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 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/2010/09/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/2010/07/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/2010/05/another-price-of-ignoring-our-borders/ http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/2010/05/another-price-of-ignoring-our-borders/#comments Sun, 30 May 2010 21:11:59 +0000 Craig Bosley http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/?p=1134 http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/2010/05/another-price-of-ignoring-our-borders/feed/ 0 http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/2010/03/fundamental-rights-of-americans/ http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/2010/03/fundamental-rights-of-americans/#comments Mon, 15 Mar 2010 06:10:29 +0000 Craig Bosley http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/?p=1031 http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/2010/03/fundamental-rights-of-americans/feed/ 0 Constitution,Gerald Ford,government,Health care,Social Security,Supreme Court of the United States,United States,United States Congress,United States Constitution,Washington D.C. The government, determined it knows what is best for us, continues expanding its role beyond its constitutional authority. It has little need for the Constitution because over 60 years ago the Supreme Court ruled that the founding fathers erred and act... The government, determined it knows what is best for us, continues expanding its role beyond its constitutional authority. It has little need for the Constitution because over 60 years ago the Supreme Court ruled that the founding fathers erred and act... Craig L. Bosley, MD no 4:20 http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/2010/02/its-our-constitution/ http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/2010/02/its-our-constitution/#comments Sun, 07 Feb 2010 23:36:16 +0000 Craig Bosley http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/?p=471 http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/2010/02/its-our-constitution/feed/ 0 Add new tag,John Adams,John Jay,Law,Supreme Court,United States,United States Congress,United States Constitution,United States Supreme Court Contrary to the wishes of Congress, the Supreme Court and the lower courts, "we the people" in our capacity as jurors and state legislators have the power to nullify laws we find unconstitutional. Did the founding fathers opine on this power? In 1790, Contrary to the wishes of Congress, the Supreme Court and the lower courts, "we the people" in our capacity as jurors and state legislators have the power to nullify laws we find unconstitutional. Did the founding fathers opine on this power? In 1790,... Craig L. Bosley, MD no 2:06 http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/2010/01/supreme-court-constitutional-guardian-or-guardian-council/ http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/2010/01/supreme-court-constitutional-guardian-or-guardian-council/#comments Sun, 31 Jan 2010 12:47:26 +0000 Craig Bosley http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/?p=130 http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/2010/01/supreme-court-constitutional-guardian-or-guardian-council/feed/ 0 congress,Law,Oliver Wendell Holmes,Separation of powers,Supreme Court,Supreme Court of the United States,United States,United States Congress,United States Constitution Does the  Supreme Court submit to the authority of the United States Constitution, as it should?  Or, is it complicit with Congress, functioning beyond its constitutional powers? In 1803, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court John Marshall, Does the  Supreme Court submit to the authority of the United States Constitution, as it should?  Or, is it complicit with Congress, functioning beyond its constitutional powers? In 1803, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court John Marshall, trying to preserve the checks and balances in the Constitution said, “To what purpose are powers limited, and to what purpose is that limitation committed to writing, if these limits may, at any time, be passed by those intended to be restrained."  He was addressing Congress, explaining that Congress could not decide if a law it passed was constitutional, that checking power reserved for the Supreme Court. Sadly, subsequent Justices used this process of judicial review to place themselves above the Constitution, and unlike their ruling on Congress, seeing no need for checks and balances on themselves.  Is this unlimited, unchecked power constitutional? How do Judges and Justices view the United States Constitution?  Do they revere it as they should?  Do they defend it as they should?  Or do they perceive themselves superior to the Constitution, the Supreme Court becoming the American equivalent of the Iranian Guardian Council, a supreme oligarchy deciding all law? In 1920, Associate Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes may have violated the Constitution when he said, "The case before us must be considered in the light of our whole experience and not merely in that of what was said a hundred years ago.  We must consider what this country has become in deciding what (the Tenth Amendment) has reserved."  Where does the Constitution grant the Court this intuitive power?  Can a Supreme Court Justice continue to serve if he or she seeks constitutional rulings outside the Constitution? In 1949 Associate Supreme Court Justice Felix Frankfurter insulted our intelligence when he said, "The words of the Constitution . . . are so unrestricted by their intrinsic meaning or by their history or by tradition or by prior decisions that they leave the individual Justice free . . . to gather meaning not from reading the Constitution but from reading life."  