Everything

Government can’t hug you, but it can kill you

Published

11 months ago

July 26, 2017

It’s been a long time since I have felt as angry and impotent as I have felt since Monday. Conservative media right now is saturated with reaction to the news from Charlie Gard’s parents, regarding their decision to no longer pursue the legal battle to save their child’s life. Liberal media in the US is mostly silent.

I am not a parent, though I’ve wanted to be a parent for most of my life. I cannot imagine the pain of having to say goodbye to your child, let alone to your infant child. I cannot imagine the pain of saying goodbye because the Government has decided, against you, that it was in the “best interest” of your child to die.

Remember, if our lawmakers cannot shed Obamacare and replace it with something that recognizes personal liberty, we will–an absolute certainty–end up with socialized health care in America.

What I can’t imagine is currently what Chris and Connie are going through. If they read this, I hope they know that my heart is broken with their hearts. I love them and I love Charlie.

The argument for socialized health care, that up to this point I have mostly ignored, is that we should “care” about people less fortunate, and socialized health care is the best way to care.

I haven’t seen a single left leaning person attach this argument to Charlie’s case.

And that’s because they can’t.

Let’s discuss why a large centralized power having the decision making authority of whether you live or die is bad.

Government is not a person. More importantly, government is not capable of empathy, nor is it supposed to be capable of empathy. It is supposed to fill a specific set of functions, ie laws to maintain a civilized society, and national defense – ie keep other governments out. Obviously, people are human, and make up government, which introduces biases. Our goal should be to limit government’s power and to reduce bias and emotion as much as possible, not to increase it.
Running trillions of dollars of deficit will eventually bite us in the ass, folks. Sorry for the vulgarity, but spending money with no hope of paying it back is crazy. Eventually, it must find a way to cut costs. And usually, you look at trimming the most expensive costs first. This usually happens by comparing what you pay, to what you get. The more expensive one’s health care is or projected to be, the harder it will be to get government to pay for it. So, rare diseases, fetal defects, people past a certain age – government literally made the decision for Connie and Chris that their child was too expensive. And government won. So now, you want that here?
In Iceland, 100 percent of Down’s babies are aborted when diagnosed in utero. Children, who could have lived happy, successful, and fulfilling lives are aborted because they have an extra chromosome and are therefore different. There’s no excuse that makes this ok, and it’s disgusting. So, I ask, you want Government to make the decision for you that when pregnant you have mandatory tests? If you’re pregnant, and the child is determined to have Down’s or some type of heart disease, you want Gov’t to have the power to decide your child is too expensive to maintain?
Let’s take a second, and go to China. They recently switched their official one child policy, to a two child policy. They would enforce their one child policy by aborting women, whenever the women were found to have been carrying a second or third child. They would do this at any time. You could be 8 and half months pregnant, and if you were reported to the police, dragged to the nearest clinic to have your child murdered inside you. China’s currently experiencing a few problems, namely, not enough women. (Who would have thought that in a society where being a man was more important, people would not choose to have a girl as an only child?) Now, they’re importing girls and women from other countries, and I think there’s a pretty awful sex slave trade going down over there.

When you give the federal government the power to make your decisions instead of you, you are giving them the authority to make those decisions. Charlie should live as a warning to us all. Don’t let the federal government take control over your life. Here’s the thing, guys. Government doesn’t care. Government will go for the least costly and most efficient solutions that it can, because ultimately, it is a machine. That’s why you need to limit its power as much as you can, and retain your autonomy as much as you can.

Up Next

Healthcare and the vicious cycle of government intervention

Don't Miss

Trump tweets U.S. will not accept transgenders in military

Deborah Wiseman

2 Comments

Jan Cosgrove

July 27, 2017 at 10:15 pm

Sanctimonious rubbish. GOSH is one of the finest paediatric hospitals in the world 3 of the 7 top paediatricians in the world
work there. and the fact is they have done all they know to enable Charlie to improve. What they have said is that they know of no more that can be done, in other words, they admit no more can be done. If this were an adult with cancer, it would be palliative care only, removal from artificial life support. The same principle applies.

