Media: We Didn’t Talk Enough About Donald Trump

United States President Donald Trump
Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

Media: We Didn’t Talk Enough About Donald Trump

They are still lamenting the Trump presidency, 18 months on.

A group of journalists and media personalities recently came to a remarkable conclusion. Although many commentators think the media covered Donald Trump too much during the presidential campaign, giving him too much exposure and too much legitimacy, this group said they actually didn’t talk about him enough.

That’s surprising: Over the last two years, is there anyone in this country that the media has discussed more than Donald J. Trump?

I talked about this on my April 23 radio program, which you can listen to here:

This belief came out in an April 22 roundtable discussion during George Stephanopoulos’s television show, This Week. It included abc White House correspondent Jon Karl, Democratic Party strategist Stephanie Cutter, New York Times reporter Amy Chozick and Republican Party strategist Alex Castellanos. They were discussing how in the world Hillary Clinton lost the election to Donald Trump. Eighteen months after the fact, they are still trying to figure it out.

It was a revealing discussion. The reporters said that perhaps they were a little too hard on Clinton during the campaign while reporting on her being under investigation for hiding and destroying e-mails when she was secretary of state. Amy Chozick, for example, said that she had written a really complimentary piece on Clinton just days before the election. However, because the fbi announced that it was reopening its investigation, Chozick’s article didn’t make it into the newspaper.

This is just one of many examples of journalists continuing to look back on the presidential campaign coverage and wondering what they could have done differently to help Hillary Clinton win.

Stephanopoulos said, “[Y]ou look back and say, listen, there were things done wrong with e-mails. There’s no question about that. But there’s something structurally in the media where we have to equalize everything. If you point out a wrongdoing on one side, you have to point out a wrongdoing on the other. And they automatically become equivalent. And that isn’t always fair.”

“I think the problem might have been not enough equalization,” Jon Karl said. “I don’t think it’s a problem of how much we covered or how much the press covered the e-mails. How much investigative work was there done on Donald Trump? Particularly during the primaries?” (emphasis added throughout).

Stephanie Cutter agreed: “Not enough.”

“He was portrayed more as a phenomenon,” Karl continued. “The excitement, the attacks, the latest outrageous thing he said or whatever. There wasn’t much investigative reporting going, frankly, until it was too late.”

Too late for what, exactly?

Do these sound like unbiased, objective opinions of men and women who seek to bring the truth to the American people? Do these sound like people who want to let the American people decide? These are the same journalists who label Fox News as completely biased. Some Fox commentators might well be biased, but here are “mainstream” journalists and news commentators openly discussing how they should have done more to portray Trump negatively before it was “too late” for their candidate to win. We should have gone after him earlier so that Hillary would have won!

First of all, that’s ridiculous. Secondly, these are the same people who didn’t vet Barack Obama and chuckled about it! Consider the exchange between Tom Brokaw and Charlie Rose that broadcast a few days before the 2008 election. (A video is available here; please excuse the uncouth title cards.) When discussing Obama’s worldview, these two big-time journalists said that they didn’t really know much about it! On the brink of “what may be the most historic election of our time,” as Rose put it, he and Brokaw admitted that the journalists covering Obama mainly got their understanding of him from the two autobiographies he wrote. Brokaw admitted that the bloggers covering the presidential campaigns lacked intellectual rigor and discerning minds. But journalists actually knew a lot more about Barack Obama than they were willing to broadcast or print. It was not difficult to discover Obama’s troubling associations with extremists like Jeremiah Wright, Louis Farrakhan, Bill Ayers and others, for example, but the media carefully concealed those facts for the benefit of Obama’s campaign.

This is an intriguing double standard. With President Obama, they were trying to conceal his troubling associations with Marxists and rabid leftists. With President Trump, they have been attacking him from day one. They portrayed him as a joke, unfit for the presidency, and absolutely destined to lose the Republican primary and certainly the presidential election. Eighteen months after Trump’s election victory, they are still looking back on 2016 and openly saying that they should have used different tactics and gone after him harder to make sure that he lost the election.

This explains a lot about what’s going on today.

The media see themselves as the ones who determine what is supposed to happen in the government. They say, “Well, we must have done something wrong, because Donald Trump won. This stuff should have come out earlier.”

