Will Charlie Gard Bring Down the European (Soviet) Union?

By Jason Jones & John Zmirak Published on July 11, 2017

The plight of Charlie Gard and his parents is awakening consciences around the world. What could be more clear-cut than this case? Parents who love their baby have found the money to try a treatment that just might save him. But doctors, British courts, and the European Court of Human Rights (Ministry of Love, anyone?) are all colluding against them. Against a baby.

Why? That’s the staggering question. What do all these powerful people care if two parents try this treatment? Are they afraid that it won’t work? Not at all. They’re straining at the leash to shut off his food and water. To turn off his respirator. Are they scared it will cause him anguish? Zero evidence for that.

A “Life Unworthy of Life”

No, the British doctors, judges, and the European court are afraid that the treatment might work. That it might save a “life unworthy of life.” It might set a troubling precedent: that the handicapped have value. That life is sacred and suffering is redeemable. Even that something matters more than piling up happy moments before you die. This spectacle of people around the world contributing to help two loving parents care for their sick, crippled child, who willingly embrace the sacrifices entailed … It shames them. They find it repulsive. It reminds them of the Cross.

No treason could be more profound and perfect.

Western Europe has gone beyond rejecting the supernatural. It can barely contain its revulsion at nature and life itself. Few countries in Europe have enough births to replace the dying. Eurocrats have chosen to outsource the grubby work of reproduction to the Muslim world, in the form of “refugees.” What more comprehensive way on earth could there be for them to reject their ancestors? To salt the earth against descendants? No treason could be more profound and perfect than to sterilize themselves and hand the Continent over to total strangers.

Erasing Our Ancestors, Aborting Our Descendants

Childless elites rule Europe in secret through unelected commissions — it sounds like some crazy futuristic novel, doesn’t it? But it’s the cold, unvarnished truth. These oligarchs loathe their subjects. They despise more than anything those who cling to one piece or another of their grandparents’ natural and supernatural pieties:

  • The duty of parents to educate and advocate for their children, despite the State.
  • The rights of voters to direct their nations’ futures.
  • The duty of nations to guard their own borders and sovereignty.
  • The right of churches to pass along their doctrine, unpoisoned by modern sexual ideology.

The suave and rootless Citizens of International Business Class have their own set of deep-seated feelings. Most of them start with scorn.

They loathe people like Charlie Gard’s parents. “Ignorant” Britons who support measures like Brexit. “Benighted” Poles who won’t legalize abortion. “Bigoted” Hungarians who won’t let “the Turk” reoccupy their country. “Racist” Americans (of every race) who voted for Donald Trump.

Charlie Gard has become a symbol, whose influence will live on. His parents are doing what’s healthy and natural. So are the voters in Poland, Slovakia, and Hungary. And yes, so were we in our last presidential election.

These elitists are desperate to keep real decisions out of the hands of voters. To concentrate power upward, in the hands of the few. To manage the media, censor Facebook, terrorize populists and patriots. And to stigmatize as “extremists” those who still think and speak as Churchill, De Gaulle, and Adenauer once did — of freedom, faith, and Western civilization.

The Pope as Gravedigger of Christendom

We were ashamed to see the Vatican’s Academy Council for Life weigh in against the rights of parents. Against the value of Charlie’s life. We are appalled to read that Pope Francis wants to grant more powers to the European Union, at the expense of elected governments.

Yes, it’s true that Pope Francis, after a week of backlash among Catholics, overruled his handpicked choice to run the Pontifical Council, Archbishop Paglia. Yes, the pope finally weighed in on the side of life. But no one should be impressed until he fires Paglia, and the pro-abortion thinkers whom Paglia brought into the Vatican — replacing real, heroic pro-life intellectuals at the nerve center of the worldwide pro-life movement.

We can’t say whether Charlie Gard will live or die. That’s in God’s hands now. But we do know this: He has become a symbol, whose influence will live on. His parents are doing what’s healthy and natural. So are the voters in Poland, Slovakia and Hungary. And yes, so were we in our last presidential election. So are the countless patriotic citizens in other lands who cling to their national heritage, and refuse to be dispossessed. To be tyrannized in secret, then brow-beaten and humiliated by strangers who hate their values.

