By Peter Barry Chowka

Exclusive to The Hagmann Report. Proponents of government-run health care – whether it’s Medicare, Obamacare, or full-bore socialist single-payer – insist that it will improve Americans’ health and lower the costs. It is also claimed that right now there is no alternative other than moving the country in the extreme leftward direction toward a more socialist medical system. Meanwhile, socialist medicine has failed everywhere that it’s been tried – including right here in the U.S. since the imposition of socialist-light Obamacare in 2010.

Now there is evidence – a smoking gun, in effect – that confirms the true intent of the wonks, the bureaucrats, the globalists, and the Deep State actors behind government-run health care: Its purpose is not to provide effective health care at all but to exert total control over the population.

On March 21, 2010, the Affordable Care Act a.k.a. Obamacare – a true abomination that transformed the entire U.S. health care system – was successfully rammed through the Democrat-controlled U.S. Congress on a narrow, straight party line vote. The Obamacare law was 2,300 pages long and the Obama administration subsequently issued over 20,000 pages of additional regulations associated with it. For the first time in history, using the IRS as the enforcer, the law mandated that all Americans must purchase an expensive government-approved conventional health insurance plan – whether they wanted to or not. This onerous requirement is known as the “individual mandate.” An annual penalty or tax was part of Obamacare. If you didn’t purchase the mandated insurance, you had to pay an increasing percentage of your income to the IRS which was given new enforcement powers and 17,000 new agents to enforce compliance under the new law.

The predictable results of this draconian law were that the cost of health insurance premiums for the middle class rose precipitously and millions of Americans lost their doctors and their favorite health care plans, notwithstanding the oft-repeated bald faced lies by Obama that “If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor” and “If you like your health care plan, you can keep your health care plan.” Pulitzer Prize-winning PolitiFact chose Obama’s lies about Obamacare as its “lie of the year” in 2013.

 President Obama signs the Affordable Care Act, March 23, 2010. On the right, seated, is Rep John Dingell.

Since 2010, the forces of the Shadow Government and the Medical-Industrial complex, with the connivance of the mainstream media, have been able to successfully spin Obamacare as a great benefit that should be kept and not repealed. Widespread initial opposition to the law – which helped to give birth to the Tea Party – by 2017 was replaced by majority support for it, according to public opinion polls.

The Smoking Gun

There have been clear indications along the way that Obamacare was sold to the American people under false pretenses. For example, one of its leading architects, MIT professor Jonathan Gruber, was outed when a recording emerged of him admitting to an audience in 2014 that Democrats relied on “the stupidity of the American voter” for Obamacare to become law.

The real smoking gun confirming unequivocally the insidious intentions of the people behind Obamacare came on Monday morning, March 22, 2010. The day before, Obamacare passed the Congress in a party line vote and on March 23 it was signed into law in a triumphant ceremony at the White House by President Barack Hussein Obama. On that Monday morning, John Dingell, the senior Democrat member of the House of Representatives who represented a district in southeast Michigan that included parts of Detroit, appeared by telephone on a local Detroit talk radio program, The Paul W. Smith Show on WJR AM.

Dingell had supported single-payer, government-run socialist health care since he entered the Congress in 1955. His father, John Dingell, Sr., who spent 22 years representing the same district in Congress before Dingell, Jr., was also a supporter of socialized medicine. (After Dingell, Jr. retired in 2015 at age 88, his second wife Debbie, 28 years his junior, stood for election to succeed her husband and won. She continues to represent the district and, her health permitting, will likely hold the seat for the next two or three decades. The three Dingells – John, Sr., John, Jr., and Debbie – have continuously represented the same Congressional district in Michigan without a break for the past 85 years!)

 John and Debbie Dingell

In 2010, John Dingell, Jr. was given credit by his Democrat colleagues for helping to push the Obamacare legislation through the Congress. Obama gifted Dingell with one of the pens that he used to sign the Affordable Care Act into law. Speaking on the radio in Detroit, exulting in his and the Democrats’ victory on the morning after the close legislative win, this is what John Dingell said:

Let me remind you this [Americans allegedly dying because of the lack of government-run universal health care] has been going on for years. We are bringing it to a halt. The harsh fact of the matter is when you’re going to pass legislation that will cover 300 [million] American people in different ways it takes a long time to do the necessary administrative steps that have to be taken to put the legislation together to control the people.

