Donald Trump Celebrates North and South Korea Summit: ‘KOREAN WAR TO END!’

Donald Trump Celebrates North and South Korea Summit: ‘KOREAN WAR TO END!’



President Donald Trump commented on the historic meeting between the leaders of North Korea and South Korea.

“KOREAN WAR TO END! The United States, and all of its GREAT people should be very proud of what is now taking place in Korea!” Trump wrote on Twitter.

The leaders signed a statement recognizing a common goal of “a nuclear-free Korean peninsula” and their desire to officially end the Korean War.

“After a furious year of missile launches and Nuclear testing, a historic meeting between North and South Korea is now taking place,” Trump wrote. “Good things are happening, but only time will tell!”

Kim Jong-Un crossed the border into South Korea for the meeting, the first time in history a North Korean leader had done so.

“I came here to put an end to the history of confrontation,” he told the leaders of South Korea.

Trump also gave credit to Chinese President Xi Jinping for the successful summit.

“Please do not forget the great help that my good friend, President Xi of China, has given to the United States, particularly at the Border of North Korea,” he wrote. “Without him it would have been a much longer, tougher, process!”

via Breitbart News

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: http://www.breitbart.com

British Doctor Determines Baby Alfie Must Die Because His Parents Have an Attitude

British Doctor Determines Baby Alfie Must Die Because His Parents Have an Attitude

A British doctor tending to the sick Baby Alfie says the boy must die because his parents have an attitude.


Baby Alfie and his father. A British doctor says Alfie’s family has a attitude problem. (WND)

This is socialized medicine at its extreme.
Cruel medical administrators basing life and death decisions by the attitudes of their parents.

Democrats want this for America.
The Federalist reported:

A British doctor treating Alfie Evans told reporters off the record his parents won’t be allowed to take their child out of the hospital, even to die at home, unless there is a “sea change” in their attitude…

…A report from The Telegraph indicates the hospital staff is not interested in what’s best for Alfie, so much as proving a point to the parents, who have an “attitude” they don’t like. Here’s the revealing bit, buried in the Telegraph report:

Instead, the judge said the best Alfie’s parents could hope for was to “explore” the options of removing him from intensive care either to a ward, a hospice or his home.

But a doctor treating Alfie, who cannot be named for legal reasons, said that for Alfie to be allowed home would require a “sea change” in attitude from the child’s family, and they feared that in the “worst case” they would try to take the boy abroad.

In sum: The doctors have determined Alfie must die, and he must die in the hospital, unless the parents change their attitude.

The UK police are investigating social media for posts criticizing the Baby Alfie situation.

Comments

As a privately owned web site, we reserve the right to edit or remove comments that contain spam, advertising, vulgarity, threats of violence, racism, anti-Semitism, or personal/abusive attacks on other users. The same applies to trolling, the use of multiple aliases, or just generally being a jerk. Enforcement of this policy is at the sole discretion of the site administrators and repeat offenders may be blocked or permanently banned without warning. Guest posting is disabled for security reasons.

via The Gateway Pundit

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: http://www.thegatewaypundit.com

How Millennial Socialists Endanger America


How else to explain Millennial support for Bernie Sanders, an avowed socialist?  With a 75% approval rating overall, and higher among Millennials, Sanders is “the most popular politician in the country,” according to the Observer.  According to his official website, Sanders supports a long list of liberal causes: free health care and college tuition for all, “combating climate change to save the planet,” “fighting for women’s rights,” “fighting for LGBT equality,” “fighting for nurses,” “empowering tribal nations,” “fighting for the rights of native Hawaiians,” “standing with Guam” (huh?) – all of it paid for by “making the wealthy pay their fair share.”  It seems that Bernie is “fighting” for just about everybody except straight white males and that nebulous crowd he calls “the rich.”


Sanders intends to use the tax code to force the rich to pay more.  Oddly enough, Sanders himself is one of these nefarious rich people.  His net income in 2016 was over one million dollars.  Nothing in the tax code prevents any taxpayer from contributing more than their required amount of tax to the federal government.  So far as I know, Bernie has not done so.  So it would seem that he doesn’t mean it when he talks about the rich paying more, or he would have done so.  Maybe Bernie is just a clever capitalist, who, along with Nancy Pelosi with her $140 million and financier husband, masquerades as a socialist.


At its heart, capitalism is a liberating philosophy of life whereby individuals participate freely in markets by trading their goods or services for those of others.  Under capitalism, individuals are incentivized to work by the rewards of the free market.  Socialism substitutes state control and state ownership.  It dictates wages and prices, creating a hugely inefficient and corrupt system that always ends in bankruptcy.  Bernie’s vision of the future is so hackneyed a version of all this that it would be funny if it weren’t so dangerous.


According to one respected website, Bernie’s health care plan (“Medicare for All”) alone would bankrupt America.  Estimates of Medicare for All costs to taxpayers range from $3.1 to $14 trillion over the first decade.  Bernie proposes to fund his proposal by raising taxes on the rich, but that revenue, even if it could be collected, would not be enough.  With F.Y. 2018 federal spending at $4 trillion, the addition of another $855 billion in annual spending (based on an average of the estimates for Bernie’s plan) involves a 21.4% tax increase (not counting funding for all of Bernie’s other initiatives).  Since they already pay 90% of taxes, and since Bernie rules out middle-class tax increases, this increase would fall exclusively on the top 10% of earners.  So for those affluent taxpayers, Bernie’s plan for health care alone would entail a tax increase of 23.75%.