It’s Always About a Baby

We don’t know if doctors will let little Charlie receive the medicine that could save him. Or if Europeans will take the only remedy that could redeem them — the faith of their ancestors in Jesus Christ.

But it’s fitting that the fate of an almost childless continent might be changed by the life of a baby. Let us pray that in two decades a grown-up Charlie Gard will look around with wonder — and see a Europe renewed, restored, set free. … A Europe that finds its identity not in gadgets or slogans or ideology, but in that baby Who long ago lay helpless in a manger in Bethlehem.

NOTE: The European Court of Human Rights is not controlled by the members of the EU, but rather by the more broadly-based Council of Europe.

Print Friendly
Comments ()
The Stream encourages comments, whether in agreement with the article or not. However, comments that violate our commenting rules or terms of use will be removed. Any commenter who repeatedly violates these rules and terms of use will be blocked from commenting. Comments on The Stream are hosted by Disqus, with logins available through Disqus, Facebook, Twitter or G+ accounts. You must log in to comment. Please flag any comments you see breaking the rules. More detail is available here.
  • Paul

    “Will Charlie Gard Bring Down the European (Soviet) Union?”

    Are you kidding? This news cycle will end and be replaced with the next shiny object or wardrobe malfunction.

  • Linda

    I am skeptical of the hyperbole surrounding this case. For example, if the baby was to be discharged from the hospital to travel to the US for treatment, what doctors, nurses and medical equipment would travel with him? It’s not like he can be unplugged and travel hours without intense medical support. Do American doctors accompany their patients to foreign countries for treatments that have not been approved in the US?

    • BTP

      “You may go, but your oxygen is our property.” Perfectly reasonable.

      • Linda

        If the only treatment keeping him alive was oxygen, his parents would have taken him home long ago. You have no idea the extent of medical support this baby requires.

        • Bobalouie

          He is on a ventilator and a feeding tube, both can be extremely portable, specially considering his size. They have doctors and nurses willing to travel and assist with his transfer and more medical staff waiting to care for him. This has nothing to do with intense medical support and everything to do with an elitist godless government overriding the rights of parents.

          • Linda

            While I don’t presume to understand the motives and issues preventing his parents taking him elsewhere for experimental treatment (doctors tend to try everything to save lives, even doctors in state-funded health care), I hope we see a miracle healing for this baby…

        • Bobalouie

          Many disabled people on vents and feeding tubes live at home and are cared for by their family. That is what is so frustratingly crazy about this hospital and the courts. I’d be loosing my mind if some unrelated bureaucrat told me I couldn’t care for my own child.

        • BTP

          Uh huh. The term for when a bunch of government bureaucrats decide that, not only will they not pay for your experimental treatment, they will physically prevent our from attempting it is a Death Panel.

        • pearl87 ✓ᴰᵉᵖˡᵒʳᵃᵇˡᵉ

          You also have no idea. And, no, the parents would not have “taken him home long ago”, because the hospital and the govt will not permit the parents to take him home, even to die. But don’t let facts cloud your hatred of this child and his parents.

    • Seamrog

      I cannot believe that your response to this article is to be ‘skeptical?’

      What on earth is wrong with you? What defect tarnishes your soul?

    • pearl87 ✓ᴰᵉᵖˡᵒʳᵃᵇˡᵉ

      Your skepticism is hardly the issue here. Nor is your opinion regarding the logistics in moving the child. Clearly, you are trying to cast the debate in some light that justifies this atrocious conduct.

