Tragic: Another man murdered for his organs – Bored Panda uses this for pro-donate propaganda

The family of Daniel Bassillo have recently shared their pride that their family member was vivisected for his organs, which are reputed to be helping other people. Their tragedy is now being used to further the cause of medical murder. Organ donation is firstly not a donation (because informed consent was not obtained), and secondly requires the victim to be alive when their organs are harvested – hence why it is medical murder.

I quote: (Link)

“We didn’t even hesitate when they asked us if we wanted to donate. I don’t even think we really had to talk about it,” Alexa told Bored Panda. “I pray that you don’t lose the most important person in your life but if you can at the very least take that and turn it into something good.. why wouldn’t you want to do that?” she added.

Why? Because if your brother had usable organs, he was still alive. Alive! He wasn’t dead when his organs were removed, and he may not even have been given an anaesthetic before he was cut open. Just horrifying!

The family showed online the letter they received, telling them how many people the doctors were able to help after they murdered her brother:

organs.jpg

I quote: (Link)

One cannot determine with certainty what organ donors feel, if anything, while being harvested. The logic of brain death goes like this: If the brain stem is dead, then the higher centers of the brain are also probably dead, and if the whole brain is 
dead, then everything beneath the brain stem is no longer relevant. Since in practice only the brain stem is routinely tested, the vast majority of the body, everything above the brain stem and everything below, no longer counts as human.

The reason for denying beating-heart cadavers anesthetic during the removal of their organs is hard to pin down. (Some experts say it is because anesthetic will harm the organs.) Nevertheless, administering anesthetics to BHCs during organ harvests is becoming more common in Europe, according to Robert Truog, professor of medical ethics, anesthesia, and pediatrics at Harvard Medical School. Despite their strong opposition to brain death, Truog and Shewmon both refuse to acknowledge the possibility that some donors may be in severe pain during organ harvests, even though they acknowledge that some donors did exhibit reactions similar to inadequately anesthetized surgical patients who afterward reported pain and consciousness. Shewmon said the donor reactions were simply “bodily reactions to noxious stimuli.” I asked if an experiment could be designed to answer the question of pain in donors. He said no.

Truog did not even want to discuss the possibility of pain in the organ donor. But when I suggested experiments along the lines suggested by other anesthesiologists—when BHCs show pain reactions during a harvest, administer anesthetic to see if the reactions subside—he surprised me by saying he had already done this. He has used two different kinds of anesthetics that do not harm organs to quell symptoms such as high blood pressure or heart rate. “Just because the symptoms come down, though,” he added, “does not mean the patient is in pain. Pain is a subjective thing.” As with Shewmon, I asked Truog if an experiment wasn’t called for. He said there was no experiment that could answer the question of pain in the donor.

Would Daniel have lived if he’d been kept on life support? Would he have recovered? We’ll never know. But we do know that this poor man was killed for his organs – that his heart was beating independently when he was being harvested. We know that this barbaric practice is shrowded in secrecy and that most people are ignorant of the truth of what organ “donation” entails.

Always say no to organ donation – do not “donate” or accept organs from murdered people for yourself or a family member. This secretive practice in which linguistic confabulation and misdirection is used to obtain “consent” for the abhorrent human sacrifice of one living person for other living people can only be stopped if we share that knowledge far and wide.

Your organs will not be taken AFTER your death, and Daniel Basillo’s organs were not, either.

I pray that he felt no pain.

May the fear of God bring you into all wisdom.

Lis

 

Advertisements

One Reality Ministry in terrible error

I watched a great video by this ministry recently. It was well put together, and I’ll even go so far as to share it here:

It’s pretty hard-hitting. I’ve watched it a couple of times, and a few other videos and enjoyed them. He quotes Matthew 7:23 and uses a translation which clearly states:

But I will reply, ‘I never knew you. Get away from me, you who break God’s laws.’

Which is from the NLT.

I thought the ministry might get added to my Resources page. Until today.

Collin Retkowski who is the face of the ministry, talks in the video below, which I watched today, about being sinless. Being a sinless Christian.

He cites several people in the bible who were righteous before God (Job and Noah being just two), but sadly he makes the fundamental error, in spite of using Matthew 7:23 in other videos, of saying that the “ceremonial laws and the Mosaic Law” are done away with.

Nowhere does Yeshua say this – in fact this ministry is preaching the most dangerous doctrine of all – faith, plus works = salvation – without defining what those works are to be.