Meanwhile, Bernie’s “free” college tuition plan would cost an estimated $70 billion annually.  That’s another 1.94% increase in federal tax for “the rich.”  Climate change initiatives, increased regulation, and race- and gender-based giveaways would place more burdens on affluent taxpayers.  Altogether, Sanders-style socialism would drive marginal federal and state rates to at least 70% in high-tax states, not counting sales tax, property tax, and countless other taxes and fees.


Meanwhile, socialism promises what amounts to income for life for those who choose not to work.  This being the case, who in his right mind would strive to become a successful entrepreneur – or surgeon, accountant, or business leader – when he could hang out in Boulder and smoke dope for the next forty years?


There are many words to describe socialism. Having lived under communism myself, I am thoroughly familiar with the idleness, poverty, and demoralization collectivism breeds.  It was commonplace to visit a restaurant in Belgrade, be handed an elaborate menu listing hundreds of choices, and then be told, “Soup, salad, and bread – nothing else today.”  Loss of power and water in communist Yugoslavia and Bulgaria was an everyday occurrence.  And secret police and neighborhood spies were everywhere.  Among the old, there was bitterness, and among the young, only the ambition to get out.  That to me is the essence of socialism: idleness, poverty, and repression.  But how many Millennials know this?  How many care to know?


Not many, and not many of their teachers are making an effort to teach them about socialism.  Within university departments of history, among faculty who should know better, liberals outnumber conservatives by a ratio of more than 33 to 1.


With the sort of education they receive, it’s not surprising that Millennials are attracted by the increasing radicalism of the Democratic Party – and given the radicalism of its base, it’s not surprising that the Democratic Party is rapidly becoming openly socialist.


According to Pew Research, Millennials tilt Democratic by a 51-to-35% margin.  Interestingly, their grandparents (the “Silent Generation,” aged 69-86) have now abandoned the Democratic Party in large numbers.  These voters contributed to Trump’s victory in 2016.  What does the Silent Generation know that Millennials don’t?


To begin with, they know that the world is a dangerous place.  They grew up in the shadow of WWII and lived through the Korean War, the Vietnam War, and the Cold War.  They lived with the fear of all-out nuclear war, with reports of Soviet spying and the horrors of Chinese and North Korean communism.  They learned of gulags, executions, and starvation – and they knew how fortunate they were to have been born in America.   


They also know how difficult it is to maintain a decent standard of living.  In their childhood, they heard tales of the Great Depression.  They grew up at a time when the minimum wage was 75 cents an hour – that’s an hour of real labor, not chatting or surfing the internet.  They built wealth patiently from small beginnings, via a 30-year mortgage, Social Security, and contributions to retirement plans.  They knew how hard it was to put money away.


The Silent Generation’s hard-knocks wisdom is a long way from the smug assurance of those who have never lived without wi-fi.  I don’t wish ill on anyone, but I know that a time of testing is at hand for Millennials.  With more than $21 trillion in debt America is moving toward a debased currency and a permanently lower standard of living.  And despite the assurances of Millennial historians such as Yuval Noah Harari, war is not really a thing of the past.  Another great war is coming – one America may well lose.  I doubt if our adversaries will be as magnanimous as America was following WWII.


Millennials seem willfully blind to these possibilities.


Millennials as a group have lost sight of a fundamental law underlying all civilization.  Call it self-preservation, self-interest, or simply survival.  It was the great truth that Churchill cited when he rallied Britain to defense in 1940.  It was what George S. Patton meant when he said, “The object of war is not to die for your country, but to make the other bastard die for his.”


Most Millennials, I suspect, are not great Patton fans.  They can’t understand the wisdom underlying his salty language or his heroic life.  They can’t appreciate Patton because they don’t accept that life involves struggle.  And since that truth is at the heart of capitalist economic theory, they don’t understand or accept capitalism.


Socialism obscures that truth, and it does so in the service of the selfish ends of both the ruling elite and the dissolute masses.  It is founded on the lie that the human species can live everywhere in peace, accepting the rule of distant bureaucracies and subsisting on an “equal” dole of crumbs.


Inevitably, Millennials will learn from their mistakes, but the learning curve will be difficult and the consequences painful.


If Millennials succeed in installing an Elizabeth Warren-like figure in the White House, it will be a long and uncertain road back to human freedom.  After decades of socialism, aging Millennials may learn their lesson, but at the cost of a lifetime wasted, and the future ruined for the rest of us.


Wouldn’t it be better if they would just wake up?


Jeffrey Folks is the author of many books and articles on American culture including Heartland of the Imagination (2011).


Image: Jorge Láscar via Flickr.










Millennials, those born between 1982 and 2004, are the largest age cohort in American history, and according to a recent poll, most of them (44%) prefer socialism to capitalism (42%).  An earlier 2015 poll found an even larger number of Millennials (53%) with a “favorable opinion” of socialism.  Inference: America is in trouble.


Maybe Donald Trump can stem the tide for another four or even eight years, but support for socialism will continue to mount as long as Millennials remain ignorant of what socialism really is.  The greatest danger to this country comes from the fact that so many Millennials don’t understand politics and economics.