When you get to the end of the conversation at Stephanopoulos’s roundtable, it gets even more bizarre. New York Times’s Amy Chozick said, “Donald Trump would not be president in a different media environment—100 percent!” That’s a flat admission that the media can and does manipulate the knowledge, beliefs and even the votes of its viewers and readers. Chozick later said, “I think particularly a candidate like Hillary Clinton who is so incredibly cautious and distant from the press—it was just sort of the perfect storm.” Stephanopoulos interjected that Clinton was “known,” and Chozick agreed.

Hillary Clinton was known, so that means Donald Trump was unknown? The Donald Trump who has lived in the eye of the Manhattan media his entire life? He has been a well-connected, well-known, often-televised personality for decades. He is a very rich man who has friends in high places, one of whom was Hillary Clinton. For 14 years, he hosted a popular reality television show on nbc, the same network that is now among those furiously attempting to dismantle his credibility, block his agenda, and possibly end his presidency.

You could argue that Trump was the best-known candidate in the history of presidential elections! This man ran for president, survived the media attacks, and won the election. And the voters’ decision left the media openly humiliated for its brazen support of Clinton and its brazen bias against Trump. Americans had lost trust in the media, and it was obvious. Even the media reported that Americans had lost trust in the media.

Fast-forward less than two years: Are the media leaving behind their liberal bias? Are they listening to the “heartland Americans” and “Main Street Americans” they openly despised during the George W. Bush administration, the Obama campaign and the 2016 campaign? Or are they doubling down on their bias—and their lies?

These particular journalists are creating a new narrative to explain their failure and to maintain their resistance against President Trump—and the Americans who support him.

The journalists at Stephanopoulos’s roundtable were revising history on the spot—history from less than two years ago! Here we had a real-estate tycoon who was a public figure in the media capital of the world in Manhattan—for decades. He worked for nbc for 14 years. He was a household name and an instantly recognizable face. He was admired by some, grudgingly respected by most. Then he decided to run for president.

Trumpet managing editor Joel Hilliker wrote in his recent article “Why You Should Follow the Trump Scandals”:

Virtually overnight, [Donald Trump] was declared to be a joke, a buffoon, a clown. And once he started to win, and especially when he won the Republican nomination, the attacks against him turned far more malicious.

Since he won the presidency, Trump’s enemies in the media and in the government have done everything possible to depict this man as deranged, stupid, unstable, incoherent, senile, corrupt, immoral, chauvinist, misogynist, bigoted, racist, jingoistic, nationalist, white supremacist. Just two years ago, nobody accused him of any of these things.

Now the media says that they should have been harder on him in the run-up to the election. Maybe then they could have kept him from being president. (The idea that the media should objectively report facts to the people is not even part of the discussion.)

Have you ever seen a presidential candidate—or anyone else, for that matter—faced with such a relentless media firestorm from the moment he began his candidacy? Mr. Hilliker wrote, “Now he is supposedly such a threat to global stability that any and all means to discredit and overthrow him are considered acceptable, even noble and patriotic.”

That’s what you hear coming out of the media megaphone. There wasn’t enough investigative reporting until it was “too late.” What does that mean? It means that the mainstream media now admits it will do whatever is necessary to discredit and even overthrow the sitting president of the United States. This is something that the mainstream media sees as noble, even patriotic—and it is ripping the country in half.

Jordan Peterson made some interesting comments on this subject during a recent discussion on Real Time With Bill Maher. The others at Maher’s roundtable were talking about how President Trump needs to be overthrown. Maher painted the Trump presidency as a “cult of personality not unlike dictatorships we’ve seen in the past” and even compared him to Saddam Hussein.

That’s when Peterson asked: “Imagine [President Trump is] impeached, just for the sake of argument. Then what?” Supposing the Democrats get what they want—how does it end for the U.S.? Peterson said that he has been watching the situation as a Canadian observer, and he has never seen America so divided. He said, “I’m concerned about the dialogue in the United States around the presidency pulling people farther and farther apart.” He talked about how this presidency has dangerously polarized the people of the United States.

How will this end? It’s a good question. It’s a question none of these reporters seem to give much thought to. They just have to get President Trump out, by whatever means necessary. That’s why these relentless condemnations are happening. In their minds, they have to do everything they can to unseat this president—to reverse the result of the last presidential election—to undo the “wrong” they did by not attacking him enough before it was “too late.”

