During the Federal Convention of 1787, the Founders argued over every conceivable aspect of the document they were creating. Some, being from England, argued against a single person as the Chief Executive. Others, from the smaller states, insisted on enumerated, clearly defined and limited powers for the central government. The great majority, though, had no objection to what has become known as the "seperation of power". In fact, the concept had been written into the Constitution in a haphazard manner, but was added wherever it was missing and in a more bold and intentional way before the document was signed. Indeed, the seperation of powers of the three branches of government had been the very framework upon which the founders acted, albeit in an eerie and unconcious way.

The seperation of powers, these words are not in the Constitution, was the method used by the founders in the attempt to prevent our elected officials from creating a tyrranical, elitist despotism in government. Madison defined tyranny as all powers, legislative, executive, and judicial, being in the hands of one group or person. The seperation of powers was to prevent that from happening.

Not only were the powers of the branches strictly defined but auxilliary checks were given to each branch that would limit the autonomy of the branches. For example, the executive was given the right to appoint his cabinet members, diplomats and ambassadors, and justices to the Supreme Court. But all of these appointments were to be subject to the approval and advice of the Senate. Congress was given the huge power of writing all of the nation’s laws, subject to the veto power of the executive and the ratification by the Senate. Congress, by a two-thirds vote, could override the president’s veto and pass the law. The founders wisely did everything they could to limit the possibility of one person or branch becoming all powerful.

It was this seperation of power that overcame many popular objections to the Constitution during the ratification by the states. It was also one of the main reasons the people have come to believe that the Constitution is their document, their insurance of their rights being protected.

Today, the seperation of powers still operates to some degree, but the seeming ignorance of the Constitution, the almost dictatorial attitude of Congress, especially its leaders, and their ability to get away with more and more criminal activities are all due to the changes made by the courts and the laws passed by Congress in the way in which the seperation of powers is perceived. The fact that the Constitution does not contain an expressed injuction to preserve the boundaries of the three branches is impetus for those bent on consolidating power to themselves.

The result of this curruption of the seperation of powers is what we see happening in our government, especially in Congress, today. Vaguely written, ill defined legislation leaves the details to the bureaucracy created by the bill. Bills redefining the powers of the judiciary and executive more often than not, are commonly passed. The result is Congress has become the de-facto regulator of all things executive, and the judiciary has become the law makers. This is most obvious in the consideration of abortion, pornography, school prayer, the death penalty, and immigration law and their enforcement.

This maldistribution of power received its biggest boost with the election of Woodrow Wilson as president in 1912. Since then, a faction loosely called the "Administrationists", has pushed further and further the Constitution’s seperation of power doctrine toward the brink of destruction. In essence, they have been unopposed in their work.

Wilson, an academic in all that that infers, believed the seperation of powers was a deadlock to government efficiency. He and his followers were of the belief that the Constitution should be a living document as history had shown how much time had changed man’s ideologies about himself, and all other aspects of his world. They saw the Constitution as being a religious like set of commandments that society had outgrown with the advances in understanding and man’s ability to reason rather than simply observing. He and his followers often stated the following about the Constitution, "The more open-eyed we become as a nation to its defects the better." They believed that man received his rights to life, liberty, etc., not from God or nature’s laws, but from those in power. Yet he espoused the theory that government was not a written set of mandates, but was a living, breathing entity susceptible to outgrowing certain premises.

In Wilson’s view of government, only the consolidation of powers under one branch would provide the most efficient government. He believed that the only seperation should be between the politics and the administration of government. Therefore, he held that two branches should comprise government, the executive and the administrative. The executive would be the only elected position and would be the "people’s delegate" in government. It would be the President’s sole responsibility to sell the policies of the administration to the people, and to convey the wishes of the people to the administration. This executive would, seemingly, be perpetually in campaign mode, selling the policies to the people, forming interest groups that could convince others of the benefits of the policies. A cheerleader, the executive would have no real administrative duties, but would be essential if civil disruption were to be avoided.

The administration’s major responsibility was to foretell the future and set in motion policies that would be effective in bringing the nation into that future. There would be no laws except those conferring the power to legislate upon the administration, and as few as necessary to regulate society. The everyday administration of the activities of the people would be per diem, or on an as needed basis and would be revisable, also as needed, or, as they saw fit.

