The Dismantling of America

With the passage of the legislation allowing the federal government to take control of the medical care system of the United States, a major turning point has been reached in the dismantling of the values and institutions of America.

Even the massive transfer of crucial decisions from millions of doctors and patients to Washington bureaucrats and advisory panels— as momentous as that is— does not measure the full impact of this largely unread and certainly unscrutinized legislation.

If the current legislation does not entail the transmission of all our individual medical records to Washington, it will take only an administrative regulation or, at most, an Executive Order of the President, to do that.

With politicians now having not only access to our most confidential records, and having the power of granting or withholding medical care needed to sustain ourselves or our loved ones, how many people will be bold enough to criticize our public servants, who will in fact have become our public masters?

Despite whatever “firewalls” or “lockboxes” there may be to shield our medical records from prying political eyes, nothing is as inevitable as leaks in Washington. Does anyone still remember the hundreds of confidential FBI files that were “accidentally” delivered to the White House during Bill Clinton’s administration?

Even before that, J. Edgar Hoover’s extensive confidential FBI files on numerous Washington power holders made him someone who could not be fired by any President of the United States, much less by any Attorney General, who was nominally his boss.

The corrupt manner in which this massive legislation was rammed through Congress, without any of the committee hearings or extended debates that most landmark legislation has had, has provided a roadmap for pushing through more such sweeping legislation in utter defiance of what the public wants.

Too many critics of the Obama administration have assumed that its arrogant disregard of the voting public will spell political suicide for Congressional Democrats and for the President himself.

But that is far from certain.

True, President Obama’s approval numbers in the polls have fallen below 50 percent, and that of Congress is down around 10 percent. But nobody votes for Congress as a whole, and the President will not be on the ballot until 2012.

They say that, in politics, overnight is a lifetime. Just last month, it was said that the election of Scott Brown to the Senate from Massachusetts doomed the health care bill. Now some of the same people are saying that passing the health care bill will doom the administration and the Democrats’ control of Congress. As an old song said, “It ain’t necessarily so.”

The voters will have had no experience with the actual, concrete effect of the government takeover of medical care at the time of either the 2010 Congressional elections or the 2012 Presidential elections. All they will have will be conflicting rhetoric— and you can depend on the mainstream media to go along with the rhetoric of those who passed this medical care bill.

The ruthless and corrupt way this bill was forced through Congress on a party-line vote, and in defiance of public opinion, provides a road map for how other “historic” changes can be imposed by Obama, Pelosi and Reid.

What will it matter if Obama’s current approval rating is below 50 percent among the current voting public, if he can ram through new legislation to create millions of new voters by granting citizenship to illegal immigrants? That can be enough to make him a two-term President, who can appoint enough Supreme Court justices to rubber-stamp further extensions of his power.

When all these newly minted citizens are rounded up on election night by ethnic organization activists and labor union supporters of the administration, that may be enough to salvage the Democrats’ control of Congress as well.

The last opportunity that current American citizens may have to determine who will control Congress may well be the election in November of this year. Off-year elections don’t usually bring out as many voters as Presidential election years. But the 2010 election may be the last chance to halt the dismantling of America. It can be the point of no return.

  • Tony Kondaks

    Let's remember that 50 cents of every dollar spent on health care in the U.S. is already paid for by government. Even before this bill was passed, we're already half way towards full socialization.

    • atacado sex shop

      parabens por mais esse post

  • therealend

    I remember when the Space Shuttle program was promoted to the public. It was supposed to soar further into space, carry more payload and cost only a certain amount. It turned out it could go nearly as far as stated, or carry nearly as much, but the cost was much increased. With this Health Care reform, I somehow get the feeling that will be the case again. I wonder why that is?

  • logical_person

    This is just step 1 in a big plan to take down America. History has shown this big government plan doesn't work, and yet they persist. I question the motives of our new leader and his cronies.

  • Jim C.

    Oh, this deal is done and it ain't going nowhere.

    I keep reading about "defiance of public opinion." There has been none. Nor has there been a "government takeover." The people want health care reform. That is why the democrats have power. The Republicans did not believe health care needed reform–that is why they did nothing about it for 8 years. When it became clear the voters wanted reform, including conservatives, they jumped on the bandwagon and many of them offered plans remarkably similar to democrats. In fact, there was much agreement about reform until, of course, it came time to stand up and be counted.

