Guarding Charlie's Life

“Why gamble with money when you can gamble with people's lives?” – high-powered lawyer Martin Vail played by Richard Gere in “Primal Fear” (1996)

What a heady power for a judge to hold the fate of terminally ill infant in his hands! If he wishes, this black robed figure may act as a state-sanctioned, de facto Grim Reaper. Should a British barrister—not a doctor, not the child's parents—be the ultimate arbiter of life or death for an innocent?

At issue is the welfare of 11-month-old Charlie Gard, born on August 4, 2016. Beyond being deaf, blind and severely epileptic, he's so infirm he cannot breathe without the assistance of a ventilator. Charlie's debilitating genetic condition is so rare there are only 16 reported cases worldwide. His malady—a RRM2B mutation of Mitochondrial DNA Depletion Syndrome (MDDS)—saps the vital organs of energy, causing progressive muscle weakness, loss of motor skills and brain damage. Hence, any further treatment is experimental; and only available in the United States with emergency FDA approval.

Ironically, the therapy for Charlie would be a simple oral medication. While not reversing any brain damage, it could help to manage Charlie’s symptoms and increase his life expectancy. Medically speaking, the treatment is a long shot, as acknowledged by Charlie’s mother Connie Yates, 31. She pleaded with the judge, “Ten percent. You would if it was your son, wouldn’t you? Well, precisely. Complicating matters is the fact that the medicine, beneficial to other children less afflicted, has never been tried on a patient as ill as Charlie. Essentially, British socialized medicine is currently “treating” Charlie like a prisoner. They want him to “die with dignity” and refuse to release him to his parent's care.

This tragedy has become a political firestorm reaching around the globe. In America, President Trump and members of Congress have weighed in. Specifically, Brad Wenstrup (R-OH) and Trent Franks (R-AZ) are planning special legislation to make Charlie Gard a lawful permanent resident of the United States. All in the hope to increase Charlie's chances to receive treatment stateside. Likewise, Pope Francis has offered a Vatican passport, and access to the Vatican hospital. Before any of that can potentially happen, Judge Nicholas Francis must make his final determination. Reportedly, that will happen by July 25.

His current position (read: the state's) bars travel, and authorizes London's Great Ormond Street Hospital (GOSH) to remove Charlie from life support. Justice Francis previously said, “Although the parents have parental responsibility, overriding control is vested in the court exercising its independent and objective judgment in the child’s best interests.” In my view, that's an impossible standard to meet; especially under these heart-wrenching circumstances! Therefore, only informed medical opinions will be offered—in other words, educated assumptions—nothing more. What an ego-trip for this judge to play God like Martin Vail! What of the age-old natural right of any parent to preserve the life of an offspring? Should that biological impulse be superseded by the flawed human perception of one wigged stranger in High Court silks?

Up until this point, his parents have moved metaphorical mountains to assist their ailing child. For example, they collected 350,000 signatures asking the hospital to release their son. Also, they set up a GoFundMe campaign, raising the equivalent of more than $1.7 million dollars to pay for Charlie's medical care without further burdening the British health-care system. Fortuitously, a U.S. hospital has even offered to give Charlie free treatment if he is able to relocate here. Given all of these positive developments, Charlie's mother is hopeful, “There’s 18 children currently on this medication [nucleoside bypass therapy], they’re all getting stronger, they’re all getting better. It’s a miracle what happens.”

Perhaps the miracle will take the form of Dr. Michio Hirano, a neurologist at New York's Columbia University Medical Center. He will consult with Charlie's doctors in London on Monday. In the interim, Hirano told the judge that a MRI scan of the baby's brain did not necessarily indicate structural damage. Per CNN, he stated there was an “11% to 56% chance of clinically meaningful improvement” in muscular function with the new therapy. Furthermore, this expert stated that keeping Charlie on a ventilator would not contribute to his problems because he did not appear to be in any significant discomfort.

Only three months of treatment at Columbia University will determine whether Charlie is improving. Thus, the old adage: “While there's life, there's hope.” Certainly, dealing with such grief and adverse circumstances is enough for any parent without the additional stresses of an intransigent hospital—and an ongoing legal battle. Even if those hurtles are overcome, Charlie's father, Chris, 32, is realistic about the equally daunting future medical challenge. He said, “If there is no improvement we will let him go. We just want to give him a chance.” Just the basic freedom to decide what’s best for their own child.