To Wilson and the Administrationists, the future of the nation was to be decided according to what they saw as historically becoming the future, and not having anything to do with the rational, Constitutional standards addressing the nature of human beings. The duty of government, in their eyes, was to be attuned to the time and spirit of the future and to guide the nation where those events showed it to be headed. No thought was given, in fact it was specifically ommitted, that the duties should ever provide for common security or to secure the inalienable rights of men. Such idealistic thought was, to their way of thinking, responsible for selfishness in man, poverty, war, and all injustices so prolific in the world. Only a trained class of elitists, scientifically determined as non-partisan could bring about the perfection the Constitution had failed to achieve.

We, when analyizing the properties of one form of government as opposed to some other, are more apt to choose that form which elevates the common person, defining and insuring the retention of human rights as are the nature of all persons ever born, than a form which is impersonal, abstract, and, in anyway authoritarian. Indeed, those very qualities of humane governence, drafted by and for the People of the nation, are the reasons why the people of these United States have, for so many years, seen the Constitution as their own insurance policy against tyranny and the loss of their freedom. Only by the corruption and ignorance of the principles inherent in the Constitution have evil men, bent on tyranny and a greedy consolidation of power, made the few inroads they have to their purposes. The Constitution, as written, is still very much appropriate and timely for the purpose for which it was created.

The fact that the Constitution embraces the idea that there is a higher power than man is what makes it so personally acceptible to men of decent character. The robotic, un-godly processes of Administrationism, Socialism, Communism, Fascism, etc., and the policies resultant therein, are the very reasons they are soundly rejected and despised by those same decent humans.

I have, for decades, believed our schools were centers for extreme leftist, socialist indoctrination, and that this was primarily the work of the Democratic party in the furtherance of Soviet style despostism. Information coming to light in the past few days tends to bolster my beliefs, and should sound alarms for parents of school aged children.

With the announcement of Obama’s speech to a joint session of Congress and schools across the country next Wednesday, the president shows Americans just how much he does not respect parents’ authority or his limited duties as POTUS. This direct broadcast of a presidential address to American schools is unprecedented. Even when past presidents have had a message for the youth of America, it has been left to school officials and parents to decide, after hearing it first, if it was something children should hear, or if it could be presented by parents or teachers. The original content of the "study package" provided by the Whitehouse as an attachment to the speech should give everyone evidence as to the intention of this speech. The Whitehouse has made "revisions" to the study package, but I dare say their purpose will not denied by revisions to a few questions. I believe this speech, supposedly addressing health care reform issues, will include statements directed at children intended to influence their thoughts concerning that debate, ignoring the fact that younger, more easily influenced children should not have such weighty and complex issues forced upon their minds by government.

The NCLIA states as its purpose…

This speaks for itself, and proves my point regarding the intent of the Deficrats to promote their policies using our children as their lobbyists.

While it is too late to try persuading the POTUS against anything described here by me, and is probably not worth keeping children home that day, I believe parents should speak with their younger children before and afterwards regarding the speech and its content to impart their own beliefs on the subject to their children.

It is not too late, though, to act on the issue of the No Child Left Inside Act. As is usual in these types of situations, calls and letters to elected officials, inclusion of this issue in the TEA Party agenda and at townhall meetings, and generally letting your opinions be known, is the very least we are responsible to do.

The flagrant nature of the left’s attempt to force their ideology on the world would be hilarious if it weren’t so damned destructive to America.

Glenn Flowers

I’ve started this post at least five times and trashed each one due the frustration of trying to list all the reasons why HR3200 is not reform but is just plain wrong for the American health care industry. Instead of fixing those aspects of the industry that result in high costs and lack of coverage for millions, it totally dismantles everything we have come to depend on that makes our health care the best available. It puts the Secretary of Health and Human Services in place as a health care dictator who will control every aspect of medical care in America. HR3200 will not lower costs, will destroy the private health insurance industry, will dictate what treatment is covered and who is eligible to receive that care, will ration care to reduce costs, will reduce payments to doctors and hospitals, will cost trillions of dollars of taxpayers money (again), and will offer only one source for medical treatment for everyone, that being the government controlled "public option".

