Alfie Succumbs to a Faceless, Unaccountable, Massive Healthcare Bureaucracy

In view of the fact this recent event hit an emotional nerve, I feel it necessary to provide background of specific events: British hospital authorities claimed the patient, 23-month-old Alfie Evans would expire within minutes of life support removal. In an act of hubristic belief in their own self-proclaimed genius or arrogance, UK officials pulled the plug on the child and stood by for five days until death mercifully took the child. Think about it; five days with no nourishment or fluids. Contrary to the parent’s desires hospital officials withdrew life support and expected the child to die quickly. After all, the British courts had formally and decisively ruled that the child’s condition was hopeless, and that he could not live without a ventilator. 

In my eyes, government bureaucrats and an unsympathetic judicial system is as culpable as the healthcare officials in the child’s death. Did not the British government deny numerous applications by Alfie’s parents to take the ailing toddler to the Vatican for a second opinion and a last-ditch effort to save his life? Court officials went even further by ordering the 2-year-old be removed from life support after hospital administrators determined that extending his life was a futile effort. The British government, it’s judiciary, as did hospital officials expected Alfie to expediently expire shortly after the British Court of Appeal’s final ruling; Yet the child doggedly hung on to life without the assistance of a ventilator, aided only by his parents manually breathing air into his lungs to ensure that Alfie had a healthy supply of oxygen. Their problem: Alfie did not die. The boy started breathing on his own, and for five days continued breathing until his death. Perhaps hospital officials may have been accurate in assessing Alfie’s condition as terminal. The results being what they are, I am of the view, UK’s National Health System and those actors associated with its decision-making process acted in an egregious manner in denying Alfie’s parents the right to try alternative medical treatment. 

 The ignominious Alfie Evans chronicle holds larger lessons for all of us.  If you give government officials control over your healthcare, you give them control over your life. If you reduce medical judgments to political or bureaucratic decisions, you can expect haughty and inhuman, often callous and leaving much to be desired decisions or outcomes. Finally, if you assume that the laws of the state are superior to the laws of God, then, for all practical purposes, your God is the state. If there is no higher law over the power of the state--natural law, as Thomas Hobbes, Thomas Aquinas, John Locke and Thomas Jefferson would describe it, then, logically, state power is absolute. Welcome to tyranny. And yes, it can happen here.

Tides of Tyranny: Liberals Use of Behavioral Rewards

Tides of Tyranny: Liberals Use of Behavioral Rewards: Do we want to get our people off welfare and entitlements associated with welfare? Do we desire those in our population who are physically...

Liberals Use of Behavioral Rewards

Do we want to get our people off welfare and entitlements associated with welfare? Do we desire those in our population who are physically/mentally capable of working to be productively employed? The traditionalist among us would answer in the affirmative. The liberal, not so much. 

Bottom line; the American welfare system is a shell of what it was intended to be. It is broke. Behaviorist, B.F. Skinner once stated; “A behavior followed by a reinforcing stimulus results in an increased probability of that behavior occurring in the future.” In short, if you want someone to continue a behavioral pattern, reward it. Simplifying it, what gets rewarded gets done. Apparently, our government and those progressive partisan political party’s/organizations who feed off welfare recipients found this works in the political and social arenas. The current welfare policies/programs are not promoting the collective good but furthering their own ideological interests. That interest is political power.

While researching this post, I learned that minorities, most of which are black – who today vote 90-95 percent Democrat – until the 1960s voted overwhelmingly Republican. The reason? Simple. Democrats would not permit them to vote. However, in the 1960s, a radical shift occurred. Blacks who had voted prodigiously for Republicans now shifted to the Democratic Party, and the American media were primarily responsible.

The truth is, Republicans voted for both the Civil Rights Bill in 1964 and the Voting Rights Act in 1965 by much larger margins than the Democrats. However, as they were both signed into law by Lyndon Johnson, a Democrat who had no choice but to sign the bill, the national media parlayed that into a dramatic change of form within the Democratic Party from that of actual segregationists into liberal rights activists. One thing led to another over time, and the following scenario now becomes a prime example of this mentality.

Tides of Tyranny: "Resistance" Facts Yesterday and Today Part 5 of 5...

Tides of Tyranny: "Resistance" Facts Yesterday and Today Part 5 of 5...: Did not in many cases during the Obama Presidency, U.S. citizens during his Administration found noncompliant with its agendas become targ...