As the bill-sponsoring U.S. Congressmen said in a joint statement, “Should this little boy to be ordered to die—because a third party, overriding the wishes of his parents, believes it can conclusively determine that immediate death is what is best for him?” Hence a universal lesson is gleaned: government-run, nanny state medicine fails compared to the patient-centered variety. That's because the state imposes itself where it has no business being. Matters of mortality should remain with individuals and their families—not judges, bureaucrats and politicians.

Witness the danger of all-powerful governing bodies! The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) refused to intervene, and the British courts have previously sided against Charlie's parents. Politically, aren't these imperial powers equivalent to the autonomous attorneys populating the 115^th U.S. Congress (read: 167 members of the House (37.8 percent) and 55 Senators (55 percent))? Once again, lawyers—not doctors (only 14 physicians in Congress: 11 in the House, 3 in the Senate)—are determining a gerrymandered replacement for ObamaCare. Like mute and helpless Charlie, our health-care system hangs precariously in the balance. For better or worse, its destiny also in the wrong hands of the powerful and the political.

Our best solution, like Charlie's, is a long shot. Congress should return our society to free market, privatized medicine. The kind that existed pre-Obama: before progressives used government to seize control of 1/6 of the economy. That liberation of doctors and patients might save patients like Charlie Gard—and perhaps the rest of us as well. A gamble best left to those directly involved, rather than the state and its autocratic representatives.

Twitter: @DavidHunterblog

http://patriotpost.us/commentators/446

http://www.americanthinker.com/author/david_l_hunter/

http://canadafreepress.com/members/74987/DavidLHunter/976

http://newstex.aci.info/authors/15977720f5100100002

Democrats Foul Meaning, Foment Rage

“[R]evolutions broke out in city after city... caused still new extravagances of revolutionary zeal, expressed by an elaboration on the methods of seizing power and by unheard-of atrocities in revenge. To fit in with the change of events, words, too, had to change their usual meanings.” - Thucydides, Greek historian (c. 460 – c. 400 BC)

Today's “Democrats” are both lip service experts, and linguistic contortionists. Ironically, despite the donkey mascot, they don't believe in democracy or the pioneering American spirit. That unfortunately ended with JFK's New Frontier optimism, and the subsequent tragedy of his and brother Bobby's assassinations. Recall that Kennedy's Camelot was quickly appropriated and replaced by something unrecognizable, Mr. Johnson's “Great Society.” Mind you, LBJ also still conveniently called himself a “Democrat,” but he was the first modern-day progressive, and his hard leftist policies were a radical departure from Mr. Kennedy's.

What did LBJ do? As any good fascist, he cleverly exploited the memory of his murdered predecessor into a governing mandate for his own, rather than Mr. Kennedy's, policies. After all, how could the American people have realized then the radical differences? (They don't even realize them now!) LBJ promised superficial hope and continuation; a calm voice in calamitous times. Reeling from existential grief, the voters did what they thought to be a reasonable thing: they elected Mr. Kennedy's V. P. Specifically, in 1964, LBJ garnered 61% of the vote: the widest popular margin in American history.

On the level of policy what did LBJ do? For starters, he nearly doubled JFK's government spending to $42 billion, and added 13% to the national debt. (These figures are quaint compared to Mr. Obama's 9 trillion of 19 in total, and counting.) Similarly, Mr. Obama has also expanded government with, for example, his takeover of 1/6 of the economy soon to be known as the Obamacare debacle. Likewise, LBJ had his failed War on Poverty. Related to the latter, what is clear in hindsight 50 years later? Per the 2013 U.S. Census Bureau 14.5 percent of Americans are poor, basically unchanged since 1967. In the interim, 22 trillion has been squandered, and generations of the nuclear family in the black community have been economically and socially decimated. This phenomenon is known as the Democrat's poverty plantation.

