Human Sacrifice to Socialism


Picture: FeatureWorldCharlie Gard died Britain’s sacrifice on the National Health Service alter to their god socialism. The infant boy, born August 2016 with mitochondrial DNA depletion syndrome, is the next increment of government abrogation of parental rights, and it’s coming American shores.

As parents, we have virtually unlimited prerogative when making all manner of choices on children’s behalf. Permanent, life altering decisions, whether as benign as circumcision or as controversial as eschewing vaccines, have traditionally been left to the people who also bear the responsibility for the children for which they make decisions.

Liberals want to own your children as much as ISIS does.

Government busybodies in the British National Health Service, English courts, and the European Court of Human Rights denied his release from hospital all citing Charlie Gard’s grim prognosis and slim possibility of recovery. The British government and their collectivist bureaucrats in Brussels declared Charlie Gard’s life wasn’t worth saving. Apparently, National Health Service had better things to spend public money on, such as Viagra for Muslim invaders and breast implants.

Even after privately raising over one million, National Health Service refused to allow Charlie out of their care, so his parent could explore other treatment options. In all but name, Charlie Gard was held prisoner and sentenced to death by the British government.

Make no mistake, National Health Service sounds innocuous enough, but it is a government-run, single-payer health scheme with the power to decide who will receive what course of treatment, if at all. Even seeking out second or third opinions, every single doctor draws his paycheck from the government, follows the same directives, and suffers under the same master, if they rock the medical boat. Patients can appeal all they like, but the answer, as with Charlie Gard, is always the same when a patient cannot appeal to the free market for medical care.

This is the exact scenario the media and the rest of the Left pilloried Sarah Palin over when she predicted Death Panels as the natural results of healthcare rationing from a single-payer system.

A government monopoly on the supply of healthcare mean bureaucrats have the power of life or death.

By the time Charlie Gard was examined by the American doctor offering an experimental treatment, the infant was too far gone. The doctor said there was nothing he could do for Charlie. Perhaps, had he seen the boy before all the litigation five months before, there would have been a ten percent chance of saving Charlie Gard’s life.

Ten percent isn’t that great, either, but if your house is on fire and the choices are stay put for certain death or chance one-in-ten odds charging thought a second floor window, I know which option I would take. Those slim odds begin to look quite reasonable in dire situations.

Charlie was ultimately transferred to hospice care to await his death. Not unexpectedly for socialized medicine, the facility found themselves “unable to assemble the equipment and staff necessary” to care for him. This after nurses in the facility volunteered their off time to care for Charlie in his final days, and give his parents time say goodbye in their way.

The Left’s taste for watching babies die has progressed from inside the womb to outside it.

Liberals murder infants the way I go through a can of chewing tobacco, with disturbingly messy gusto, so their collective desire to watch a child slowly dies is not surprising.

A cynic might wonder whether the British government would have washed their hands of Charlie Gard so quickly and been so tenacious in acting on what the National Health Service viewed as his best interests had his name been Mohammed. Rates of physical and mental birth defects in European Muslim populations are sky high. None of them are left to die under a French fry lamp.

Europeans are now government property.

The overarching issues in the Charlie Gard case is not the death of this one infant. He would have likely died anyway. Neither is it about parental rights or government discrimination in favor of invading foreign immigrants.

The crux of Charlie Gard is the power handed over to government. For whatever reason, the government chose this case to remind the people of Britain that bureaucrats own every single British subject. This child and his parents were the nails the hammer of collectivist big government used to make an example of by driving into the ground.

I imagine Charlie’s parents, Chris Gard and Connie Yates, will never forget that they are possessions of the British government, and must go marching off to the Soylent Green factory when their government orders them. In Britain, it seems, the National Health Service, backed by the full weight of the government and European courts, decides who lives, who dies, when, and how.

Their behavior is repulsive. A pox on everyone involved in their barbaric health service and government.

Europe is lost. It is never to recover. What two World Wars were not able to accomplish has been achieved by the siren song of “free stuff.” The United States is not far behind. We will be England in three generations, Sweden in two, and Germany in one.

Let Charlie Gard be a cautionary tale of the horrors possible when busybodies in secure government jobs are allowed to decide what is best for anyone besides themselves.

 

3Thank you to every one of my readers for coming back week after week. This is usually where I ask you to visit my Patreon account to see what I have in the works and consider becoming a supporter.

L'homme Theroux CoverBut for this article, go donate some money to Charlie’s parents. They will probably need it. Don’t be a cheapskate. Go!

Advertisements

Muslim Sleeper Agents


1mercer4President Barack Obama plans to import the Republic’s doom in the form of Syrian refugees. Ten thousand of them, to be specific. Ten thousand destitute, selfish, future-Democrat voters who stood by doing nothing while their country because an even worse Hellhole around them.