    Now, electorally-speaking, Republicans will either have to insist that there was nothing wrong with healthcare in the first place (which is why they did exactly nothing about it for so long), or they will offer up similar versions of the Democrats' plan.

    • USMCSniper

      You are abviously just another indoctrinate who doesn't understand that healthcare is not a right but a good. Look and listen and maybe even learn at Then you say say this: "The people want health care reform." and then you say: "When it became clear the voters wanted reform." I believe the Republicans proposed lifting all restrictions across state lines (rejected by the Dems) and Tort reform to curb the frivilous lawsuits by ambulance chasers (rejected by the Dems) and restricions on government subsidized abortions (Obama's executive order is a sham as it cannot tell Congress how or what to fund ). Personally, I have found that people like you are not logical in their thinking so any remedial instructions are not fruitful.

  • Samurai Hit Woman

    Jim C you are blinder than a bat. Let's hope there aren't many people out there like you—Batty.

    • Jim C.

      Please show me where and why specifically.

      • johncarens

        Well, now–, out of the mouths of babes…

        I wish your statement was true, to wit: "The Republicans did not believe health care needed reform–that is why they did nothing about it for 8 years". I assume this carefully-worded broadside was regarding the 8 years of the Bush Horror, and not the 4 years of Rutherford Hayes, and the 4 years of William McKinley.

        The stingy and parsimonious Republicans only managed to peek inside their cobwebbed change-purse and pull out $400 billion for a prescription drug program that covers just about everyone, except those unfortunates between the ages of 23 and 55. And they also made proposals that were blocked by the Femocrats (I don't apply this moniker as a means to incite: The Democrat Party is overwhelming supported by women) to fix the Medicare reimbursement to doctors and hospitals in an attempt to broaden access.

        I opposed this crap when the Republicans proposed it, as well; I happen to think as soon as you begin insisting that healthcare (or drugs, or what have you) is a "right" you must enslave at least SOME people (doctors, primarily) to PROVIDE for that right.

        Doors of this sort have a way of swinging in both directions.

        • Elle

          "The Democrat Party is overwhelmingly supported by women…)

          Thank you for admitting that. 70% of single women voted for Obama. The Marriage Penalty in the Health Care bill is so anti-marriage if you care to know. It's the best motivation to shack up, have multiple sexual partners, raise children as a single parent, produce immoral children who have no respect for authority etc. —- instead of getting married and making a commitment to have a good family structure that will survive the pressures of giving up too easily. Do we really need more single parents and teenage pregnancies out there? The Marriage Penalty will reward you for being single and will punish you for being married. It's night and day; as clear as that.
          Do you really value this unpopular bill that was one-sided and did you forget your Constitution? It's all over the Internet, but no one cares to touch this subject in detail by the liberal media. Why can't this over trillion $ bill be passed according to the Constitution and it's process? Why in a hurry?

  • Barry Cooper

    We need to be clear about what this is: a health insurance mandate. I suggest all conservatives use that phrase from now on. It is a mandate on the insurance companies, and a mandate on individuals. It has NOTHING to do with healthcare. If you want to find people dying for lack of medical attention, you need to go to Britain.

    I wrote some time ago what I continue to view as the shortest, clearest summary of this topic I have seen:

    I propose as well we begin to refer to a "Democratic oligarchy".

  • Barry Cooper

    I will add, that I have often felt as you are feeling, but the reality is that what has happened is that we have moved in a direction Europe has been moving for some time. There is no cliff we will fall off immediately. We are looking at a decade or more in the future.

    Leftists have been making slow progress for–you know better than me–say since Wilson at least. Where have they been really and truly blocked? Not in the 50's. Not by Nixon. Not by Reagan, really, since he had to make a lot of compromises in a political climate engineered by leftists.

    This is the first time in my life when I have seen ordinary people grasping the importance and validity of conservative–really, I prefer to refer to myself as a classical Liberal, or just a liberal–thought.

    If you want to contemplate despair, look at George Washington in his tent, reading and rereading Cato in the dark days of retreat, mass desertion, cold, and privation.

    We can win this.

    • Jim C.

      Barry, I would suggest that this is the first time because it has been a long time since the pendulum has swung back Left. Reagan's influence (primarily, ideas pertaining to our economy and the "problem" of government) has been enormous. Clinton himself was virtually a liberal republican…a la Nixon, in a way.