Of course his poor parents have gone the extra mile, and GOSH itself called for the final court hearing to enable the US doctor to attend. BTW he had been invited last January but didn’t come till now. Yet he claimed he could help, but only a 10% chance of improvement not even having examined the child. When he got here to the UK, he had to agree his treatment would not have worked. I don’t think his behaviour has fulfilled the required medical ethics expected of him.

You make an asinine connection with socialised medicine. Get this straight and stop using any opportunity to politicise a humanitarian issue. Our National Health insurance has paid for Charlie’s treatment, free at the point of delivery. His parents have never faced running out of insurance cover, the NHS is what people here want. You stick to your system if you will, we know what works for us.

We have an independent judiciary, like you, and you should read the court judgement on this matter, not biased press reporting based on fundamentalist christian politics. You will there learn about compassion, professionalism, heart-breaking dilemma for parents, doctors, nurses, attorneys and the judge to whom you should pay the greatest respect,

In essence. try our hardest, use god-given power of knowledge, science etc, there are things we cannot do. Enabling Charlie to improve, which is what his parents seek, and we all would if it were possible, is beyond our knowledge and may well always be.

What I find wicked is the wholly unscrupulous conduct of those who have exploited his parents grief and love to peddle their politico-religious claptrap, one from the States linked to advocating killing of staff at abortion centres in the US. We don’t want such folk here, we accept the Rule of Law. It is the height of irresponsibility to prey on parents love in the way that is being done, it has not helped them or Charlie one iota, and frankly is evil, yes, for all the sanctimonious crap bandied around, it has done nothing and can do nothing.

What the alt right advocate here is to keep life support going when there is no prospect for any improvement and the FACT that the only thing that keeps him breathing is that equipment. Mankind knows no more, surely you can accept that or does the alt right insist it knows better not only than the medics but God Himself? It seems sinful arrogance to me, a claim to know His Will for this child.

I suggest you stick to sorting out the mess you have in your Congress over health insurance, politicians playing cynical games with people’s daily lives. Charlie’s parents had no worries about being able to afford the incredible world-best care he has had because of our national health insurance system, free at the point of use. Can you say that if they had been US citizens they would have been assured of cover come what may, regardless of who they are and their means? No? Well here we can tell you Yes, that has happened. No government has ordered this outcome, a court has based on evidence and law, not to mention huge compassion. Learn something, will you, the US is not Know-All, Best-Way. And this is NOTHING to do with abortion, it is about end-of-life care, and when is the right time to stop treatment and administer palliative care only, the independent court judgement is that this is the time.

BTW I have worked in children’s rights for 40 years.

Reply
Sonny Crockett

August 2, 2017 at 7:19 pm

This is superb analysis, and I love how organized and methodical the arguments are. Loved reading it. Oh, as an aside, I definitely agree with your take.

Reply

Opinions

It isn’t Never-Trump or Always-Trump destroying conservatism, it’s Sometimes-Trump

Published

10 hours ago

June 18, 2018

David Leach

One of the craziest—or should I say laziest—accusations leveled against me by Trump’s die-hard loyalists whenever I dare to call him out for breaking a campaign promise, getting caught in a lie, or promoting unconstitutional non-conservative ideas, is that I’m a liberal. Sometimes, they go so far as to accuse me of working for George Soros.

As I’ve said many times in response, I don’t work for Mr. Soros, but since money’s been a little tight at the Strident Conservative lately, if anyone has his number, I’d appreciate it if you’d send it my way.

It’s a sad reality that these pathetic taunts are what passes for political discourse in the Age of Trump. Gone are the days when differences could be civilly discussed based on facts instead of emotion.

Another sad reality of this behavior is that it’s a sign that the end of conservatism is near, as Trump’s small army of loyal followers attempt to rebrand conservatism by spreading the lie that he is a conservative and, using binary logic, accusing anyone who opposes him of being a liberal.

This rebranding effort has had an impact. Last week, RNC Chair Ronna McDaniel warned Republican hopefuls that anyone who opposed Trump’s agenda would be “making a mistake.”