“To control the people.” There it was. Finally. In plain, simple English. Unequivocal and clear as a bell.

 Bill Clinton and John Dingell

When American Thinker published my short article on March 24, 2010 about what Dingell had said two days earlier – bringing an obscure local radio interview that would otherwise have been overlooked into the light of day for all to see and hear – it was picked up by a wide variety of media, including HotAir, where Ed Morrissey wondered if Dingell had uttered “the mother of all Freudian slips.” Michelle Malkin included reference to Dingell’s comments in an article on March 24, 2010 at her Web site. The story also made its way to the Gateway PunditRedState, the Heritage Foundation’s Daily Signal, the Washington Times, and Fox News. The most extensive analysis of what Dingell said including its context and ramifications was published at CentristNet. All of these outlets credited American Thinker and me for unearthing the nugget about “control” spoken by Dingell. Discussion of Dingell’s “control the people” admission also occurred on Rush Limbaugh’s radio show and Bill O’Reilly’s prime time Fox News cable TV program.

Dinegll’s office was quick to issue a response. On March 24, 2010, an official statement was posted on Dingell’s government Web site, titled “Dingell Statement Clarifying Comments on Paul W. Smith Show – Right-Wing Blogs [sic] Attempt to Smear Congressman’s Words About Oversight of Insurance Companies Appalling Rescission Practices.”

Congressman John D. Dingell (D-MI15), made the following statement this morning to clarify a comment he made yesterday [March 22, 2017] on WJR 760AM in Detroit on the Paul W. Smith Show, a comment which is now being distorted by right-wing blogs for political purposes.

“Right-wing bloggers are attempting to take my words out-of-context in another pathetic attempt to destroy the historic step taken yesterday for our country.   During an interview on Paul W. Smith’s show, I said:

‘The harsh fact of the matter is when you’re going to pass legislation that will cover 300 [million] American people in different ways it takes a long time to do the necessary administrative steps that have to be taken to put the legislation together to control the people.’

“If one were to listen to the entire interview, and not just a clip creatively chopped up for political gain, it is obvious that by ‘people’ I was referring to the insurance companies who we must do a better job of overseeing.  Specifically, we are going to end the deplorable practices of those who rescind the health insurance policies of people on gurneys heading into emergency rooms.”

The problem with the pathetic spin put out by Dingell’s office is that the interview was not “chopped up” (edited). The essential section of the Q & A was excerpted and transcribed accurately without any editing. Dingell’s entire 12-minute and 22-second-long March 22, 2010 appearance on Paul W. Smith’s WJR program – completely unedited – can be streamed or downloaded from this page. The listener can judge for himself what Dingell said and what he meant.

The failure in 2017 of the Republicans in Congress to repeal Obamacare, in particular the individual mandate, coupled with the increasing approval of Obamacare and support for – gasp – single-payer, are not promising signs. However, early versions of the tax reform legislation being considered in the Congress (early December 2017) include a provision to repeal Obamacare’s individual mandate.

This is my sixth article in an ongoing series for The Hagmann Report about health care. Below are links to the previous five (and one article from July 2017 at American Thinker).

Single-Payer Medicine is Communism Wearing a Mask of Deceit – Classic Interview with Dr. Nicholas Gonzalez  November 26, 2017

It Was 40 Years Ago When My Suspicions About Fake News Were Confirmed (As I was Reporting From Washington, D.C. on the War on Cancer)  November 15, 2017

Majority of American MDs want to work as salaried employees or wage slaves  October 9, 2017

Dr. Linus Pauling and Vitamin C: Meetings With Remarkable Men  July 22, 2017

Baby Charlie Gard: It Can’t Happen Here – or Can It?  July 20, 2017 at American Thinker

Single-Payer Health Care Will Destroy Your Freedom and Kill You  July 13, 2017

Peter Barry Chowka is a veteran reporter and analyst of news on national politics, health care, media, and popular culture. Between 1992-’94 he served as an advisor to the National Institutes of Health. Follow Peter on Twitter @pchowka.

