Search Blog Posts

Friday, December 19, 2014

Grisly Crime Scene Photos Show the Result of Crime Committed With "Fast and Furious" Rifle

By Reagan Wilson on December 19, 2014
Grisly crime scene photos from Arizona have been released that show exactly the damage that “Fast and Furious” guns are doing.

Under the program, hundreds, if not thousands of guns, were not only allowed to be smuggled into Mexico from the United States, but the ATF actually encouraged gun sellers to sell to known smugglers.

The ATF hoped to track the guns to high ranking cartel members, but the firearms quickly disappeared. However, they didn’t stay gone long, dozens of the guns have turned up at the scenes of murders and gunfights.

Case in point, according to the Daily Mail:

The gun used in a 2013 gang-style shooting in Phoenix, Arizona has been traced to an ill-fated Obama administration program that tried in vain to track firearms across the Mexican border to drug kingpins, and grisly pictures released Thursday show the aftermath.

Carlos Rocha-Lopez and Jobani Flores were shot and left for dead by a criminal assailant who got his AK-47 rifle along with 39 other guns on a single day from a single store because the federal government instructed a gun dealer to sell them to him.

Judicial Watch, a center-right watchdog group, obtained the disturbing images through a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit against the Department of Justice, whose Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) ran the failed ‘Operation Fast and Furious’ program that put the military-style rifle on the streets.

The group’s investigators matched up the serial number from the gun in crime-scene photos to a weapon the federal government allowed to ‘walk’ across America’s southern border.
So, in this case we not only have a gun that was allowed to be smuggled across the border to Mexico, but it was apparently smuggled back into the US before being used in a crime.
Perhaps the most notorious Fast and Furious gun used in the United States is the one that was used to kill Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry (pictured above).

Terry was killed by a Mexican national along the border while performing duties related to his job.

The gun used to kill Terry was one of the very guns that the ATF allowed to be taken into Mexico.

Martin Luther King (MLK)...and His Communist Affiliations

Scanned & Posted by Charleston Voice

Excerpted from COMMUNIST REVOLUTION in the STREETS by Gary Allen


He is a winner of a Nobel "peace" prize, but he is continually at war with the white man. He presents himself as a Christian minister, but J. Edgar Hoover has called him the "most notorious liar in the country." Many are wondering what is behind the man whom some people call...

Thursday, December 18, 2014

Silver Eagles Not Best Way to Own Silver

Posted on December 18, 2014 by Pat Heller

The U.S. Mint charges $2 above the spot price when it sells regular silver American Eagle one-ounce coins to its handful of Authorized Purchasers. These APs are then responsible for the costs and logistics of picking up the coins at the West Point or San Francisco Mints. By the time most coin dealers get in a smaller supply of these coins from the larger wholesalers, retail customers could easily be paying $3-$4 per coin above the silver spot price to purchase a 500-coin box of silver Eagles.
The silver Eagle may not be the
 best way to own bulk silver

At those premiums, retail buyers would now be paying 15-20 percent or more above the intrinsic metal value of silver Eagles.

These coins have been hugely popular, with combined mintages since the series debuted in 1986 of more than 200 million coins. In absolute terms, even the lowest-mintage 1996-dated coins cannot be called rare.

It is possible to buy the old U.S. 90 percent silver dimes and quarters (and often half dollars) struck up to 1964 at a lower cost per ounce of silver content.  Privately manufactured silver rounds and ingots in sizes of 1, 10, and 100 ounces can also be acquired for a lower premium than silver Eagles.

So, are silver Eagles a good way to purchase bullion-priced silver?
There are a number of hard money writers who consider the silver Eagles to be the best option for buyers. Others, including me, consider their premiums to be too much higher than other options to recommend them. You can’t have it both ways, so whose advice is sounder?

The silver Eagles have multiple advantages where it is an exact one troy ounce of pure silver issued by a reliable entity.  It has legal tender status by having a $1 face value, which means that they can cross international borders almost everywhere around the globe without having to pay import taxes.

Do these advantages outweigh other options, where U.S. 90 percent silver coins do not come to an even ounce weight of silver per $1 of face value, or where the privately struck silver rounds and ingots are normally subject to import duties if they cross borders?

I place more emphasis on the cost per ounce of silver content, which is the main reason why I am not in favor of purchasing large quantities of silver Eagles as a way to own bulk silver. However, I realize that silver Eagles are beautiful works of art. Therefore, I don’t knock the idea of purchasing individual coins or even a roll or two to be part of a collection or to be given as gifts.