Should  a Justice who claims the United States Constitution is immaterial be impeached and removed from the Court? In 1992 Judge Richard Posner of the United States Court of Appeals for the Sevnth Circuit said, "We find it reassuring to think that the courts stand between us and legislative tyranny even if a particular form of tyranny was not foreseen and expressly forbidden by the framers of the Constitution."  Could he not recall his oath was to uphold the Constitution, not to fix it? Were the framers of the Constitution so flawed they failed to foresee it not addressing all that it should, needing Judges and Justices to fill in the gaps?  No.  Fully aware of this probability, they addressed changing the Constitution in Article V, allowing us to amend it when needed. The unacceptable rub for the courts?  "We the people" must approve amendments to the Constitution.  Nowhere in it is the Supreme Court granted the power to rule based on it "reading life" rather than "reading the Constitution."  Only "we the people" decide changes.  And this is as it should be. Justices can be impeached; yet Congress continues to turn a blind eye to its constitutional responsibility to impeach Justices who fail to "hold their Office during good Behavior." The Supreme Court has become the American version of the Iranian Guardian Council, the Constitution subservient to its supreme power, just as in Iran.  The only difference?  The Iranian Council has six theologians and six jurists who each serve six year terms; we have nine near-deities who serve for life. Is it time to take back the unconstitutional powers the Justices have usurped?  Is it time to demand the Supreme Court and Congress submit to the United States Constitution?  The Justices and Congress have claimed powers not theirs.  Is there a power above the Supreme Court?  If so, what should happen? Craig L. Bosley, MD no 4:26 http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/2009/11/who-really-has-the-power/ http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/2009/11/who-really-has-the-power/#comments Sun, 01 Nov 2009 06:13:23 +0000 Craig Bosley http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/?p=117 http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/2009/11/who-really-has-the-power/feed/ 0 Alexander Hamilton,American Constitution,Federal government of the United States,Franklin D. Roosevelt,Patrick Henry,Supreme Court,United States,United States Congress,United States Constitution,United States Supreme Court "The United States Constitution has proved itself the most marvelously elastic compilation of rules of government ever written."                            --President Franklin Roosevelt   Did the founding fathers create a "marvelously elastic" Co... "The United States Constitution has proved itself the most marvelously elastic compilation of rules of government ever written."                            --President Franklin Roosevelt   Did the founding fathers create a "marvelously elastic" Co... Craig L. Bosley, MD no 4:23 http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/2009/10/spending-the-peoples-money/ http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/2009/10/spending-the-peoples-money/#comments Sun, 18 Oct 2009 08:52:06 +0000 Craig Bosley http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/?p=115 http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/2009/10/spending-the-peoples-money/feed/ 0 Barack Obama,Citizens Against Government Waste,congress,George Washington,Line-item veto,Pork barrel,Ronald Reagan,Supreme Court,Supreme Court of the United States,United States,United States Congress,United States Constitution "Government is like a baby: An alimentary canal -  with a big appetite at one end and no sense of -  responsibility at the other."                                  − Ronald Reagan  Is it an appropriate use of taxpayer money to fund a "tattoo remova... "Government is like a baby: An alimentary canal  with a big appetite at one end and no sense of  responsibility at the other."                                  − Ronald Reagan  Is it an appropriate use of taxpayer money to fund a "tattoo removal violence prevention program," a Sparta Teapot museum, a program to communicate with extra-terrestrials, the Pleasure Beach water taxi service, a Waterfree Urinal Conservation Initiative and a swine odor and manure management program?  Moreover, where in the Constitution is the power for Congress to spend our money this way? Is this the work of Congress?  Is this the work of the Constitution?  Is this the people's work?  There is so much pork barrel spending that an organization, Citizens Against Government Waste, devotes a book to it, the "Congressional Pig Book."  That's not a good sign. Even worse, we have become so accustomed to and accepting of this waste that when President Obama promised to cut earmarks to $7.8 billion a year, we applauded.  Think about it.  We accept wasting nearly $8 billion a year as good news. In 2009, Congress passed bills with 10,160 earmarks--10,160 ways they intentionally wasted our money by hiding it in other bills. Fittingly, Vice President Biden summed up the government's ignorance of money management when he said we have to spend money to keep from going bankrupt.  A bit different from what I was taught; it never occurring to me the way to solve debt and loss of income was to keep spending money rather than scrimping, saving and paying off debt.  It should bother us that our leaders make such ridiculous statements.  