Monday, July 31, 2017
Saturday, July 29, 2017
House Freedom Caucus urges investigation of Comey, Clinton and Lynch
‘We are very patient, but at some point we will have to respond’ – Putin...
Friday, July 28, 2017
All Smiles at CNN when Dopey John McCain Voted On ObamaCare Repeal
WATCH: Senator John McCain Votes NO to Defeat Obamacare Repeal 7/27/2017
Wednesday, July 26, 2017
Tuesday, July 25, 2017
Monday, July 24, 2017
Charlie Gard: Court Ordered Dignity by Death
July 24, 2017
By Anna Morris, Co-Editor, FFOA News Network
Despite so many advances in medicine, inescapable tragedies still sear scars on souls, forever haunting the lives of those who loved and tried so hard. In some small way those tragedies can be softened and transformed if those left behind know that some good came from the personal devastation.
Lawyers, judges and medical experts in England and the continent seem determined that baby Charlie Gard's short life will leave nothing behind but bitter memories. Charlie's parents Connie Yates and Chris Gard demand that it not be so, that their baby shall receive an experimental treatment in the U.S. [1] Travel and other expenses are guaranteed by the donations of over 80,000 people which total in excess of $1.65 million USD yet courts continue to decide that baby Charlie must die by judicial order. [2] They cite "right to die" and it is full speed ahead and damn the parents who choose one last option that may help their child.
Charlie Gard has Mitochondrial Depletion Syndrome (MDS). It is a genetic condition and both of his parents carry a faulty gene. The treatment available in the U.S. consists of oral medications that replace molecular building blocks necessary for life, which Charlie's body cannot produce. [3] Mitochondrial DNA is responsible for the energy needs of our bodies. Failures in mitochondrial DNA can lead to weakness and organ failure which is seen in Charlie Gard at this time.
The treatment offered to Charlie but denied by the English and European courts is called, "deoxypyramidine monophosphate bypass therapy (NBT," according to www.frontlinegenomics.com. [3] That is probably more information than the casual reader desires yet the actual treatment is fairly simple, a pill which has to be taken daily and which, "requires continued treatment." It is not considered a cure but it, "has already been used on 18 MDS patients with some level of success, which it has been considered so carefully for Charlie's case," states Frontline Genomics. [3]
There you have it. Other medical experts, not the ones intensely fighting Charlie's parents in court, have carefully considered if the treatment could help the British baby and they think it may. We are talking about a pill a day consisting of bio-necessary building blocks Charlie's body cannot manufacture, not some agonizing, life prolonging torture forced upon a baby for the sake of medical experiment. Eighteen other patients have had the treatment.
There are plenty of medically approved treatments that prolong and produce agony, frequently court ordered in children's cases, such as multiple rounds of chemotherapy for children with cancer. The British courts seem to believe baby Charlie is just about brain dead anyway, so where is the prolongation of suffering which seems to be their concern?
Or is it just about the "right to die" and if so, Charlie Gard's tiny life may have much deeper meaning for all of us. Wesley J. Smith in a short article at National Review begins by saying, "Advocates for letting Charlie Gard's parents decide when and if to remove life support...are crying foul." Little Charlie's court appointed barrister, Victoria Butler Cole is, "The chairman of the Board of Trustees for Compassion in Dying," according to Mr. Smith. He goes on to say Compassion in Dying is a sister organization of another organization called Dignity in Dying which, "most certainly does", "promote assisted suicide." [4]
The Compassion in Dying website seems quite straight forward about assisting individuals to make end of life decisions. However the Dignity in Dying website which does promote assisted suicide clearly states, "Our sister charity, Compassion in Dying provides free Advance Decisions and information on end of life rights." (Emphasis mine.) [5]
In summary, Charlie Gard is a baby a couple weeks short of his first birthday, whose body cannot function much at all due to a genetic condition. There is a slight hope that a pill, taken by mouth, which replaces what his body cannot manufacture, may give him a chance of improving and living. Some sources suggest his chance for improvement is only 10% and no one suggests he could have a normal life. In a Guardian article earlier this month, Charlie's mum, Connie Yates was quoted, "I would not be able to sit there and watch my son suffer and be in pain," but she also claims her baby does get enjoyment from life and still, "enjoyed his tickles." [6] Amazingly that article is entitled, "Charlie Gard: Pope and Trump Biggest Help in Keeping Him Alive, Says Mother."
Who benefits and who loses from the court ordered dignified death of this baby? Is it really about the child Charlie or about court power over parents and healthcare decisions? It seems once the first court ruling goes against family in these cases the courts fight with everything they have to show the people they hold all the power, that yes indeed, life and death are held in their claws and woe to the people who fight back! If Charlie's parents are forced to relinquish their best judgement and heart felt desires and the courts win, how will those courts expand their powers to include other children the next time and the next time and on into the future?