Instead, I favor lower-premium alternatives despite the popularity of silver Eagles, where my company alone has sold as many as 300,000 of these coins in a single year.

Many buyers of silver Eagles realize they are paying a higher price to acquire silver in this form versus lower premium options. A number of them have told me that they expect to be able to liquidate these coins at prices higher than what they would be paid for the rounds and ingots or U.S. 90 silver coins. If that is what really happens, then it is not such a downside risk purchasing silver Eagles today.

But – don’t count on being able to receive a payment per ounce of silver content any higher than you would be paid for the 90 percent silver Coins or rounds and ingots. Here is one example why I say this.

In late 1996, Warren Buffett’s Berkshire Hathaway purchased 129.7 million ounces of silver futures contracts due in March 1997. As the maturity date neared, Berkshire Hathaway stated that they intended to take physical delivery of all the contracts rather than simply rolling the contracts over into new paper contracts with maturity dates farther in the future.

This quantity of physical silver demand severely strained existing supplies. Before Berkshire Hathaway announced that they wanted physical delivery, the spot price of silver was about $6. At that level, we were paying the public 50 cents under spot for the private one-ounce silver rounds and ingots and 50 cents over spot for silver Eagles.

Demand for low premium silver that the refiners could melt and form into deliverable 1,000-ounce bars to fulfill Berkshire Hathaway’s contracts pushed up the silver spot price.

By March 1997, the spot price topped $7. When silver reached that level, we were still paying 50 cents per ounce under spot to purchase one-ounce silver rounds and ingots from the public. However, since the refiners had no interest in purchasing any product even at spot price (the price at which they were being paid for the 1,000-ounce bars), silver Eagles did not appreciate at all during this run-up in the spot price. When silver reached $7 per ounce, we were then paying 50 cents per ounce below the spot price to purchase silver Eagles.

In this instance, the spot price of silver rose about 14 percent. The price we were paying the public to purchase one-ounce rounds and ingots rose 18 percent. Yet, the price we were paying for silver Eagles was unchanged.
As demonstrated by this example, I don’t recommend the purchase of silver Eagles as a way to acquire a quantity of bullion-priced bulk physical silver.

Incidentally, the rumor that circulated afterwards was that Berkshire Hathaway granted an extra six months to the short-sellers of the silver contracts, but the sellers had to pay the company 50 cents per ounce for the additional time.

Patrick A. Heller was the American Numismatic Association 2012 Harry Forman Numismatic Dealer of the Year Award winner. He owns Liberty Coin Service in Lansing, Mich., and writes “Liberty’s Outlook,” a monthly newsletter on rare coins and precious metals subjects. Past newsletter issues can be viewed at Other commentaries are available at Coin Week ( and He also writes a bi-monthly column on collectibles for “The Greater Lansing Business Monthly” ( radio show “Things You ‘Know’ That Just Aren’t So, And Important News You Need To Know” can be heard at 8:45 a.m. Wednesday and Friday mornings on 1320-AM WILS in Lansing (which streams live and becomes part of the audio and text archives posted at  

via numismaticnews

Is Government Faithful to the Constitution? by Andrew P. Napolitano

by Andrew P. Napolitano, December 18, 2014 

Is Government Faithful to the Constitution?

When the government is waving at us with its right hand, so to speak, it is the government’s left hand that we should be watching. Just as a magician draws your attention to what he wants you to see so you will not observe how his trick is performed, last week presented a textbook example of public disputes masking hidden deceptions. Here is what happened.

Last week was dominated by two huge news stories. One was the revelation by the Senate Intelligence Committee of torture committed by CIA agents and contractors on 119 detainees in the post-9/11 era – 26 of whom were tortured for months by mistake. In that revelation of anguish and error were the conclusions by CIA agents themselves that their torture had not produced helpful information. President Barack Obama acknowledged that the CIA had tortured, yet he directed the Department of Justice not to prosecute those who tortured and those who authorized it.

The other substantial news story was the compromise achieved by Congress and the White House to fund the government through the end of September 2015. That legislation, which is 2,000 pages in length, was not read by anyone who voted for it. It spends a few hundred billion dollars more than the government will collect in tax revenue. 

The compromise was achieved through bribery; members of Congress bought and sold votes by adding goodies (in the form of local expenditures of money borrowed by the federal government) to the bill that were never debated or independently voted upon and were added solely to achieve the votes needed for passage. This is how the federal government operates today. Both parties participate in it. 