Generations of school children have been taught that America is the land of freedom and opportunity (which it largely still is) and welcomeer of the world’s welfare cases (which it wasn’t until 1970).

For the first nearly two hundred years of our existence, America was selective about whom it let into the country.

The plaque on the Statue of Liberty may invite the tired, poor, and huddled masses yearning to be free, but even taken at face value, it is not an invitation for the retched refuse to suckle at the teat of a welfare state. The last line of New Colossus, the poem inscribed on the plaque, says, “I lift my lamp beside the golden door.” Whose heart doesn’t melt at the idea of persecuted people arriving in a land where they are freed from whatever it was in the Old Country that kept them from achieving their full potential? Mine certainly does.

Let’s not forget that The New Colossus was specifically inspired by Emma Lazarus’ charitable work with Eastern European Jews fleeing pogroms in their homelands. If you don’t know what a pogrom is, look no further than the riots in Baltimore or Ferguson, except replace the black faces angry at “The Man” with gentile faces angry at “The Jew.”

1mercer5The poem is a wonderful sentiment that is suitably vague, so as to gain approval from all readers. Of course, people at the time understood innately, and enforced, the concept that those allowed into the country would bring with them some skill necessary to build the country, even if that skill was simply a work ethic.

Put another way, Emma Lazarus wrote an invitation to those who wanted to live in peace and build their adopted nation, not bleed it white and destroy it from the inside, like tapeworms.

In a time of little mechanization, the nation needed raw, physical muscle power, so it mattered little if groups of immigrants refused to assimilate. A shovel and wheelbarrow don’t care what language you speak or how American you decide to become.

In a world lacking social welfare programs, about a third to half of the immigrants eventually decided that America was not the place for them and returned to their native land. It was a system that was beautiful in its simplicity. The immigrant exchanged labor for money, which was exchanged for life’s needs. It was a self-sustaining and self-regulating cycle that always produced a net gain for society.

It also reinforced the first rule of manhood; create more than you consume.

America has changed in the century since placement of “The New Colossus” on the pedestal of the Statue of Liberty. American infrastructure is largely constructed, and what remains to be built has the benefit of mechanization. Westward expansion has reached its limit. A sufficient amount of the wide-open American landscape has been converted to usable spaces; cities, towns, roads, and farmland.

The most menial of service jobs, that cannot be performed better, faster, and more reliably by a machine, now require a level of technical computer and mechanical skills that didn’t exist a century ago. The illiterate, poorly educated, non-English speaker who serves as a human beast of burden and can be communicated with through pantomime will find very few opportunities in the current America. By the same token, illiterate, poorly educated English speaking American citizens face the same predicament.

1mercer6Freedom, as it is understood and taken for granted in the Western world, was hard-won over the centuries by men rising up against the leader under whose yoke they chafed. Looking at footage of the Syrian refugees battering down the gates of European Union Nations, there is a shocking number of fighting-age men among them. Even excluding children, which for the sake of argument, I’ll say is sixteen, a random sampling of any people would yield about a fifty-fifty division of men to women.

A nation that recently sent its army to war can be expected to have a higher percentage of women in a random sampling, due to casualties depleting the number of men. However, since the war is taking place in Syria, that effect would be tempered somewhat, since the casualties are not distributed almost entirely among men, as with sending an army outside its national borders to fight.

I’m not a statistician, so how all these factors play into one another is a bit of a mystery to me. Perhaps my perception of the male-to-female ratio is skewed because of sample error or the media intentionally photographing fewer Syrian refugee women than men, despite images of sobbing women carrying babies holding far more emotional and communicative appeal than photos of dejected men.

I’m sure the real reason is that I’m an anti-Muslim bigot who is not culturally sensitive.

For the sake of argument, let’s say the images of refugees are skewed and my impression of the man-to-woman ration is completely out of whack with reality. I just happen to have seen photos of every male Syrian refugee in existence to the exclusion of the vast tidal wave of female Syrian refugees, and I am fantastically out of touch with the reality on the ground. It wouldn’t be the first time my impression of the world is off base. However, I have a question that does not rely on the exact ratio of men-to-women.

Why are there any male Syrian refugees at all, in the first place?

I understand the desire of a man to get women, children, and the elderly out of harm’s way, so the fight can continue unimpeded. Only having yourself to worry about in a combat zone makes for a far more effective fighter. It’s one of the benefits of taking the fight to the enemy. They now how the additional pressure of worrying about and providing for wives, children, sick parents, etc.

1mercer7I won’t go so far as to call them cowards because I’m not certain they are. They certainly show enough guts to load up into rickety barges to cross into Greece and make the trek to northern Europe. They also show enough gumption to riot in the streets of the countries generous enough to allow them entry, so they don’t seem terribly put off at the prospect of facing down an armed, organized force with minimal weapons of their own.