Fast forward to today to see the stark parallels between both men. Ironically, under America's first black president, the black community has suffered the most of any segment of our society. Look to the unprecedented, black-on-black murder rate of Mr. Obama's community-organized Chicago. Another telling sign, the black teen unemployment rate hit a staggering 39.3 percent in July 2012. Likewise, in a report for the Center for Economic and Policy Research, economist Dean Baker writes, “The drop in labor force participation was sharpest for African Americans, who saw a decline of 0.3 percentage points to 60.2 percent, the lowest rate since December of 1977.” To this end, Obamacare's restrictive employer mandates have contributed mightily to generally declining hiring practices. Equally astonishing is the fact that better than 90% of black voters choose Mr. Obama despite their unmistakably diminished prospects.

In any case, as with LBJ—and the fresh-faced Mr. Obama—with Kennedy nostalgia, the electorate saw what it wanted to see: a fun house mirror for its own hopes and dreams. In this regard, lacking the specifics of a track record was only a boon to BHO. He was a virtual unknown, totally untested, a political neophyte. He was also a polished, empty suit that symbolized what black people aspired to be. Likewise to white voters, Mr. Obama appeared to be the manifestation and realization of MLK's “Dream.” Once again, understandably, the trusting American public pulled the lever. A mistake made twice to our collective detriment. What America wanted another unifier, ideally perhaps JFK and MLK rolled into one. What we got was the opposite: another big government ideologue, a Johnson style bait-and-switch.

By the totality of his political philosophy, JFK would likely be a left of center mainstream Republican in today's world. He was pro-military, supported economy-stimulating tax cuts, was against deficit spending and was rabidly anti-Communist—and specifically, anti-Castro. In what universe could one imagine JFK going on a bended knee “apology tour” to America's geo-political foes? (To that end, he would have rightfully fired Hillary for her embarrassingly inept, Russian “reset button” stunt). Furthermore, what's the probability, Mr. Kennedy would ever vacation in Cuba or embrace authoritarian Castro in warm friendship? How about that U.S. military Mr. Obama has gutted? Or those Obama hell-freezing-over-first tax cuts? Our current president calls himself a “Democrat,” but he also claims a Christian faith for what's that worth. But, what of an apples to apples comparison of Mr. Obama to true Democrat Mr. Kennedy, or Ben Carson as a typical Christian? What is then seen in the former is a pretender who doesn't know the meaning of these concepts beyond lip service to them.

Obama, Clinton and Sanders are all ruling class elitists, happy to play obscuring word game patty-cake with the MSM. Notice the nebulous and fluid labels they use to define themselves:

“OK, well what’s the difference between a socialist and a Democrat?” Chris Matthews asked again.

“I can tell you what I am, I am a progressive Democrat,” Hillary Clinton responded.

“How is that different than a socialist?” The MSNBC talking head asked a third time.

“I am a progressive Democrat who likes to get things done.”

Well, isn't that a bit like hubby Bill's: “It depends upon what the meaning of the word 'is' is.”? “Democrat-Socialist” indeed! That's about as contrary and nonsensical as Big Brother's title for his Ministry of Peace that, in actuality, makes war. (Incidentally, that's why neither DNC chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz nor front-runner Hillary Clinton can articulate the nonexistent difference). More to the point, when a term like “liberal” loses its sale value (as during the Reagan years) these chameleons—anti-American, big government fascists, one and all—shift to the common usage of a different, positive-sounding buzz word like “progressive.” The fact that this word is very similar to the word “progress” is intentional. Given, as examples, the widespread advancements in medicine and technology who in the 21^st century is not for more of that? The fact that both ideas have nothing whatsoever to do with each other is the point. Language becomes imprecise and overtly hazy. Therefore, a progressive is a good association code word to confuse—and ultimately dupe–uniformed voters. (Millennials, this means you!) Likewise, was Mr. Obama's vacuous hope and change slogan. Or Mr. Obama's ominous fundamental transformation of America. Sound good surface words that have brought wheels-falling-off ruin to America.

