The truth as I see it™
ByCraig L. Bosley, MD
To listen to an audio podcast, mouse over the title and click Play. Open iTunes to download and subscribe to podcasts.
Podcast Description
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."
| Name | Description | Released | Price | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
1 |
Constitutional coup | " . . . 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 ... | 7/4/10 | Free | View In iTunes |
|
2 |
McChrystal, Obama, their values | 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... | 6/28/10 | Free | View In iTunes |
|
3 |
‘Misbehavior before the enemy’ | 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... | 6/20/10 | Free | View In iTunes |
|
4 |
Football and government | 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) | 6/14/10 | Free | View In iTunes |
|
5 |
Impenetrable borders | 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? | 6/6/10 | Free | View In iTunes |
|
6 |
Are they asking the right questions? | The constitution . . . is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist, and shape into any form they please." Thomas Jefferson Why is a Supreme Court nominee so important? According to their only constitutional requirement, justices "shall hold their Offices during good Behavior," allowing them to serve for life and affect generations to come. And knowing a nominee to the Supreme Court usually survives the "advise and consent" of the Senate, selecting a nominee to the court is one of the most important things a president does. Is that all there is to it? Nothing about being a lawyer or a judge? Nothing about being a constitutional scholar or having the "proper" educational pedigree? Nothing about being male, female, black, white, Hispanic or anything else? Why? Maybe the founding fathers just wanted intelligent people with common sense. Thomas Jefferson voiced concern because justices serve for life, are appointed rather than elected and are not only outside the checks and balances of government, but also "prescribe rules" for the other branches of government. Seeing the potential for the Supreme Court abusing its power, he wrote, "Whatever power in any government is independent, is absolute also." The president and Congress have recognized this unchecked power since the times of the founding fathers, relegating Supreme Court justices to political appointees, wanting the justices to "twist and shape" the Constitution like a piece of "wax" - but only if in agreement with the party that selected them. Senators sanctimoniously question the qualifications of a Supreme Court nominee with less interest in protecting the Constitution and more interest in advancing their own political agenda. More often they offer self-serving speeches to the television cameras than important questions to the nominee. Further, from administration to administration the questions don't change, only the party asking them. On the recent nomination of Elena Kagan, one Senator suggested she is not qualified because she has never been a judge. Sen. Mitch McConnell suggested she is not qualified because this job "does not lend itself to on-the-job training." Sen. John Cornyn claims, "Most Americans believe that prior judicial experience is necessary." Constitutional concerns or party posturing? What questions might we, who are not a part of the political aristocracy, ask a Supreme Court nominee? Will the nominee apply the Constitution to every question before them? Will the nominee preserve and protect the Constitution rather than try to "fix" it? Will the nominee always look to the Constitution first, even if it's in conflict with prior court decisions? In other words, will defending and protecting the Constitution take priority over defending and protecting prior court decisions? Does the nominee believe the Constitution is a "living document," needing the Supreme Court to alter it to fit the times, or do they believe, as stated in the Constitution, that only "We the people" can approve changes to the Constitution? Does the nominee believe if there are issues not addressed in the Constitution it is their right or duty to "fill in the blanks;" or do they believe that Article V of the Constitution, which outlines the process for a constitutional amendment, is the only constitutional way to "fill in the blanks?" Would the nominee have the courage to say, "The Constitution does not clearly address the issue before us; therefore, we cannot render a decision and we will refer this to the Congress to decide if it wishes to propose a constitutional amendment to the people for their approval?" Thomas Jefferson - "Laws are made for men of ordinary understanding and should, therefore, be construed by the ordinary rules of common sense. Their meaning is not to be sought for in metaphysical subtleties which may make anything mean everything or nothing at pleasure." "Ordinary rules of common sense. | 5/23/10 | Free | View In iTunes |
|
7 |