By Peter Barry Chowka

On Monday, July 24, the parents of terminally ill 11-month old British baby Charlie Gard agreed with his doctors to end life support and allow him to die. It was assumed that the court proceeding in London where this decision was announced would be the final occasion requiring the parents’ presence in court, allowing them to focus now on being with their son until the end. As it turned out, Connie Yates, Charlie’s mother, felt the need to return to the same court on Tuesday and Wednesday and appeal to the same judge for help.

In court on Monday, all of the interested parties – the parents, the hospital, the attorneys, and the judge – seemed to be trying hard to sound a note of unity. Before the next day, this feel-good front had dissolved when the hospital and the doctors refused to honor the parents’ wishes to allow Charlie to die at home. This request does not seem unreasonable considering the fact that Charlie has spent all but the first two months of his short life in hospital. High Court Judge Nicholas Francis sided with the hospital on that issue, but it was back to court again on Wednesday for another appeal by Connie Yates, this time to allow the parents the choice of the hospice staff to oversee Charlie’s final days and the length of time that he might be kept alive in hospice with the help of life support. The parents want Charlie to be on a respirator for at least several days after he leaves the hospital to allow them a decent length of time in a supportive environment to say goodbye.

 Crying uncontrollably and shielding her face from photographers, Connie Yates leaves the British High Court, July 26, 2017

After the latest court hearing, the AP reported Wednesday afternoon from London:

Yates requested a medical team of her choosing that would work to keep her son alive for a week under hospice care rather than the few hours he was expected to survive once his ventilator was removed.

The request indicated that the parents have backed away from their earlier expressed wish to take Charlie home for “a few days of tranquility” before his ventilator was disconnected and he was allowed to “slip away.”

Wherever Charlie winds up spending his last days, nurses from the hospital have volunteered to care for him in his final hours.

Mr. Justice Francis said the situation calls out “for mediation” rather than a court ruling, but he said he would rule on the details of Charlie’s future on Thursday at noon PST (British Summer Time) if the parties could not agree.

Less than five hours before the scheduled Thursday noon deadline, the Daily Mail published an article summarizing the latest information.

Great Ormond Street doctors said it was not practical to provide life-support treatment to Charlie at the couple’s home for days. They said a hospice would be a better plan, and they said life-support treatment should end shortly after Charlie arrived at a hospice.

 Charlie Gard and his parents, Great Ormond Street Hospital, London, England

The Mirror published a running and riveting account of developments during Wednesday’s court hearing, as did attorney and journalist Joshua Rozenberg who tweeted live updates from the courtroom.

Dr. Hirano Speaks

On July 15, it was revealed that Michio Hirano, M.D., a specialist in neurological disorders including the very rare condition that Charlie Gard has, was the expert who had been confidentially weighing in on Charlie’s case since earlier this year. Dr. Hirano, 56, is involved in innovative research and clinical practice at Columbia University Medical Center in New York and has a list of positions, accomplishments, publications, and research grants that have resulted in significant international recognition.

After the court hearing on Monday, July 24, during which it was agreed that life support for Charlie would come to an end and treatment of Charlie in New York by Dr. Hirano would not be attempted, Dr. Hirano suddenly became an apparent scapegoat and a target of the hospital, the judge, and much of the media. Overnight, this previous miracle worker (who had saved the life of another young patient afflicted with the condition that Charlie Gard has) became a “quack,” “wicked,” and a pariah who was only in it for the financial rewards, with allegations that he stood to profit from the therapies he was experimenting with and was prepared to use on Charlie.

 Michio Hirano, M.D., Columbia University Medical Center, New York, NY

On Tuesday, Dr. Hirano finally spoke out in the form of a statement – the first time he has said anything on the record (other than in court) about this case and its aftermath.