Meanwhile over a million and a half dollars USD has been raised to take baby Charlie off the hands of England's National Health Service. How many scarce healthcare pounds sterling are being spent keeping little Charlie on life support until the courts can finally kill him? Who would be harmed if he was quietly loaded onto a plane and flown to the U.S.? Oh, the courts may say this denies the child the right of a dignified death. Apparently those courts cannot see the possibility that tiny Charlie could respond positively to the treatment and in so doing, add knowledge to the fight against these devastating mitochondrial diseases. We are not talking about painful surgery or drugs with horrific side effects, but about replacing via a pill, what Charlie's body cannot make on its own.
Courts should never have jurisdiction over hope. By insisting on death the doors close forever on what might have been. No one is claiming Charlie can completely recover or become absolutely normal but there are many children who have meaningful, even good lives though very much disabled. Charlie has parents who love him deeply and that is more than many healthy children ever have. If Charlie, "enjoys his tickles", he has somewhat more than do many severely neglected children.
Instead of leaving Charlie's parents with bitter lifelong scars over court ordered death for their baby, let him try the treatment that is already offered and paid for. If scientists fighting these diseases learn anything from treating Charlie he will have contributed to the sustaining of life, if not for him, perhaps for others who will be born like him.
If Charlie remains figuratively chained to his crib in England until the courts make sure he is dead, we are all losers. Charlie's parents lose the child they love and want to nurture no matter what. All parents lose when courts take parental rights. Science loses what might be learned. Any of us who are disabled, who are or may become old and infirm-- in short most of us-- will know the death's head shadows of lawyers, judges and courts may now find it easier to decide when our lives are dignified and when we deserve a court ordered death. Couple the cold blood of the judiciary with financial shortages in the healthcare industry and we easily come up with what Hitler called, "Life undeserving of life."
Emotion is running so high over Charlie Gard that news today reports death threats and semi-violent protests directed at the hospital and staff that holds Charlie. It is of course hypocrisy to champion life through death threats.
Martyrs throughout history have laid down their lives and in so doing, triumphed. Keep hope and knowledge alive, let little Charlie come to America for treatment. If cold blooded courts demand he die in England, he dies a martyr's death. Pope Benedict and President Trump have turned Charlie Gard into an international incident. Emotion is already high. If this baby is denied all hope and dies by court order, his short life will forever direct attention to the power of courts to walk over families to dispose of the disabled. Do not imagine people will think deeper than that. Martyrdom is about raw emotion.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
SOURCES:
[1] www.nationalreview.com/ article/44079/charlie-gard- united-kingdom-court-defies- parents-wishes-rare-disease- the ; Court Ordered Killing of Charlie Gard , National Review, Ian Tuttle, June 29, 2017
[2] www.cnn.com/2017/06/13/ health/charlie-gard-european- court-interim-measure/index. html ; Charlie's Chance of Life , Judith Vonberg, June 20, 2017
[3] www.frontlinegenomics.com/new s/13145/ch
[4] www.nationalreview.com/ corner/449534/charlie-gard- ideological-conflict-interest ; Charlie Gard Lawyer's Ideological Conflict of Interest , Wesley J. Smith, 7/15/2017
[6] https:/www./theguardian.com/ uk-news/2017/jul/10/charlie- gard-pope-and-trump-biggest- help-in-keeping-him-alive- says-mother ; The Guardian, Charlie Gard: Pope and Trump Biggest Help in Keeping Him Alive, Says Mother, Kevin Rawlinson, 10 July, 2017
Thursday, July 20, 2017
"You Made Up A Story About Nothing" Sarah Sanders Destroys Reporter Over...
"Mueller Crossed A Red Line By Investigating Trump's Finances" Sarah San...
US Freedom Army
July 20, 2017
The Supremacy Clause is one of the most misunderstood parts of the U.S. Constitution and is constantly misinterpreted by many people who should know better. The Supremacy Clause is contained in Article VI Clause 2 of the Constitution and reads “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.” The Supremacy Clause in effect says that Federal law rules supreme over State law and in general from that standpoint it is consistent and makes perfect sense.
The problem occurs when the Federal Government passes a law that is unconstitutional (which they do with regularity) and then attempts to use the Supremacy Clause to enforce the law. This justification for this set of circumstances just will not pass the smell test but stinking up the place constitutionally is something the Federal Government has mastered.
A second problem occurs when a Treaty is passed that has provisions that violate our Constitution. A Treaty does not take precedence over our Constitution but some people would have you think that it does. So, for example, the U.S. cannot conclude a Treaty that takes away your rights under Amendment II. That portion of such a Treaty would be void.
-------------------------
Article III Section 3 of the United States Constitution reads, “Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.” We have a long history of the liberal media adhering to and giving aid and comfort to our enemies. All the way back to the Vietnam War and probably further. The Sedition Act of 1918 forbade Americans to use “disloyal, profane, scurrilous, or abusive language” about the U.S. government, flag, or armed forces during war. This act was repealed on December 13, 1920 but sedition has always been a crime. The last known attempt to prosecute someone for sedition was in 1959 when John W. Powell published inaccurate information about the U.S. government while working in Korea.