Think of a curse word for a donkey and that's the only aspect that has remaining relevance to these would-be “Democrats.” Their ilk only believe in one thing: perpetual top-down rule of an ever-expanding debt-ridden government they control. It's Uncle Sam reconstituted as nanny state wet-nurse. Recall, that economics is freedom. As is peaceful self-expression, and individual choice-making. In the final analysis, are Americans more free or less so after Mr. Obama's almost eight years in office? For a strong indication, the able-bodied 93 million unemployed can check their bank account balances, the rest can check their part-time paycheck stubs.

In no way do progressives/socialists resemble Democrat's roots: “go your own way” Classic Jeffersonian Liberalism. They are, in reality, their opposite number. Specifically, today's “Democrats” are that in name only. Mr. Obama has enjoyed and exploited an unquestioning quasi-religious fanaticism by the propagandist MSM, and his fellow political travelers in government. The state is their God and political power (via faceless, unaccountable bureaucratic government), their catnip. Make no mistake, they are against all traditional American ideals: Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness (via self-determination).

These folks use soft, meaningless euphemisms like “climate change,” and political correctness, as political smoke—sleights of hand—to distract from the abject failures of their policies. Hence, “leadership from behind,” and America's economics, military strength and political power in absolute contraction. Specifically, a corrupt IRS that continues to target conservative groups is just the tip of the ice burg. Politicians like Mr. Obama lie about Obamacare, and globally about his failed record as president. His would-be successor Hillary Clinton lies about her roles in Benghazi, Server-gate and Charity-gate. Added mightily by a sycophantic, water-carrying MSM, they know: say the lie loud enough and long enough and the sludge filters down as “truth” to the voters. Words mean what they say they mean. And, in this chaotic background, Black Lives Matter anarchists openly proclaim disorder and “Pigs in a blanket. Fry ’em like bacon.” Overseas radical Islam similarly chants “Death to America.” Lefties habitually destroy and loot. Contrarily, conservatives and the Tea Party preserve, and protest peacefully. They don't target cops for assassination or burn down American cities like Ferguson and Baltimore. They also don't vote for responsibility-phobic, two-faced politicians to whom truth is a foreign concept. Want more of the faceless, lawless mob mentality we have now? Ignore my honest, unvarnished words. Keep voting for Hillary's caliber of person who promises a dystopian Obama third term.

Twitter: @DavidHunterblog
http://patriotpost.us/commentators/446
http://www.americanthinker.com/author/david_l_hunter/
http://canadafreepress.com/members/74987/DavidLHunter/976

Feeding at Democrat’s poverty plantation

Controlling a citizen’s belly is an insidious mechanism by which to subtly coerce—and consistently predict—that person’s vote.  That’s why Democrats use it (and why Mitt Romney failed in his 2012 White House bid despite correctly enumerating the objective facts related to Mr. Obama’s multitude of well-known domestic and international failures).  For the 6 plus years of the Obama presidency, his job-killing, anti-Capitalist—tax, spend, redistribute; repeat—fiscal policies have keep key voting demographics—people of color, the poor, the young and the generally alienated (the Occupy movement)—on the Democrat’s economic plantation.  Specifically, under Obama, 93 million willing and able Americans cannot find full time work.  Similarly, 18.2 million more people are currently on food stamps since January 2008.  Moreover, per 2013 official poverty statistics, 45.3 million people are consistently living at or below the poverty line or 14.5 percent (compared to 36.5 million people or 19 percent in 1964 which began Democrat President Johnson’s Great Society and costly—and largely failed—welfare programs and “War on Poverty.”)  That’s 1 trillion (1,000 billion and counting) spent resulting in 46.2 million in poverty per 2011 figures: as a percentage of the populations, 18.8 and 14.7 respectively, the rate of overall improvement of 4.1 percent isn’t exactly huge progress given the enormous expenditure.

Despite all factual evidence to the contrary, Obama’s big government, progressive economic policies have repeatedly double-downed on historical failures most tellingly with his own failed 840 billion stimulus: money funneled to pro-Democrat unions that, for example, took over GM; bankrupt companies like Solyndra run by political cronies or wasted on seemingly imaginary, “non-shovel-ready” jobs.  Examples all of Democrat’s Orwellian policies that articulate a noble intention, but achieve its “real world” opposite.  At these all too frequent moments, Democrats shrug their shoulders, make a clever quip (“Osama bin Laden is dead and General Motors is alive”) and quickly change the subject from continuing deficit spending and an ever-mounting 19 trillion dollar debt.