Gratitude is a burden | "Men are more ready to repay an injury than a benefit because gratitude is a burden and revenge a pleasure." Tacitus, 56 AD - 120 AD, Roman historian Does this sound a bit too much like today, suggesting we may have progressed little this past 2,000 years? Is gratitude still a burden? Is revenge still a pleasure? Is complimenting difficult? Is complaining easy? Think of the signs in stores pointing to the customer service department, the successor to the original complaint department. Have you ever seen a sign for a compliment department? I haven't, and even if they existed I doubt people would stand in line waiting to offer a compliment. Maybe we do better in restaurants. How often do we complain if the service is poor? More important, how often do we compliment when the service is good? Do we want the answers to these questions? What about the business world? Maybe we do better there. Businesses do put a lot of effort and resources into teaching and getting staff to complement one another, even providing drop boxes with forms designed to compliment fellow workers. Nevertheless, we need no reminders to point out when something is wrong. Speaking for myself, I know I can see what's wrong much more quickly than I can see what's right. Does complimenting require more effort than complaining? Needing a real-life example, a few weeks ago I became my own good "bad" example. My wife and I had some difficulty with a business I believed had treated us unfairly. Anticipating the worst-case outcome, I prepared a letter of complaint to the owner. But, before I could even proof the letter, my wife received a call outlining how they wanted to deal with our concerns. I was excited when she told me what happened but disappointed with my response. In my excitement I said, "Now I don't need to send a letter to the owner." But I should have added, "Instead, I am going to send a letter describing how well his staff solved the problem." And adding insult to injury, I didn't even realize my oversight until I sat down to work on this column. I was quick to revenge, slow to gratitude. Is retaliation easier than repaying a kindness? Is revenge easier than gratitude? Is complaining easier than complimenting? I suspect our answers to most of these questions leave us uncomfortable. But maybe that's just the way we are and we have no choice. Not necessarily. Years ago, when I was the team physician for Highland High School athletes, I watched a coach deal with his quarterback on the sidelines. The quarterback made a dumb mistake during a critical game. The coach motioned the quarterback off the field and I waited for what I assumed would be a lot of hollering. But there was none. Instead, the coach put his arm around his quarterback and walked him away from the sidelines saying, "You're doing a great job out there. Let's talk about that last play and what we might do differently next time." Where did he learn that? Grade school. Remember grade school? I know that coach must have learned more in grade school than most of us. It was a wonderful time; teachers dwelled and thrived on telling us what we did right. They were masters of positive feedback, intuitively knowing how to get us excited to do more and to do better. Remember the stars the teachers drew or stuck on our papers? I know I got lots of stars I didn't deserve. More important, I can't remember why I got the stars; all I remember is how great the stars made me feel. Now that we are "grownups," how often do we get stars? More telling, how often do we give stars? Are the answers disappointing? Gratitude is a burden Print Page (http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/20100517-Gratitude-is-a-burden.pdf) | 5/17/10 | Free | View In iTunes |
|
8 |
Racism or common sense? | Reading about Arizona's new law dealing with illegal aliens, I got the impression that Arizona had done something radical by requiring non-citizens to carry documents proving their legal status in our country. Not so. The new Arizona law only enforces existing federal law, the Alien Registration Act passed by Congress in 1940. Arizona is only enforcing federal law the federal government refuses to enforce. This is an act of necessity, of common sense and is Arizona's latest attempt to deal with 450,000 criminals in the state. Remember, illegal aliens are criminals, not undocumented immigrants. Three years ago, Arizona passed an employer sanctions law that punishes businesses that knowingly hire illegal aliens. The result? About 100,000 illegal aliens self-deported from Arizona, some to Mexico and some to other states. Why did they voluntarily leave? One illegal alien complained that he no longer wanted to live in the United States because of the "oppressive environment." Others returned to Mexico because "they didn't want to live in fear, in terror." Another added, "The new law gives us no other option than . . . going back to Mexico where we feel more comfortable." Isn't that what we want? Don't we want criminals to feel oppressed and uncomfortable? Don't we want criminals to live in fear and terror? Don't we want illegal aliens to self-deport, which is the ideal cost-effective solution. And when more states pass similar laws, self-deportation will increase the flow of illegal aliens to Mexico rather than other states. Further, this is not an act of racism as claimed. Arizona is on the Mexican border, leading to the logical assumption that most of its illegal aliens are from Mexico. Arizona is only profiling criminals for arrest and deportation. Remember, profiling is not synonymous with racism. Israeli profilers are the proof that behavioral profiling both works, and is not racist. Clarence B. Jones, Scholar in Residence at the Martin Luther King, Jr. Institute at Stanford University suggests that if people want to protest, they should protest against the