In a July 26 article, “US doctor Michio Hirano who flew to London to examine Charlie Gard after offering experimental treatment hits back at ‘financial interest’ claims,” The Sun does a credible job of summarizing the case in light of Dr. Hirano’s new input.

In his first public statement since their decision, Dr Hirano hit back at reports he would have benefited financially from the therapies.

He said: “I became involved in Charlie’s case when I was contacted by his parents, and I subsequently agreed to speak with his doctors to discuss whether an experimental therapy being developed in my lab could provide meaningful clinical improvement in Charlie’s condition.

“As I disclosed in court on July 13, I have relinquished and have no financial interest in the treatment being developed for Charlie’s condition.”

In this first out of court public statement on the case itself, Dr. Hirano, according to The Sun, went on to say:

“Unfortunately, a [sic] MRI scan of Charlie’s muscle tissue conducted in the past week has revealed that it is very unlikely that he would benefit from this treatment.”

The statement “on GOSH patient Charlie Gard” released by the Great Ormond Street Hospital (GOSH) on July 24 took on Dr. Hirano:

GOSH was concerned to hear the Professor state, for the first time [on July 13], whilst in the witness box, that he retains a financial interest in some of the NBT compounds he proposed prescribing for Charlie.

For what it’s worth, Dr. Hirano, according to The Sun, stated that he disclosed to the court on July 13 that he “relinquished and have no financial interest in the treatment.” It is probably water under the bridge at this point, but it would be helpful in setting the record straight if the court record could be consulted by someone with access to it to determine who is telling the truth here.

Before Dr. Hirano’s name was revealed, I thought that whoever it was – at that point an unnamed foreign expert who was getting involved in the Charlie Gard case –would wind up being a victim of unwarranted attacks for his efforts and would have his reputation besmirched. And so it was.

The sudden negative publicity directed at Dr. Hirano starting on July 24 suggests that other hospitals in London that declined to provide care for Charlie Gard at the request of his parents feared the same thing. For example, on July 11 it was reported in The Telegraph that “Hospitals refuse to take Charlie Gard as relations between his parents and Great Ormond Street plummet:”

Relations between Charlie Gard’s parents and Great Ormond Street deteriorated to such an extent that attempts were made to move the baby – but no other hospital would have him.

A lawyer said discussions had taken place with other units to care for Charlie but “unsurprisingly” none wanted him.

 Baby Charlie Gard and his parents in his hospital room

The latest word from Charlie’s parents – for now

Finally, in the wake of the blizzard of legal briefs and statements issued by different players during and after the July 24 court hearing, the most complete, informative, and compelling one is the statement by Charlie’s parents Connie Yates and Chris Gard, read to the court from the witness stand on July 24 by Connie:

Put simply, this is about a sweet, gorgeous, innocent little boy who was born with a rare disease, who had a real, genuine chance at life and a family who love him so very dearly and that’s why we fought so hard for him.

We are truly devastated to say that following the most recent MRI scan of Charlie’s muscles, as requested in the recent MDT meeting by Dr Hirano; as Charlie’s devoted and loving parents we have decided that it’s no longer in Charlie’s best interests to pursue treatment and we will let our son go and be with the angels.

The American and Italian team were still willing to treat Charlie after seeing both his recent brain MRI and EEG performed last week. He’s not brain dead (and never has been). He still responds to us, even now, but after reviewing the recent muscle MRI it was considered that Charlie’s muscles have deteriorated to the extent that it is largely irreversible and, were treatment to work, his quality of life would now not be one which we would want for our precious little boy. They both agreed that treatment should have been started sooner.

There is one simple reason for Charlie’s muscles deteriorating to the extent they are in now – TIME. A whole lot of wasted time. Had Charlie been given the treatment sooner he would have had the potential to be a normal, healthy little boy.

The parents’ statement goes on for over 2,000 words and is highly recommended reading. It closes with:

Mummy and Daddy love you so much Charlie, we always have and we always will and we are so sorry that we couldn’t save you.

Sweet dreams baby. Sleep tight our beautiful little boy.

Charlie Matthew William Gard

Our hero.

