http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress Idaho Common Sense® Mon, 06 Feb 2012 15:02:45 +0000 en hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 Welcome to - The truth as I see it™. Dr. Bosley writes sociopolitical columns with a conservative view that is well articulated and defended, provoking thought and discussion without telling people what to think. He poses questions, while offering his personal views and reasoning for them, allowing readers to better understand his opinions as they develop their own. His advice to himself - "Writing the truth as I see it; trying not to offend those who will disagree." Craig L. Bosley, MD no Craig L. Bosley, MD webmaster@craigbosley.com webmaster@craigbosley.com (Craig L. Bosley, MD) 2010 Craig Bosley The truth as I see it™ http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/wp-content/plugins/powerpress/rss_default.jpg http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/category/democracygovernment/ http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/2012/02/mediocrity-and-entitled/ http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/2012/02/mediocrity-and-entitled/#comments Sun, 05 Feb 2012 19:00:43 +0000 Craig Bosley http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/?p=1784 http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/2012/02/mediocrity-and-entitled/feed/ 5 http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/2012/01/avoiding-consequences/ http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/2012/01/avoiding-consequences/#comments Sat, 07 Jan 2012 17:03:06 +0000 Craig Bosley http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/?p=1770 http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/2012/01/avoiding-consequences/feed/ 1 http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/2011/12/1759/ http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/2011/12/1759/#comments Tue, 27 Dec 2011 18:20:48 +0000 Craig Bosley http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/?p=1759 http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/2011/12/1759/feed/ 3 http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/2011/12/what-happened-to-our-hallmark-values/ http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/2011/12/what-happened-to-our-hallmark-values/#comments Fri, 09 Dec 2011 13:15:02 +0000 Craig Bosley http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/?p=1728 http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/2011/12/what-happened-to-our-hallmark-values/feed/ 2 http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/2011/03/judicial-good-behavior/ http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/2011/03/judicial-good-behavior/#comments Thu, 24 Mar 2011 11:37:56 +0000 Craig Bosley http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/?p=1705 http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/2011/03/judicial-good-behavior/feed/ 1 http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/2011/03/a-state-religion/ http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/2011/03/a-state-religion/#comments Thu, 17 Mar 2011 13:02:06 +0000 Craig Bosley http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/?p=1695 http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/2011/03/a-state-religion/feed/ 0 http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/2011/03/im-entitled/ http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/2011/03/im-entitled/#comments Mon, 07 Mar 2011 13:48:07 +0000 Craig Bosley http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/?p=1688 http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/2011/03/im-entitled/feed/ 0 http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/2011/02/other-peoples-money/ http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/2011/02/other-peoples-money/#comments Sun, 27 Feb 2011 02:08:53 +0000 Craig Bosley http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/?p=1681 http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/2011/02/other-peoples-money/feed/ 1 http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/2010/10/reclaiming-the-constitution-part-v/ http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/2010/10/reclaiming-the-constitution-part-v/#comments Sun, 10 Oct 2010 19:03:20 +0000 Craig Bosley http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/?p=1659 http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/2010/10/reclaiming-the-constitution-part-v/feed/ 1 http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/2010/10/unlimited-power-part-iv/ http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/2010/10/unlimited-power-part-iv/#comments Sun, 03 Oct 2010 20:09:02 +0000 Craig Bosley http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/?p=1646 http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/2010/10/unlimited-power-part-iv/feed/ 0 http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/2010/09/unlimited-power-part-iii/ http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/2010/09/unlimited-power-part-iii/#comments Mon, 27 Sep 2010 19:02:17 +0000 Craig Bosley http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/?p=1626 http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/2010/09/unlimited-power-part-iii/feed/ 1 Bill of Rights,Great Depression,Law,Supreme Court,Supreme Court of the United States,United States,United States Congress,United States Constitution Since ratification of the Bill of Rights in 1791, the Supreme Court has found a constitutional answer to every case brought before it. Doesn't it seem unlikely that a document prepared in the 1700s could address all issues for more than two hundred yea... Since ratification of the Bill of Rights in 1791, the Supreme Court has found a constitutional answer to every case brought before it. Doesn't it seem unlikely that a document prepared in the 1700s could address all issues for more than two hundred years? We currently have nine justices, none elected by the people, all appointed to their office for life, who claim absolute control over the United States Constitution. Is this what the founding fathers and the states intended? With their fear of government, why would they give unchecked power to any branch of the federal government? During the 1930s and 1940s, President Franklin Roosevelt intimidated the Supreme Court, coercing it into giving unlimited power to the United States Congress. With two rulings, the court neutered the United States Constitution, ruling that it actually does not provide for a limited government. Roosevelt was demanding more control of the economy to bring us out of the Great Depression but he needed to expand congressional powers to do this. Although Congress near-blindly passed whatever legislation he proposed, the Supreme Court ruled unconstitutional eight of his first ten programs. Infuriated, he and his party proposed amending the Constitution to get what he wanted, their platform saying, "If these problems cannot be effectively solved within the Constitution, we shall seek such clarifying amendments as will assure the power to enact those laws." But he dismissed this plan because "it would take months or years to get substantial agreement upon the type and language of an amendment. It would take months and years thereafter to get a two-thirds majority in favor of that amendment in both houses of the Congress. Then would come the long course of ratification by three-quarters of all the states." The process was too long and he feared he might not get what he demanded. So he claimed that "in the last three national elections an overwhelming majority of (the American people) voted a mandate that the Congress and the president begin the task of providing protection (from another Great Depression) - not after long years of debate, but now." With his interpretation of a mandate, he was determined to find a way to modify the Constitution without an amendment, concluding that he needed to "infuse new blood into all our courts." So, he proposed expanding the Supreme Court by six justices, providing "a reinvigorated, liberal-minded judiciary necessary to furnish quicker and cheaper justice." Though his "court-packing" scheme failed, the court got the message and decided to protect itself rather than the Constitution. In 1936, with Butler v. United States, the Supreme Court ruled that the "general Welfare" clause of the Constitution was actually an enumerated power of Congress. The court gave Roosevelt the constitution he demanded, agreeing that Congress could pass any legislation it determined was for the "general Welfare of the United States." The court added that challenging Congress would "naturally require a showing that by no reasonable possibility can the challenged legislation fall within the range of discretion permitted to the Congress." Realizing the staggering power they just gave Congress, Justice Roberts said, "How great is the extent of that range, when the subject is the promotion of the general welfare of the United States, we need hardly remark." But to grant this unlimited power to Congress, the court ignored one of the "rules of construction" about how people enter into legal relationships. The Latin translated rule says, "Words should signify something - they should be understood to have force." The founding fathers would not have violated this rule by giving Congress unlimited power to do anything it determined was for the "general Welfare" followed by a meaningless text listing specific powers. They would have omitted such an unnecessary list. Nonetheless, Roosevelt got his new constitution, no need for an amendment, Craig L. Bosley, MD no 4:59 http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/2010/09/the-beginning-of-the-end-part-ii/ http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/2010/09/the-beginning-of-the-end-part-ii/#comments Mon, 20 Sep 2010 13:29:09 +0000 Craig Bosley http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/?p=1617 http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/2010/09/the-beginning-of-the-end-part-ii/feed/ 0 congress,Federal government of the United States,John Marshall,Supreme Court,Thomas Jefferson,United States,United States Constitution,United States Supreme Court Three Supreme Court rulings changed our lives, making our Constitution near irrelevant. One gave the Supreme Court unlimited, unchecked power; the other two gave Congress unlimited power. The first ruling created the concept of judicial review, Three Supreme Court rulings changed our lives, making our Constitution near irrelevant. One gave the Supreme Court unlimited, unchecked power; the other two gave Congress unlimited power. The first ruling created the concept of judicial review, which ... Craig L. Bosley, MD no 5:17 http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/2010/09/the-path-to-socialism-part-i/ http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/2010/09/the-path-to-socialism-part-i/#comments Mon, 13 Sep 2010 11:02:40 +0000 Craig Bosley http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/?p=1608 http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/2010/09/the-path-to-socialism-part-i/feed/ 0 Bill of Rights,Federal government of the United States,government,Law,Supreme Court,Supreme Court of the United States,United States,United States Constitution "We do not have socialism. We have regulated capitalism." - ISJ reader comment Is that true? Is it all or none? Or is the path to socialism a process so slow that each individual step is logical, masking the eventual outcome and encouraging inattentio... "We do not have socialism. We have regulated capitalism." - ISJ reader comment Is that true? Is it all or none? Or is the path to socialism a process so slow that each individual step is logical, masking the eventual outcome and encouraging inattention and indifference until it's too late? More important, if we are not yet socialist, is our federal government still the limited government the founding fathers created with the United States Constitution? Does it still respect state's rights? Does it still respect individual rights and freedoms? Before answering, remember that this past summer the Second Amendment was upheld by only a 5-4 vote of the Supreme Court, a constitutionally guaranteed right only one political appointment away from revocation. Is this what the founding fathers intended for the federal government they created? Or, did they intend something different, something limited, something not at all like our federal government? What was the purpose of the United States Constitution? Why did the states create a federal government and what did they want it to do? The states had some common needs, like defense, they realized could be more efficiently managed as a national unit rather than individually. But they only intended the federal government to oversee a limited number of things on their behalf, demanding the government they created remain subservient to the states, which were subservient to the people? Although the Constitution lists the limited powers of the federal government, in 1791 the states added the Bill of Rights, the first ten amendments to the Constitution, because they wanted to better clarify the people's and the state's rights. Keep in mind that these rights are not the same as privileges granted by the government. Our rights are guaranteed by the Constitution and the government cannot amend or revoke them, although the Supreme Court came perilously close this summer. Moreover, with the Tenth Amendment, the founding fathers intended to prevent the federal government from usurping powers not in the Constitution - "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." With ratification of the Constitution and these amendments, neither the people nor the states abdicated control to the federal government. Instead, if you will, the states employed the federal government to perform certain tasks for them, outlined in a contract - The United States Constitution. Has the federal government been a good employee? Has it honored the terms of its contract with the states and the people? In the 219 years since the Bill of Rights, only 17 amendments have been added to the Constitution; only 17 times has the federal government admitted it needed an amendment to address an issue