How else to explain Millennial support for Bernie Sanders, an avowed socialist?  With a 75% approval rating overall, and higher among Millennials, Sanders is “the most popular politician in the country,” according to the Observer.  According to his official website, Sanders supports a long list of liberal causes: free health care and college tuition for all, “combating climate change to save the planet,” “fighting for women’s rights,” “fighting for LGBT equality,” “fighting for nurses,” “empowering tribal nations,” “fighting for the rights of native Hawaiians,” “standing with Guam” (huh?) – all of it paid for by “making the wealthy pay their fair share.”  It seems that Bernie is “fighting” for just about everybody except straight white males and that nebulous crowd he calls “the rich.”


Sanders intends to use the tax code to force the rich to pay more.  Oddly enough, Sanders himself is one of these nefarious rich people.  His net income in 2016 was over one million dollars.  Nothing in the tax code prevents any taxpayer from contributing more than their required amount of tax to the federal government.  So far as I know, Bernie has not done so.  So it would seem that he doesn’t mean it when he talks about the rich paying more, or he would have done so.  Maybe Bernie is just a clever capitalist, who, along with Nancy Pelosi with her $140 million and financier husband, masquerades as a socialist.


At its heart, capitalism is a liberating philosophy of life whereby individuals participate freely in markets by trading their goods or services for those of others.  Under capitalism, individuals are incentivized to work by the rewards of the free market.  Socialism substitutes state control and state ownership.  It dictates wages and prices, creating a hugely inefficient and corrupt system that always ends in bankruptcy.  Bernie’s vision of the future is so hackneyed a version of all this that it would be funny if it weren’t so dangerous.


According to one respected website, Bernie’s health care plan (“Medicare for All”) alone would bankrupt America.  Estimates of Medicare for All costs to taxpayers range from $3.1 to $14 trillion over the first decade.  Bernie proposes to fund his proposal by raising taxes on the rich, but that revenue, even if it could be collected, would not be enough.  With F.Y. 2018 federal spending at $4 trillion, the addition of another $855 billion in annual spending (based on an average of the estimates for Bernie’s plan) involves a 21.4% tax increase (not counting funding for all of Bernie’s other initiatives).  Since they already pay 90% of taxes, and since Bernie rules out middle-class tax increases, this increase would fall exclusively on the top 10% of earners.  So for those affluent taxpayers, Bernie’s plan for health care alone would entail a tax increase of 23.75%.


Meanwhile, Bernie’s “free” college tuition plan would cost an estimated $70 billion annually.  That’s another 1.94% increase in federal tax for “the rich.”  Climate change initiatives, increased regulation, and race- and gender-based giveaways would place more burdens on affluent taxpayers.  Altogether, Sanders-style socialism would drive marginal federal and state rates to at least 70% in high-tax states, not counting sales tax, property tax, and countless other taxes and fees.


Meanwhile, socialism promises what amounts to income for life for those who choose not to work.  This being the case, who in his right mind would strive to become a successful entrepreneur – or surgeon, accountant, or business leader – when he could hang out in Boulder and smoke dope for the next forty years?


There are many words to describe socialism. Having lived under communism myself, I am thoroughly familiar with the idleness, poverty, and demoralization collectivism breeds.  It was commonplace to visit a restaurant in Belgrade, be handed an elaborate menu listing hundreds of choices, and then be told, “Soup, salad, and bread – nothing else today.”  Loss of power and water in communist Yugoslavia and Bulgaria was an everyday occurrence.  And secret police and neighborhood spies were everywhere.  Among the old, there was bitterness, and among the young, only the ambition to get out.  That to me is the essence of socialism: idleness, poverty, and repression.  But how many Millennials know this?  How many care to know?


Not many, and not many of their teachers are making an effort to teach them about socialism.  Within university departments of history, among faculty who should know better, liberals outnumber conservatives by a ratio of more than 33 to 1.


With the sort of education they receive, it’s not surprising that Millennials are attracted by the increasing radicalism of the Democratic Party – and given the radicalism of its base, it’s not surprising that the Democratic Party is rapidly becoming openly socialist.


According to Pew Research, Millennials tilt Democratic by a 51-to-35% margin.  Interestingly, their grandparents (the “Silent Generation,” aged 69-86) have now abandoned the Democratic Party in large numbers.  These voters contributed to Trump’s victory in 2016.  What does the Silent Generation know that Millennials don’t?


To begin with, they know that the world is a dangerous place.  They grew up in the shadow of WWII and lived through the Korean War, the Vietnam War, and the Cold War.  They lived with the fear of all-out nuclear war, with reports of Soviet spying and the horrors of Chinese and North Korean communism.  They learned of gulags, executions, and starvation – and they knew how fortunate they were to have been born in America.   


They also know how difficult it is to maintain a decent standard of living.  In their childhood, they heard tales of the Great Depression.  They grew up at a time when the minimum wage was 75 cents an hour – that’s an hour of real labor, not chatting or surfing the internet.  They built wealth patiently from small beginnings, via a 30-year mortgage, Social Security, and contributions to retirement plans.  They knew how hard it was to put money away.


The Silent Generation’s hard-knocks wisdom is a long way from the smug assurance of those who have never lived without wi-fi.  I don’t wish ill on anyone, but I know that a time of testing is at hand for Millennials.  With more than $21 trillion in debt America is moving toward a debased currency and a permanently lower standard of living.  And despite the assurances of Millennial historians such as Yuval Noah Harari, war is not really a thing of the past.  Another great war is coming – one America may well lose.  I doubt if our adversaries will be as magnanimous as America was following WWII.