inaction of our government and Mexico's government. These governments failed, not Arizona. Mexico is more than willing to allow us to support its citizens. And, our politicians are more than willing to call them undocumented immigrants rather than illegal aliens, pandering for votes rather than doing their job. The President suggested Arizona's new law is irresponsible and "undermines (the) basic notions of fairness that we cherish as Americans." Really? How can that be true when all Arizona is doing is enforcing existing federal law? Apparently, the federal government now defines basic fairness as spending $3 billion on "cash for clunkers" while expecting Arizona to spend $1.3 billion every year for the medical care, education and incarceration of illegal aliens. This is a "basic notion of fairness?" Our federal government willingly does what the Constitution does not allow while refusing to do what the Constitution demands. And contrary to what we hear from Washington, we do not need new laws to deal with illegal aliens; we just need the federal government to enforce existing law. All Arizona did was say, "Enough is enough," its governor describing it well when she said her state is trying to "solve a crisis we did not create and the federal government has refused to fix." If Al Sharpton wants to rid Arizona of his claimed racism, then deport the illegal aliens and free American citizens of Hispanic descent from the unfair stares questioning their citizenship. They deserve to be just another citizen. Although unfair, in a state spending billions of dollars supporting illegal aliens who are mostly from Mexico, it is understandable that non-Mexican citizens will look at all Mexicans as potential illegal aliens. The real discrimination is the federal government expecting American citizens to pay for the cost of its negligence. | 5/9/10 | Free | View In iTunes |
|
9 |
Michael, Tiger and Ed | Do you recognize these men? I suspect you know two of them. Michael is Michael Jackson, his death garnering more media attention than President Reagan's funeral. Tiger is Tiger Woods, his philandering capturing near continuous media attention with each new girlfriend revealed. But who is Ed? We know every detail about Michael, the little boys, the drugs, everything. We know every detail about Tiger, even which golf club damaged his car and the name of every woman he "encountered." But who is Ed? Do we know anything about Ed? Do we care? Should we care? How does the media decide who is newsworthy? To whom do the media answer? Remember, the media is a business, and like any other business they must generate a profit or fail. If no one watches their shows, if no one buys their magazines or newspapers, they will go out of business. And just like any other business, they analyze what we want – and they deliver. They deliver the scandals, the gossip, almost celebrating the failures of others. But who is Ed? Ed is Ed Freeman, a footnote on a busy news day. He died Aug. 20, 2008, his obituary briefly shared across the nation. Why even bother noting his death? Do any of us know who Ed Freeman is? Should we be interested? What did he do wrong? Did he use drugs? Was he an adulterer? Maybe a p*******e? Perhaps a Wall Street crook? Did he rate a federal investigation or criminal charges? What was his failure, his demise, his downfall making his death newsworthy? Who is Ed? Capt. Ed Freeman is a Congressional Medal of Honor recipient, a hero. During the Vietnam War, he flew a non-combat lift helicopter, an unarmed helicopter, nothing glamorous. One day he overheard radio traffic about a battle going very badly for the American infantry. An overwhelming force surrounded them and they were taking significant losses. The enemy fire was so intense the commanding officer on the ground refused to allow any more Medi-Vac helicopters to land, no more ammunition or supplies and no more evacuations of the wounded. Capt. Freeman knew they must be nearly out of ammunition and he knew they had critically injured soldiers. Both he and the officer giving the order knew what the outcome of the battle would be if the order was followed. So Ed did something. He did something 14 times. He ignored the order 14 times. Fourteen times he flew his unarmed Huey into the heart of the battle, each time taking enemy fire from less than 200 yards away, delivering ammunition and evacuating the injured. He saved the lives of the soldiers he evacuated, along with many others with the ammunition and supplies he provided. Really think about what he did. Fourteen times he flew into enemy fire to get the wounded, each time facing probable death. Why didn't he get the same round-the-clock news coverage Michael or Tiger got? Most people blame the media, claiming they are anti-military, anti-American and don't care about what is really important, preferring to emulate the National Enquirer. Are they right? Is the media full of nothing more than tabloid-style journalists? Again, the media is a business, publishers and producers responsible to generate a profit. Yes, they do want to report "real" news. Nevertheless, they accept the reality of delivering what the readers and viewers want, generating the income needed for their business to survive so they can provide the small amounts of "real" news we will tolerate. And what is it we want? We want trash. We want gossip. We want calamity. We want handcuffs and jail time. We want the dirt. We want Jerry Springer, not Walter Cronkite. Which show would get the most viewers and the best ratings, a show about the heroism of Ed Freeman or a competing show about Tiger’s girlfriends? Should the media be embarrassed? Or, should we be embarrassed? Who is Ed? Print Page (http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/20100503-Michael-Tiger-and-Ed.pdf) | 5/3/10 | Free | View In iTunes |