before it. Is that logical? Do you believe the founding fathers were so brilliant that they capably addressed all but 17 issues? Instead, maybe the founding fathers knew they could not address all that was to change, and in anticipation of needed changes to the Constitution, they gave us Article V, a mechanism to amend it when needed. Perhaps they also appreciated and valued the sanctity of the United States Constitution, intentionally designing it to be cumbersome to amend, requiring the agreement of two-thirds of each house of Congress and three-fourths of the states. Perhaps they recognized that something as important as our Constitution should not be amended lightly, should not be amended at a whim, should not be amended as political fortunes dictate. Would they be appalled with the irreverence and irrelevance our federal government shows the Constitution, reducing it to a constitution in name only. Would they be appalled that our federal government ignores the Constitution with its legislation and Supreme Court rulings, offering only a passing nod to the document they swore to uphold and defend? What happened? Craig L. Bosley, MD no 4:48 http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/2010/09/socialism-by-force/ http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/2010/09/socialism-by-force/#comments Mon, 06 Sep 2010 12:02:24 +0000 Craig Bosley http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/?p=1597 http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/2010/09/socialism-by-force/feed/ 0 Columbia University,Frances Fox Piven,Karl Marx,New York City,New York Times,Rahm Emanuel,United States,United States Supreme Court "The trouble with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money." Margaret Thatcher Former Prime Minister, Great Britain Failing to learn, our government continues unabated towards socialism, convinced it knows best, "The trouble with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money." Margaret Thatcher Former Prime Minister, Great Britain Failing to learn, our government continues unabated towards socialism, convinced it knows best, the Constitut... Craig L. Bosley, MD no 4:55 http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/2010/08/spoiled-dependent-entitled-indentured-enslaved/ http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/2010/08/spoiled-dependent-entitled-indentured-enslaved/#comments Sun, 29 Aug 2010 22:38:59 +0000 Craig Bosley http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/?p=1573 http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/2010/08/spoiled-dependent-entitled-indentured-enslaved/feed/ 2 Education,England,Indentured servant,Lyndon B. Johnson,Politics,Poverty,Slavery,socialism,Star Parker,Uncle Sam,United States,War on Poverty Are spoiled children born that way? According to British writer Roald Dahl, "Some children are spoiled and it is not their fault, it is their parents." Spoiled children have parents who give them everything they want instead of teaching them to earn wh... Are spoiled children born that way? According to British writer Roald Dahl, "Some children are spoiled and it is not their fault, it is their parents." Spoiled children have parents who give them everything they want instead of teaching them to earn what they want, instead of teaching them responsibility and independence. Quite simply, parents of spoiled children fail to heed the advice of "The Country Parson," Frank A. Clark, who said, "The most important thing that parents can teach their children is how to get along without them." Well, my dad did not have a problem teaching us how to get along without him. He supported my dreams, saying I could do anything I wanted and I could have anything I wanted. All I had to do was pay the price, which always involved sacrifice and hard work. He saw many of the complexities of life as relatively simple, work hard and pay your own way. And if you want more? No problem; work more. How well is our parent government teaching us to get along without it and to stand on our own? Is it teaching us responsibility and independence? Is it teaching us to work hard and pay our own way? Or is it teaching us to depend on it for our wants and needs, teaching us we cannot get along without it, and spoiling us all the way to socialism? More than any other president, Lyndon Johnson led this charge with his "War on Poverty" he claimed would "lift people out of poverty." His plan included massive numbers of welfare programs, which, rather than lifting people out of poverty, taught them to depend on the government for their needs rather than standing on their own and paying their own way. And to ensure that people did not try to regain their independence, the government changed the name from welfare to entitlement. We are entitled to this or that from the government. Moreover, we cannot feel bad receiving an entitlement; it's a right. Have decades of entitlements "lifted people out of poverty?" No. They created perpetual poverty, perpetual poverty through dependence on the government. Political commentator Star Parker wrote a book about government entitlements, "Uncle Sam's Plantation," comparing entitlements to Southern slave plantations. Our socialist-minded politicians created lifetime entitlements, not short-term aids to "lift people out of poverty." The government designed entitlements as career choices, not as a means to gain independence, not as a means to "get along without it." The government designed entitlements not only to last a lifetime, but also to be passed on to the next generation like an inheritance. The socialist-minded politicians created perpetual poverty, perpetual entitlements, perpetual indentured servants, servants Ms. Parker writes, who are dependent on "Massah Uncle Sam." Ms. Parker "found her way out" of welfare entitlements, moving from the indentured servitude of socialism to "wealth-producing capitalism." But, as she writes in a recent column, the government is back on the path to socialism, back on the path to "Uncle Sam's Plantation" where people remain dependent. And this path to "Uncle Sam's Plantation" is short and our government understands this all too well. It courts the entitled votes, the dependent votes. It promotes bussing the entitled to the polls. It promises ever more entitlements in exchange for votes. It cannot deport illegal aliens because they are 12 million potential entitled voters. The government does not court the votes of dreamers and builders. It fears them. It fears dreamers and builders. It fears responsibility and independence. And it works to suppress those traits by "sharing the wealth" with those who are entitled to it. Spoiled. Dependent. Entitled. Indentured. Enslaved. This is what the government needs; otherwise we might dream of leaving the plantation of "Massah" England, "Massah" South, or "Massah" Government. The price of getting our wants and needs met for free? Our freedom. The founding fathers thought the price too high. Craig L. Bosley, MD no 4:29 http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/2010/08/is-the-arizona-law-a-burden/ http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/2010/08/is-the-arizona-law-a-burden/#comments