Millennials seem willfully blind to these possibilities.


Millennials as a group have lost sight of a fundamental law underlying all civilization.  Call it self-preservation, self-interest, or simply survival.  It was the great truth that Churchill cited when he rallied Britain to defense in 1940.  It was what George S. Patton meant when he said, “The object of war is not to die for your country, but to make the other bastard die for his.”


Most Millennials, I suspect, are not great Patton fans.  They can’t understand the wisdom underlying his salty language or his heroic life.  They can’t appreciate Patton because they don’t accept that life involves struggle.  And since that truth is at the heart of capitalist economic theory, they don’t understand or accept capitalism.


Socialism obscures that truth, and it does so in the service of the selfish ends of both the ruling elite and the dissolute masses.  It is founded on the lie that the human species can live everywhere in peace, accepting the rule of distant bureaucracies and subsisting on an “equal” dole of crumbs.


Inevitably, Millennials will learn from their mistakes, but the learning curve will be difficult and the consequences painful.


If Millennials succeed in installing an Elizabeth Warren-like figure in the White House, it will be a long and uncertain road back to human freedom.  After decades of socialism, aging Millennials may learn their lesson, but at the cost of a lifetime wasted, and the future ruined for the rest of us.


Wouldn’t it be better if they would just wake up?


Jeffrey Folks is the author of many books and articles on American culture including Heartland of the Imagination (2011).


Image: Jorge Láscar via Flickr.




via American Thinker

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.americanthinker.com/

Alfie Evans: Another Child Sacrifice on Britain’s NHS Altar


“He will likely live 18 months, certainly no more than three years,” they told us solemnly.  Joseph celebrated his 17th birthday in February of this year.


Regular readers of my columns will know his story…how the long sought diagnosis finally came after 16 years of trying, and how the discovery of his specific disorder (he is the only known case worldwide) revealed a function of human DNA previously unknown to science – a function the understanding of which is changing the way medicines are made.


I see Joseph’s smile on Alfie’s lips and recognize that look of trust and love.  My heart is shredded over the arrogant, brutal indifference of the British National Health Service, willing to starve a child to death rather than risk another hospital proving its doctors wrong.


In a world distressingly familiar with violence, injustice, and hatred, a circumstance such as this – avoidable, by no means necessary – will torture our souls, as those charged with preventing man’s inhumanity toward man pivot from protector to executioner at the behest of misbegotten laws designed to empower the state at the expense of the citizen, in service to collectivism as god.


Like the Nuremburg laws that made the atrocities of the Nazis all perfectly legal, even obligatory, England has adopted legislation that permits the doyens of the NHS to abrogate the rights of both patient and family with little more than a formal request to supine family courts, increasingly eager to burnish the reputation of their empty-suit, single-payer health care system.


Alfie suffers from a degenerative brain disorder of unknown origin, and it is the opinion of his medical team at Liverpool’s Alder Hey Pediatric Hospital that little of his brain remains and that further treatment or life-sustaining efforts would not be in the child’s “best interests.”


In Britain’s socialized medical system, second opinions are typically given by other NHS physicians, chosen not by the parents or the patient, but by the attending physician who gave the first opinion.  Unsurprisingly, second opinions in the NHS rarely overturn the first.  In this case, however, Alfie’s parents were able to force the hospital to release records for outside review.


Unsurprisingly, Alder Hey’s prognosis has not been confirmed by outside medical professionals.  Indeed, numerous outside experts vehemently disagree with Alder Hey’s conclusions.


The disturbing truth is, the physicians of Alder Hey haven’t even attempted to determine the cause of Alfie’s distress, having decided within months of his birth that his life was not worth living.


As revealed by the attorney for Alfie’s father, Tom Evans, the position of the NHS is indeed far uglier than it appears at first blush.  As reported by multiple British newspapers:


While the medical team have maintained that young Alfie cannot survive absent the use of a ventilator, (they predicted he would die within minutes of being removed from the ventilator, and as of the time of this writing, young Alfie has been breathing unaided for more than 60 hours) they have further argued that he would have an “insufficient quality of life,” even if he managed to survive.


Tom’s attorney:


We do not challenge the medical report … [but it is] another thing to say that your life is futile because your quality of life is not deemed sufficient[.]


Like the parents of Charlie Gard – another child similarly condemned to death by a preening NHS – Alfie’s parents disagreed with the hospital’s plans to abandon further treatment and remove life support from their son.  They began to investigate alternatives for care outside the NHS system, never suspecting that the state-run system would see their love for their child as a threat to the NHS and would respond with ferocity.


Alder Hey’s physicians have been unrelenting in their abandonment of this child, having decided more than a year ago, in February of 2017, that Alfie should quit embarrassing them by surviving in spite of receiving no treatment and get on with the business of the afterlife.


Since making that decision, the hospital has refused to perform even the most common of procedures for a patient with Alfie’s needs, such as a tracheostomy to facilitate easier breathing or a gastrostomy feeding tube for nutrition and medication.


For all this time, Alfie has been fed through a nasal tube, never intended as a permanent solution, but rather as a stopgap (weeks, not months) designed to be used until a g-tube can be placed.


The medical treatment Alfie has received is abominable, as a direct result of the hospital’s decision, and subsequent criminal obstinacy toward anyone suggesting that their prognosis might be in error.