To understand more on this subject, please read my father’s booklet Great Again. It gives you more understanding about why these events are happening in America, and what it will ultimately lead to.

NEW2 - COVER - Jerusalem_Target.jpg

Iraq Is Conquered—On to Jerusalem

After 40 years of struggle, Iran has finally subdued Iraq. Now it sets its sights on the greater prize.

Read More

Peace and Prosperity on the Korean Peninsula?

South Korean President Moon Jae-in (left) and North Korean leader Kim Jong-un walk together after planting a commemorative tree in the Peace House building in the truce village of Panmunjom, South Korea, on April 27.
INTER-KOREAN SUMMIT / POOL/Anadolu Agency/Getty Images

Peace and Prosperity on the Korean Peninsula?

North Korea’s history of broken promises should temper the optimism.

Is it time to break out some bottles of premium soju? Is it time to award United States President Donald Trump the Nobel Peace Prize? To many, recent news out of North Korea makes it seem so.

Late last month, Kim Jong-un crossed the border into the South, marking the first time any North Korean leader has done so for as long as the two have existed as separate nations. Then in an unscripted moment, Kim took South Korean President Moon Jae-in’s hand and the two stepped briefly into North Korea, then back again.

Kim and Moon then planted a tree together and agreed to formally end the Korean War by the end of the year. Kim also committed to “complete denuclearization.” Historically, when North Korean leaders have discussed denuclearizing the peninsula, they have meant that the U.S. must withdraw its nuclear umbrella over South Korea. But this time, Kim specified that the offer comes with no requirements, an end to the U.S.-South Korea alliance, or the withdrawal U.S. troops from the South. Kim even invited experts and journalists from the U.S. and South Korea to watch later this month as the North dismantles the Punggye-ri nuclear testing site, where all six of the country’s nuclear tests have occurred.

“A new history begins now—at the starting point of history and the era of peace,” Kim wrote in the Peace House guest book.

Kim promised to suspend all nuclear and missile tests and said he would now pursue economic growth and peace. Significantly, there have been no such tests for five months.

North and South pledged to increase reunions between families that have been divided since the war, relink a railway between the nations, and establish a liaison office in the North.

The North and South are even syncing their clocks, with North Korea shifting its time zone 30 minutes earlier to align with South Korea “as a first practical step for national reconciliation and unity.”

Kim is scheduled to meet with President Trump in the next few weeks, probably at the Demilitarized Zone (dmz) between the North and South. As a goodwill gesture ahead of the visit, Kim has released three U.S. citizens from one of the regime’s notorious prison camps. As a result of all this, Moon says President Trump deserves the Nobel Peace Prize. Some U.S. lawmakers have officially nominated Trump for the prize.

It looks like peace and love are in the air, which is certainly preferable to nuclear fallout. But a look at the recent history of North Korea shows that celebrations and peace prize discussions may be premature.

A History of Broken Promises

Over the past three decades, North Korean leaders have often expressed willingness to engage in various degrees of denuclearization. And each time, it has broken these promises.

The duplicity began in 1985 when North Korea signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (npt), and then continued to secretly develop its nuclear program.

1992 was another banner year for promises, with the North signing both a joint declaration with the South to denuclearize and a safeguards agreement with the International Atomic Energy Association (iaea). The next year, North Korea refused to let the iaea inspect certain areas of its nuclear facilities and threatened to withdraw from the npt.

By May of 1994, North Koreans were unloading fuel rods from a reactor without iaea inspectors present, leading to a major crisis. Understanding that Pyongyang had been deceiving the world in this high-stakes game for almost a decade, the U.S. seriously considered military action. But the North persuaded America to back down by signing the “Agreed Framework,” in which it vowed to suspend and dismantle its nuclear program. Shortly afterward, it secretly resumed developing its uranium enrichment capacity.

In 2000, North and South signed an accord to work together to achieve a peace deal and reunify the peninsula. South Korean President Kim Dae-jung was awarded a Nobel Peace Prize for his part in the efforts, and the Clinton administration in the U.S. responded by relaxing sanctions on the North. Two years later, the North confirmed U.S. reports that it had been advancing its uranium enrichment capacity, and it told iaea inspectors to leave the country. In 2006, North Korea conducted its first nuclear weapons test.