Complacency is our enemy. Anyone that does not embrace the @realDonaldTrump agenda of making America great again will be making a mistake.

— Ronna McDaniel (@GOPChairwoman) June 14, 2018

McDaniel’s threat was issued following the GOP primary defeat in South Carolina by conservative Mark Sanford after he was personally targeted by Trump himself. Sanford’s crime? Disloyalty to the NY Liberal.

Mark Sanford has been very unhelpful to me in my campaign to MAGA. He is MIA and nothing but trouble. He is better off in Argentina. I fully endorse Katie Arrington for Congress in SC, a state I love. She is tough on crime and will continue our fight to lower taxes. VOTE Katie!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) June 12, 2018

Another source of damage to conservatism has come from evangelicals and the so-called conservative media. In the name of self-preservation, they choose to surrender their principles by promoting the lie that Trump is a conservative. Some of these voices have taken to labelling conservatives who oppose Trump as Never-Trump conservatives, or worse, branding them as liberals and/or Democrats, as was recently written in a piece at TheFederalist.com:

“Trump may be an unattractive and deeply flawed messenger for contemporary conservatism. But loathe though they might be to admit it, what’s left of the Never-Trump movement needs to come to grips with the fact that the only words that currently describe them are liberals and Democrats.”

Then there are those who have adopted a Sometimes-Trump attitude about the president, where everything Trump does is measured using a good Trump/bad Trump barometer. While it has become fashionable for Sometimes-Trump conservatives to stand on their soap boxes condemning both Never-Trump conservatives and Always-Trump faux conservatives, I believe that this politically bipolar approach to Trump is the greatest threat of all to Constitutional conservatism in America.

Sometimes-Trump conservatives have accepted the lie that it’s okay to do a little evil in exchange for a greater good. Though they may fly a conservative banner, their lukewarm attitude about Trump is much like the attitude we see in the Laodicean church mentioned in the Book of Revelations (3:15-16).

“I know your deeds, that you are neither cold nor hot. I wish you were either one or the other! So, because you are lukewarm—neither hot nor cold—I am about to spit you out of my mouth.”

Trump is a double-minded man unstable in all his ways (James 1:8). When lukewarm Sometimes-Trump conservatives choose to overlook this reality, they end up watering-down conservatism to the point that it has no value or power to change America’s course.

As lukewarm Sometimes-Trump conservatives point to the Always-Trump and Never-Trump factions as the reason for today’s conservative divide, remember that it’s the unenthusiastic, noncommittal, indifferent, half-hearted, apathetic, uninterested, unconcerned, lackadaisical, passionless, laid back, couldn’t-care-less conservative imposters in the middle who are really responsible.

Originally posted on The Strident Conservative.

David Leach is the owner of The Strident Conservative. His daily radio commentary is distributed by the Salem Radio Network and is heard on stations across America.

Follow the Strident Conservative on Twitter and Facebook. Subscribe to receive podcasts of radio commentaries: iTunes | Stitcher | Tune In | RSS

Culture and Religion

Video Double play: Busting the gun grabber’s musket myth.

Published

3 days ago

June 15, 2018

Torcer

Two videos that eviscerate the Liberty Grabbers ‘One shot’ musket myth.

It is a bedrock principle (if they have any) of the Liberty grabber Left that back during the ratification of the US Constitution the only weapons in existence were flintlock musket that took 5 minute to reload. Thus there wasn’t any school violence because it would have taken too long for the perpetrator to kill anyone.

As it typical of the lore of the national socialist Left, this is a lie of the first order. A previous video celebrated the “Assault Weapon” tricentennial, which was bit of the tongue in cheek variety since there were other repeating “Military Style” weapons in existence before this time period. These will be detailed in future articles. Meanwhile we present two videos that also bust the ‘Musket Myth’, one a short presentation from the Royal Armouries on the Jover and Belton “Flintlock breech-loading superimposed military musket”

Royal Armouries
Published on Aug 30, 2017
Curator of Firearms, Jonathan Ferguson, gives us a peek at the Flintlock breech-loading superimposed military musket, by Jover and Belton (1786)

This is a very relevant piece since the inventor Joseph Belton corresponded with the Continental Congress in 1777:

May it Please your Honours,
I would just informe this Honourable Assembly, that I have discover’d an improvement, in the use of Small Armes, wherein a common small arm, may be maid to discharge eight balls one after another, in eight, five or three seconds of time, & each one to do execution five & twenty, or thirty yards, and after so discharg’d, to be loaded and fire’d with cartridge as usual.