To hear the barristers for Alder Hey wax poetic about the “first class care” given Alfie by the NHS (parroted by judge after judge in court proceedings) is indeed revolting – the British equivalent of Baghdad Bob.  In truth, they have made no attempt to diagnose Alfie’s condition, preferring instead to place him on heavily sedating anti-seizure medications, then claiming that his lethargy is further evidence of his irreversible decline.


The world is witness to slow-motion murder.  The perpetrators are the NHS, and the motive is not pecuniary, but rather a perverse form of institutional vanity.


Italy has conferred citizenship to Alfie, and there is a medical air ambulance standing by at the request of the pope to fly Alfie to the Vatican’s children’s hospital, Bambino Gesù, where Alfie can be treated.


But while socialism requires citizen confidence to operate, it will settle for coercion to gain compliance.  This is why Alder Hey refuses to release #Alfie.  Should the boy survive outside NHS care, their “infallibility” would be shattered, and (gasp!) the sheep may begin to question their shepherd.


Collectivist schemes of medicine are no more sustainable (or just!) than collectivist schemes of societal order.  Both require submission, even unto death.


Once that logic is accepted as legitimate, the line will be pushed back farther and farther in future cases until a mere diagnosis is sufficient cause for the state to “act in the patient’s best interest.”


I can find no difference between the rationalizations of the Nazis and the arguments being made against Alfie Evans by the NHS.


A great many evils are cloaked in “compassion”; indeed, it is a rarity when evil stands naked before its victim.  Nowhere is this truth more evident than in the “compassion” of Alder Hey Hospital toward Alfie Evans.


Would that all of Britain rose up and demanded the release of Alfie before death has its way.  I pray for him, and for the charred souls of those who will be left behind – living victims of unconscionable state cruelty.


The only “life unworthy of life” is that of the arrogant, self-congratulatory medical murderers of the NHS and their judicial enablers.  May God’s judgment be realized in the fullest.


The author has written extensively on the vagaries of the British NHS and other similarly constituted single-payer systems.  He welcomes visitors to his website, www.dailyherring.com.










I admit, my reaction to the plight of young Alfie Evans is colored by my experience with my own grandson, Joseph, who suffers from a similar disorder.


I see Joseph’s innocence in Alfie’s eyes, and I struggle with the marked physical resemblance between Alfie and Joseph at that age.  I also vividly recall the doctors counseling my daughter to abort her pregnancy, to save her child from suffering.


“He will likely live 18 months, certainly no more than three years,” they told us solemnly.  Joseph celebrated his 17th birthday in February of this year.


Regular readers of my columns will know his story…how the long sought diagnosis finally came after 16 years of trying, and how the discovery of his specific disorder (he is the only known case worldwide) revealed a function of human DNA previously unknown to science – a function the understanding of which is changing the way medicines are made.


I see Joseph’s smile on Alfie’s lips and recognize that look of trust and love.  My heart is shredded over the arrogant, brutal indifference of the British National Health Service, willing to starve a child to death rather than risk another hospital proving its doctors wrong.


In a world distressingly familiar with violence, injustice, and hatred, a circumstance such as this – avoidable, by no means necessary – will torture our souls, as those charged with preventing man’s inhumanity toward man pivot from protector to executioner at the behest of misbegotten laws designed to empower the state at the expense of the citizen, in service to collectivism as god.


Like the Nuremburg laws that made the atrocities of the Nazis all perfectly legal, even obligatory, England has adopted legislation that permits the doyens of the NHS to abrogate the rights of both patient and family with little more than a formal request to supine family courts, increasingly eager to burnish the reputation of their empty-suit, single-payer health care system.


Alfie suffers from a degenerative brain disorder of unknown origin, and it is the opinion of his medical team at Liverpool’s Alder Hey Pediatric Hospital that little of his brain remains and that further treatment or life-sustaining efforts would not be in the child’s “best interests.”


In Britain’s socialized medical system, second opinions are typically given by other NHS physicians, chosen not by the parents or the patient, but by the attending physician who gave the first opinion.  Unsurprisingly, second opinions in the NHS rarely overturn the first.  In this case, however, Alfie’s parents were able to force the hospital to release records for outside review.


Unsurprisingly, Alder Hey’s prognosis has not been confirmed by outside medical professionals.  Indeed, numerous outside experts vehemently disagree with Alder Hey’s conclusions.


The disturbing truth is, the physicians of Alder Hey haven’t even attempted to determine the cause of Alfie’s distress, having decided within months of his birth that his life was not worth living.


As revealed by the attorney for Alfie’s father, Tom Evans, the position of the NHS is indeed far uglier than it appears at first blush.  As reported by multiple British newspapers:


While the medical team have maintained that young Alfie cannot survive absent the use of a ventilator, (they predicted he would die within minutes of being removed from the ventilator, and as of the time of this writing, young Alfie has been breathing unaided for more than 60 hours) they have further argued that he would have an “insufficient quality of life,” even if he managed to survive.


Tom’s attorney:


We do not challenge the medical report … [but it is] another thing to say that your life is futile because your quality of life is not deemed sufficient[.]


Like the parents of Charlie Gard – another child similarly condemned to death by a preening NHS – Alfie’s parents disagreed with the hospital’s plans to abandon further treatment and remove life support from their son.  They began to investigate alternatives for care outside the NHS system, never suspecting that the state-run system would see their love for their child as a threat to the NHS and would respond with ferocity.