50 years on, Johnson’s ironically named Great Society policies (like Obama’s  Affordable Care Act—which is anything but—and has pulled the financial guts out of America’s healthcare system) have destroyed the basis of the nation—the family unit—especially in minority communities. This package of initially well-intentioned government programs designed as a temporary stop-gap measure has instead subsidized and raised whole generations of illegitimate children in broken or single-parent homes with little or no male influence.  In point of fact, a father in the home virtually disqualifies a woman from collecting her government assistance.  In this way, a federal program designed to “help” actually poisons society’s lifeblood—the heterosexual, two parent household—by encouraging men to abandon their children.  Since the onset of these Democratic policies in the mid-1960s, illegitimacy nationwide stood at 7.7 percent; for Afro-Americans 25%.  Today, for comparison, out-of-wedlock births for blacks are over 72 percent; Hispanics over 50 percent and whites (from 3 percent in 1960) to 36 percent at present.  From such unstructured homes comes a similarly chaotic culture.

In the same vein—for better or worse—there is no longer a social stigma related to teenage pregnancy or illegitimate births.  More importantly, there are no dire economic consequences for the unwise decision to have a child without the advantages of a stable and prosperous home.  This path tends to lead to poverty and similarly poor life choices reflective of the mother’s example.  In a very real way, these inherent life limitations cause the school system to become a pipeline to criminality and jail.  For instance, 72 percent of adolescent murders indicate they grew up in fatherless homes.  This clear sociological trend, out of Democratic political correctness, is ignored by policymakers who favor superficial non-fixes like dumping more money into already failing public school systems.  Unfortunately, no amount of money can impart a healthy value system, responsible decision-making or a work ethic.  That duty, for good reason, should always be the purview of mature parents rather than ill-suited nanny state institutions.

On a related issue, despite feminists’ unrealistic super-woman pretenses, an unstable or nonexistent relationship with a father or father-figure deeply wounds a boy’s psyche.  When women rule the roost in the absence of a man, boys find destructive male role models in gangs of their lawless, also fatherless peers.  This dynamic further explains 2013 FBI crime statistics which indicate that black-on-black murder accounts for 90% of deaths in the Afro-American community.  Therefore, Democratic leaders, like Mr. Obama, race-bait and foster chaos when promoting the wrongheaded delusion that white people in general—and white police in specific—act “stupidly” and are the guilty party.  So, wrongly demonized law enforcement personnel who have a difficult job under typical circumstances, have the added threat of becoming the target for generalized rage.  Under this political microscope—coupled with greater risk to life and limb—is it not understandable that they would be reticent and thereby less effective?  Consequently, violent protests like those in Ferguson, MO and Baltimore, MD become more and more likely.  Indeed, economically depressed, violence-ridden, Democrat-controlled urban cities like Chicago, Cleveland and Detroit are now societal powder kegs: one interracial incident away from the abyss.  The thin blue line is fraying.

Abetted by the water-carrying mainstream media, these societal truths have been successfully diminished, twisted or obscured by the propaganda of divisive Democratic politics: mostly blaming the “haves,” whitey or “the other guy” (historically “rich” Republicans—and the most recent fiction—“racist” cops.)

The nefarious political end game: Obama’s perpetual campaign of lies, lip-service to real cultural problems and vague, pretty-word speechifying supported by little action (or the wrong action). Its underlying purpose: to keep the rest of us stirred up and distracted by trivialities, enabling them—an incompetent Democrat elitist in-crowd (beholden only to the Party and their allies)—to stay in power.  This is achieved by keeping the country in a constant state of distress; by constant fear-mongering and intentionally dividing the country along its societal fault lines of class, race, gender and sexual orientation.

Despite their liberal friends in mass media and their strangely rosy accounts of the state of the union (and politically correct spin which stems the flow of independent thought and dissention), Democrats are fundamentally vote-panderers: not truly advocating for the “common man,” only for themselves.

Twitter: @DavidHunterblog
http://www.americanthinker.com/author/david_l_hunter/
http://canadafreepress.com/members/74987/DavidLHunter/976