They have turned the public treasury into a public trough.

Hidden in the law that authorized the government to spend more than it will collect was a part about funding for the 16 federal civilian intelligence agencies. And hidden in that was a clause, inserted by the same Senate Intelligence Committee that revealed the CIA torture, authorizing the National Security Agency to gather and retain nonpublic data for five years and to share it with law enforcement and with foreign governments. “Nonpublic data” is the government’s language referring to the content of the emails, text messages, telephone calls, bank statements, utility bills and credit card bills of nearly every innocent person in America – including members of Congress, federal judges, public officials and law enforcement officials. I say “innocent” because the language of this legislation – which purports to make lawful the NSA spying we now all know about – makes clear that those who spy upon us needn’t have any articulable suspicion or probable cause for spying.

The need for articulable suspicion and probable cause has its origins in the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution, which was written to prohibit what Congress just authorized. That amendment was a reaction to the brutish British practice of rummaging through the homes of American colonists, looking for anything that might be illegal. It is also a codification of our natural right to privacy. It requires that if the government wants nonpublic data from our persons, houses, papers or effects, it must first present evidence of probable cause to a judge and then ask the judge for a search warrant.

Probable cause is a level of evidence that is sufficient to induce a judge into concluding that it is more likely than not that the place to be examined contains evidence of crimes. In order to seek probable cause, the government must first have an articulable suspicion about the person or place it has targeted. Were this not in the law, then nothing would stop the government from fishing expeditions in pursuit of anyone it wants to pursue. And fishing expeditions turn the presumption of liberty on its head. The presumption of liberty is based on the belief that our rights are natural to us and that we may exercise them without a permission slip from the government and without its surveillance.

Until last week, that is. Last week, Congress, by authorizing the massive NSA spying to continue and by authorizing the spies to share what they have seized with law enforcement, basically permitted the fishing expeditions that the Fourth Amendment was written to prevent.

How can the president and Congress defy the Constitution, you might ask? Hasn’t every member of the government taken an oath to uphold the Constitution? Doesn’t the Constitution create the presidency and the Congress? How can politicians purport to change it?

The answers to these questions are obvious, as is the belief of most of those in government that they can write any law and regulate any behavior and ignore the Constitution they have sworn to uphold whenever they want, so long as they can get away with it.

Andrew P. Napolitano, a former judge of the Superior Court of New Jersey, is the senior judicial analyst at Fox News Channel. Judge Napolitano has written seven books on the U.S. Constitution. The most recent is Theodore and Woodrow: How Two American Presidents Destroyed Constitutional Freedom. To find out more about Judge Napolitano and to read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit

Read more by Andrew P. Napolitano
The CIA and Its Torturers – December 10th, 2014
The Government and Freedom – October 15th, 2014
Parallel Reconstruction – October 8th, 2014
Clapper Under the Bus – October 1st, 2014
Waging War – September 10th, 2014

via Antiwar

Wednesday, December 17, 2014

Hillary Clinton’s Record of Support for War and other Depravities

Tuesday, October 14, 2014

Introduction and Notes

This is a record of Hillary Clinton’s support for wars of aggression and other acts of extremism and depravity.  It contains original work, quotations, and references with citations or links. 

When crimes apply to multiple categories, explanations for individual applications are given.

In anticipation of the 2016 election, a principal reason for creating this record is to provide a clear illustration of what is put forth as the supposed "less evil" of the two available choices in the US system, and the consequences this has engendered for the international community thanks to Clinton and people like her.

TIME magazine is well known as a staple of support and cover for virtually all US acts of international terrorism and domination, such as the USA's 1953 illegal overthrow of Iran's democracy and US/Western seizure of virtually 100% of Iran's oil.  However, TIME balks at Hillary Clinton's record, and reports that she will almost certainly be a more dedicated militant extremist than any Republican opponent (TIME of course says this more euphemistically).   
At the end of the year in which Clinton left her position as Secretary of State (2013), the Obama regime's USA was voted, in a Win/Gallup poll of 65 countries around the world, as the single greatest threat to world peace, with the runner-up (Pakistan, an Islamic fundamentalist US ally) receiving three times fewer votes, and Russia receiving twelve times fewer votes:

This was largely due to illegal US attacks (against peace, humanity, and the environment, carried out around the world) that were co-schemed and ardently pushed for by Hillary Clinton, and ultimately demanded and perpetrated by Barack Obama.  See record herein.
This record is intended to inform current and potential Clinton supporters about what they are involving themselves in, and ideally prompt serious consideration and study regarding what the overall (in terms of global impact) lesser of two evils might be in 2016. 
However, even if Clinton supporters take her full record into account and decide she is the lesser overall evil, this record is also intended to highlight that voting is only a moment in the continuous, lifelong process necessary for democracy.  
Though some may honestly absorb her record and still consider Clinton the better option in 2016, the record should underscore that an arrangement in which Hillary Clinton can be considered a lesser evil and preferable option is unacceptable.  Though at this point one may feel that he or she must cast a vote for Clinton to avoid some worse fate, her record should incite caring people to devote their real efforts towards educating others about what we are actually supporting and doing to the world.  It should prompt us to work towards a reality in which people like Clinton and her competing evils need be objects only of the revulsion and justice they have earned.  
In the above poll, the isolated, insular, propagandized US public, alone in the world, viewed Iran, with its minuscule military and defense budget, and completely surrounded by US foreign attack bases, as the greatest threat to world peace.  It's time we bring ourselves up to speed.

(For numbered citations, see “Notes” section, below.  Roman numeral citations are listed as foot-notes on individual pages.)


1) William Blum (author of Rogue State), Anti-Empire Report for November, 2013:

2)   Noam Chomsky is the author of Failed States (link), and other books and articles







(9) Chomsky, Hegemony or Survival, Chapter 4

(10) Carl Boggs, The Crimes of Empire, pg. 244


Also see:

On Hillary Clinton's corruption regarding catering to republican corporate and financial donors:

FAIR USE NOTICE: This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of political, economic, scientific, and educational issues. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to:

Experts to Scrutinize Israel Lobby During April 10 Conference at National Press Club

WASHINGTON, Dec. 17, 2014 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- Register online for "The Israel Lobby: Is It Good for the US?" today at ;

"The Israel Lobby: Is It Good for the US?" is an all-day conference which will take place April 10 in the National Press Club ballroom in Washington, DC.  Questions will be addressed by experts of all ages and backgrounds from academia, government, independent research organizations and alternative news media shut out of public discourse.  The conference is co-sponsored by the American Educational Trust's publication Washington Report on Middle East Affairs (WRMEA) and the Institute for Research: Middle Eastern Policy, Inc (IRmep).

Hundreds of organizations lobbying for Israel behind the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) continue to push for U.S. economic warfare and military actions against Iran. Most Americans support negotiations to resolve questions over Iran's civilian nuclear program and oppose efforts to torpedo diplomacy.  Americans also overwhelmingly (63.9%) believe Israel is a Middle East nation with nuclear weapons.

Recent passage of the US-Israel Strategic Partnership Act of 2014 gives Israel expanded rights to U.S. weapons stockpiles, diplomatic support, additional foreign aid and future visa-free entry, despite Israel's long history of espionage against the United States.  Yet six in ten Americans, advised that the U.S. gives Israel over $3 billion annually (9% of the foreign aid budget and more than any other country), believe such aid is "too much."

Pro-Israel donors and political action committees are working hard to ensure that when Americans head to the polls to choose a president in 2016, both candidates will be Zionists.  Delegates who oppose special pro-Israel planks in conventions are shut down by rigged votes.

How did Israel lobbying organizations become so influential in America? Are U.S. and Israeli interests, as claimed by the lobby, truly "the same"? Does Israel's strategic value drive massive U.S. aid, or is it mostly the influence of Israel's lobby in this country? What laws govern lobbying for a foreign government, and are they enforced? Why is ongoing economic, military, industrial and nuclear espionage by Israeli spies working with American supporters almost never punished? 

How big, in terms of revenue, activists and organizations, is the lobby today? How are lobby operatives targeting critics and pro-Palestinian activists on campus? Are qualified government appointees blacklisted if they do not espouse sufficiently pro-Israel views? How can Americans who do not believe in massive aid, pro-Israel slogans, activities and policies become enfranchised?

The conference includes luncheon and is open to members of the public and news media who register in advance.

Register online today at  and follow us on Twitter @IsraelLobbyUS

WRMEA is a magazine published 8 times yearly by the American Educational Trust which focuses on news and analysis from and about the Middle East and U.S. policy in the region.

IRmep is a Washington, DC-based nonprofit researching U.S. Middle East policy formulation and how warranted law enforcement and civil action can improve outcomes.