Mon, 16 Aug 2010 14:45:27 +0000 Craig Bosley http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/?p=1558 http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/2010/08/is-the-arizona-law-a-burden/feed/ 2 Alien (law),Illegal immigration,Judge Bolton,Law,Mexico,United States,United States Department of Justice,Winston Churchill Those opposed to Arizona's illegal alien law praised Judge Susan Bolton's ruling against it as a victory for immigration rights. Really? What did the Arizona law have to do with immigration rights? Wasn't it about illegal aliens? In fact, Those opposed to Arizona's illegal alien law praised Judge Susan Bolton's ruling against it as a victory for immigration rights. Really? What did the Arizona law have to do with immigration rights? Wasn't it about illegal aliens? In fact, according to the USA Today, many illegal aliens were so worried about the law that they were preparing to self-deport if it was upheld, proof that enforcing federal law would solve much of the illegal alien problem by promoting self-deportation. But, Judge Bolton listened to the Justice Department's claim that the Arizona law would interfere with foreign relations, specifically with Mexico. Is the Justice Department fearful the United States would upset Mexico if it started sending some of the 12 million illegal aliens back home? I am sorry, but should we care? The offended President of Mexico, who arrogantly chastised our country when he addressed our Congress, willingly enforces his own federal law that requires local Mexican authorities to check the immigration status of all foreigners who come to them for help. How do his police decide who is a foreigner so there is no discrimination like he claims will occur in Arizona. In her ruling, the judge added that the Arizona law would "likely burden legal resident aliens." How? The Arizona law only requires legal resident aliens to follow federal law and carry proper documentation. But she claimed it could be a burden because it could lead to harassment of citizens and legal immigrants. Is it reasonable for a judge to rule against a law because it might be abused? Doesn't law enforcement have the ability to abuse any law if it chooses? Where is her logic? The judge also cited a 1941 Supreme Court ruling that a state could not impose a "distinct, unusual and extraordinary" burden on legal resident aliens, saying a Pennsylvania law led to "indiscriminate and repeated interception and interrogation by public officials." Is that what the Arizona law would allow? Would it allow "indiscriminate interrogations," or was it specific, allowing authorities to check immigrant documents only when law enforcement was enforcing other laws? Did the judge claim something in the Arizona law that was not there and then rule against it? Perhaps the federal government and the Judge need to learn from Sir Winston Churchill who said, "Sometimes it is not enough to do our best; we must do what is required." Arizona did its best with a federal government that ignores our border with Mexico, except for seeing 100,000 potential voters illegally cross our southern border each month. This view is supported by recently leaked administration memos that speculate on how to "reinterpret" the law to grant citizenship to illegal aliens without the approval of Congress. Do you think they can get that done in time to collect the debt of 12 million new voters in November? Rather than working to deport illegal aliens, our politicians are courting the votes of 12 million people who are here illegally. Well, Arizona did listen to Churchill and after doing its best, it did what was required and it enacted state law to enforce federal law. It enacted nothing counter to federal law, only complimentary. It just could no longer suffer the negligence and hypocrisy of the federal government. Of Bolton's ruling, Chapman University law professor John Eastman said, "The claim that just simply having your law enforcement enforce federal law is a violation of federal law, that’s just ludicrous." Thanks to Judge Bolton, I now understand that enforcing federal law is against the law. But the judge left in place the part of the Arizona law that allows it to prevent cities from becoming "sanctuary cities" that openly defy federal immigration law. Do I understand this correctly? It is against the law to enforce federal law, but it is also against the law to defy it. Printable Page (http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/20100816.pdf) Craig L. Bosley, MD no 4:15 http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/2010/08/lead-follow-or-get-out-of-the-way/ http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/2010/08/lead-follow-or-get-out-of-the-way/#comments Mon, 09 Aug 2010 02:31:28 +0000 Craig Bosley http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/?p=1528 http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/2010/08/lead-follow-or-get-out-of-the-way/feed/ 1 Afghanistan,George S. Patton,Soviet war in Afghanistan,Taliban,United States,United States armed forces,War in Afghanistan (2001–present),Warfare and Conflict General George S. Patton said, "Lead me, follow me, or get out of my way." Mr. President, are you listening? We are nearing the end of the president's second year in office and, as he promised, things have changed in Iraq and Afghanistan. General George S. Patton said, "Lead me, follow me, or get out of my way." Mr. President, are you listening? We are nearing the end of the president's second year in office and, as he promised, things have changed in Iraq and Afghanistan. But the question is not if things have changed, but have they improved. The decision to go to war is political. The decision to end a war is political. But war itself is not. The president is expert at politics; the military is expert at war. The president must balance political realities with military realities. And during peacetime political realities often carry more weight than military ones. But during times of war, if military realities cannot carry more weight than political ones, should we even be at war? The president, as commander-in-chief, must provide his troops the resources needed to succeed. And not just to succeed, but also to succeed minimizing loss of American life and secondarily, minimizing loss of innocent civilian lives. Isn't doing anything less a failure of command? Is the president conducting the war in Afghanistan as it should be? Or is he allowing politics to supplant competent military judgment at the expense of American lives? Does the president understand the realities of war? The Civil War's General Sherman explained war saying, "War is cruelty. There's no use trying to reform it, the crueler it is the sooner it will be over." But President Obama has ended two key American strategies, suggesting he might not understand. The military previously provided excellent air support for the ground forces, minimizing the loss of American lives while maximizing success. But, there were civilian deaths because the enemy cowardly hides in civilian areas behind civilian shields. And besides the bombing, Special Forces