"Resistance" Facts Yesterday and Today Part 5 of 5

Did not in many cases during the Obama Presidency, U.S. citizens during his Administration found noncompliant with its agendas become targets of the IRS for their political activity or monitored by the Justice Department? The latter included reporters from the Associated Press and Fox News. Many a journalist’s sources were prosecuted under the Espionage Act of 1917. In another case, a did not a filmmaker have his parole revoked and was scapegoated and jailed to advance a false administration narrative about the death of four Americans in Benghazi? Still others were surveilled by using fraudulent documents to obtain FISA court orders. Sound familiar?

Everyone should be keen to distinguish conspiracies from conspiracy theories. The above are real events, not the tales told by James Comey, the Resistance and the paranoid. In contrast, unhinged conspiracy theorists, for example, might obsess yet again over the machinations of multibillionaire and leftist globalist, not so imaginary bogeyman George Soros, and float a trumped-up tale that he would fly to Davos to assure the global elite that he considers President Trump a danger to the world, while reassuring them that the American president was a purely temporary phenomenon that will disappear in 2020, or even sooner.  

Based on recent events, I am of the opinion the resistance is a collaboration of those, whose intent is to preserve their influence, wealth and power to the detriment of America’s citizenry and thus, the Republic. If one has eyes to see and ears to hear it becomes evident that Democrats, former Hill Staffers, Leftist Media outlets, Deep State operatives and globalists have orchestrated, recognizably, the earliest resistance movement ever to greet, harass and hamper a new president….and we who support Trump must continue to fight the good fight and defeat the resistance in order to MAGA and put America's citizens first. 

"Resistance" Facts Yesterday and Today Part 4 of 5

What better way for the "Resistance" to derail a presidency than to allow a blank-check special counsel to search out alleged criminal activity on the part of the president. Have we not seen former FBI Director James Comey confess that he deliberately leaked (possibly illegally), confidential notes of a meeting with President Trump, to the media? Now, was this leaked with the expressed intent of creating a scandal requiring a special counsel? And, who was that Special Counsel? None other than a close friend, former FBI Director Robert Mueller. Was the appointment of Mueller, coincidence, divine providence or "Deep State" driven? 

To facilitate those efforts, did not the Special Counsel appoint to his team several lawyers who despised the very target of the investigation? Is it not fact, that many special investigators had donated generously to the campaign of Trump's past presidential opponent, Hillary Clinton? Additionally, did not one of these appointed special investigators previously work for the Clinton Foundation? By all appearances, the FBI surreptitiously trafficked a fraudulent document funded by the Clinton campaign to prove Donald Trump and members of his team were dangers to the Republic, thus requiring surveillance under FISA court warrants. Was not the ensuing surveillance disseminated among Obama Administration officials, with the likely intent that names would be unmasked and leaked to the "Fake News" (MSM, yellow journalism, hoax websites), in efforts to discredit Trump campaign, and later the Trump transition and presidency? Did not a top ranking official of the DOJ personally consult the authors of the smear dossier in efforts to ensure that its contents would become useful and known? In fact, all this and more has already transpired and continues  as of this post. 

"Resistance" Facts Yesterday and Today Part 3 of 5

Does not, Control the Media, Control the Narrative equate to a Semi-Serious Coup d'etat? Furthermore, is control of the media an essential to abort a leader’s term? Ideally, a resistance should hope to so influence or enlist popular and established Fourth Estate channels to ensure that 90 percent of all coverage of the president would be classified as negative. This being the case, have not journalists, correspondents and commentators purveyed, publicized and peddled ranging from stories that the president deliberately phoned and threatened invasion, or in racist fashion had insulted minorities by removing the bust of a black civil rights icon from the West Wing? Have not some media personalities used on-air obscenities in expressing their loathing of the president, in efforts to normalize the once abnormal? The more imaginary of the Fourth Estate would ponder the need to jettison disinterested reporting, claiming the peril that accompanies Trump justifies prejudiced coverage. The deep-state media might brand as believable a fake-news, tell-all book about the secret and private lives of the Trump inner circle. Might the resistance stoop low enough to suggest an illicit relationship involving a porn star and the president is creditable and might call into question or cast a shadow on the relevance of 2016’s Presidential election?