Our medical care in America is without equal in the world despite the claims from the left that it ranks 24^th worldwide. If you examine the World Health Organization’s statistics that ranking includes cost and percentage of population not eligible, among other non-quality factors that do not have any bearing on actual quality of care. When mortality rate, cure rate, immediacy of care, advanced diagnostics, doctor/patient ratio, and similar quality indications are considered, America ranks number one in the world. We’ve all heard Obama preaching about all the unnecessary tests, surgical procedures, re-admittances, and medications that are being used. We’ve heard him lie about how doctors make decisions to perform unnecessary surgeries just because they are more lucrative. What he is really saying is your doctor will no longer be able to perform the tests he might deem necessary, and that your doctor is a butcher who would sooner amputate limbs than treat a hangnail. In reality, the primary care physicians who diagnose ailments such as infected tonsils are not the surgeons who perform tonsilectomies, making his claims not only false but stupid.

HR3200 will destroy the American standard of care and result in a system similar to Great Britain’s medical system. This is not necessary, but that is what will be forced upon us by Obama and the Deficrats. Their ultimate goal is not the improvement of care nor expanded coverage, but is the seizure and control of not only one-sixth of the annual GDP amounting to roughly four trillion dollars, but control of nearly every part of a person’s life. What they eat, whether or not they use tobacco, the use of safety equipment such as seat belts, helmets, hearing protection, and safety glasses, the design of automobiles, bicycles, motorcycles, aircraft, toys, televisions, telephones, and appliances, all would fall under the realm of possible health hazards and would be regulated by the Deficratic government.

If lower costs, improved quality, and expanded coverage were the true purposes of health care reform efforts, there are much less expensive, less destructive actions that would surely result in attaining those goals. Eliminating the governmental regulations requiring universal coverage for such things as vericose vein treatments, accupuncture, substance abuse rehab, male pattern baldness, PMS, erectile disfunction, and depression, to name just a few, would go miles toward lowering the cost of a policy for those who did not need such care. Also, the fact that insurance is used to pay for almost 75% of all medical care accounts for drastic increases in the cost of care provided. When the cost of services is not subject to the influences of a free competitive market costs rise. If the patient were paying for the services rendered, the ability of the patient to go where it might cost less drives costs down due to competition. If the tax credits given to employers for providing medical insurance were given, instead, to the employees to buy their own health coverage or fund a Health Care Savings Account, an environment of competition would be fostered in the insurance market where virtually none exists today. It is government regulation, just as it was in the housing market collapse, that is the source of most of the health care industry’s ailments. We can see how well the housing market has been repaired. Do we want the same hacks fixing our health care system?

Obama and the Deficrats are not after health care reform. They are elitist socialists who can’t live with America’s greatness and exceptionalism. They see our beloved nation as oppressive and a bane on the rest of the world. It matters not to them that every nation in the world wishes they could be more like America, that Canadians come here when their own "public option" medical system tells them they will have to wait six months for cancer surgery, or that women give birth in parks and alleys in the UK because there are no beds available in hospitals. No, they couldn’t care less about the health care we have available or how much worse others are with the same system they are creating. They want you under their boot heel. They want to de-evolve America down to the level of the rest of the world. After all, if we have it so much better, that must mean we are depriving someone of something better than they have.

It is the basic premise of the individual having freedom to choose what type of life he will pursue that has been responsible for the advancements America alone has accomplished. To destroy this in favor of "social justice" and redistribution of wealth will doom not only America, but the entire world to a future of less instead of more.

Glenn Flowers

POSTSCRIPT: Ever notice that the one thing government does fairly well is destruction and death? It makes for a really decent military, but not an efficient health care system.

I wish to have your opinions on a subject both dear and feared to all of us. I believe the malady that afflicted voters last November is the same as what has infected the America haters, the "give me" crowd, and, especially Obama, his wife, and all of his associates, embraced or abandoned. It is as fundamental as the inalienable rights of man and that which has made America the nation she is, or was, and can still be.