Another set of promises came in 2007 when North Korea promised to denuclearize and signed another landmark deal with South Korea for permanent peace. Two years later, the North walked away from all agreements and conducted its second underground nuclear test. It has since conducted four more.

In each instance, the North’s promises were welcomed by the world with hope and optimism. And each time they were broken.

Now North Korea is a nuclear-armed nation.

Maybe this time around is different. Maybe Kim has determined that life would be better for him and his comrades without all the sanctions and embargoes. Maybe after years of obstinacy, he is truly ready to compromise. Maybe President Trump’s “maximum pressure” campaign worked—perhaps because he was able to bring China onside. Maybe the combination of Trump’s unpredictability and his bellicosity frightened the North into finally yielding.

Many “maybes” are in play. But North Korea’s track record over the last 30 years shows that it is still too early to break out the soju. Celebrating at this point would be premature.

Mission Accomplished for the Nuclear North

Current optimism should also be tempered by the strong probability that Kim’s sudden outreach has come because his nation is now armed with powerful missiles carrying nuclear warheads.

Having a nuclear deterrent in place profoundly strengthens his negotiating position.

“Kim has grasped the hand of Moon principally because he has the nuclear weapons and the delivery system for those weapons and can now turn his attention to the economic future of North Korea,” former State Department official Wendy Sherman told the New Yorker. “No doubt the many years of sanctions, further intensified in the past months, have had an impact on the North, but Kim remains in the driver’s seat on the way ahead.”

Since developing deliverable nuclear warheads has placed Kim in this “driver’s seat,” it is difficult to imagine that he would suddenly surrender them.

Nuclear weapons are vital to the Kim regime’s survival, central to the country’s military strategy, and fundamental to North Korea’s national identity.

Kim also well knows the cautionary tales of Libya’s Muammar Qadhafi and Iraq’s Saddam Hussein. Both dictators gave up their nuclear weapons programs. And both were later ousted and killed.

Kim would also be well aware of Ukraine’s decision in 1994 to give up its 5,000 nuclear weapons—the world’s third-largest arsenal at the time—in exchange for aid and promises that America would protect Ukraine from any future invasions. Twenty years later, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and annexation of Crimea exposed the hollowness of those U.S. promises.

Dismantling his missiles and warheads would leave North Korea far less able to combat an attack from the U.S. and South Korea. It would dispossess Kim of the very thing that has enabled his impoverished nation to negotiate as an equal with the far richer South, and that has allowed him to intimidate the far wealthier and more powerful U.S.

David French of National Review said that, without nuclear weapons, North Korea is “a ninth-rate nation with a decaying conventional arsenal and zero meaningful leverage over any nation besides South Korea.”

Without its nuclear weapons, the North “is a mere blip on the American radar screen, a minor legacy irritant left over from a long-ended Cold War,” he said.

Denuclearization, French concluded, is “not happening.”

‘A Threat Many Times Greater’

But what very well may happen is that, by bringing Trump to the negotiating table but then failing to deliver on his promises, Kim could convince the South that the U.S. is the party hindering peace. If successful, this strategy could work to weaken the U.S.-South Korea alliance.

If the U.S. military ends up leaving South Korea, which President Trump said on May 3 could soon happen, paths would be cleared for both North and South to be brought into the Russia-China orbit.

This is the end game Russia and China have long hoped for and have been long working toward behind the scenes. If North Korea does disarm or make an appearance of doing so, one or both of these powers will be the true cause for it.

On Sept. 13, 2017, Trumpet editor in chief Gerald Flurry stated that the world should be considerably more concerned about Russia and China than about North Korea because those two nations are the ones that enable the Kim regime’s belligerence. He wrote:

The Bible’s prophecies show that, in a sense, the North Korea crisis is a massive distraction from the real threat posed by China and Russia. These powerful Asian nations are the only reason North Korea is able to operate so freely. And Bible prophecy shows that they pose a threat many times greater than the one from North Korea! Nevertheless, nuclear technology from North Korea could still play a major role in events during the time ahead ….