Alder Hey’s physicians have been unrelenting in their abandonment of this child, having decided more than a year ago, in February of 2017, that Alfie should quit embarrassing them by surviving in spite of receiving no treatment and get on with the business of the afterlife.


Since making that decision, the hospital has refused to perform even the most common of procedures for a patient with Alfie’s needs, such as a tracheostomy to facilitate easier breathing or a gastrostomy feeding tube for nutrition and medication.


For all this time, Alfie has been fed through a nasal tube, never intended as a permanent solution, but rather as a stopgap (weeks, not months) designed to be used until a g-tube can be placed.


The medical treatment Alfie has received is abominable, as a direct result of the hospital’s decision, and subsequent criminal obstinacy toward anyone suggesting that their prognosis might be in error.


To hear the barristers for Alder Hey wax poetic about the “first class care” given Alfie by the NHS (parroted by judge after judge in court proceedings) is indeed revolting – the British equivalent of Baghdad Bob.  In truth, they have made no attempt to diagnose Alfie’s condition, preferring instead to place him on heavily sedating anti-seizure medications, then claiming that his lethargy is further evidence of his irreversible decline.


The world is witness to slow-motion murder.  The perpetrators are the NHS, and the motive is not pecuniary, but rather a perverse form of institutional vanity.


Italy has conferred citizenship to Alfie, and there is a medical air ambulance standing by at the request of the pope to fly Alfie to the Vatican’s children’s hospital, Bambino Gesù, where Alfie can be treated.


But while socialism requires citizen confidence to operate, it will settle for coercion to gain compliance.  This is why Alder Hey refuses to release #Alfie.  Should the boy survive outside NHS care, their “infallibility” would be shattered, and (gasp!) the sheep may begin to question their shepherd.


Collectivist schemes of medicine are no more sustainable (or just!) than collectivist schemes of societal order.  Both require submission, even unto death.


Once that logic is accepted as legitimate, the line will be pushed back farther and farther in future cases until a mere diagnosis is sufficient cause for the state to “act in the patient’s best interest.”


I can find no difference between the rationalizations of the Nazis and the arguments being made against Alfie Evans by the NHS.


A great many evils are cloaked in “compassion”; indeed, it is a rarity when evil stands naked before its victim.  Nowhere is this truth more evident than in the “compassion” of Alder Hey Hospital toward Alfie Evans.


Would that all of Britain rose up and demanded the release of Alfie before death has its way.  I pray for him, and for the charred souls of those who will be left behind – living victims of unconscionable state cruelty.


The only “life unworthy of life” is that of the arrogant, self-congratulatory medical murderers of the NHS and their judicial enablers.  May God’s judgment be realized in the fullest.


The author has written extensively on the vagaries of the British NHS and other similarly constituted single-payer systems.  He welcomes visitors to his website, www.dailyherring.com.




via American Thinker

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.americanthinker.com/

Maxine Waters Statement on Comey So Insane Even MSNBC Calls Her Out

Even the liberals can’t handle this one.

California Congresswoman Maxine Waters has been providing entertainment for conservatives since long before Donald Trump was even a candidate, but her incessant calls for the 45th president’s impeachment since then have confirmed Trump supporters that she’s beyond salvaging.

Now, though, with former FBI Director James Comey’s anti-Trump road show dominating mainstream media storylines, she’s gone too far even for MSNBC and The Washington Post.

In an interview Monday night on MSNBC’s “All In With Chris Hayes,” Waters was confronted with a clip of one of her own statements declaring during the presidential transition period that the then-FBI director was utterly unreliable:

“All I can tell you is the FBI director has no credibility,” she said.

“You and Donald Trump do agree on that,” Hayes said Monday. “That sentence you said that, ‘the FBI director has no credibility.’ You and Donald Trump are in agreement on that.”

Check out the interview segment here:

Obviously not used to being challenged in the normally friendly confines of an MSNBC studio, Waters spluttered a little, then launched into one of her normal, half-baked responses.

“I’ve tried to clarify that and to say, yes, coming out of that classified briefing, I said that, and I certainly meant it,” she told Hayes. “However, I think it is quite different when you take a look at Comey and his relationship to the president, what he said, what he’s done. I believe him.

“Then is then, and now is now.”

Do you think anyone believes Maxine Waters anymore?

At

The Washington Post

, “The Fix” writer Aaron Blake practically spluttered on his keyboard. (His piece is headlined “Maxine Waters’s cringe-worthy explanation for her 180 on James Comey.”)

“Part of being a politician is showing that you have some consistent moral compass — that you don’t just promote things and people because they say things you like and denounce them when it’s inconvenient. Saying Comey has ‘no credibility’ means he lacks character and can’t be trusted to tell the truth. That doesn’t really change with circumstances and with the passage of 15 months,” he wrote.

“Politicians aren’t viewed as the most consistent and trustworthy people; in fact, Gallup polling shows that members of Congress are basically tied with lobbyists as the least-trusted of 21 professions tested. And sometimes they show us why.”

RELATED: Former AG Issues Massive Comey Announcement… Now Jail Time on the Table

That’s one of the more truthful things to be published by The Post since Trump took the oath of office.

Some Twitter commenters were less polite, though.

The Waters statement showed just how willing Democrats are to distort the facts, the truth, and even their own alleged “beliefs” in the service of blind partisan power struggles.

That by itself isn’t much of a surprise, but it’s a rare day indeed when a Democrat like Waters gets called out by hacks at MSNBC and cheerleaders like The Washington Post for putting their perfidy on public display like that.