|
10 |
Forgetting the evil | "I ask nothing of the Jews except that they should disappear." - Hans Frank, Nazi governor of Poland Last week I apologized to a Jewish friend for again forgetting the evil, the third year in a row I promised myself I would not forget. I am exactly what evil wants, what evil needs to succeed; wondering if Edmund Burke might have described me when he said, "All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing." By ignoring, by standing on the sidelines, by not remembering, are we not condoning evil? In 1982, Congress acknowledged the Holocaust with the "Days of Remembrance;" this year observed on April 11. Have you heard of this? How much attention does it get? Will the anniversary of Michael Jackson's death garner the same brief attention? What is there to remember? Only that the Nazis controlled territory that is now 35 separate European countries, those countries once home to nearly 8 million Jews, the slaughter successfully eliminating 6 million. 6 million Jews? Come on. Are we really supposed to believe that? Do we even know if it really happened? Some people suggest it was nothing more than war propaganda, like the weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Further, Iranian leader, Ahmadinejad, claims the Holocaust was a "myth," created by the Europeans to legitimize stealing Islamic lands for the Jews. Was it real? Was it the evil I was taught? Abraham Malik described the police coming to his home saying, "They started banging (on) houses . . . One baby started to cry . . . The other baby started crying. So the mother urinated in her hand and gave the baby a drink to keep (her) quiet. (When the police had gone), I told the mothers to come out. And one baby was dead; . . . from fear the mother had choked her own baby." Eliminating the Jews with guns was inefficient, time consuming and wasted needed ammunition. The Nazis created a superior "final solution" for disposing of the Jews, hydrogen cyanide gas chambers. These were a tremendous advance, the pride of Nazi efficiency, some camps "processing" up to 10,000 Jews a day, only slowing long enough for other Jewish prisoners to pull gold-filled teeth from the corpses on the way to the incinerators. The smoke bellowed overhead day and night, the unimaginable stench drifting over neighboring towns making it impossible to not know what was happening. But the world did not want to know. The world did not want to believe. The world remained silent. And the extermination continued. Perhaps the "lucky" Jews, if one can pervert the definition of lucky, were those who believed they were being "relocated in the east," arriving at the death camps with their luggage. Hastily, they were ordered to disrobe and enter the "delousing" showers; twenty minutes later dead and dumped into incinerators. Others were not so "lucky." In the Soviet Union near the city of Kiev, over 33,000 Jews arrived for their "relocation in the east;" the notice said, "Failure to appear is punishable by death." A truck driver watched as the Nazis ordered the Jews to undress and enter a ravine that was about 150 yards long and 15 yards deep. They were forced to lie down on top of the Jews who had already been shot, neatly stacked layers of death. A Nazi marksman walked across the bodies, stepping from one to the next, shooting each one in the head as he passed by. The "unluckiest" Jews, the children, held a special fascination for Dr. Josef Mengele, who had the children call him "Onkel Mengele." But he saw them as nothing more than research animals, there for experimentation. Survivor Vera Alexander remembers "Onkel" taking twins Guido and Ina away. When they finally returned, she heard their death screams, the twins surgically turned into Siamese twins, their backs sewn together. The screams continued day and night until they died, after which Mengele dissected them, just as he would any other lab animal. To the Jews of the world, I apologize for forgetting. We must forever remember. | 4/25/10 | Free | View In iTunes |
|
11 |
The fixer-upper | A fixer-upper - a project, usually a home or a piece of property that needs money and substantial sweat. It needs some maintenance, some redecorating, some reconstruction and some redesign; it is a real project, not just a weekend outing. The project you selected could take years to finish, maybe a lifetime. But you knew that when you agreed to it. You knew you would occasionally wonder if you took on more than you could handle, if you got in over your head. Nevertheless, you saw the potential, not the reality. You saw the outcome, not the work needed. You saw the endpoint, not the time to get there. You saw what was possible, not what was probable. You knew the people previously responsible for this asset fell short, in some areas very short. However, you are not them. You are younger and you have more resilience. Moreover, no one will expect you to stop your efforts before you are done. No one will take this from you before you