These men won’t stand and fight the Assad regime, despite having spent their entire lives watching their country become a bigger and bigger cesspool. I guess it took the really bad men, in the form of ISIS, showing up to convince them that Syria isn’t worth fighting for.

The rational course of putting differences aside and joining forces with the Russian-backed Assad to defeat the common enemy does not occur to these nit-wits.

Assad may be a bastard, but he was clearly a tolerable enough bastard for the refugees to remain in their homeland. Otherwise, they would have been attempting to escape Syria before now.

On second thought, maybe the Syrian refugees aren’t such nit-wits.

America has allowed Islam to recruit among the prison population in the form of the Nation of Islam and other black supremacist groups for at least fifty years. If their racial hatred could be confined to “kill Whitey,” they might be tolerable, but after release, many of these ex-cons begin to associate with immigrant Muslims, who have managed to sneak in under the radar. The next wave being Syrian refugee men between the ages of sixteen and sixty. I remember a time and place when that combined with an Kalashnikov meant you would be sent a rocket.

We need only look to England to understand the future of America. Pakistani Muslims have effectively wrestled away control of entire neighborhoods and established “no-go” zones for non-Muslims. Police will not respond to calls for service, at direction of their leadership passing on instructions from local Imams. Woe be to any non-Muslim found in the Muslim Zones, for they will be harassed out of the area like a fox found in the chicken coop.

Relatively well-off, socialized, welfare societies across Europe have been deluged with waves of immigrants from peasant societies who bring their backward, barbaric notions of honor and proselyting with them. Unable to follow the first command of their prophet to spread their retrograde religion by the sword, they follow the backup command to spread it by infiltrating the target society and corrupting it. Europe, suffering from its colonialism hangover, and Germany, having the additional societal guilt-trip of the Nazis, are having trouble finding the stones to turn away refugees.

After Charlie Hebdo, the Paris Train Attack, the July 7 Bombing in London, the public beheading of a British solider, the murder of Theo Van Gosh, and the Paris Riots, just to name a few literally off the top of my head, you would think Europe would say, “You know, these Muslims seem to cause a lot of trouble. Maybe we shouldn’t let them in.”

If you’re male and between the age of sixteen and sixty, you have no business being a refugee. Get your ass back where you belong and fight to make your country habitable again, so we can send back your women and children.

Closer to home, terrorist attacks at Fort Hood, the Boston Marathon, two military recruiting locations, and the Tyson chicken processing plant (of all places) were perpetrated by Muslims who, depending on whom you ask, radicalized in the United States or immigrated with jihad already in mind.

1MercerJust this week, we had a shooting at Umpqua Community College in Portland, Oregon committed by Chris Harper Mercer, an immigrant from England. Considering this is the first time anyone has heard of an Englishman opening fire on Americans since the Boston Massacre, what drove this young man to open fire at an Oregon community college is befuddling, at the moment.

Information is still sketchy and conflicting, but it seems Chris Harper Mercer was a 26 year old English immigrant. Reports differ widely as to how old he was when he came to the United States, but considering his self-avowed support for the IRA (as in, the Irish Republican Army that terrorized the United Kingdom and Ireland for much of the Twentieth Century), he might not have been terribly well assimilated into American culture.

The average American thinks of retirement planning when he hears “IRA,” not blowing shit up in the name of Irish Home Rule.

Early reports from several of the survivors of the shooting flat-out say that he was targeting Christians.

Before shooting people, Chris Harper Mercer asked his victims their religious affiliation. No one who claims to have been spared by proclaiming adherence to the Muslim faith has come forward, but exactly why he asked is troubling.

Despite evidence that the media will play up describing Chris Harper Mercer as “not religious, but spiritual,” I’m going to go out on a limb with one of my wild-assed theories.

Chris Harper Mercer will be discovered to be one of those self-radicalized Muslims who flew under the radar.

Just like Nidal Hasan, the Tsarnaev brothers, and all the other Muslim crazies, who through either design or luck find themselves in the United States and see a weakened society too frightened to put its collective foot down, Chris Harper Mercer will have ties to radical Islam.

Of course, the difference between radical and non-radical Islam being that non-radical Muslims haven’t actually killed anyone, just yet. Give it time. The Syrian refugees are on their way.

The bottom line for Europe, the United States, and quite frankly, the rest of the non-Muslim world is they have to stop allowing fighting-age Muslims inside their borders. England has largely been converted to a Muslim country, and is now exporting Jihad. Germany is next, with the problem they have on a low simmer set to hit a full boil and overflow.

With President Obama’s plan to allow Syrian refugees into the United States, he is adding fuel to the relatively incipient fire that threatens to become a conflagration, which will ultimately destroy the United States.