When we try to follow Christ and be like Him without reference to the Law, we tangle ourselves up in legalism. We define and redefine sin without reference to the Law which lays out for us so clearly what is sin! That’s what legalism is – the constant redefining of the law to allow us to do, or to restrict, things we think are right or wrong.

To give you an example straight out of the world today, of what legalism is, consider the speed limit. The sign says that the limit is 30 miles per hour. If we were to apply that as it is, which would be fair, we would say that travelling at 31 miles per hour is clearly breaking the law, so why don’t we? Why don’t people get a speeding fine for going at 31 mph? Because lawyers got involved, and said that, as speedometers are not accurate enough, it wouldn’t be fair, and so mostly our authorities only apply the speed limit allowing a 10% margin for error. This is legalism. One law wasn’t enough, so another rule must be added.

What most Christians think is sin is vastly removed from what the bible says is sin. In fact, he’s right that many Christians believe that feeling tempted is sinful, rather than waiting until you have sinned to feel bad.

But the simple aim of every believer should be a close, righteous walk with God – obedience is the ONLY answer to sin, because it clarifies what sin is! We can’t keep changing our minds because when we do, we begin a dangerous game – Collin says that Jesus will say in that day ‘I never knew you. Get away from me, you who break God’s laws.’, but then rejects the very law God gave us to keep us from sinning.

Please pray for Collin, because right now he’s in a dangerous place. He believes himself to be sinless, yet rejects the law, and this is an impossible place to be (and teach others from).

transgression

lawlessness

May the fear of God bring you into all wisdom.

Lis

Subliminal halos of the rich and famous – Part IV

I just saw this corker, so I thought I would trawl my files and give you the most recently collected subliminal halos of the rich and famous.

Here’s cheeky chappy Jeremy Corbyn, a dangerous socialist menace, with his tinsel halo:

corbyn Halo 2018.jpg

They even included some baubles for entertainment (you’ll note from previous Corbyn halos that they always have a slightly comedic edge, look here)

Here’s Turkey’s Erdogan with horns:

erdogan halo horns

And Netanyahu with a star of David crown, his hand position looks unfortunate:

netanyahu star halo

Bernie Sanders even got a halo:

bernie sanders halo

How about Putin again:

putin halo

These are not coincidental – the angle needed to obtain these pics, and the choice to use them is part of the “deification” of leaders. The press will play some as hapless, like Corbyn, when really he’s dangerous, and others like Putin, as in some way angelic, but his halos are always rather small.

Here’s Leo Varadkar of Ireland:

varadkar halo

What earned this homosexual Indian, now leading Ireland, a halo? He managed to do away with Ireland’s anti-abortion laws, and increased immigration so that Ireland is now in a worse state than ever. The globalists must be delighted.

France Europe Macron

Macron also gets his halo (and the EU leadership know this photo angle creates these images, I have alost a dozen of different leaders in this spot). Macron’s halo is for enacting Cloward Piven Strategy on France to bring it to it’s knees (can’t have communism without a revolution, doncha know?) The people of France know that Macron is a stooge.

jacob rees mogg halo

Jacob Rees-Mogg gets a huge halo for something – perhaps we will find out what in 2019. Will he stand for leader? Who knows? Some call him “The Honourable Member for the 19th Century” or something to that effect due to his old-fashioned ways and dress sense. However, he’s a very calm and measured and well-spoken man. But he’s also a staunch catholic which both endears and repels. Catholicism is not Christianity.

Here’s a grim-looking David Cameron with his halo or crown of stars:

Cameron halo

Last one, and rather sinister. This chap is the head of the European Central Bank, Mario Draghi:

islamic finger halo

Note his one-finger islamic sign. Hmmm.

I hope you enjoyed this round up of some of 2018’s finest halos. I could only post a few, but I continue to collect them when I see them.

Here are previous posts on this:

Subliminal halos of the rich and famous

Subliminal Halos of the Rich and Famous II

More “subliminal” halos, wings and stars in photographs of leaders

God Bless you

Lis

Yeshua is the Messiah – how do we know?

This is so simple, you’re going to kick yourself, just as I did, when Zach Bauer points out the obvious. Enjoy the video:

 

God Bless you

Lis

Love your neighbour as yourself

We see these words in Leviticus 19:18 – God tells us:

Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself: I am the LORD.

Can you think now how many statutes are required because we have left this commandment behind? If we have compassion on our neighbour, as we would hope he would have on us, many statute laws of man would not be required. Harassment from loud music – not a thing anymore. Anti-social behaviour? Gone. All kinds of pain and suffering could be alleviated by this simple law – but only if we applied it.