      • Bryan

        When facts are continuously buried for the sake of the story or narrative of the one who is paying for the story, “skeptical” is a perfectly reasonable response to a story that seems so far beyond the expected moral decency of normal human beings. When I first heard of Charlie Gard, mixed in my thoughts was, “What facts am I not hearing about this case because I’m hearing it from a Right-Leaning source?” As I uncovered more facts, I believe the “hyperbole” to be true but you cannot blame someone for doubting what they read in the news, even if it happens to be on The Stream. In one sense, we’ve taken the old adage to heart, “Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.” However, many of us have been duped so many times that we simply don’t trust anyone and, at the same time, we trust everyone.
        Please don’t assume someone who questions facts for the sake of clarity, naivete, or some other innocuous reason, is a troll trying to cause a ruckus or a tarnished soul in need of your sanctification.

        • pearl87 ✓ᴰᵉᵖˡᵒʳᵃᵇˡᵉ

          I am not empowered to confer “sanctification” and you are no more in the position to condemn me. But, people of good will do not jump to conclusions that condemn the parents in this scenario, even while lacking all the facts. If one has not formed his opinion, why chime in with “skepticism”?
          So, I’m expressing MY skepticism. IMO, Linda wears her anti life bias on her sleeve – as do you.

          • Bryan

            You have asked not to be condemned yet you condemn me and, based on your quick accusation and generalization, I would assume you would condemn anyone who would dare to disagree with you. You’ve condemned another woman for asking medical and pragmatic questions that are not covered in this article. There is nothing wrong with the article for not providing additional information on the medical condition or constraints of the child because that is beyond the scope of the article. Therefore a reasonable person who is not better informed on this subject is justified to ask questions and not be condemned of “anti-life bias”.
            To a “normal” person, it is obviously the default response for the parent to be able to direct the care of their child. Even though this very situation has been foretold in fiction and non-fiction for many years, it’s still beyond belief for many for it to be played out right in front of their eyes. And with rhetoric being what it is these days, basically justifiable lying through your teeth to get votes/sympathy/money/etc., to be skeptical of something you can’t believe is actually happening in front of your eyes, while being somewhat naive, is, unfortunately, a typical response. We’ve been taught all our lives that doctors try to do what’s best for the patient and do no harm. To live as if everyone has an agenda in opposition to yours is hard work.
            The same thing happens in an active shooter incident. While people should Run, Hide, or Fight (in that order), the usual response is disbelief that someone is shooting, then panic and freeze in place. We’ve been taught all our lives that doctors try to do what’s best for the patient and do no harm. To live as if everyone has an agenda in opposition to yours is hard work.
            I don’t know Linda’s opinions on life, abortion, etc. are or if she’s the same Linda who has commented on other Stream articles or a different one. However, I very much doubt you know those opinions either. I know for certain that you do not know mine. I do not condemn you position on the worthiness of life of Charlie Gard. I take issue with you obvious disdain for life that doesn’t agree with your opinions.

          • pearl87 ✓ᴰᵉᵖˡᵒʳᵃᵇˡᵉ

            I did not ask “not to be condemned”. I said you are not in a position to condemn me. And you aren’t. In your case, you are clearly opining from a position of distrust of those on the RIGHT. That does, indeed, create a response of disdain in me. Even as you describe your incredulity in the face of these horrific developments, we on the right have this same inability to process that the first impulse on the left is to provide cover for the child’s persecutors and assume that, because the source of the information is conservative, it is therefore untrue. I would remind you that the MSM is owned by the left, and they are pushing a narrative that is damaged by this exposure of socialism’s true face. So it is not surprising that left-wing sources will not carry any accounts of this. I hope this is a wake up call to those who have been laboring under the delusion that they get anything like “truth” from the leftist media.
            Perhaps you are not gunning for this baby’s life. But I stand by my assessment of “Linda’s” agenda.