America was founded on what major principal? The Declaration of Independence tells the reasons Americans set themselves apart from a king. It was in every pamphlet, editorial, letter to of from, and was the main subject when the contract for the federal government was written. In one, all encompassing word, America’s claim to fame, the fertilizer for the tree of liberty, was, and still is individualism. The inalienable rights of the individual, especially, most importantly, their right to own property and to control that property, were and are the bedrock of America’s greatness. It is the American, the head of the family, the business owner, the mom and dad worker bees, that are each individually responsible for the America of today.

But we, having been raised, mainly, as a religious people, see ourselves as faulty, no, depraved. And down through the decades we, as forthright and honest people, have had a tough time mentally squaring those two in our minds. The depraved, but exceptional and hard working individuals, having the nerve to claim theirs is a nation of values and morals, is just to much at odds to each other to seem real. It would seem that these honest, sincere folks have a point, and that it eats at them, and Obama, all their lives, promoting a putrification of the inner self resulting, eventually, in the bitterness we see, and the aching of their hearts that is so obvious.

The reasoning behind their quandary is simple. Since before all of our births, for over one hundred years and more, America has been known as the nation that acts as savior of the world, the hero of the oppressed wherever they be, the first in the space race and technology, feeding the world. When disaster hits anywhere, it’s America that floats her city on a boat up to their shores and gives all they have to those who need it. America has invented, built, exported, and given away so much, and has never even run slightly short for her own needs. Yes, America is exceptional. The shining city on the hill.

So what’s wrong with that? It isn’t wrong, in and of itself, because America is a country of Americans. But that idea, America, has come to mean sitting back and watching her rise to ever more lofty heights, and not having too much to do with it, thanks to our elected officials in Washington. America is great, but some of the people don’t feel so great. Why? Because they know that they have not been responsible for it. They can’t sit back and just watch our greatness grow and have any pride in it.

Except for those of us who were raised by the previous, patriotic generation, who have taken advantage of our opportunities, worked hard all our lives paying a mortgage, raising a family, and coming to an inner truce with God and our sinful nature. We can feel the pride in being a self provider, and feel it we do. And we make no apologies for being proud. Those who have lived on the doll, or have taken all that America is for granted, or who know nothing greater than themselves that they can put their faith in, can not perceive the reason the rest of us have for being so cocky. They are Americans, but they know nothing of indivdualism and, therefore, they are of the same mind as the proletariats of the former USSR, and can’t fathom our greatness as anything but false.

These people have lost their sense of individualism, if they ever had any, because they have failed to do anything about their own interests. It has become so easy to wait for America to do it all and not have to worry about it. This reign of inner loathing has been cheered on by the degradation of our value system, the decline of our public schools, no parental authority or even concern, and it becomes its own firestorm, creating an ever self-perpetuating downward spiral of individual achievement, and a welling up of disgust and enmity for themselves and those who have any pride in themselves or the fruited plain, or faith in anything godlike.

I have written here some thoughts I’ve had recently which, individually do not deserve a post of their own, but all together seem to coalesce into a common thread. So, here they are.

1. George Soros, a major contributor to Obama’s campaign, an avid radical socialist and power hungry elitist, decided to hedge his bet by …

1. Eliminating all possibly successful opposition to Obama by threat or bribes.
2. Attempting to coerce McCain into supporting Soros’ ideology if he were to win
3. Show McCain a sample of what could be done to destroy him by accusing him of eroneous mis-doings, and then allowing them to die, a shot across the bow, if you will.

The news report was the show of force or shot across the bow. The desired result was McCain was suddenly the only GOP candidate in the race, having been the least funded and least popular of all the GOP hopefuls. How does that happen? Collusion is the word.

I could be persuaded to believe that this is the reason that McCain, although claiming to be a conservative, has embraced some very leftist premises such as climate change, bio-fuels, no drilling in ANWAR, etc. He has, possibly, been compromised and is in the pocket, at least partially, of George Soros. If Obama loses Soros would still have a partial victory on some of his pet projects through a McCain administration. Soros had been rejected by all the GOP candidates, except one. That one is still in the race, while the best of the conservatives and most funded are all just memories of who could have beaten Obama at his own game, eloquence.