regularly executed night missions directed at selected Taliban leaders. The air support and the night missions were successful and saved American lives. But the president ignored Sun Tze's advice, "The art of war is simple enough. Find out where your enemy is. Get at him as soon as you can. Strike him as hard as you can, and keep moving on." Air support for ground forces decreased more than 75% and the valuable and successful night raids targeting key Taliban leaders were nearly eliminated. Why? Why would the president reluctantly agree to give McChrystal more troops only to purposefully place them at unnecessary risk? The logic for the loss of air support? Now that we have more ground forces, we can forgo some of the air support that resulted in civilian casualties. The result of this decision? Newspaper headlines succinctly answer the question. Shortly after the policy change on air support they read, "Airstrikes in Afghanistan drop by almost half" and "Coalition eases up on Afghan airstrikes." Now that his policy has been in place the headlines read, "Afghanistan war toll hit high mark," and "U.S. military death toll in Afghanistan reaches 1,000." And why the dramatic decrease in Special Forces night missions? They are deemed "too violent" and too risky for the civilians in the homes hiding the targeted Taliban leaders. Aren't these encounters supposed to be violent, overwhelmingly violent? Well, how are Special Forces treated when they do their job? Remember the seal team that captured Ahmed Hashim Abed who was behind the ambush of four Blackwater guards in 2004, their bodies burned and dragged throughout the city, then hung from a bridge. The capture was violent, the seals risking their lives to capture Abed alive. And the result of this daring and heroic capture? Maybe congratulations? Maybe medals? Neither. Three of the seals faced charges because of the bloody lip Abed sustained. Mr. President, either bring our children home or listen to General Douglas MacArthur's admonition, "It is fatal to enter any war without the will to win it." If you decide to keep our children there, then lead, follow or get out of the way. Craig L. Bosley, MD no 4:46 http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/2010/07/where-are-your-from/ http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/2010/07/where-are-your-from/#comments Mon, 26 Jul 2010 16:01:59 +0000 Craig Bosley http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/?p=1460 http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/2010/07/where-are-your-from/feed/ 1 Education,immigration,Los Angeles,Politics,United States,United States Congress,United States Constitution,United States nationality law The other day a friend and I were talking about immigration. He immigrated to the United States, is an American citizen but never refers to himself as a something-American, a hyphenated-American; he is just an American. The other day a friend and I were talking about immigration. He immigrated to the United States, is an American citizen but never refers to himself as a something-American, a hyphenated-American; he is just an American. My great-grandfather emigrated from Prussia in 1852. And like my friend, I don't consider myself a Prussian-American; I am just an American. My friend says people occasionally ask him where he is from, the question suggesting to him that they think he is a hyphenated-American with divided loyalties. Perhaps his mild accent or foreign sounding name prompts the question. But might I be asked where I am from if my last name were Gerbeling or if I had a German accent? Several years ago, prompted by his pronounced English accent, I asked a cab driver in Los Angeles where he was from. As I asked, I realized how easily the question could suggest I thought he was a hyphenated-American. His answer, like my friend's, was to tell me about the United States, "his" country, and how much he loved it. His response made me realize he was not a hyphenated-American, rather just another American like my friend and I. Maybe there are other reasons, more important reasons to ask someone where he or she is from. Perhaps values and attitudes about America are better reasons to prompt the question than accents and surnames. Although these two men are from different countries, as they described the United States I realized they were no longer "from" those countries, they are now Americans and they are from America. And to their credit, both men loved the United States without losing love or respect for their heritage, their homeland. As we discussed America, neither of them said anything about wanting a welfare government, neither said anything about wanting government programs offering "free" money. The cab driver came to America with nothing, dreamed of and built a cab company with several cabs, along with starting a limousine service. My friend came to America for the safety it offers, securing an education, now well educated . . . and safe. Both men are grateful for America's freedoms and opportunities, not wanting government guarantees, government subsidies or government help. Think about it, aren't these real American values, values our founding fathers risked all to give us? Don't these values define Americans and answer the question, "Where are you from?" On the other hand, are there people who claim they are Americans but whose values are so un-American that we do need to ask them, "Where are you from?" Are there Americans who have lost their understanding of who we are? Are there Americans who no longer understand freedom and opportunity? Are there Americans who see a benevolent, near-aristocratic country or a socialist country as the ideal we should aspire to become? Are there Americans who believe the welfare state should have been the founding fathers dream and their job is to make it so? Are there Americans who see government deciding what is best for us as the ideal? Are there Americans who think it's the government's job to solve all of our problems? Who are these people who claim to be Americans with such seemingly un-American values? Who would dare to distort the dreams of the founding fathers and the United States Constitution? Who would dare to spoil the greatest and most successful national experiment in the history of the world? The people with these values already have a national organization and are recruiting more followers daily. And like other fringe groups, they have their own geographic area where they meet to work on their agenda. But this group is subtle; some of them live next-door to us, pretending to be like us and unwilling to openly admit their values that are contrary to the Constitution. And they carry out their subterfuge from within, quietly. They call their group the United States Congress and we need to ask them, "Where are you from?" Printable Page Craig L. Bosley, MD no 4:24 http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/2010/07/subject-or-citizen/ http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/2010/07/subject-or-citizen/#comments Sun, 18 Jul 2010 22:43:17 +0000 Craig Bosley http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/?p=1363 