Trump tweet unlikely to be covered by American mainstream media.

But how would anyone sensible know that unless they actually watch American mainstream media and only low information voters do. Everyone else has moved on, and to their annoyance are told what is covered and what is not covered by genuine American Party propaganda, ridiculously thrown themselves out of balance.

Americans used to make fun of Party organ Pravda. Even Russians joked about what their newspaper printed. And now America has the same thing. Media organs beholden to Party. And nobody outside the Party believes a word from them collectively. But it's worse in America because that complicity between media and Party is done voluntarily. 

I was waiting for this tweet and pleased to see it this morning.  But acting on this might require the parents changing their citizenship. And it might lead to unending anguish and only to continued anguish, right up to the bitter end. Apparently that is what the medical experts determined. For all that I know challenging British and European courts here might be extremely careless. 

Where it does strike readers as cruel for the same courts to disallow the parents bringing their child home to die. The thinking is most likely the courts predicting the parents flight to get their child experimental treatment, and that following treatment and temporary reprieve the child will grow up draining medical resources, and only that, with no chance of ever being productive citizen. 

Americans tend to think, so what? That fairly describes a large portion of our population. 

Drudge links to an item about Steven Hawking bringing his audience to tears. Slim to zero chance the child will grow up and command an audience, still a little bit odd, don't you think? Hawking genius having determined that Trump could push the planet over the brink, I wonder what Hawking genius has to say about this.

British citizens raised funds to cover the cost for the boy. Are they willing to keep that up and continue raising funds to cover continued expenses for as long as it takes? We see this decision does not match the wishes of a portion of British citizens willing to prolong the child's life. Is that same portion willing to extend support for however the child lives? This is a case of medical and legal experts really having superior knowledge and now given the power to decide fates that technical expertise rules over emotional appeal.

Whatever their citizens think of Charlie Gard's case, it must be acknowledged that this is British and European courts broadcasting that citizens are property of State and not the other way around. Further, these citizens will always prefer having State manage their healthcare and basically as a matter of convenience.