No Room in the Inn for Jahi McMath
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
“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
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
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,”
“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
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
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
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:
 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?  And the woman answered him, saying: Of the fruit of the trees that are in paradise we do eat:  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.  And the serpent said to the woman: No, you shall not die the death.  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 Rey! Vivat 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.