http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/2010/07/subject-or-citizen/feed/ 2 Conservatism,Freedom of information,government,Government Operations,Great Britain,John Adams,Politics,United States "Oh posterity, you will never know how much it cost us to preserve your freedom. I hope that you will make a good use of it." - John Adams, second U.S. president American statesman Dean Alfange, born in Istanbul in 1899, "Oh posterity, you will never know how much it cost us to preserve your freedom. I hope that you will make a good use of it." - John Adams, second U.S. president American statesman Dean Alfange, born in Istanbul in 1899, reflected the values of an American citizen when he wrote, "I do not choose to be a common man; it is my right to be uncommon . . . if I can. I seek opportunity . . . not security. I do not wish to be a kept citizen, humbled and dulled by having the State look after me. I want to take the calculated risk, to dream and to build, to fail and to succeed. I refuse to barter incentive for a dole; I prefer the challenges of life to the guaranteed existence, the thrill of fulfillment to the stale calm of Utopia. I will not trade freedom for beneficence nor my dignity for a handout. I will never cower before any master nor bend to any threat. It is my heritage to stand erect, proud and unafraid, to think and act for myself, to enjoy the benefit of my creations and to face the world boldly and say: 'This, with God's help, I have done.'" We faced the wrath of Great Britain and risked our lives for these values. We had been subjects. We demanded to be citizens. We knew the price of being subjects, of security. We knew the price of becoming citizens, of freedom. The founding fathers decided to pay that price for our freedom, for our citizenship. They willingly traded security for freedom. Do we still want to be citizens? Are we still willing to pay the price? Perhaps Alfange's words no longer matter, no longer are relevant. Perhaps the thought of a "mother" government deciding what's best for us and making decisions for us is what we want. Maybe the price of freedom is too high, the security of a subject preferable. Maybe we claim to want freedom, but really want "caveat" freedom, freedom with the caveat, "but only as long as." We demand independence - but only as long as handouts continue. We demand freedom - but only as long as it's easy, no hardship. We demand a government subservient to us - but only as long as it does not require us to sacrifice. We demand the freedom to dream and to build - but only as long as the government accepts the risk if we fail. We demand to experience the joys of life - but only as long as the government guarantees to build our "Utopia" if we cannot. We demand our pride and dignity - but only as long as government subsidies continue. If Alfange reflected today's values, might he disappointedly write, "I choose to be a common man; it is too hard to be uncommon . . . and I no longer can. I seek security . . . not opportunity. I expect to be a kept citizen, willingly humbled and dulled by having the State look after me. I will not take a calculated risk. I do not want to dream and to build. I will not risk failure to succeed. I will always barter incentive for a dole. The challenges of life are too hard; I want a government guaranteed existence. I have no interest in the thrill of fulfillment; I want the stale calm of Utopia. I will always trade my freedom for beneficence and my dignity for a handout. I will cower before my government and I will bend to its threats. It is now my heritage to crouch, ashamed and afraid, to no longer think and act for myself, to no longer dream of new creations and to no longer face the world and say: 'This, with God's help, I have done,' . . . because I traded my freedom to the government." I am a subject. Again. Printable Page (http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/20100719-Subject-or-citizen2.pdf) (http://img.zemanta.com/zemified_e.png?x-id=e42a8289-b2db-4893-b951-2387f713fc49) Craig L. Bosley, MD no 4:12 http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/2010/07/sanctuary-cities-and-arizona/ http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/2010/07/sanctuary-cities-and-arizona/#comments Sun, 11 Jul 2010 18:48:46 +0000 Craig Bosley http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/?p=1274 http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/2010/07/sanctuary-cities-and-arizona/feed/ 1 Arizona,Attorney general,Federal government of the United States,Illegal immigration,immigration,Law,United States,World War II Among the limited powers of the federal government are matters of immigration and border security. However, the government seems unable to carry out these constitutional responsibilities, seemingly incapable of doing what the Constitution mandates. Among the limited powers of the federal government are matters of immigration and border security. However, the government seems unable to carry out these constitutional responsibilities, seemingly incapable of doing what the Constitution mandates. The federal government has ignored illegal aliens for decades, President's Hoover, Truman and Eisenhower the only presidents who seriously tried to solve the problem, Hoover during the depression, Truman following World War II and Eisenhower following the Korean War. Since then, illegal aliens have poured across our southern border, essentially unabated. And as their numbers rose, "sanctuary" cities passed ordinances banning use of municipal funds to support federal immigration laws, in essence aiding and abetting illegal aliens. They did this despite federal laws stating that "concealing, harboring, or sheltering illegal aliens" is a felony and also in defiance of the 1996 Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act, which states that cities could not ban municipal employees from reporting workers immigration status to federal authorities. Like these sanctuary cities that responded to the government's negligence, Arizona also decided to take action. But unlike the sanctuary cities that disregard federal law, Arizona decided to pass state laws supporting federal immigration laws. Although having no comments about sanctuary cities, the President did have comments about Arizona, saying it threatens to "undermine basic notions of fairness that we cherish as Americans." What does the President think is unfair about securing our borders? What does he think is unfair about arresting and deporting people here illegally? Does the President think the Arizona rancher murdered on his own land did not have a right to the fairness the he so freely claims for illegal aliens? Did the President offer the same support to this American family that he offers illegal aliens? So, what does the government do about the sanctuary cities ignoring federal immigration laws while Arizona supports them? It sues Arizona, letting the sanctuary cities continue to do whatever they choose. Attorney General Eric Holder claims Arizona is interfering with federal immigration responsibilities, saying Arizona's law "will (negatively) impact the entire country's safety." How is a secure