finish. I was surprised to learn that nearly 50% of married couples got a fixer-upper. More surprisingly, usually only one of them saw its potential; in other instances, the spouse thought it needed no remodeling or upgrading; it was just fine the way it was. Still, you saw the potential. You dreamed of its magnificence when the work was finished. You realized the possibilities of enough effort, enough oversight and enough attention. When you started, you remember agreeing the project was livable the way it was. Well, sort of, or you probably would not have gotten involved in the first place. You remember seeing the basics, though a bit rough and a bit course; but there was enough there to build something of real and lasting value. Years later, you wonder if you can finish, starting to feel the weight of the work still needed. You don't remember thinking it would take this long. You didn't plan on so many setbacks, so many diversions and distractions. It has become so much more than you anticipated. It has been a long time. The plumbing is no longer reliable, consistently leaking where it shouldn't and when it shouldn't. And the furnace? Well, you don't remember all those noises it now regularly makes. You even occasionally get frustrated and holler at it. And though you know it cannot hear you, you like to think that at one time it could. You still hope for a return on your investment, forgetting that over the years you have regularly invested more than the project ever returned. You sometimes need to remind yourself of the original plan, the original goal. You need to remind yourself your plan was never to fix it up and flip it, letting someone else enjoy the results of your success. You need to remind yourself you did not consider it a starter, a prelude to something better. No, you wanted to finish the project and keep it. Now, when you recall the people who were responsible for it before you took over, you think that maybe they really did do their best. You realize you have spent decades working on this project with little real and sustainable progress. What happened to all the time? It just slipped away, other projects coming along that took priority. Well, it's been thirty years and next week is your thirtieth anniversary with your project, your fixer-upper - your husband. And you're starting to accept the reality that the peak of his progress was your wedding day, with little progress since. Even so, it has been a wonderful thirty years, worth all the time spent trying to raise him to adulthood. Moreover, along the way you created several other amazing projects, including your daughter who just got married. You know she has the same unattainable goal you had. But, you decide not to tell her the truth. No reason to ruin her dream. Let her think men can grow up. Print Page (http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/20100419-The-fixer-upper.pdf) (http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=1025314b-3d04-4d54-8de3-d71e6d95d8f4) | 4/18/10 | Free | View In iTunes |
|
12 |
Elite universities – principled? | Some of our nation's elite universities, including Harvard, Columbia, Brown, Yale, Dartmouth, Stanford, Cornell, Princeton and Penn, produce many of our nation's leaders. But, do they model the values we want in our leaders, the principles we aspire to as a country? Are they the principled guardians of the academic freedom and independent thought they claim to be? Do they really represent the best of America? Many of these defenders of academic freedom ban ROTC and military recruiters from their campuses, even though they once educated large numbers of military officers. In past decades, Yale actually produced more Navy officers than the Naval Academy. Why this animosity toward the military? During the Vietnam War, these universities faced anti-war student protests, providing their faculties and leaders with an excuse to ban the military from their campuses. Although Princeton, Dartmouth, Penn and Cornell have allowed ROTC to return to campus, it is without college credits. With Vietnam long over, the current excuse to continue the ban is DADT - the military's "don't ask don't tell" policy regarding homosexuals. These elite universities, self-proclaimed guardians of academic freedom, are refusing to allow their students to develop their own opinions of the military. They hypocritically accuse the military of the very prejudice and intolerance they practice. Perhaps it is easy because they so readily sold their ethics when the Solomon Act was passed in 1995, which allowed the government to block all federal monies to any university that refused to allow the military on campus. In essence, the military politely told them to put their money where their mouth was. What happened to their principled stance then? Rather than losing hundreds of millions of dollars of federal aid, some of these universities, including Harvard, which alone stood to lose $450 million, had a surprising change of heart and allowed military recruiters to return to campus. Sadly, these universities model these flawed values and ethics for our youth. No wonder so many of our government leaders have confused ethics. Columbia, showing more moral bankruptcy than Harvard, proclaims on its Internet site its patriotism and support of ROTC, even though it is one of the schools requiring students to drive to other schools for that training. Columbia revealed