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.
Will America-First News Outlets Make it to 2023?
Things are looking grim for conservative and populist news sites.
There’s something happening behind the scenes at several popular conservative news outlets. 2021 was bad, but 2022 is proving to be disastrous for news sites that aren’t “playing ball” with the corporate media narrative. It’s being said that advertisers are cracking down, forcing some of the biggest ad networks like Google and Yahoo to pull their inventory from conservative outlets. This has had two major effects. First, it has cooled most conservative outlets from discussing “taboo” topics like Pandemic Panic Theater, voter fraud, or The Great Reset. Second, it has isolated those ad networks that aren’t playing ball.
Certain topics are anathema for most ad networks. Speaking out against vaccines or vaccine mandates is a certain path to being demonetized. Highlighting voter fraud in the 2020 and future elections is another instant advertising death penalty. Throw in truthful stories about climate change hysteria, Critical Race Theory, and the border crisis and it’s easy to understand how difficult it is for America-First news outlets to spread the facts, share conservative opinions, and still pay the bills.
Without naming names, I have been told of several news outlets who have been forced to either consolidate with larger organizations or who have backed down on covering certain topics out of fear of being “canceled” by the ad networks. I get it. This is a business for many of us and it’s not very profitable. Those of us who do this for a living are often barely squeaking by, so loss of additional revenue can often mean being forced to make cuts. That means not being able to cover the topics properly. Its a Catch-22: Tell the truth and lose the money necessary to keep telling the truth, or avoid the truth and make enough money to survive. Those who have chosen survival simply aren’t able to spread the truth properly.
We will never avoid the truth. The Lord will provide if it is His will. Our job is simply to share the facts, spread the Gospel, and educate as many Americans as possible while exposing the forces of evil.
To those who have the means, we ask that you please donate. We have options available now, but there is no telling when those options will cancel us. We just launched a new GiveSendGo page. We also have our GivingFuel page. There have been many who have been canceled by PayPal, but for now it’s still an option. Your generosity is what keeps these sites running and allows us to get the truth to the masses. We’ve had great success in growing but we know we can do more with your assistance.
Thank you, and God Bless!
JD Rucker
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.
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.