southern border a threat to our safety? The suit further claims Arizona is interfering with "the numerous interests the federal government must balance" and is "supplanting the federal government's immigration regime with its own state-specific immigration policy." Is it possible for Arizona to interfere with and supplant a regime and policy that is essentially non-existent? Maybe the Attorney General meant to say that since the federal government's policy is to ignore our southern border and to ignore the illegal aliens in the country, Arizona's attempt to enforce federal law really is interfering with federal policy. Why does the government have unlimited resources to sue Arizona but does not have the resources needed to secure our southern border and deport illegal aliens? Why would our government ignore its constitutional responsibility? Why would it allow up to 20 million people to live here illegally? Why would it continually promise to secure our borders with no intent to do so? Why would it sue a state trying to secure our southern border while ignoring cities that flaunt federal laws and harbor illegal aliens? Could our elected officials have less interest in the Constitution and more interest in the potential votes of 20 million illegal aliens? Are these 20 million potential voters an incentive for negligence? Could our Washington political aristocracy be more interested in themselves and their political parties than in our country? Does the federal government have an unofficial, unconstitutional policy of ignoring illegal aliens, of not securing our borders, Craig L. Bosley, MD no 4:32 http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/2010/07/constitutional-coup/ http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/2010/07/constitutional-coup/#comments Sun, 04 Jul 2010 22:18:11 +0000 Craig Bosley http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/?p=1248 http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/2010/07/constitutional-coup/feed/ 0 Antonin Scalia,congress,David Souter,John Marshall Harlan,Supreme Court,United States,United States Constitution,United States Supreme Court " . . . the discretion of the judge is the first engine of tyranny." - - Edward Gibbon, "The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire" Are we witnessing a non-violent coup of the United States Constitution, " . . . the discretion of the judge is the first engine of tyranny." - Edward Gibbon, "The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire" Are we witnessing a non-violent coup of the United States Constitution, methodically carried out by the ... Craig L. Bosley, MD no 4:57 http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/2010/06/mcchrystal-obama-their-values/ http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/2010/06/mcchrystal-obama-their-values/#comments Mon, 28 Jun 2010 12:40:25 +0000 Craig Bosley http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/?p=1209 http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/2010/06/mcchrystal-obama-their-values/feed/ 2 Afghanistan,General McChrystal,General officer,Jimmy Carter,President of the United States,Stanley A. McChrystal,United States,War in Afghanistan (2001–present) General McChrystal was publically disrespectful to a superior officer, the President of the United States, the commander-in-chief of the armed forces. Graciously, the president allowed him to resign rather than fire him. But, General McChrystal was publically disrespectful to a superior officer, the President of the United States, the commander-in-chief of the armed forces. Graciously, the president allowed him to resign rather than fire him. But, recall the history of Gen... Craig L. Bosley, MD no 4:50 http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/2010/06/misbehavior-before-the-enemy/ http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/2010/06/misbehavior-before-the-enemy/#comments Sun, 20 Jun 2010 23:42:17 +0000 Craig Bosley http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/?p=1171 http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/2010/06/misbehavior-before-the-enemy/feed/ 1 Iran,Jundallah,Middle East,Politics of Iran,United Nations,United States,United States armed forces,Warfare and Conflict The president applauds the latest United Nations sanctions against Iran, saying they are the "toughest sanctions ever faced by the Iranian government." Did he not hear Ahmadinejad describe them as "a used handkerchief that should be thrown in the waste... Th (http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/Printer.png)e president applauds the latest United Nations sanctions against Iran, saying they are the "toughest sanctions ever faced by the Iranian government." Did he not hear Ahmadi... Craig L. Bosley, MD no 4:50 http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/2010/06/football-and-government/ http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/2010/06/football-and-government/#comments Mon, 14 Jun 2010 15:35:56 +0000 Craig Bosley http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/?p=1151 http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/2010/06/football-and-government/feed/ 0 congress,Federal government of the United States,House (TV series),Supreme Court,Supreme Court of the United States,United States,United States Constitution,United States House of Representatives The federal government could learn a lot from professional football - teams competing with each other, each team doing all it can to win, referees ensuring they follow the rules, together part of a league whose owners have the final say on the rules an... The federal government could learn a lot from professional football - teams competing with each other, each team doing all it can to win, referees ensuring they follow the rules, together part of a league whose owners have the final say on the rules and how the league works. Our league is the United States of America and the teams are our free market system, individuals and companies competing with one another, doing all they can to win. The referees are our elected officials, there to ensure the competitors follow the rules. The head referee is our Supreme Court, appointed to maintain the integrity of the rulebook when questions arise. The rulebook is the United States Constitution. And, "We the people" are the league owners, the only ones who can approve changes to the rulebook and the ones hiring the referees, including our president and Congress. Although it would be ideal if the teams voluntarily followed the rules, human nature being what it is, disputes arise, rules are challenged and referees are needed. Imagine what would happen if the NFL's referees failed to do their job, if they acted like our league referees? What would happen if they twisted the rules? What would happen if they accepted money from the teams they are supposed to regulate? What would happen if they interfered with the coaching or play of the game? What would happen if they had their own team in the league they regulate? What would happen if they coerced a team to bend the rules just to please a few of the owners or other referees? Does that sound