But sometimes Maxine Waters goes so far even liberals can’t handle it.

What do you think? Scroll down to comment below!

via Conservative Tribune

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.westernjournal.com/ct

Video Captures Huge Detail Waffle House Haters Missed

Waffle House is in the news once more, and it’s not good for the quintessential American diner’s image. Thankfully, however, this time no one was shot or killed.

According to CBS News, a row erupted as an Alabama Waffle House insisted on charging two customers, Chikesia Clemons and her friend, 50 cents for using takeout utensils in the diner.

The incensed Clemons reportedly asked restaurant employees for a phone number with which to contact their corporate offices. The employees refused to share the number with the woman and eventually, police were called.

Employees described the woman to police as drunk, saying that she tried to bring alcohol into the diner and threatened to shoot the staff. That brings us, more or less, to the video that has riled up tens, if not hundreds of thousands of people.

The video can be seen by clicking on this CBS link, but be warned the content is graphic and contains partial, though nonsexual, nudity.

But those taking to social media to decry the diner with the “BoycottWaffleHouse” hashtag have missed a vital detail — two actually — that are game-changers.

First, police tried to get the woman to leave the restaurant on behalf of Waffle House. The video clearly shows them asking, ordering and even tugging at her in an attempt to get her to go. Second, another person, presumably her friend (the videographer) asked her to leave as well.

Those parts of the video are easy to miss, especially because the rest is so graphic, but if you stop to think about it, they’re quite important.

Do you think Waffle House was within its rights to try and make this woman leave?

Waffle House is a private company that can charge for utensils if they want. They can even do it unfairly, as long as they’re not doing it based on a protected class (race, religion, etc). It’s pathetic to charge for takeout utensils, and even worse to be capricious about it, but it is their right.

(If you bridle at that a little because it doesn’t seem just, remember that liberty has to be protected, even if it feels yucky. Hate speech is a good example. The people who engage in true hate speech are despicable. But it’s their right to be hateful as long as in doing so, they don’t violate another person’s freedom.)

It’s also the woman’s right to be angry about it and to tell the restaurant so. But it’s not her right to squat on their property, which she appears to have very clearly done, despite the urging of police and her friend.

Everyone’s upset that Waffle House called the police and that the police ultimately used force. But what else were they to do if she refused to leave and they didn’t want to provide a free item? Should the employees have simply stood idly by, helpless in the face of an angry customer impacting business? This woman had the right to say her piece, and Waffle House had the right to say “enough” and send her on her way.

Another reason for this internet outrage is that it’s harder to see Waffle House’s rights than it is to see her being taken to the ground. Her violation of Waffle House’s rights doesn’t make a big impression on the average viewer, but the video of the officers’ intervention does.

RELATED: Not Again: Cops Knew About Murderer Before He Killed Man in Front of 5-Year-Old Daughter

Now, all of that said, it’s perfectly reasonable to boycott Waffle House if they engaged in a ridiculously silly business move to charge for utensils.

What’s not reasonable is boycotting the chain for exercising their right to have an angry squatter removed. After all, would you want to be protested against just because you called the police to kick an angry customer out of your yard sale?

The police also merit our attention. It looks like they were probably very patient (especially since the video abruptly cut to the takedown, potentially editing out much more negotiation with the customer). Still, threatening to break the woman’s arm is over the line (especially for a government representative), as is putting a hand around the front of her neck, which one of the officers appeared to do.

That accomplished nothing and only inflamed things, making cops everywhere look bad.

The final indignity in all of this was the fact that the woman’s dress fell down, exposing her chest. That’s a shame in every way, but it’s also more her fault than anyone else’s. After all, if you’re walking around thinking that your right to inconvenience someone trumps their right to be left alone, then you ought to dress for the occasion — maybe a button-down?

Finally, we need to acknowledge what’s behind all of this: entitlement mentality. We see it everywhere now, regardless of race, creed or religion.

To borrow from the old children’s song,

We all love our unearned rights; All we entitled of the word; Red and yellow, black or white; We all think our way is right; We all love our precious unearned rights.

With the self-esteem movement and postmodernism having yielded incredibly egocentric, egotistical adults, our culture now affirms the idea that we all have a right to do anything we want and hear only what we want. That’s not liberty. It’s narcissism — thinking you’re somehow above someone else’s rights.

Liberty properly understood is the freedom to do as you wish up to the point that your rights encroach on another’s. Anywhere past that point and you are de facto in the wrong because you’re suppressing their rights in favor of your own.

And that’s what the #BoycottWaffleHouse crowd is missing. This woman, very possibly justified in her anger, believed herself entitled to do whatever she wanted, including ignoring apparent requests that she leave the property from management, police and even the person taking the video.

That’s the problem with entitlement. It feels so nice when you’re exercising it, but when it meets the real world it gets crushed like an angry person being takes to the ground by police.

What do you think? Scroll down to comment below!

via Conservative Tribune

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.westernjournal.com/ct

CNN Goes to Commercial After Its Own Analyst Rebels Against Network Agenda

There’s always been some speculation among CNN watchers that the “Most Trusted Name In News” conspicuously goes to commercial or has their feed cut when one of the talking heads on their network says something inconvenient.

Of course, nobody can prove this happens intentionally — indeed, one almost feels a bit conspiracy theory-ish even saying it — but it’s certainly odd.