SOURCE Institute for Research: Middle Eastern Policy

Why Austria Is Likely To Repatriate Its Gold From London

Posted on 13 Dec 2014 by Koos Jansen
Why Austria Is Likely To Repatriate Its Gold From London

Yesterday, December 12, we learned the next European county in line – after Germany, Switzerland, The Netherlands and Belgium – to openly talk about repatriating its gold reserves is Austria. This came to me as no surprise.
From we could read:

The National Bank Thinks About The Gold Concept

The gold reserves of the Oesterreichische Nationalbank (OeNB) and their deposits in the UK and in Switzerland are a recurring theme in political discussions. Especially the Freedom to demand the relocation to Austria, along the example of the Deutsche Bundesbank in mind, who want to move half their gold by 2020 to Germany.

In Austria, the Court of Auditors has adopted the gold concept in its recent OeNB examination. In its draft report it provides the OeNB diverse recommendations. One of the key points: Given the “risk of a high concentration at the Bank of England”, the examiner advise to “rapidly evaluate all possibilities of a better dispersion of the storage locations”. Not only the parties should be diversified, but also the “actual spread of storing among locations”.

Gold Relocation Possible

The central bank has not ruled out such a relocation. The existing gold storage concept would be reviewed, potentially it will bring parts of the stored gold in the UK to Austria, OeNB experts have stated. Any changes will be decided upon security and economic criteria, according to the OeNB.

A brief orientation on the current gold concept: Austria has 280 tonnes of official gold reserves, only a small part of (17 %) is kept in Vienna. 80 % of the reserves are located in London, the most trading partner in gold, 3% percent is stored in Switzerland.

Note, the above was translated by Google and me, although I don’t speak German, the language is quite similar to Dutch: I can’t guarantee the translation is 100 % accurate

The exact tonnage of Austria’s official gold reserves at each location was first disclosed in November 2012:

The Austrian central bank keeps most of its 280 metric tons of gold reserves in the United Kingdom, Vice Governor Wolfgang Duchatczek was quoted as saying in the finance committee of the country’s parliament today, according to Bloomberg.

Answering lawmakers’ questions, Duchatczek said 80%, or 224.4 metric tons of the metal was stored in the U.K., 17% or 48.7 metric tons in Austria and 3% in Switzerland, according to a summary of a closed-door committee meeting provided by the parliament.

The reserve has been unchanged since 2007, Duchatczek was quoted as saying. The central bank has earned 300 million euros ($385 million) over the last ten years by lending the gold, he said.

Then May this year we learned Austria was getting nervous about the gold they store at the Bank Of England (BOE), when they sent auditors to London to have a look. From, May 2014:

Austria is planning to send auditors to the Bank of England in order to verify the existence of Austria’s gold reserves stored in British vaults.
The Austrian accountability office will sent a delegation to London in order to check on Austria’s gold reserves stored in vaults at the Bank of England. This is reported by Austrian magazine Trend. The measure is seen as a consequence of growing public pressure. There is a rising disbelief among Austrians about the existence of the gold.

“I acknowledge the request. Any grocery store is obliged to do inventory once a year. It is the only way of getting rid of these unreasonable allegations”, Ewald Nowotny, Governor of the National Bank of Austria tells Trend.
Since May a lot has happened; Russia’s central bank increased its gold reserves significantly, China keeps importing huge quantities of gold, the Swiss population has expressed their concern on their gold reserves, The Netherlands has repatriated 122.5 tonnes from the New York Fed and Belgium openly stated it’s investigating to repatriate, which a central banker would never say if it wasn’t to act accordingly in my opinion. All this is happening in a global environment of QE. Would these developments make the Austrians, that were already a little jumpy on this topic, even more or less nervous?

There is another clue Austria has been long preparing to repatriate – no, it’s not because Menger and Mises were born there. While doing research for my post Eurosystem Increasing Allocated Official Gold ReservesI noticed the there was one country in specific that was allocating its reserves, from what I saw in data from the Bundesbank.

As you can see in the chart above Austria has a fraction of its official gold reserves unallocated. In the next chart we can see the ratio between allocated versus unallocated gold developing from January 2013.

It looks like Austria is taking it step by step, just like The Netherlands did. First there was some discussion in politics about the official gold reserves and then actions are being taken behind the scenes, in the case of Austria they started to allocate their gold. The fact concrete actions already have been taken since July 2013, tells me there is a significant probability more will follow; such as repatriating gold from London.