even more hypocrisy when it claimed defense of academic freedom by welcoming the Iranian terrorist Ahmadinejad to speak on campus. Its values? ROTC is barred from campus because the military bans gays from openly serving while Ahmadinejad, who aids and supports the killing of Americans, is welcomed. Think about the principles of the leaders and faculties of these universities. While they are unwilling to risk anything for their claimed principles, the banned ROTC students are willing to risk their lives for their principles. What values do we want? What principles should we model? Do the elites have other ethical lapses? Yes. They also sell admissions to the highest bidder with a unique admissions program called "affirmative action for the wealthy," including legacy applicants who are the children of previous graduates. Some of these universities are more adept at buying favors than Congress, referring to legacies as "check-writing graduates." According to the Wall Street Journal, Harvard accepts 40 percent of legacy applicants but only 11 percent of other applicants and when one irate father told an admissions officer that his son should be accepted despite a 2.4 grade-point average, he was asked, "Have you built a building?" Some universities additionally target children of the rich and famous even if they had no previous connection to the university, calling them "development cases," ignoring their poor academic performance in lieu of "other areas of leadership." The ethics of the elites are for sale to the highest bidder - be it the government, wealthy alumni, or rich and famous parents. | 4/11/10 | Free | View In iTunes |
|
13 |
No more apologies – Part II | We grovel before Gadhafi and hide our flag. Critics claim we are a self-centered and selfish country, providing less foreign aid than twenty-one other countries when comparing the aid as a percentage of gross national income. Are our critics right? Are we not what we believe? Well, how might we fare if we looked at total foreign aid rather than percentages? In that case, the United States is first, giving more than $25 billion in 2008; the next 21 nations combined giving only $85 billion. The United States provides nearly 30% of the world's foreign aid. So which are we, self-centered or generous? Although using percentages of gross national income is a more accurate way to compare foreign aid, is it a truthful representation of United States assistance to other nations? Or is it misleading, lying by omission, leaving out data to prove a pre-determined outcome? It turns out the data ranking us twenty-second in foreign aid is misleading, just one piece of a much larger pie the United States bashers tend to overlook. Most of the other twenty-one nations provide little private philanthropy. Moreover, most are "socialist," their citizens believing it is the government's responsibility to give aid to other countries, not theirs. Pretty much the way they view everything else in their lives. Which country does provide the most private charity? The United States, of course. Even when compared to other nations as a percentage of gross domestic product; we give more than twice what any other nation gives. Not bad for a self-centered people. That said; a third area of foreign aid needs examination. Most of the free world, with few exceptions, expects the United States to provide their military protection, a tremendous financial windfall for them. We are no longer the United States military; we are the world's military. In 2008, world military spending was $1.47 trillion, the United States responsible for 48% of that total. Removing Chinese and Russian spending, the United States pays for nearly 56% of the free world's military needs. And, we actually provide much more because most countries adeptly find "reasons" they must stay on the sidelines, sitting at home, refusing to step up to the plate while American men and women die in their place. Since our critics compare us to other countries as a percentage of gross domestic product or gross national income, what dollar value do they place on American lives? Can they explain how to calculate American lives as a percentage of gross domestic product or gross national income? Foreign aid, philanthropy and military expenditures are all pieces of the same pie. Selecting only one piece and using the data to denigrate America is nothing more than lying by omission. But, if we look at the whole pie, the United States takes care of the world. We provide more foreign aid than any other nation. Our citizens provide more charitable contributions than any other nation. And we provide military protection for the free world, including the lives of our men and women. Maybe we are not the self-centered people the critics claim. Too often, our critics, both foreign and domestic, treat the United States the way a spoiled child treats a parent; rather than appreciative of what they are given, they resent they are not given more and they continually ask for more. Further, they become indignant if expected to contribute anything. In their view, they are to have whatever they want, whenever they want and if the parent, the United States, fails to comply, temper tantrums and threats can follow. Maybe, just maybe, it's time to allow some of the world's spoiled countries to provide for themselves, to protect themselves, time to allow them the opportunity to grow and appreciate the United States for what it really is - the world's provider and protector. Remember, the United States, with all its blemishes, is still the greatest country in the history of the world, | 4/5/10 | Free | View In iTunes |