      The pendulum needs to swing back Left. Yes, I am contemptuous of much of what "conservativism" has become in popular culture, but I still respect the philosophy. America is a Center Right country that has seen too much deregulation and subsequent looting–not to mention disastrous involvement overseas which has done more than anything else to bankrupt us (just what Osama wanted, mind you).

      We're in for hard times. We have to pay the piper. It's a shame the gov. has to step in, but we averted a REAL Depression. Health care was unsustainable ALREADY. This reform is much needed and will be revised as we go along.

      • watchful

        You come off as an informed, thinking person but to come to the superficial conclusions that you have tells me that a very progressive liberal bias is guiding your thinking. Thinking people let facts tell them how to feel. Biased people let their feelings tell them what to think.
        The majority of Americans do not want to become communist. We have seen what happens to human beings under that sort of a regime. Just the same as no person watching another persons fingers being hit with a hammer I do not need to experience it in order to know that I don't want it.
        Under communism the dogma becomes much more important than the people it is supposed to serve. Truth becomes unimportant. Truth becomes what the leadership needs it to be. Truth should be based on facts, not whatever the current administration needs it to be. Truth is truth.
        The left has been inundating the people of the world, not just America, with their version of the truth. Our government has hidden behind a facade of a caring lamb and told us that a little fish might become extinct if we continue to water crops in California's Central Valley. Without any announcement of their intentions, they turned off the water. Really, after all these years, suddenly a little fish is endangered? Even if it was true, which I doubt, what's more important? Human beings or a little fish? The left wants to bleed tears over a little fish? No. The left wants to control. How many people lost their income, homes, lives by this act? And then Obama promised to turn the water back on if he got the Health Care vote? I think we're being governed by the Mafia. It's indefensible.
        Once we're all hit by the taxes (yes, multiple taxes) in order to pay for this health care you'll find you are unable to purchase things that you would have otherwise bought. And so will everyone else. That leads to less being manufactured because no one is going to buy it. That leads to lay offs since we're not going to produce as many goods and services. That leads to more government hand outs for people who have lost their jobs, which means more taxes for us to support these unemployed people, which leads to less purchasing power which leads to more lay offs. Voila, we now have communism.
        I am watching everything I have worked for my entire life get taken away from me. In return I get a substandard health care package which I did not want. I've been purchasing my own health care for a long long time. It's expensive, but it is mine. It belongs to me. Now it doesn't. It belongs to my "government" who cares so much about me. Hah.
        If you can't understand what's wrong with all of this then like I say, you are so biased that you can't even think anymore or you do see what's happening and you want to be under communism. Communism will kill more people, by far, than any nationalized health care will save.
        Sit down and think about what this means to individuals in our own country. Think about what it means as far as our place among the world powers. We're deliberately throwing the game. When America falls there will be no one standing up for the truly trod upon the world over and dictators will know that nobody is watching or even cares, much less can even do anything about it.
        China's rise to a world economic power came about not through communism, but through capitalism – and we're going from capitalism to communism? How stupid is that?

  • 080

    The direction that the liberals have taken is no longer a secret. Catch James K Galbraith's book: The Predator State. James is the son of John Kenneth Galbraith to whom he dedicates his book. In the introduction James calls for (l) Planning (2) wage and price controls (3) redistribution of income and (4) to continue putting out worthless chits internationally until the crisis (which writing in Nov. 2007 he correctly predicts. John Kenneth Galbraith in his book The New Industrial State predicted that the United States Economy and that of the Soviet Union would converge.

  • George

    I think this situation is far worse than the article supposes. I think a majority of states are planning an informal, even a formal split with the federal government and will soon move to keep tax money out of the hands of the feds. Certainly, "nullifcation" of federal law has become very popular recently, particularly with regard to firearms regulation. But I think Obamacare is the last straw. Most states will simply nullify it. But they won't stop there….not by a long shot. I expect that things like abortion will become illegal in most states NO MATTER WHAT THE FEDERAL COURTS HAVE TO SAY ABOUT IT. And a million other breaks with the federal system will come about. I think New Hampshire sets the tone with its recent firearms law that punishes federal employees with 10 years in prison for attempting to enforce federal law over state law (warning federal judges, lol).