The media has enjoyed complete freedom from prosecution for sedition in part because of two unbelievable court rulings that could only have been decided by judges who had been drinking too much Socialist Kool-Aid. In N.Y. Times (notice how this name keeps cropping up) v. Sullivan 1964 the judge essentially said that “to ensure that debate on public issues remains uninhibited, robust, and wide-open” it is just fine and dandy to lie. So you can just go ahead and lie as long as you say the lie is uninhibited, robust, and wide-open. In St. Avant v. Thompson 1968 the judge asserted that “to ensure the ascertainment and publication of the truth about public affairs, it is essential that the First Amendment protect some erroneous publications as well as true ones.” If I am reading this one correctly, I think that it says whenever you lie in print it’s acceptable as long as you say you were trying to ascertain the truth. The courts have given the media a free pass to lie and when they print sedition they only have to say “I know, but I was just trying to ascertain the truth and besides it was really a robust and uninhibited form of sedition.”
Sedition, like treason, has no statute of limitations.
Lewis Shupe, Founder
Wednesday, July 19, 2017
Tuesday, July 18, 2017
Bernstein on Trump-Russia Collusion: ‘We Are in the Midst of a Cold Civi...
Monday, July 17, 2017
Trump: It took me ‘one sentence’ to allow American beef to be sold in Ch...
Sunday, July 16, 2017
Hilarious:! Ex KBG Agent Tells Dimwitted Don Lemon That Putin's Plan Of ...
Saturday, July 15, 2017
Friday, July 14, 2017
Thursday, July 13, 2017
Monday, July 10, 2017
Sen. John McCain: "There has to be a price to pay" for Russian meddling
Saturday, July 8, 2017
Friday, July 7, 2017
Maddow To News Orgs: Beware Of Forged Donald Trump Russia Documents! | R...
Thursday, July 6, 2017
Tucker Carlson, Mark Steyn Destroys CNN's Chris Cuomo Over Blackmail Red...
Wednesday, July 5, 2017
Alisyn Camerota gleeful CNN tracked down threatened to expose private ci...
Tuesday, July 4, 2017
US Freedom Army
July 4, 2017
By Lewis Shupe, Contributor, FFOA News Network
The Supremacy Clause is one of the most misunderstood parts of the U.S. Constitution and is constantly misinterpreted by many people who should know better. The Supremacy Clause is contained in Article VI Clause 2 of the Constitution and reads “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.” The Supremacy Clause in effect says that Federal law rules supreme over State law and in general from that standpoint it is consistent and makes perfect sense.
The problem occurs when the Federal Government passes a law that is unconstitutional (which they do with regularity) and then attempts to use the Supremacy Clause to enforce the law. This justification for this set of circumstances just will not pass the smell test but stinking up the place constitutionally is something the Federal Government has mastered.
A second problem occurs when a Treaty is passed that has provisions that violate our Constitution. A Treaty does not take precedence over our Constitution but some people would have you think that it does. So, for example, the U.S. cannot conclude a Treaty that takes away your rights under Amendment II. That portion of such a Treaty would be void.
-------------------------
Article III Section 3 of the United States Constitution reads, “Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.” We have a long history of the liberal media adhering to and giving aid and comfort to our enemies. All the way back to the Vietnam War and probably further. The Sedition Act of 1918 forbade Americans to use “disloyal, profane, scurrilous, or abusive language” about the U.S. government, flag, or armed forces during war. This act was repealed on December 13, 1920 but sedition has always been a crime. The last known attempt to prosecute someone for sedition was in 1959 when John W. Powell published inaccurate information about the U.S. government while working in Korea.
The media has enjoyed complete freedom from prosecution for sedition in part because of two unbelievable court rulings that could only have been decided by judges who had been drinking too much Socialist Kool-Aid. In N.Y. Times (notice how this name keeps cropping up) v. Sullivan 1964 the judge essentially said that “to ensure that debate on public issues remains uninhibited, robust, and wide-open” it is just fine and dandy to lie. So you can just go ahead and lie as long as you say the lie is uninhibited, robust, and wide-open. In St. Avant v. Thompson 1968 the judge asserted that “to ensure the ascertainment and publication of the truth about public affairs, it is essential that the First Amendment protect some erroneous publications as well as true ones.” If I am reading this one correctly, I think that it says whenever you lie in print it’s acceptable as long as you say you were trying to ascertain the truth. The courts have given the media a free pass to lie and when they print sedition they only have to say “I know, but I was just trying to ascertain the truth and besides it was really a robust and uninhibited form of sedition.”
Sedition, like treason, has no statute of limitations.
Sunday, July 2, 2017
Freedom Fighters of America, Video 113, Planned Parenthood, #blacklivesm...
Freedom Fighters of America, Video 117, Voter Fraud, Obamacare, The Wall
Saturday, July 1, 2017
Marine Sgt. calls Hillary out over Benghazi 'FOUR'-Bill Clinton rally 20...
The Greg Gutfeld Show : Tyrus drops some TRUTH on Black Lives Matter
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)