“It was demonstrated before noted scientists and military officers (including well known scientist David Rittenhouse and General Horatio Gates)”

This destroys the mythology that the founders had no knowledge of this type of repeating firearm technology that existed already.

The second is a humours dissertation on the subject from video raconteur Steven Crowder https://www.louderwithcrowder.com/

from a few years ago that also eviscerates this bit of Leftist mythology.

Published on Feb 10, 2015
People have been telling us for years that the 2nd amendment was written in a time of Muskets, and that it doesn’t apply to the evolved weapons of today. Is it true?

So why is this important?

Two primary reasons. One that these factual examples demonstrate that the founding fathers knew of these technological advances. Therefore, they destroy any Leftist pretences that the 2nd amendment be confined to muskets. Second that, school violence is something other than an issue of guns.

Immigration

House proposal makes DACA permanent and grants citizenship to illegals

Published

3 days ago

June 15, 2018

David Leach

When Donald Trump issued an executive order in Sept. 2017 rescinding the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) order issued by Barack Obama, he was cheered by his adoring fans for appearing to keep one of his campaign promises regarding the illegal immigration problem. However, as the old saying goes, appearances can be deceiving.

The reason I call it deceiving is because Trump’s order was merely a technicality—sort of a Rescind-In-Name-Only moment—used to buy the time necessary to make DACA permanent, which has been his “big heart” goal from the beginning.

Congress now has 6 months to legalize DACA (something the Obama Administration was unable to do). If they can't, I will revisit this issue!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) September 6, 2017

Of course, any permanent legislation needs to come from Congress, which should have been problematic for Republicans who campaigned for years against Obama’s handling of illegal immigration. But in today’s Republican party—owned and operated by Trump—such commitments have become secondary to the requirement to please Dear Leader.

For example, just days after Trump’s deceptive order, Mitch McConnell went on record in support of negotiation with Democrats and the president—but I repeat myself—to save DACA and create an amnesty plan and eventual citizenship for approximately 1.8 million DREAMers.

Though past attempts have failed, election-season fever is sweeping Washington, so Trump and Republican party loyalists are making another push to get the job done.

After conducting several days of Nancy Pelosi-style meetings behind closed doors, Paul Ryan released an immigration plan yesterday that will legally protect DREAMers while also providing over $23 billion for another Trump promise—a border wall.

Wait a minute! I though Trump promised us that Mexico was going to pay for the wall. I suppose that’s just another in-name-only moment for the New York liberal.

Back to the House proposal. DREAMers can apply for “nonimmigrant status” which is essentially a newfangled way to say visa. The extra visas necessary to handle these requests will be available due to new restrictions that will lower the number of legal immigrant applications, which means legal immigrants will be effectively moved to the back of the line.

But that’s not the worst part.

Once obtained, these visas become the first step on a pathway to citizenship, which means that years down the road, 1.8 million illegals—probably more—will have jumped the line to US citizenship ahead of legal immigrants, despite the rhetoric from Trump and the GOP claiming otherwise.

Though this proposal may or may not pass, making DACA permanent and creating a pathway to citizenship are broken promises. But as I wrote a few days ago, breaking promises has become a job requirement in the age of Trump and today’s GOP.

Originally posted on The Strident Conservative.

David Leach is the owner of The Strident Conservative. His daily radio commentary is distributed by the Salem Radio Network and is heard on stations across America.

Follow the Strident Conservative on Twitter and Facebook. Subscribe to receive podcasts of radio commentaries: iTunes | Stitcher | Tune In | RSS