  • Robert

    The Democrats have resorted to intimidation, bribes and outright falsehoods in order to pass a Bill that will bankrupt this country. Much of the bill has nothing to do with health care. For example, one provision mandates racial quotas in perpetuity and another provides for the creation of something like a public army (See the article in

    But the worst betrayal was that of Rep. Bart Supak. Stupak and the Democrats who pledged their conscience to the protection of an unborn child’s right to life promised to vote No to the Bill—until at last, just as the cock crowed, they betrayed the peoples’ sacred trust. Suddenly, Rep. Stupak saw the light; he would vote for the Bill because President O’bama, the most pro abortion President ever to take office, would publish an executive order urging the prohibition of federally funded abortions. Clear conscience indeed. Rep. Stupak, and the pro life Democrats who joined him knew then and now that the President’s Executive Order when signed will be a nullity, that it cannot constitutionally trump the legislative language of the Bill or the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in Roe v. Wade. There the Supreme Court legitimized de facto, despite its restrictive words, any and all abortions, any time. If Rep. Stupak, and the few pro-life democrats were ignorant of the impotency of executive orders, why then didn’t they research the law? Why didn’t they ask the Council of Bishops for a copy of the briefs written by their legal staff? They would have discovered that an executive order is powerless to alter legislation or contest the ruling of courts?

    The question for unborn children is one of life and death. Therefore, our would be champions must demand certainty. Why then didn’t Rep. Stupak and the pro life Democrats find out whether they could rely upon the President’s executive order to stop the taking of innocent life? As both the President and Stupak know the President’s executive order is a profane farce then, upon what law does Stupak rely to keep safe unborn children from the abortionist? The silence is deafening.

    How quickly has principle surrendered to expedience. Perhaps Rep. Stupak simply erred. But why then did he so fiercely excoriate Republicans who proposed an amendment to the Bill, framed precisely in the language of the first Stupak amendment— an amendment that would have protected unborn children from federal extinction? And if Democrats are of one mind with the President and believe therefore, that his executive order will prevent federal funding of abortions why did Rep. Stupak and the rest of the Democrats vote the Republican amendment down? Why have Democrats adamantly rejected an amendment to protect unborn children from abortion that presumably is in harmony with President O’Bama’s executive order?

    After the bill passed, Republicans introduced a motion that sought to send the bill back to committee and amend its abortion language using the kind of wording that Stupak originally wanted. Stupak spoke against the motion, leading to the shouts from some Republicans. Stupak told the chamber that the president's executive order would assure that "the sanctity of life is protected," and that the motion was "nothing more than an opportunity to continue to deny 32 million Americans health care.” For the Republicans to now claim that we send the bill back to committee under this guise of protecting life is disingenuous," Stupak said. "This motion is really to politicize life, not prioritize life.” The motion did not pass.

    But here is the real obscenity: The Democrats, the President and his Congress have breathed into life a law will serve up unborn children to the fatal attractions of abortion.

  • Glenn

    Sowell is so right, once again. Why couldn't he be president instead?

    More importantly, if they can force us to buy something, what are the limits to their power?

  • Cabby – AZ

    Jim – This is not to denigrate your comments or close our minds to your conclusions.
    However, what seems to be missing from the equation is the real motive of those
    who passed this legislation. I believe it was Rep. Dingell who let it slip recently that
    it would take time to "control the people."

    This has never been about healthcare for the needy or to control insurance companies.
    This is about power and control over the life of every American, and this is just the

    How do I know? Simply because Obama has made enough statements, such as
    "redistribution of wealth", to reveal that his Marxist background really is in effect,
    so to speak. He is acting on his beliefs – Marxist doctrine – and anyone who knows
    anything about that can readily see that he wants the consolidation of power in
    the executive branch. Why over thirty czars? Why the takeover of some financial
    institutions and car manufacturers? This is just the opening volley.

    If anyone thinks that such centralized control will eliminate greed and corruption,
    they have only to look at socialist/communistic societies around the world. Those
    in the ruling class have the wealth and power. The rest have loss of freedom
    and sometimes life. And the lives they live are often most miserable. Collectivism
    has never worked out anywhere.

    Furthermore, if capitalism falls, the socialist countries around the world will not be
    able to thrive as well as they have, because it has been our money that has kept
    them going for years.

