His true Church, the Catholic Church, has resulted in the lie of the monster civil state of Modernity that is now being used by God as a chastisement upon us for refusing to take seriously Holy Mother Church's Social Teaching.

The lie of "religious liberty" has led people to believe that the path to social order and personal salvation can be found in any religion or in no religion at all.

The lie of "public education" has led to a taxpayer-subsidized machine to program their captives to be steeped in one ideologically-laden slogan after another to make them willing servants of the monster civil state and to participate merrily in neo-barbaric practices that were eradicated in Europe in during the First Millennium and in most parts of the Americas in the second half of the Second Millennium by the missionary work of the Catholic Church.

The lie of contraception and "family planning" led to increases in the rates of marital infidelity, the abandonment of spouses and children, the proliferation children with stepmothers and stepfathers and and step-siblings, leaving many children rootless and without any sense of being loved unto eternity that each person craves for whether or not he realizes it.

The lie of contraception led steadily to the acceptance of eugenic sterilization and then sterilization for any reasons and, ultimately, to the acceptance of surgical baby-killing on demand.

The lies of contraception and explicit instruction in matters pertaining to the Sixth and Ninth Commandments broke down the natural psychological resistance of children to matters that are age inappropriate, robbing them of their innocence and purity, turning them into hedonists as they have grown older, leading eventually to the widespread acceptance of the sins that destroyed the cities of Sodom and Gomorrha with fire and brimstone.

The lies that were told by Fathers Annibale Bugnini, C.M., and Ferdinando Antonelli, O.F.M., in the 1950s gave us unprecedented and most radical changes in the Holy Week ceremonies that started to accustom Catholics to ceaseless change as an ordinary feature of the liturgical life of the Catholic Church, climaxing in the Trojan Horse that was the Protestant and Masonic Novus Ordo service that, no matter how many times the conciliarists to "fix it," will always be an instrument of innovation and experimentation as it was designed to be precisely that from the moment Bugnini and Antonelli began their plans for the "Mass of the Future."

Thus it is that the lie of "brain death" has accustomed most people, Catholics and non-Catholics alike, into accepting uncritically the representations made by a medical industry that endorses the violation of the Sovereignty of God over the sanctity and fecundity of marriage and of the violation of the surgical dismemberment of the innocent preborn and that is in league with the pharmaceutical industry to use us a walking guinea pigs for drugs designed to keep us dependent on them as the "high priests and priestesses" of "modern medicine."

When did the lie of "brain death" originate? At the beginning:

[1] Now the serpent was more subtle than any of the beasts of the earth which the Lord God had made. And he said to the woman: Why hath God commanded you, that you should not eat of every tree of paradise? [2] And the woman answered him, saying: Of the fruit of the trees that are in paradise we do eat: [3] But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of paradise, God hath commanded us that we should not eat; and that we should not touch it, lest perhaps we die. [4] And the serpent said to the woman: No, you shall not die the death. [5] For God doth know that in what day soever you shall eat thereof, your eyes shall be opened: and you shall be as Gods, knowing good and evil. (Genesis 3: 1-5.)

It is very easy to be deceived.

It is very easy to be deceived by the lie of how "special" we are, of how we are "not like others."

It is very easy to be deceived by others and to let human respect get in the way of a firm defense of the truth when necessity compels such a defense lest souls be imperiled.

It is very easy to be deceived by the prevailing trends in what passes for popular culture, to give unto the "high priests and high priestesses" of banking, commerce, industry, education, law, entertainment, social science, politics, law, government, news and information and medicine the status of near-infallibility as even Catholics have been convinced to live as naturalists without regard for anything supernatural whatsoever.

Do not believe the false prophets. Do not follow the priests and presbyters who have swallowed the falsehoods of the false prophets of the medical industry hook, line and sinkers. Suffer for the truth without compromise as consecrated slaves of Christ the King through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary, our Immaculate Queen, no matter what you might have to suffer in this passing, mortal vale of tears.

Never sign up to be an "organ donor."

Tell your family members that they must never sign up to be "organ donors"--or, if they have, to rescind the "permission" that they have given to be unwitting accomplices and accessories in their own execution by means of being dissected alive.

Do not delay. Do not follow their false prophets in the world or the priests/presbyters who proselytize in their behalf.

We must pray to Our Lady to keep us from being so deceived, especially by the lies that we tell to ourselves, which is why we must be assiduous in praying as many Rosaries each day as our state-in-life permits.

We must always raise the standard of our Newborn Baby King, Christ the King, as we exhort one and all to recognize that Our King, Who awaits in tabernacles for our acts of love and thanksgiving and reparation and petition, must reign over each man and each nation and that His Most Blessed Mother, Mary our Immaculate Queen, is to be honored publicly by each man and each nation, including by the government of the United States of America, in order to know what it is to be blessed abundantly by the true God of Divine Revelation.

May each Rosary we pray this day, Christmas Eve, and every day help to plant seeds for this as we seek to serve Christ the King through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary our Immaculate Queen, who do not view any living human being as a ready product for dismemberment in the name of the lie "providing the gift of life."

Immaculate Heart of Mary, triumph soon!

Isn't it time to pray a Rosary now ?

Viva Cristo ReyVivat Christus Rex!

Our Lady of the Rosary, pray for us.

Saint Joseph, pray for us.

Saints Peter and Paul, pray for us.

Saint John the Baptist, pray for us.

Saint John the Evangelist, pray for us.

Saint Michael the Archangel, pray for us.

Saint Gabriel the Archangel, pray for us.

Saint Raphael the Archangel, pray for us.

Saints Joachim and Anne, pray for us.

Saints Caspar, Melchior, and Balthasar, pray for us.








© Copyright 2013, Thomas A. Droleskey. All rights reserved.