The latest instance of the mysterious CNN cutoff happened Monday, when CNN’s national security commentator, Mike Rogers, was interviewed about the Russia investigation.

Rogers, a former congressman who’s also had stints with the Army and FBI, said that if no evidence against the president is turned up, it’s time to end the “eternal investigations” involving Trump and Russian collusion.

“Listen, at some point, you know where I stood on all this,” Rogers said. “I believe Mueller should have the freedom to do the investigation. The IG report on both what the FBI did and what the Russians were up to, all of that’s really important.”

However, he said that “at some point you have to stop. This has been going on for a long time.”

Rogers then laid out something of an ultimatum for the Mueller investigation.

Do you think this was an intentional switch to a commercial break?

“So my argument to Mueller is, if you have some evidence here, let’s go, bring it out, let’s deal with it,” Rogers said. “If not, at some point we have to stop the … eternal investigations that happen surrounding this, and the clubs that come out. So the investigations that have happened on the Intel Committee already have been candidly, quite partisan, and partisan in nature, both from the Democrats and the Republicans.

“If it switches, you’re going to get more of the same,” he added, a reference to the prospect of Democrats taking control of the House after the November elections. “I don’t know how that’s helpful to the country moving on and trying to heal itself and then actually producing something that would stop the Russians from interfering in our elections.”

And with that, CNN went to commercial.

Given that CNN’s been pushing the Russia thing pretty hard (one is surprised they don’t have a 24-hour feed of a camera trained on the Kremlin in the lower right quarter of the screen just to really drive the point home), it’s somewhat embarrassing when the network’s own national security analyst basically acknowledges that the investigation has become — in the parlance of our time — a nothingburger and ought to be wrapped up.

It’s not a good look. Then again, not much on CNN is, but there you go,.

RELATED: CBS Shamelessly Runs Program on the Inevitable Assassination of Trump

Now, was this one of CNN’s famous cuts — if such cuts even exist? It certainly didn’t seem as suspicious as some of their “accidental” feed drops, like this one when a guest started to suggest a link between terror suspects and incoming refugees.

On the other hand, we’ll really never know if CNN’s “technical difficulties” were intentional. And, quite frankly, I think it’s better that way.

For one, it’s more fun to speculate about whether or not it’s happening, kind of like how it’s more fun speculating whether or not their are aliens at Area 51.

Second, it’s kind of a hard theory to believe. After all, if CNN cut the feed every time someone on their network said or did something that embarrassed the network, they’d be off the air half the time.

What do you think? Scroll down to comment below!

via Conservative Tribune

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.westernjournal.com/ct

China uses nationwide ‘scoring’ system to keep millions of people with ‘low scores’ from traveling

The Chinese government has started using its “personal score” system to bar citizens with low scores from traveling. China says that it is trying to “purify” society by rewarding the trustworthy and punishing those it deems as untrustworthy.

According to CBS News, almost 11 million Chinese citizens are no longer permitted to fly, and 4  million are not permitted to travel by train. These new rules will go into effect on May 1, but restrictions like this may have been in place behind the scenes for years.

Reuters cites China’s Supreme People’s Court as saying in 2017 that “6.15 million Chinese citizens had been banned from taking flights for social misdeeds.”

What is this ranking system?

In 2014, China announced the rollout of its “social credit system.” The system was based on the principle that “keeping trust is glorious and breaking trust is disgraceful,” and “once untrustworthy, always restricted.” The system rates people on their behavior, everything from breaking laws and failing to pay fines to what someone posts on the internet.

The program will be fully implemented for every Chinese citizen by 2020, but for now it is being tested by a percentage of the population numbering in the millions. According to the CIA World Factbook, in July 2017, China had a population of nearly 1.4 billion.

As if the scoring system was not Orwellian enough on its own, China plans to use its network of 176 million cameras to monitor its citizens and determine if anyone needs to have their score lowered. The communist nation says it plans to have more than 600 million cameras up and running by 2o2o. China is even using these cameras to shame jaywalkers, who can expect to find their image broadcast on nearby screens if they are caught in the act.

The social credit system affects more than just travel

A low score can keep Chinese citizens from buying real estate, getting management jobs in big banks, enrolling their children in certain schools, staying in some hotels, and even having access to high speed internet.

CBS News talked to a Chinese journalist named Liu Hu. He was ordered to apologize in court for tweets he authored, and then told that his apology was insincere. Now, because of that incident lowering his score, he is banned from flying, but the list goes on.

“I can’t buy property. My child can’t go to a private school,” Liu told CBS. “You feel you’re being controlled by the list all the time.”

But a good score can help you in all those areas – and even influence your matches on dating websites. And in a country where a decadeslong one-child policy has resulted in men outnumbering women by more than 34 million, a boost in the online dating world can make a real difference.

via TheBlaze.com – Stories

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.theblaze.com

Clinton Went On ‘F***-Laced Fusillade’ Against Trump In Debate Prep, New Book Says

Hillary Clinton went on a “f***-laced fusillade” about Donald Trump as she was preparing for a debate during the 2016 presidential campaign, according to a new book by a New York Times reporter.
“Aides understood that in order to keep it all together onstage, Hillary sometimes needed to unleash on them in private,” Amy Chozick writes in "Chasing Hillary: Ten Years, Two Presidential Campaigns and One Intact Glass Ceiling."

via Daily Wire

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.dailywire.com/rss.xml