The most telling and recent example of their audacious arrogance is the answer Obama gave to Joe the plumber admitting that those who have more will be forced to share the fruits of their labor with those who have less, because that is fair, get used to it and dream about what might have been. The Dems believe they have made their case with the middle class and claim a mandate to produce economic justice.

What we dared not believe true, what seemed to be an impossibility in this nation of the free, has reared its ugly mug and is spitting in our face, while chowing down on the Constitution as just a pre-dinner hours de’ouvre before devouring our liberties and inalienable rights.

If McCain is not elected, and the majority in Congress is consolidated, our American history of freedom and liberty is not just doomed, but is destroyed.

Our only hope, in that situation, is the Joint Chiefs of Staff stepping up and eliminating the threat to the Constitution as they have sworn to do, in a counter coup and reinstatement of real patriots and the elimination of leftists completely. How much will you wager on that happening? It would be a real possibility if it were the Marine Corp and Rangers "Leading the Way". Without that stalwart and unstoppable show of allegiance and patriotism, the worst that we have never imagined will be the new America. It is our final ray of hope we might want to believe in.

First, McCain proposing tax cuts for businesses and big oil is OK with me. I have no objection to a tax cut for anyone. At least he isn’t proposing an increase on me.

Second, Obama is not going to raise taxes on 95% of working families. I’m OK with that too, but what is not said but implied is, he WILL raise taxes on others. I’m not OK with that. There is too much taxation in general for my liking.

So, according to Obama’s ad, McCain WILL cut taxes somewhere and does not propose any increase. Obama will not raise taxes for some and DOES propose huge increases for the rest. And, the ad states that McCain will not give one cent in cuts to the middle class, but Obama will give three times that much to them. Hmmm… Three times not one cent is…. Not one cent.

Spin, deception, lies, pandering, socialist economy, radical anti-Americanism, redistribution of wealth, all proven aspects of the Obama campaign. Change we can depend on.

Well, we’re still here and conservative to the gills. We are proud nephews of Uncle Sam and staunch believers in and defenders of our Constitution. We still don’t appreciate being asked who we will vote for by political whiz jerks trying to appear as geniuses with their prophetic poll results. In fact, we will go WAY out of our way to avoid anyone with a clipboard acosting people. We are, still, the one "category" of voters whose votes are the yay or nay in any election, as proven by so many post election analysts. And, to this day, the MSM refuses to account for or even recognize our existence, influence, or stubborn conservativism. But, we always determine the outcome, when we choose to do so. This is, I am certain, one of those times when we will cause the calculated, precise with error margin, best guess poll results to be so, so wrong. And it will be fun.

The past couple of weeks have seemed like an eternity in some ways. It was just ten days ago that Sarah Palin accepted the nomination of VP candidate of the Republican party. It has been less than 72 hours since FreddieMac and FannieMay were bailed out by American taxpayers. What with all the attacks on the Palin family, the Obama interview by Bill O’Reilly, McCain’s new policy to change America’s direction, it hardly seems like it’s only been a handful of days. And in that few days there have been many claims made that need to be factualized and the truth be told.

There is a pattern to be recognized here. Democrats tend to deception and a lack of responsibility in order to gain power. Admiitedly the Republican party is not without blame too, but as a matter of policy is realistic, more effective at providing a solution for America’s needs, and generally supports American traditions and values.

This presidential campaign has made the idea of change a political vaguery open to speculation and imagination. The Democratic candidate has made it his mantra and it has eagerly been supported by throngs of idolizers who are able, due to Obama’s lack of specificity, to fill in their own idea of what that change may be. But if the facts of the past few years show anything at all they show that Obama’s promise to change the direction of our country is a pledge that he will, more fervently, continue the policies that have been in effect since the last congressional election and that the only change will be away from the constitution and toward a socialist elite ruling class at a more rapid pace.

In the past two years we have seen the shameful despotic control of Congress by House Speaker Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Reid. Their shortsighted, unrealistic, egotistical demands that the policy of no drilling for additional oil sources will be continued, that the mortgage industry relax their qualifications to make home ownership available to lower income earners, their all out war against the Patriot Act, our uniformed forces and their mission, and every aspect of this nation’s defense policies, their perverted demand for windfall profit taxes on the petroleum industry, and many other socialist policies have brought this nation to the place where we stand today. Despite their anti-American efforts and the apparent desire to see all Americans depleated of their savings and way of life, the economy, the military, the president, and the people are still alive and kicking.