frighteningly familiar, frighteningly like how our league referees act? Maybe the president, the Senate and the House of Representatives should attend football officials school. Maybe they need to learn how to do their job, and more important, what the rulebook does not allow them to do. The president and Congress, rather than enforcing the rules, interfere with the coaching and play of the game. Moreover, our head referee, the Supreme Court, "interprets" the rulebook, deciding for us what is best and usurping powers from the league owners, us. The court believes it should decide if the rulebook is correct, if it is up to date, if it has evolved with the game, and the like. Further, unlike football referees who refer questions about the rules to the owners, our Supreme Court sees no need to do that. Instead, it just "fills in the blanks" with rulings called precedent, meaning new law and potentially a forever-altered rulebook. Our rulebook, the United States Constitution, states that "We the people" are the league owners. It states that the referees work for us, not us for them. It states that only the league owners can change the rulebook. It states that the head referee and other referees are there to enforce the rulebook, not interpret it. Wouldn't it be nice if our elected government officials understood what their jobs are? Wouldn't it be nice if the head referee, the Supreme Court, understood its job is to maintain the integrity of the rulebook? Wouldn't it be nice if the government understood that it works for the league owners - "We the people?" Wouldn't it be nice if the government referees limited their involvement with the free markets to ensuring that the teams in the game, whether individuals, banks, Wall Street or corporations, followed the rules and played fair? Wouldn't it be nice if the government referees only stepped in when rules are broken rather than inserting themselves into the game, interfering with coaches and players? Wouldn't it be nice if the government referees could simply read and follow the rulebook? Maybe we do need a referee school for elected officials. It certainly couldn't hurt. Print Page (http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/20100614-Football-and-government.pdf) (http://img.zemanta.com/zemified_e.png?x-id=049b12da-87b6-4694-a12f-ec85e813fd59) Craig L. Bosley, MD no 3:54 http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/2010/06/impenetrable-borders/ http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/2010/06/impenetrable-borders/#comments Sun, 06 Jun 2010 22:02:35 +0000 Craig Bosley http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/?p=1145 http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/2010/06/impenetrable-borders/feed/ 0 Alien (law),Citizenship in the United States,Civil and political rights,Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution,Law,United States,United States Constitution,United States nationality law Is border security a priority for the government? The president proposes adding $500 million to the Border Patrol budget, which seems significant until you remember he spent over $3 billion on the "cash for clunkers" program. Further, Is border security a priority for the government? The president proposes adding $500 million to the Border Patrol budget, which seems significant until you remember he spent over $3 billion on the "cash for clunkers" program. Further, his solution for the 12 to 20 million illegal aliens already here is to create a way for them to become U.S. citizens. But won't that just increase future illegal entry into our country rather than eliminate it? Although I think the president's approach is wrong, we can solve the problem. We can prevent most illegal aliens from entering our country and we can promote most of the illegal aliens already living here to self-deport. Moreover, not only can we do so comparatively inexpensively, we already have proof it will work. When President Eisenhower carried out a program to deport illegal aliens, for every illegal alien arrested and deported another ten self-deported. So, we need a different perspective, a different focus. Rather than spending billions of dollars trying to stop people from entering our country illegally or deporting those already here, we need to eliminate the reasons they come. Previously I suggested our porous southern border entices illegal entry, and to a certain extent, it does; but the rewards awaiting illegal aliens in America are the real reason they risk everything to get here. We need to make living here illegally uninviting and unrewarding. And how do we do that? First, rather than granting citizenship to illegal aliens, pass a law stating that no one caught illegally in this country can ever apply for citizenship. Next, review the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, passed in 1866 to guarantee citizenship to freed slaves and to protect their civil rights. Ignoring the intent of the amendment, the government has allowed automatic citizenship to a child born to an illegal alien. This interpretation is an abuse of the Constitution. Do you think the authors of this amendment intended it to promote and reward illegal entry into our country? An obstetrics nurse working in a community hospital near the Mexican border told me that nearly 50 percent of their deliveries were illegal aliens. This must end. Following the Fourteenth Amendment as intended is neither racist nor immoral. The law needs to specify that if you are here illegally and have a baby, the baby is not a United States citizen; he or she is an illegal alien. Last, eliminate all job opportunities for illegal aliens, all financial incentives to come here illegally. Federal law already requires non-citizens to carry proof of their legal status "at all times." This is fair and needed. Along with this, for each offense impose a $100,000 fine on any employer who cannot prove the legal status of a non-citizen employee. The burden of proof should not be on the government to prove the employer knowingly hired an illegal alien. Instead, the burden of proof needs to lie with the employer and non-citizen employee. It is the individual's responsibility to provide the needed documentation and the employer's responsibility to have that proof. I recently applied for a medical license in Nebraska, required to provide proof of my professional activities for the past 38 years. It was onerous, but it was not unfair or discriminatory. Rather it was a reasonable demand to protect the residents of Nebraska from someone trying to practice medicine without proof of training. In the same way, we need to expect non-citizens who are here legally to offer proof of their legal status to get work. This protects taxpayers from spending billions of dollars on illegal aliens. If employers don't want $100,000 fines and non-citizen employees want to work, then they can provide the needed documentation that federal law already requires. The result of these measures? Not only will the number of people crossing the border decrease to a dribble, most of those already in this country illegally will self-deport. Fair or racist? Craig L. Bosley, MD no 4:37