Update:

Shortly after 11 AM EST (3 PM in London) Thursday, July 27, 2017, it started to be reported by the British press and the media in other countries that Mr. Justice Francis of the UK High Court had given an order for baby Charlie Gard to be moved without further delay from the Great Ormond Street Hospital to a hospice where he will “inevitably” die shortly after. The time of the transfer and the name of the hospice are not being announced in order to maintain the family’s privacy. Charlie’s parents, as this article notes, had accepted that Charlie would be moved to a hospice but they wanted him kept on life support there – and had lined up volunteer medical personnel and were willing to pay the costs – for a period of approximately one week so they could have some quiet and private time with their son before they let him go. The judge’s order came after the parents and the hospital had failed to agree on the details of a final plan for Charlie after a deadline of noon British time on July 27, given to them the day before by the judge, had passed.

This latest sad chapter in the lengthy story of Charlie Gard that has consumed Great Britain and been reported widely around the world provides more evidence – as if any is needed – that in the British system of single-payer socialized medicine, the state has the final say over the details of life and death of its citizens, rather than, as in this instance, the parents of a baby.

Peter Barry Chowka is a veteran journalist who writes about national politics, media, popular culture, and health care. His new Web site is AltMedNews.net. Peter’s July 13, 2017 one-hour interview on The Hagmann Report can be viewed here

By Peter Barry Chowka

In the midst of the myriad destructive elements that are plaguing modern society or quickly coming into play, the looming transformation of the medical system in the United States into a single-payer socialist nightmare is one of the most alarming developments facing us.

The inability of the Republican-controlled Congress to repeal and replace Obamacare, and the increasing popularity of a single-payer system, suggest that socialized medicine cannot be kept at bay for much longer. Leaders of the Democratic Party, including prominent contenders for the party’s 2020 nomination for President, now support the concept of single-payer. The current debate in the media and political circles — dominated by disagreements over costs, how many people might “lose coverage,” the issue of preexisting conditions, and cuts to Medicaid — overlooks a key point: the fact that government-run socialized medicine at its core is evil. Once enacted, it will be one of the final nails in the coffin of Americans’ increasingly tenuous hold on individual liberty and freedom.

The threats to freedom of choice that single-payer represents will impact not only the availability and quality of life-saving drugs, surgery, end of life care, and other mainstays of the American health care system. It will also adversely impact the growing field of alternative medicine that — largely under the radar of official attention — has gained the interest and support of about one-half of the adult population.

It’s All About Control — and Making Money

On March 21, 2009 Obamacare was rammed through an overwhelmingly Democrat-controlled Congress on a straight party line vote. Obamacare represented a major step forward in the long march toward socialized medicine — helping as it did to establish widespread public acceptance of the concept of “health care as a right.”

H.R. 3590 The Affordable Care Act or Obamacare (2009-2010) Photo credit

The day after the Obamacare vote, the senior member of the House of Representatives, Rep. John Dingell (D-MI), a strong supporter of government-run health care since he first got elected to the Congress in the mid-1950s, appeared as a guest on a local Detroit radio program. I learned about the Dingell interview courtesy of someone in Detroit who heard the broadcast and posted a comment about it at a blog that I stumbled upon. After some research, I was able to identify the Detroit talk show — it was the Paul W. Smith program on radio station WJR — and locate an audio file of the Dingell segment on WJR’s Web site before it scrolled offline.

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2017/07/singlepayer_socialized_healthcare_what_would_it_mean_for_innovative_and_alternative_medicine.html

By Douglas J. Hagmann

Despite what you are being told, the Affordable Health Care Act (ACA), commonly known as ObamaCare, is already proving to be a resounding success. The problem, however, is that the majority of Americans don’t fully understand the objectives of this plan, or the roles of its architects and its defenders. Even the vast majority of conservative pundits in all venues don’t seem to ‘get it’ and consequently, are leading their readers and listeners astray by focusing on the wrong issues.

First, it is vital to understand that the ACA is not now, nor never was, about providing affordable health care. It is merely disguised as such. Rather, it is the vehicle that is being covertly used to conduct the most massive transfer of power to the Executive Branch of government that this nation has ever experienced. It is being done methodically and for a specific purpose. It is the vehicle that will ultimately disassemble and destroy significant parts of the United States Constitution and further enslave United States citizens.