But things could and will change drastically if the Democrats win the Whitehouse and maintain a majority in Congress. They will change by staying the same in the underlying scheme of the liberals. They will gain the power to actually do some major reconstruction on the American way of life and subvert the Constitution to that end. The path will be the same, but the speed down the path will greatly increase. That is the change Obama promises whether he specifies it as such or not.

So when McCain says he is for change in Washington we can be sure he means a real change in direction back to the basics this country was founded on. We can know this by his history of pro-American activities and voting record. The facts of the recent past show his to be the real, authentic claim to change the direction of America. When Obama talks change he intends to accelerate us along the route set by Commrades Pelosi and Reid, Schumer and Kennedy, and the rest of the radical, left wing Soviet wannabees. We can be sure of this by examining his past and present associates, his word for word repitition of socialist euphamisms such as "economic justice" and the absence of any reference to adherance to the Constitution, and his obvious disdain for this nation and his continued criticism of its way of life and world stature.

So, which of the two definitions of change are American voters going to choose? Forget all the unimportant details and zoom out to the big picture: America becoming a socialist dictatorship or oligarchy, or America clinging to the Constitution and individual liberty. These are the two basic choices. As another astute townhall blogger has repeatedly, and correctly put it, "Conservatism sells". Let’s all hope so. For the sake of America and her great people, let’s all vote to make it so. SAY NO TO OBAMA!!

I’ve written before on the inherent differences in the mental and psychological workings between the two sexes. I believe the brains of men and women are physically wired different from birth in order to complement each other and make the best possible life together. Well, I have concluded that there is a similar difference in the cerebral wiring of conservatives and liberals that, rather than complementing one another, work in opposition causing grief and animosity between the two in some very important aspects of society. I have attempted to iterate these differences below in the most honest and independent manner possible. The physiological causes for the differences are above my pay scale. Hehehe….

This built in mental control manifests itself with an idealistic philosophy of, "That’s all OK and fine, but…" or, "If I really believe in myself anything is possible." This is almost always considered a positive outlook and a procees for accomplishment, and, it is believed, there is nothing wrong with that. We’ll more carefully examine that premise later.

This predetermined skepticism results in a philosophy of, "Yeah, that’s the way it is, live with it," or "A man has got to know his limitations". This, also, is usually considered a favorable attitude, being astutely aware of the surroundings and taking stock of the pros and cons of that environment. And, again, we believe that there is nothing wrong with that.

But, let’s now examine the effect, both good and not so good, of these mindsets on the lives of their victims both as individuals and in a relationship.

The optimist is just that. Always believing in the potential for improvement as reality, or that reality is not as dismal as others believe, he is incapable of abandoning his pursuit of perfection and surrendering to what actually is. His engrained idealism prevents him from compromising his principals.

The skeptic is just what it says he is. Always careful to accurately assess a situation, he unemotionally considers every perceivable aspect of the moment and doesn’t attempt to gloss it over or make a silk purse out of a sows ear. He is reluctant to believe in possibilities as a given and only admits to the facts as is. This is what is available to him and he will start there and have no expectations that anything is any more or less than what he sees.

We can see, then, why liberals consider conservatives as stodgy, old fashioned, and wrong in their vision of what needs to be done. And equally apparent is why conservatives see liberals as unrealistic and dishonest in the way they analyze the particulars of the world.

Understanding these inherited mental presets would, one might hope, ease the animosities between the rival philosophies. But the sad truth is, due to the inability of the optimist to accept anything at face value and believing that a voluntary change of the conservative’s insistance on basis of fact is possible, the optimistic liberals exploit their idealistic emotion and attack the personality of the realist with character insults and name calling. They refuse to consider the inability of conservatives to accept potential as reality while they themselves are equally unable to accept things for what they are. The conservative, if left to his own inclinations, sees no need or desire to try to change the way liberals believe, choosing instead to accept reality and write them off as what they are, a lost cause incapable of ascertaining the truth.

Glenn Flowers