But it should really terrify us that they actually believe what they are saying. The 1996 Congress did try to do the people's work, passing a line-item veto bill, allowing the president to veto specific parts of a bill line by line.  Maintaining our system of checks and balances, the bill allowed Congress 30 days to overturn the president's veto with a simple majority vote. Congress not only preserved the balance of power, it improved it. Too good to be true?  Absolutely.  It ended up before the Supreme Court and was declared unconstitutional because it interfered with the constitutional powers of Congress.  Have members of Congress and the Supreme Court become obstacles "we the people" have to overcome to return to the constitutionally limited government our founding fathers gave us? The results of the Supreme Court supported quid pro quos and unending pork barrel spending?  In 2008 Congress wasted $17.2 billion, in 2009 $19.6 billion and in 2010 it looks like it will waste $21.7 billion.  In the five-year span from 1998 to 2003 earmarks rose 346 percent. Does Congress even have time to do the people's work?  It cannot.  It has a full-time job dealing with the 10,160 earmarks each year, 40 earmarks voted into law every day, spending over $75 million a day on them. Check your savings account.  Do you have $75 million a day to share with the government because the government has no earned income; its only source of money is us.  That is our $75 million a day we allow them to take. Harold Coffin of the San Francisco Examiner accurately summed up the values of government saying, "When George Washington threw the dollar across the Rappahannock River, he didn't realize he was establishing a precedent for government spending." Whose blame?  Whose fault?  Ours.  The voters.  We vote them into office and then refuse to vote them out.  Or, we are too busy or too unconcerned to vote at all, believing our vote cannot make a difference. We can change it.  We have the power each time we go into the voting booth or each time we decide not to vote.  Our vote does make a difference, a huge difference.  Our power.  Our choice.  Our vote.  Our fault. Print Page (http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/20091019-Spending-the-peoples-money1.pdf)  Craig L. Bosley, MD no http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/2009/08/the-healthcare-agenda/ http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/2009/08/the-healthcare-agenda/#comments Mon, 31 Aug 2009 15:34:09 +0000 Craig Bosley http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/?p=104 http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/2009/08/the-healthcare-agenda/feed/ 0 Health care,Health insurance,Insurance,Medicare,Nancy Pelosi,Rahm Emanuel,Social Security,United States,United States Congress,United States Constitution,White House Chief of Staff Why is the government continuing to push healthcare reform, ignoring, dismissing and disparaging anyone who disagrees?  Why have so many members of Congress refused to have town hall meetings during the August recess?  Why are they afraid to face us, Why is the government continuing to push healthcare reform, ignoring, dismissing and disparaging anyone who disagrees?  Why have so many members of Congress refused to have town hall meetings during the August recess?  Why are they afraid to face us, their employers? Even if we ignore the United States Constitution and agree that healthcare is a constitutional right, is government control the answer to the current failed healthcare system of state and federal programs, private programs and employer sponsored programs? The government is convinced it can competently run the healthcare system.  But, can it?  It runs the nearly bankrupt Social Security program, the nearly bankrupt Medicare program, and just last week admitted it underestimated the deficit by a mere $2 trillion.  Not much of a track record. And don't forget Nancy Pelosi saying, with frightening sincerity, that all new costs will be captured from the efficiencies of government management. Which is more worrisome--that she made this statement or that she might actually believe it? The government continues "doing the same thing over and over again, expecting different results."  Einstein defined this as insanity. Why is government control the only option under serious consideration?  Are our leaders ignoring other options that might be better?  A healthcare expert, interviewed for an April 13, 2007, PBS report on universal healthcare, proposed a voucher system. Every citizen would get a voucher to purchase a basic healthcare plan.  The voucher would be risk adjusted for those people with medical problems whose basic plan might cost more.  Further, all private insurance companies would be required to offer the same basic plan.  Also, all government and all employer health plans would be cut out. Anyone who wanted more coverage than the basic plan provided could purchase more coverage at their own expense.  When asked about the unfairness that some people could afford more coverage than others, the expert said it is not the government's job to "provide everything that could possibly be done for everybody in the country."  What a nice, common sense understanding of the Constitution. Consider some of the benefits of this proposal.  It would allow continuity of coverage when changing jobs, when moving from state to state, and when transitioning from working to retirement. The reward?  The government is out of the healthcare business and the size of government decreases.  The risk?  Will the government agree to less control of our lives, less power over us, and less bureaucracy?  Has it ever before? Who offered these unique, heretical ideas?  