Presently, all eyes are on the ostensible failures of the internet gateway or ACA website. This is precisely where the Obama regime and globalist handlers want our focus to be. The reason is that they want us to get caught up in the minutia and not see the bigger picture. But it’s a failure, you might say, and ascribe the failure to incompetence, graft, and so on. While generally true, we are being forced to examine only one tentacle of the octopus, while the rest of the creature is being hidden from view.

Perhaps this will become clearer if you stop for a moment and ask yourself just one question. How is it possible that the United States government can build, implement and manage the most intricate surveillance apparatus in the world, using a complex array of computers to amass data on people not just in the U.S., but all across the world, yet fail miserably on a less complex health care portal, exchange or web site? Put aside everything you’ve been told by the government and the media, both proponents and opponents of the ACA, and think for yourself. Does this make sense? If you are being truly intellectually honest, you must conclude that it does not.

So what is the real plan, the real objective? Moreover, how are they racing to accomplish their objectives? You are seeing it play out right in front of you, and there is no better example than the alleged failings of the internet based exchange or portal of the health care system. First, it is critical to understand that the internet exchange or website was intended to fail.

Employing multiple Marxist methods

To understand what you are seeing unfold, one simply has to understand the Hegelian Dialectic. Simply put, it is a method where a crisis or problem is manufactured, and that problem causes chaos within the system. This chaos was intentionally orchestrated by the Obama regime and their globalist handlers, and is exactly what we are now witnessing. The success of ObamaCare is, in part, dependent on the failure of the website and the resultant chaos.

Now that chaos surrounding the website exists and “threatens” the entire program, it is important to understand that the architects of this massive power transfer have already created a number of various predetermined solutions to advance their objectives. Their ultimate objective is to completely nationalize the entire health care industry of the United States, thus completely taking over one-sixth of the U.S. economy. Their goal all along has been to implement a single-payer system, where the federal government alone collects all fees for health care services, pays all costs, and has complete control. They are using the Hegelian Dialectic to accomplish exactly that.

Therefore, it is by design that the Obama regime and their handlers have thrust upon America the very system of failure that will advance their agenda to a predetermined solution of the complete takeover and nationalization of the private health care industry. Nearly everyone is playing right into the hands of this Marxist ideology.

“Hegel’s dialectic is the tool which manipulates us into a frenzied circular pattern of thought and action. Every time we fight for or defend against an ideology we are playing a necessary role in Marx and Engels’ grand design to advance humanity into a dictatorship of the proletariat. The synthetic Hegelian solution to all these conflicts can’t be introduced unless we all take a side that will advance the agenda.” [Emphasis mine].

But that’s not all. In addition to employing the Hegelian Dialectic, the other Marxist method is detailed in the Cloward-Piven Strategy. This strategy was formulated by Richard Andrew Cloward and Frances Fox Piven, the husband and wife team working as professors at Columbia University in the 1960s. Their diabolical Marxist plan was first detailed in the May 2, 1966 issue of The Nation magazine.

Their strategy is elegant in its evilness and simplicity. As detailed by David Horowitz, the goal is to “hasten the fall of capitalism by overloading the government bureaucracy with a flood of impossible demands, thus pushing society into crisis and economic collapse. It is the strategy of forcing political change through orchestrated crisis.”

End game objectives

Once you understand that ObamaCare is not about providing a workable system of healthcare, and understand the Marxist tactics that are currently being used for its implementation as it was initially designed, the next logical step would be to identify the true objectives of the plan.

ObamaCare is the Pandora’s Box that will facilitate a number of objectives dear to the globalists. It will result in an unprecedented consolidation of power to the Executive Branch of the government.

It will serve to essentially nullify the Bill of Rights, subjugating the citizens of the United States to offenses more egregious than those that caused the American Revolution.  It will give the federal government (and its agents) direct access to all of your private and personal information, including your health records, your personal financial information, and your employment records. It will also serve as a conduit to abolish your right to own and possess a firearm.