|
14 |
No more apologies – Part I | Once again, the United States drops to its knees, this time apologizing to the terrorist leader of Libya, Moammar Gadhafi. Remember him? He was behind the 1986 bombing of a West Berlin nightclub and was responsible for the 1988 bombing of Pan Am Flight... | 3/28/10 | Free | View In iTunes |
|
15 |
The ‘ism’ elixir? | "Bad officials are elected by good citizens who do not vote." George Jean Nathan American drama critic and newspaper editor I watched a 1948 cartoon produced by Harding College, "Make Mine Freedom," which tells the story of Ism elixir. If you have already viewed this, my apologies. If not, let me share the tale of Ism. The cartoon starts with a reminder of our good fortune to live in America with the freedom to work, freedom of speech, freedom to peacefully assemble, freedom to own property, protection from unlawful search or seizure, the right to a speedy and public trial, protections against cruel punishments, the right to vote and to worship God in our own way. But the government grows powerful, promoting divisions, labor believing management is "lousing" up everything, management convinced labor is "ruining the country" and the politician telling each one they are correct. Then Dr. Utopia arrives, offering his "sensational new discovery," Ism elixir, a cure for everyone. Laborism elixir guarantees higher wages and shorter work hours. Managementism elixir grants enormous profits and no strikes. Politicalism elixir gives the government control and politicians the power to vote on their own salary. Moreover, it's free. All that's needed is a signature on a "little scrap of paper." All are ready to sign, no need to read it. The only naysayer? A questioning John Q. Public, who dares ask to read the agreement before signing – "I hereby turn over to Ism Inc. everything I have, including my freedom and the freedom of my children and my children's children, in return for which said Ism promises to take care of me forever." He quizzes Dr. Utopia about the foolishness of signing away our freedom, then explains the many wonders that our less than perfect free enterprise system has given us. He recalls the countless number of people our freedom allowed to "dream their dream and tinker," dreamers who borrowed money from friends and neighbors, turning them into capitalists. He describes businesses expanding, hiring and training more skilled laborers, showing it was dreamers and laborers who helped create our great nation. John Q. asks everyone to think before throwing away our freedom for "fancy double talk." He suggests they taste the Ism elixir before signing, getting a glimpse of what they would get in exchange for their freedom. Labor tastes and sees a worker threatening to strike, but the government forbids strikes. He sees a worker threaten union action, but the unions collaborate with, and are controlled by, the government. Management tastes and sees the government giving money to private business, then taking control of it with new and ever-changing rules. Management then threatens to go to the Supreme Court, but is rebuffed, told the government's decisions are final and without appeal. On tasting the Ism elixir, the hapless politician sees himself quickly "educated" to regurgitate the party line, "Everything is fine. Everything is fine. Everything is fine." Seeing the future, they fearfully and intelligently pour out the Ism elixir as John Q. tells them that "anybody who preaches disunity or tries to pit one of us against the other through class warfare, race hatred, or religious intolerance, you know that person seeks to rob us of our freedom and destroy our very lives." With pride he adds, "Working together to produce an ever greater abundance of material and spiritual values for all. That is the secret to American prosperity." I was stunned; a 1948 cartoon becoming a prophesy come true in 2010. The Ism elixir? Promise everything, don't read anything, give money to private business, then control them, pit unions against management, ignore the people, let politicians set their own salaries, speak only the party line and most important - ignore the United States Constitution. President Lincoln reminded us that a "government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the Earth. | 3/21/10 | Free | View In iTunes |
|
16 |
Fundamental rights of Americans | 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... | 3/14/10 | Free | View In iTunes |
|
17 |