The prophecies that Mr. Flurry referred to are recorded in Ezekiel 38 and 39, Daniel 11 and in the book of Revelation. These Bible passages show that, in the end time, Russia will lead a staggeringly mighty military confederacy, with China in a secondary leadership role. Less powerful Asian countries, such as North Korea and probably the South as well, will put their power behind this Russian-led bloc.

In his booklet The Prophesied ‘Prince of Russia,’ Mr. Flurry examines these scriptures to explain what this developing scenario means for you, the hope that is tied to it, and what actions you can take as the clouds of the next world war rapidly gather. Please order your free copy of this potentially life-changing booklet today.

190430-Army helecipter-iStock-488391662.jpg

Former Defense Official: Military Revolution to Unseat U.S. Superpower

The U.S. military will soon be facing a defeat far worse than the French suffered at Agincourt.

Read More

This Week: Five Events You Need to Know (May 5)

This Week: Five Events You Need to Know (May 5)

The threat of nuclear war with Iran, Europe’s plans for a powerful military, Mexico’s drug wars, and more

Here are five of the most important news stories this week, as well as relevant links to the full articles and videos here on theTrumpet.com.

Benjamin Netanyahu’s Unsurprising Revelation

On Monday, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu revealed a captured Iranian “atomic archive” of nuclear weapons information showing just how close Iran is to creating weapons of mass destruction.

According to The Israel Project, there were four key takeaways from Netanyahu’s speech: “Iran lied about having a nuclear weapons program, it continued to expand its knowledge of nuclear weapons work after the deal, it failed to come clean about its past work in 2015, and the deal is based on lies.”

This revelation corroborates what Trumpet editor in chief Gerald Flurry wrote in “Negotiating Human Survival”: “Though many don’t realize it yet, the Western world—and especially America—has been humiliated through this deal. … No words will stop this king of terror because he believes he has a religious duty to bring upon the world a nuclear cataclysm so his messiah can return.”

The Indirect Iran-Israel War Has Become More Direct

The Iranian regime is “now sufficiently emboldened as to directly attack Israel,” wrote David Horovitz for the Times of Israel. This followed startling revelation from the Israel Defense Forces that when Israel’s Apache attack helicopter downed an Iranian drone that had penetrated Israeli airspace from Syria back in February, it hadn’t thwarted a mere reconnaissance mission—it had “thwarted an attack.”

“This is the first time we saw Iran do something against Israel—not by proxy,” a senior Israeli military official told New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman. “This opened a new period.”

China Buying Control of the Caribbean

On May 1, a financial adviser to the Dominican Republic announced that the country was shifting its policy on Taiwan to consider it a province of China. Beijing reportedly offered the Dominican Republic a $3.1 billion package of investments and loans in exchange for the Caribbean nation severing ties with Taiwan.

Understanding why China wants the Dominican Republic for the short term is simple enough. Understanding China’s long-term strategy requires us to look deeper. That’s because Bible prophecy discusses an economic siege on the United States that will be greatly enabled by Chinese investment on America’s doorstep.

Is Europe’s Border Force About to Become Its Army?

The European Commission wants to dramatically expand the European Border and Coast Guard Agency, according to initial budget proposals released May 2.

The Continent’s border force is currently 1,500 strong, but the budget proposals for 2021 to 2027 will increase the force to 10,000 by 2027.

Europe is on track to have a 10,000-armed force it can deploy anywhere within its borders, even without the target nation’s approval. It’s on track to develop the apparently invincible army that’s described in Revelation 13:4.

Drug Cartels Murder Politicians

Mexico is suffering its bloodiest election campaign in history: Over 80 political candidates have already been assassinated in the lead-up to Mexico’s federal and local elections, which are scheduled for July 1.

According to an analysis released by Etellekt, 90 percent of the violence has occurred against politicians running for state or municipal offices, with 66 percent of the assassinations occurring in the well-known drug trafficking states of Guerrero, Oaxaca, Puebla, Veracruz and the state of Mexico.

Drug cartel violence is turning Mexico into a failed state, and it is not limited to the nations south of the Rio Grande. U.S. law enforcement officials estimate that Mexican cartels have infiltrated more than 3,000 U.S. cities.

This is threatening to plunge the entire North American continent into an unprecedented epidemic of violence.