It will advance eugenics, or population control that is near and dear to the Fabian Socialists from which this regime has its roots. If you find that difficult to believe, simply refer to the father of Fabian Socialism himself, George Bernard Shaw, in this short video here. While viewing, keep in mind the “conspiracy of the death panels” associated with ObamaCare, and how we were marginalized for even suggesting such a thing.

ObamaCare will also serve as a tool of economic sabotage and will facilitate the killing of the U.S. dollar as I have previously detailed. It will thereby provide the means to usher in a system of global governance, or the “New World Order” that so many U.S. presidents and world leaders have advocated.

While the conservative leaders and pundits continue to keep you attentive to the failures of the ObamaCare website, please understand that the issue is much bigger, and the stakes are much greater. We’re in a fight for our very lives and the liberty provided by our constitution, but we’re being played. Don’t fall for it. Think bigger.

Pray. Prepare.

By Douglas J. Hagmann

Tune to any television or talk radio program, or visit any website driven by political agendas. You will find self-styled experts and pundits making predictions about the Supreme Court ruling regarding the health care bill. Their predictions are primarily based on the questions posed by the justices. While the legal disposition of this issue is arguably the most important in the history of our republic, and the attention is well deserved, real-world experience and three-dimensional thinking appear to be mostly absent from the analysis.

Those who are basing their predictions on the questions posed by the judges obviously lack real-world experience. Having occupied seats in numerous courtrooms in many venues, I would never attempt to predict rulings based on questions posed by judges or juries. While juries are unpredictable, judges often ask questions to trigger discussion or open debate. I’ve seen judges who appeared to take an adversarial approach to a certain aspect or element of a case and later rule in favor of that which they appeared to have a certain bias against.  I suspect that the vast majority of seasoned lawyers would agree.

Yet, an article written by David Savage appeared in The Los Angeles Times yesterday titled “Justices poised to strike down entire healthcare law.” The author’s premise was based on the questions raised in open court by Judges Scalia and Kennedy, suggesting that they have all but formalized their ruling against the constitutionality of the matter.

But wait, socialists and progressives, it might be premature to rend your garments. And hold on, all you conservatives, the premature celebration could be embarrassing.

Real-world experience dictates that it would be a sophomoric mistake to even attempt to predict the outcome of any case, including one before the highest court in the U.S., based on questions in open court. But that’s mere thought candy – the trappings of an intellectually challenged media – or perhaps evidence of their complicity in the destruction of our country by failing to expose the core issue that few Americans appear to comprehend.

As Americans, we were given a tremendous gift by our founding fathers; a Republic, if we can keep it, to paraphrase Benjamin Franklin.  Have we, the people, become so intellectually hobbled that we are unable to understand that this case is not about health care at all?

The health care bill is not now and never has been about health care, but about the systematic dismantling of our constitutional republic through unprecedented control.

The health care bill is not now and never has been about health care but about the systematic dismantling of our constitutional republic through unprecedented control. It has been in progress for decades, yet few have had the guts, will, or capacity to stand up and expose the agenda and people behind it. Anyone who dared to expose the agenda, identify the individuals or even hint at the objectives in play has been publicly mocked, ridiculed, marginalized, and muzzled by both sides of the fictitious two-party divide, conservatives and progressives alike.

The same conservative constitutional watchdogs who are now transfixed on the Supreme Court’s actions and pending decision on this landmark case fail to realize or admit that we arrived here, compliments of, in part, their failures. Their blind allegiance to one side of a false political paradigm and consequential inaction has facilitated enemies of our republic to destroy us from within.

The decision of the Supreme Court will indeed be pivotal, but arriving at this point was preventable.

If a post-mortem of our constitution is warranted, check your hands for blood stains and the autopsy report for your name. Just make sure that when the death certificate is posted online, it is genuine. If not, just ignore it, treat it as a fringe issue, and mock anyone who dares speak up.

You know, just stay the course.

Follow Hagmann P.I.

Copyright © 2023 HagmannPI.com | All Rights Reserved.