Who thought of a new system rather than just patching an already troubled system?  Who dared propose less government? It was Ezekiel Emanuel, MD, PhD, head of the Department of Bioethics at the National Institutes of Health, a widely published expert on healthcare reform, and now an advisor to the president on healthcare reform.  Coincidently, he is the brother of White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel. So, why are the administration and Congress ignoring a recognized expert on healthcare reform, especially since he was hired to advise the president?  Why do they want to patch a crumbling healthcare foundation rather than create a new solid foundation on which to build a better system? Does this suggest there might be another agenda behind this massive spending, including buying control of banks and private companies?  Does this suggest why the government is bankrupting generations of future Americans? The answer may be too simple to want to believe.  Are the self-proclaimed aristocracy of Congress and the administration convinced we citizens are no longer competent to control our own lives, let alone the government? Are they keeping us divided as Republicans and Democrats, fighting with one another to prevent us from coming together to oppose the government with a united front? While we argue petty party politics, Craig L. Bosley, MD no 4:14 http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/2009/08/is-it-too-late/ http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/2009/08/is-it-too-late/#comments Mon, 10 Aug 2009 00:16:15 +0000 Craig Bosley http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/?p=101 http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/2009/08/is-it-too-late/feed/ 0 http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/2009/07/the-czars-of-the-u-s-s-a/ http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/2009/07/the-czars-of-the-u-s-s-a/#comments Mon, 27 Jul 2009 16:06:52 +0000 Craig Bosley http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/?p=107 http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/2009/07/the-czars-of-the-u-s-s-a/feed/ 0 http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/2009/07/is-the-government-the-new-company-store/ http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/2009/07/is-the-government-the-new-company-store/#comments Mon, 13 Jul 2009 15:58:46 +0000 Craig Bosley http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/?p=105 http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/2009/07/is-the-government-the-new-company-store/feed/ 0 http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/2009/05/role-of-the-supreme-court/ http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/2009/05/role-of-the-supreme-court/#comments Mon, 25 May 2009 14:57:05 +0000 Craig Bosley http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/?p=93 http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/2009/05/role-of-the-supreme-court/feed/ 0 http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/2009/04/the-socialist-states-of-america/ http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/2009/04/the-socialist-states-of-america/#comments Mon, 13 Apr 2009 12:01:18 +0000 Craig Bosley http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/?p=63 http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/2009/04/the-socialist-states-of-america/feed/ 0 http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/2009/03/can-we-tax-our-way-out-of-irresponsible-debt/ http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/2009/03/can-we-tax-our-way-out-of-irresponsible-debt/#comments Mon, 16 Mar 2009 16:05:05 +0000 Craig Bosley http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/?p=6 http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/2009/03/can-we-tax-our-way-out-of-irresponsible-debt/feed/ 0 http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/2009/02/what-should-we-ask-congress/ http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/2009/02/what-should-we-ask-congress/#comments Mon, 09 Feb 2009 19:13:24 +0000 Craig Bosley http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/?p=11 http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/2009/02/what-should-we-ask-congress/feed/ 0 http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/2009/02/to-provide-for-the-general-welfare-of-the-united-states/ http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/2009/02/to-provide-for-the-general-welfare-of-the-united-states/#comments Mon, 02 Feb 2009 19:24:10 +0000 Craig Bosley http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/?p=12 http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/2009/02/to-provide-for-the-general-welfare-of-the-united-states/feed/ 0 http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/2008/10/who-should-pay-to-rebuild-following-natural-disasters/ http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/2008/10/who-should-pay-to-rebuild-following-natural-disasters/#comments Mon, 20 Oct 2008 16:39:51 +0000 Craig Bosley http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/?p=83 http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/2008/10/who-should-pay-to-rebuild-following-natural-disasters/feed/ 0 http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/2008/08/we-need-to-return-to-a-citizen-government/ http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/2008/08/we-need-to-return-to-a-citizen-government/#comments Mon, 04 Aug 2008 13:32:27 +0000 Craig Bosley http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/?p=72 http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/2008/08/we-need-to-return-to-a-citizen-government/feed/ 0