“This Week” appears every weekend. To receive an update on our latest stories in your inbox ahead of time every Friday afternoon, subscribe to the Trumpet Brief daily e-mail. Sign up by clicking here or by visiting theTrumpet.com home page.

190403-Kansas flood-GettyImages-1137670449.jpg

Midwest Floods: Worst Agricultural Disaster in Modern U.S. History

Catastrophic flooding swamped America’s breadbasket. The effects could last years.

Read More

Week in Review: Iran’s Lies Exposed, North-South Korea Détente, Erosion of America’s Free Press, and Much More

North Korea’s leader Kim Jong Un shakes with South Korea’s President Moon Jae-in at the Military Demarcation Line that divides their countries ahead of their summit at Panmunjom on April 27, 2018.
KOREA SUMMIT PRESS POOL/AFP/Getty Images

Week in Review: Iran’s Lies Exposed, North-South Korea Détente, Erosion of America’s Free Press, and Much More

Show Notes

  • Iran and North Korea both pose a nuclear threat, and this week saw big developments within both nations:
    • With Iran, Israeli intelligence revelations of extraordinary deception regarding Iranian efforts to obtain nuclear weapons.
    • And in North Korea, an apparent step away from the nuclear ledge, with a first-ever meeting between the leaders of North and South Korea.
  • The European Commission’s proposed new budget shows an intent to turn a small border force into a bona fide, unified European army.
  • Collusion between America’s federal government and the press is being exposed as never before, showing the erosion of the free press into something more like state-controlled media.
  • We also discuss China’s lies about its militarization of the South China Sea, Iranian activity in Morocco, wrangling over German defense spending, and the New York Times celebrating Karl Marx’s 200th birthday by saying, “He was right”!

Links

NEW - Refugees-875287558_KevinFrayer Getty.jpg

Learn the Lesson of the ‘Great Multitude’

It could protect you from a world of suffering.

Read More

Alfie Evans and the Consensus of ‘Experts’

Messages are displayed in Britain in tribute of Alfie Evans.
Omar Marques / SOPA Images/SOPA Images/LightRocket/Getty Images

Alfie Evans and the Consensus of ‘Experts’

What happens when government institutions start believing they are infallible

At a hospital in London last Monday, the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge welcomed their third child into the world—a baby boy. That same day, doctors in a Liverpool hospital turned off the life support machine for 23-month-old Alfie Evans.

Alfie had suffered from an undiagnosed brain condition that left him in a semivegetative state. He had been on life support for more than a year. However, a panel of doctors decided earlier this year to take little Alfie off life support. They believed it was only prolonging the inevitable. The doctors told Alfie’s parents that he would die within minutes—he would not be able to survive on his own.

Once they took Alfie off life support, one hour passed—then two, then four, then 24—and Alfie was still alive.

Alfie’s parents were vehemently opposed to the doctors taking their young son off life support. They wanted to try some experimental treatments that were available in Italy. Tom Evans, Alfie’s father, traveled to Italy and met with the pope, who joined the growing movement in favor of bringing Alfie to Italy. Italy even granted Alfie honorary Italian citizenship.

However, the British courts refused to let him go. They denied the parents’ repeated appeals. They even refused to let the parents take Alfie home.

For the first six hours that Alfie was breathing on his own, the doctors didn’t give him any water. They refused to give him antibiotics for a chest infection he had, or any food to keep him alive. But against all odds, Alfie kept breathing.

He survived until the early hours of the morning last Saturday, when he tragically died in the hospital while in the arms of his parents.

British mep Steven Woolfe said during a radio interview last week, “There is a determination, I think, to kill that child and to make sure that he doesn’t get across to Italy.”

That’s a pretty serious charge. But this case does raise a lot of questions. Why was it assumed that the doctors were the ones who should make the final decision? And when Alfie continued to live for days after they took him off life support, why didn’t they make any effort to help him keep living? Even though they had already been proved wrong by the fact that Alfie kept breathing, they never questioned their decision to take him off life support.

Woolfe said in a Sky News interview last week, “What I’ve found in my time looking at this case and [previous cases] is that we have an institutional arrogance—a belief that [the doctors] can never do anything wrong. And as a consequence of that, they are willing to make the decision to end life, notwithstanding the fact that there are alternative options out there.”