When we don’t slam the door at 6 a.m. on our way to work we do it because we don’t want to wake the neighbours – that’s just the kind of consideration we all need to have. Don’t light that bonfire when the wind is blowing towards your neighbour’s washing – pretty simple. It also extends to how we treat our environment – litter laws, and pollution laws, not leaving an engine idling for long periods – all these things are covered simply under that one commandment, yet instead we have thousands of regulations which are in place instead (and, note, rarely applied).

That commandment also encompasses more than just consideration, it includes the way we correct and rebuke our neighbours too! Love is not license, it’s pointing out things which are wrong, with love, and expecting better.

David says, and I love this psalm so much, in psalm 141:5:

Let the righteous strike me;
It shall be a kindness.
And let him rebuke me;
It shall be as excellent oil;
Let my head not refuse it.
For still my prayer is against the deeds of the wicked.

Yes, absolutely! Rebuke me and I shall grow wiser still! How beautifully humble David is!

Let us love our neighbours, resolve disputes and keep government out of our lives – if only we kept the law of God!

Lis

Presented with comment…

As long as we’ve got our priorities right, eh?

priorities.jpg

Link

We have money for bombs, and we have money for stupid fripperies like this item above, but we do not have money to support the poor and sick – no, they must suffer.

May the fear of God bring you into all wisdom

Lis

Leftist Academic agenda alive and well at Cambridge

Yesterday I sent a very silly article about a very silly man to a friend of mine, commenting that I could imagine what my father would have said about this “academic” – he would have called him a “Fathead!” and then said that he had been “educated beyond his intellectual capacity.” I don’t think anyone would disagree with that:

Cambridge 1.jpg

Link

I quote:

‘I would lower the voting age to six, not 16, and I’m serious about that,’ he said. ‘I would want people who vote to be able to read, so I would exclude reception.

‘The old thing about voting for people like you wouldn’t happen, 9-year-olds aren’t going to elect 9-year-olds to Parliament and even if they did they’d be outvoted.

‘What’s the worst that could happen? At least it would be exciting, it would make elections more fun. ‘

Prof Runciman said the system of only allowing voting at 18 but having no cut-off point at the other end left young people vastly outnumbered.

He did not suggest stripping older people of their votes but said including young children was necessary to correct the ‘structural imbalance’.

What a total balloon! But where is the outrage? Where are the calls amongst his fellow academics to “burn the witch”? No, there are none, because in the intellectual vacuum of Cambridge University controversy is fine as long as it suits the general agenda of the Left.

When it doesn’t, then the calls for “burn the witch” are as shrill as can be, as in the case of this poor unfortunate fellow who has discovered that there is a link between race and intellect as well as race and criminality. This is not new, but 200 of his fellow intellectuals from as far away as Princeton are determined to destroy him:

Cambridge 2.jpg

Link

The phrase “ethically suspect” is particularly amusing and pertinent – it tells me that it’s unethical, in their minds, to even look at the issue. It’s only ethical to ignore the issues caused by “diversity” and not address them scientifically. Because they don’t like it they label him a eugenicist, which he may or may no be, and call his work “pseudoscience” which it is not. This is a subject which has been studied over and over and the conclusion is that there is a definite difference in intelligence between races, on average. But we mustn’t say so, or we will fall foul of the thought police.

I quote:

They said that they are ‘deeply concerned that racist pseudoscience is being legitimised through association with the University of Cambridge.’

They added: ‘This fellowship was awarded to Carl despite his attendance at, and public defence of, the discredited ‘London Conference on Intelligence’, where racist and pseudoscientific work has been regularly presented.

‘Carl’s work has already been used by extremist and far-right media outlets with the aim of stoking xenophobic and anti-immigrant rhetoric…this kind of pseudoscientific racism runs the serious risk of being used to justify policies that directly harm vulnerable populations.’

Yes, because immigrants are vulnerable, but the populations they join are not. The immigrants must be allowed to enter and destroy our countries (because destroy them they will) because otherwise it’s racist.

Take a look at Ethiopia:

tragic ethiopia.jpg

When Africans make Africa great they will be far more welcome here. The men of Africa should be at home building up their countries, but that is not the plan. As we know the plan is the Kalergi Plan: Kalergi plan – advertised, yet ignored by the masses

Remember folks, it’s not the immigrants fault in all this – our leaders are to blame. Diversity is our destruction, and intellectual rigour will not be applied unless you want to lose your career.

Lis