  • johncarens

    Of course this stinking pile of statist tyranny called "Obamacare" will be repealed. There is no question about it. All of the old guardrails are gone, the old conventional wisdom was broomed in one signing ceremony on Tuesday, March 24th, 2010. We are through the looking-glass now. Nobody thought a similar signing of the Kansas-Nebraska Act on March 19, 1854 would be the beginning of the Civil War–, but it was. Nobody thought when Erich Honicker allowed the Hungarians

  • Alexander Gofen

    The Dismantling of America began since the 1960s or even earlier. Although "American principles that unite us" do exist (our Constitution and the Judeo-Christian traditions), the American people are already disunited. Currently we already have perhaps 30% (or 40% or may be even 50%) of folks which simply do not belong to America. It began at least in the 1960s, while the conservatives allowed the disease to freely progress. The conservatives were trapped into a false belief as though under our great Constitution (and all the Amendments) everything which freely evolves is right and reinforces the Constitution and our country. However, as our Founders noted, it could be right only with the right people (i.e. God fearing people).

    In the 20th century the infectious ideas and trends swept the planet. On the top of it, since the 1960s, America physically let in a lot of wrong people, and many came illegally. Summarily, now a half of the country, the University and School systems, the Federal and State bureaucracies, and partially even the military (!) became anti-American and must be dismantled entirely, if we dream to restore America as she was founded.

  • Alexander Gofen

    No peace, no civil compromise is possible any more with those say 40% of population. They are so foreign as though another human spicy. And we cannot even start a civil war (like in 1861) because we are not territorially separated with our enemies but on the contrary: intermixed.

    Therefore in order to preserve what still remains, first we have to achieve secession of at least one or several states, and then to encourage the patriots to move into these states.

    Meanwhile, we still have chances to prosecute the impostor through a legal system. The honor of our nation may be saved by just one judge agreeing to hear the cases of Dr. Orly Taitz, or by one Attorney General agreeing to prosecute the impostor following the American Grand Juries indictments of 2009. (The fact that no such person has yet stood up speaks volumes by itself about the level of demise of our nation).

  • Len Powder

    I disagree with Mr. Sowell, whom I much admire as one of the nation's foremost thinkers. The American people have been held in contempt. They have been ignored, ridiculed, insulted, demeaned as too stupid to know what's best for them. If the elections in Nov do not bury the Democrats then more drastic measures will be resorted to. Conservatives outnumber toxic progessives. The latter have simply been more assertive, active, intolerant, abusive, militant, and vocal. The revolution has started and there is no turning back. This is now a war between the will of the people and the will of a dictator. Other nations may have succumbed to the despot's intimidation and authoritarianism but the people of the US will not. This is where the spread of socialism and Islamofascism will be defeated. Obama awakened a beast that will devour him and all the enemies of the people that want to impose a dictatorship and to enslave us.

  • Tibor Machan

    Perhaps "defiance of public opinion" over states matters somewhat–yesterday some pool showed about 50% like the result. The public is not some single minded body. None of the mainstream commentators attend to such fine points–Obama speaks of "the will of the people" as if the people had one will. Republicans do no better. As to whether there has been a "government takeover," yes but not in one fell swoop; it has been happening ever since the Hamiltonian wing of the American Founders has gradually triumphed over the Jeffersonian. Top down government is by now nearly in full force. And basically this is because the inability of those who wish to limit government to provide a solid moral case for their side. The collectivists can always shame them into giving away the game. This was most evident in the recent debate when they kept bringing up pre-existing conditions and insisting that insurance firms have no right to refuse service even if they were going to suffer huge losses by taking on these folks. In short, the negligence or bad luck of those wishing to be insured trumps the rights of others and conservatives have no response. A really sad spectacle.

  • ribeve

    Of late republican response has always been a spectacle. That's why we have Barry and his henchmen. It's why conservatives stopped going to vote.

    Now there do seem to be conservatives stepping up to the plate, but is it too little to late?

    I mean this present regime clearly doesn't have any compunction about, peddle to the medal, deception and destruction of the constitution. I realize that they have been planning this for a long time and they are absolutely giddy with themselves and their accomplishments. But who in their right mind thinks they are going to stop here???
    If your master plan is redistribution of wealth, i.e. everybody becomes poor you must continue to attack. America is not on her knees yet.

    These folks are going to go for the GOLD! Oligarchy not socialism is the game. Why stop at socialism?

    Are enough of us awake?

  • Barb

    i just want to make a comment about health care being a "moral" imperative. I guess to libs and dems, abortion is NOT. How can a person be so "moral" about health care, and then believe it's a "right" for a woman to snuff out a life? This is just complete insanity. And just think, if that whole generation of children who have been aborted, had LIVED, at least they would (hopefully) be tax paying adults who would be adding to the coffers of these most "moral" people. ….insanity