Given the ‘risk of a high concentration at the Bank of England’, the examiner advise to ‘rapidly evaluate all possibilities of a better dispersion of the storage locations’… The central bank has not ruled out such a relocation. The existing gold storage concept would be reviewed, potentially it will bring parts of the stored gold in the UK to Austria, OeNB experts have stated.

Bear in mind The Netherlands not even talked about repatriating openly while preparing it. Who knows how many countries are preparing or discussing repatriating behind closed doors at this moment.

Koos Jansen
E-mail Koos Jansen on:

via bullionstar

Tuesday, December 16, 2014

The Great Generic Drug Rip-Off

December 15, 2014

Big Pharma has followed the only avenue left to reap billion-dollar profits: jack up the price of generics.

What happens when rapacious cartels run out of billion-dollar-profit products? They jack up the price of what was previously low-cost. And why are they able to raise prices by 388% to 8,000% at will? Because they can. That's the whole point in having a cartel that is enabled and enforced by the cartel's toadies and apologists in the central state (federal government): price increases can be imposed on the government and the private sector at will.

I was alerted to the extraordinary price increases in widely used generic drugs by Ishabaka (M.D.), who forwarded this fact sheet issued by the office of Senator Bernie Sanders: (Chart is reproduced below)

"Rep. Elijah E. Cummings and Senator Bernard Sanders sent letters to 14 drug manufacturers requesting information about the escalating prices of generic drugs used to treat everything from common medical conditions to life-threatening illnesses. Data was provided by the Healthcare Supply Chain Association (HSCA) on recent purchases by group purchasing organizations (GPOs) of ten generic drugs."

Here are Ishabaka's comments:

"I'd like to focus on the top one - doxycycline. This is a very effective antibiotic for pneumonia, bronchitis, and sexually transmitted diseases (chlamydia and gonorrhea). Throughout my medical career, it has been a cheap generic drug I used all the time. It's cost has gone up from $20 a prescription to over $1,600 a prescription in the last 12 months.

Low-income people used to be able to afford doxycycline, which would stop the spread of these serious, sometimes life-threatening infections. Now they can't, and there is no drug as good as doxycycline available cheaply. I think this is an outrage. Imagine if a generic bottle of aspirin increased in price from $10 a bottle to $800 a bottle in 12 months - Americans would be marching in protest."

Average Market Price Oct. 2013
Average Market Price April 2014
Average Percentage Increase
Doxycycline Hyclate
(bottle of 500, 100 mg tablets)
antibiotic used to treat a variety of infections
Albuterol Sulfate
(bottle of 100, 2 mg tablets)
used to treat asthma and other lung conditions
(box of 10 0.2 mg/mL, 20 mL vials)
used to prevent irregular heartbeats during surgery
Divalproex Sodium ER
(bottle of 80, 500 mg tablets ER 24H)
used to prevent migraines and treat certain types of seizures
Pravastatin Sodium
(bottle of 500, 10 mg tablets)
used to treat high cholesterol and to prevent heart disease
Neostigmine Methylsulfate
(box of 10 1:1000 vials)
used in anesthesia to reverse the effects of some muscle relaxants
(bottle of 100, 20-25 mg tablets)
used to treat high blood pressure
(box of 25, 0.2 mg/mL vials)
used to treat heart attacks and irregular heartbeat
(50 mg vial)
used to treat congestive heart failure and reduce blood pressure
(single tablet, 250 mcg)
used to treat irregular heartbeats and heart failure

The murky world of drug pricing is attracting some much-needed attention:

What politicos and the mainstream media cannot dare state openly is obvious: the system of drug development and generic drug pricing/distribution is broken in the U.S., and the core cause is the cartel-like structure of Big Pharma and the rest of the healthcare system.
Though nobody in officialdom or the mainstream media can say this publicly, the reason for these outrageous increases is painfully obvious: As Big Pharma's stable of billion-dollar drugs slip off patent, their profit pipeline is weakening.

The pipeline of potentially billion-dollar-profit drugs (so-called blockbuster drugs) is thin. So Big Pharma has followed the only avenue left to reap billion-dollar profits: jack up the price of generics, and push the government to pay the outrageous increases via Medicare and Medicaid and force the increases on private insurers and providers. If we just roll over and accept 8,000% increases, we deserve the corrupt, rapacious system we have. 
via charleshughsmith