          • Bryan

            I am in the same position you are regarding the condemnation of fellow human beings.
            From our very limited conversation, you have assumed that I distrust those on the right, that I believe if information comes from a right leaning source it’s immediately suspect, that I believe MSM is true, and that while I may not be gunning for this child’s life, I have an anti-life bias and that my first reaction is to defend the doctors that want this child to die.
            You really don’t know what I believe or don’t believe because you haven’t asked the question. You don’t know why Linda made her comment to begin with, again, because you didn’t ask. While it’s entirely possible that you’re right in your assessment of Linda’s beliefs, it is equally possible that she is a pro-life as you claim to be and when she realizes that the facts in the case have not be exaggerated, she will agree with you that this is the eventual end of product of socialized, state-run medical care and that it shouldn’t be allowed to continue.
            Since you probably still won’t ask what I believe in regards to this situation, I’ll lay it out for you: The parents should have been able to take Charlie to get what ever treatment they deemed to be the best for him, from where ever they could afford said treatment. The hospital should have been able to say it’s against our medical advice but that should have been it. It’s shameful that not only the State, but also, the justice system, the European Court of Human Rights, GOSH, and the other characters in this mess, think that they know best and that that precludes the parents judgement. I believe this will get overturned shortly and they will be allowed to leave with Charlie because they will realize this is a really dumb hill to die on and that’s exactly what will happen if they push. There’s nothing like a wrongfully dead child on national TV to get people worked up. Unfortunately, that will still mean a win for the State because the State will have successfully prevented parents of a child to remove that child from the care of the State and then will have successfully allowed parents to remove the child and try experimental treatment elsewhere. Whether Charlie lives or dies, the State can spin this as a success for the State.
            I also believe that everyone has an agenda, that they are trying to get me to believe or buy into whatever it is they are selling. I come to The Stream for news because I agree with many of the opinions put forth here. I know that they are bias one way and I happen to agree with that bias most of the time. That doesn’t mean I blindly adhere to whatever they throw out. With a God-given ability to analyze and synthesize the articles, I decide what is truth and what is exaggeration for effect.
            When I first heard of this situation, I did think there might be a reason they were not listing for why Charlie Gard was not allowed to be taken home by his parents, because the Stream has a very pro-life agenda and because (as Linda says below) doctors as human beings, generally try everything available to save life. But this article was not my first piece of information regarding the Charlie Gard situation. This particular article has very little to do with the medical issues and everything to do with the effects of socialized medicine and the ethics of allowing the State to control who lives and dies. Therefore a skeptic who has not seen other information could reasonably assume unknown information could hold a key and that this opinion piece had a motive other than Charlie’s best interest in mind.
            Finally, I believe that putting someone down based on your presumed beliefs about their character based on limited interaction as you, Seamrog, etc. seem to have done, shows more about your character than it does the person you put down and shows you are no better than your counterparts on the left side of the political spectrum who do the same thing (especially to other left-leaning individuals who stray from the “party line”).

  • BTP

    Belloc, of course said the Europe would be Catholic or else it would cease to be. I think the latter is much more likely than the former.

  • davidk

    Premillenialists hardest hit.

  • thetimman

    bravo

  • Seamrog

    This is a wonderful article, and it is NO WONDER that this story is continually buried

    I lament what has become of the British male….he used to be one of the most fierce, nastiest fighting men on the planet who would break for afternoon tea.

    Now, they let the invading islamist hoards gang-rape their daughters for a decade, unpunished, and left smirking.

    They let some government tell a parent WHEN and IF they can remove their child from a hospital to try and save his life.

    They are consumed with football and the tabloid television that furthers the rot of their backbone.

    Shame on you all, you cowards, for not coming to the aid of this father.

  • Kathy Jones

    This article is beyond great. It is divinely inspired. It expresses what so many of us have felt and known for so long. That what is happening to one small child is happening to all of us……..that there is a very strong and hidden evil pulling the strings pretty much everywhere. The oppressors believe we are a remnant, but they are wrong. We are a tidal wave, we are a giant army, we are that molten rock just beneath the surface…..and we are rising. I feel it. I know it. And they are scared. They should be. On with the revolution. +++

  • Leslie Alexander

    Beautiful. Profound. Shattering. Thank you.

  • Paul

    Now that Charlie Gard has died and seeing the articles and discussions that followed his passing it is painfully obvious that there is little that is clear about this situation.

Inspiration
Joy in the Hurricane
James Randall Robison
More from The Stream
Connect with Us