In an interview with Dr. Hilary Jones on Good Morning Britain last week, Piers Morgan said that doctors sometimes get it wrong and that “miracles do happen” with patients. Jones scoffed at the prospect of miracles ever happening. “They don’t happen!” he shot back. He said doctors might occasionally get it wrong. “But when you look at a whole consensus of doctors, all of whom are very experienced, all of whom are compassionate and caring—they’ve got the scans, they’ve got the records, they can see what’s happening—they’re very, very rarely wrong” (emphasis added throughout).

In other words, the “consensus” is practically infallible and knows exactly what kind of care is or is not compassionate. And the courts back the “consensus.” You can’t leave the country for alternative care—even if the receiving country covers the costs. You can’t even take your dying baby home.

There was a point last week that the “consensus” considered letting Alfie return home with his parents for his final days. But they said the parents first needed to change their attitude! They know what is compassionate and caring for little Alfie. And they know what’s wrong with the parents’ attitude.

As Red State pointed out, this is the dark side of a state-run, single-payer health-care system. In the National Health Service (nhs), the bottom line is “measured in dollars rather than lives.” The people who submit to it are “agreeing to let the government treat their lives as algorithms.” The article explained the probable reasoning behind the decision to take Alfie off life support:

The nhs simply cannot afford the extremely expensive prospect of keeping alive a little boy who most likely will not live much longer due to an incurable condition. Alfie’s chances of any meaningful recovery were slim to none. It isn’t outside the boundaries of reason that the government tasked with his treatment would deem it simply not worth the effort expended.

The incomprehensible part, as Red State pointed out, is that the British government wouldn’t let the parents take Alfie to Italy. It seems like it would have been a win-win for everyone. But what it boils down to is control. The “consensus” thought they were better guardians of this child’s interests than his parents. What if they had allowed Alfie to go to Italy—and what if the experimental treatment had worked? It would have been a huge embarrassment to the nhs and the British government. They would have had to admit that they were wrong.

Red State continued, “For some bizarre reason, a nation that boasts figures like Winston Churchill and Margaret Thatcher, a tiny island nation that was once so powerful and broad it was said that the sun never set on the British Empire, … for some inexplicable reason that nation has chosen to hang its pride and joy on socialized medicine.”

At Power Line, writer Scott Johnson condensed the salient points of the issue with Britain’s worship of its nhs system:

We have turned over vast swaths of our lives to the control of experts.

That’s the way the left wants it.

This is what socialism and the administrative state are all about.

The “knowledge” of “experts” is frequently a pretense to assert control over our lives.

Individual rights lose their meaning under socialism and the administrative state.

Abuse of the right to life is “part and parcel of a health system dominated by the state rather than the individual or the family” (as James Freeman puts it).

With the loss of the right to life and property goes the right to liberty.

It is this kind of institutional arrogance that is behind the erosion of freedom and liberty in our nations today. Britain has a rich, glorious history of reinforcing the pillars of liberty. But today, the United Kingdom—and the United States—are gradually sacrificing their freedoms before the altar of state-sponsored institutions that are packed full of “experts” who are rarely, if ever, wrong.

To understand the danger behind this institutional arrogance, please read my father’s booklet No Freedom Without Law.

NEW2 - COVER - Jerusalem_Target.jpg

Iraq Is Conquered—On to Jerusalem

After 40 years of struggle, Iran has finally subdued Iraq. Now it sets its sights on the greater prize.

Read More

Who Investigates the Investigators?

FBI headquarters
iStock.com/krblokhin

Who Investigates the Investigators?

Listen to the May 4, 2018, episode of the Trumpet Daily Radio Show.

America is in the midst of a constitutional breakdown. The fbi investigation into the Trump campaign’s alleged collusion with Russia has gone far beyond the original scope of the probe. Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein has said he will not stop the investigation and has refused to answer to Congress. The fbi is behaving like an independent entity that answers to no one. And President Donald Trump’s enemies are quite alright with this assault on civil liberties because it’s aimed at Mr. Trump. On today’s program, I talk about what happens when the ones doing the investigating believe they are above the law.

Listen on Stitcher.

Download the show on iTunes.

Catch up with the latest programs here.