The Supreme Court – omnipotent and divine? | The Supreme Court is hearing arguments to decide if the Second Amendment right of the individual to "keep and bear Arms" applies to the states in addition to federal enclaves such as Washington, D.C. Can the court please point to the section of the United States Constitution granting it the power to choose which parts of the Bill of Rights, the first 10 amendments to the Constitution, apply to the states, reducing the Bill of Rights to nothing more than a buffet of suggestions for the court? In 1791, the states ratified the Bill of Rights to guarantee basic rights of the people that government could not remove. But, the Supreme Court ruled that until the 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868, the Bill of Rights applied only to the federal government, not state governments. Further, it ruled that only the court could decide if a part of the Bill of Rights applied to the states. This meant states could ignore our basic rights, such as freedom of speech and freedom of the press. Was that the intent for the Bill of Rights, to be nothing more than empty promises? The Supreme Court continues to claim this unconstitutional authority to decide which parts of the Bill of Rights apply to the states, even taking over 130 years to decide that states could not infringe on freedom of speech and freedom of the press. Didn't the British government display this same tyrannical omnipotence, leading to the American Revolution? So, what went wrong after ratifying the Constitution and Bill of Rights? In 1803, ruling on Marbury v. Madison, the Supreme Court said it had the constitutional authority to override legislative acts it felt were unconstitutional, otherwise it would "subvert the very foundation of all written constitutions" and give Congress "a practical and real omnipotence . . . ." That is their constitutional role; but the Supreme Court then unconstitutionally claimed, "It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is." Although supporting the constitutional authority of the president to veto a bill from Congress and Congress' power to override a presidential veto, the court unconstitutionally claimed neither the president nor Congress could override the court. Rather, the president and Congress must submit to, and be subservient to, the court. In 1804, Thomas Jefferson described the three branches of government saying, "That instrument (the Constitution) meant that its co-ordinate branches should be checks on each other. But the opinion which gives to judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional, and what not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action, but for the legislature and executive also in their spheres, would make the judiciary a despotic branch." The Supreme Court removed the checks and balances of the United States Constitution, becoming the "despotic branch" of government with the very "practical and real omnipotence . . ." it claimed was unconstitutional for Congress to have. To add perspective on why the court is inconsistent with the founding fathers' intentions, we need look no further than the 1760s British Parliament. Sir William Blackstone, a distinguished English jurist, described the British Parliament of the 1760s as an "absolute despotic power" because it could modify the constitution at will; neither the King, nor the courts, nor the people could override its actions. This "despotic power" led to the American Revolution. Why would the founding fathers then create an even more repressive government, giving the Supreme Court a "practical and real omnipotence . . ." with "absolute despotic power?" The Supreme Court's unconstitutionally self-proclaimed power is far more dangerous and threatening to our Constitution than the British Parliament of the 1760s; because unlike the Parliament's House of Commons' members who faced periodic elections, the Supreme Court justices rule for life, nine men and women claiming the unquestioned, | 3/8/10 | Free | View In iTunes |
|
18 |
It’s our choice | "The real problem is in the hearts and minds of men. It is easier to denature plutonium than to denature the evil spirit of man." Albert Einstein Larry Echohawk, the assistant secretary for Indian Affairs at the U.S. Department of Interior, recently commented on the mistreatment of the "first Americans" by the United States government. Mr. Echohawk described "very dark chapters" of United States history, including "government atrocities against the Indian people." Because of the strong emotions that accompany such statements, exploring these remarks could lead us through a bed of hot coals. But, it's worth the risk because this topic deserves more discussion. What do we do about past failures? Is the United States unique with its past "dark chapters" or is it a snapshot of world history? Can we move forward with what we are today or must we remain what we were yesterday? Do any of us have ancestries without blemish? My ancestors are mainly English and Prussian with some Scottish thrown into the mix. Do I have ancestors who are less than the pride of the ancestral tree? More important - "How far back in that tree do I share responsibility for any failures?" My English ancestors came to America in the 1600s, so more than likely I had ancestors in the Crusades. The book "Crimes of Christianity" said of the Crusades, ". . . every atrocity the imagination can conceive disgraced the warriors of the Cross." Do I share responsiblity for what happened over 800 years ago? Walter Bosley, the first Bosley in our family tree in America, settled in Maryland in the early 1600s. I found his will, which included a handwritten list of his belongings; but I was ill prepared for what was on that list. One male slave. Although I know about slavery and its evils, this was somehow different. A will with my surname on it listed a human being as property along with tables and chairs - a human being valued like furniture. I felt sick reading that a man could be considered so trivial. Do I share responsibility for what happened over 300 years ago? Before World War I, Prussia was the most powerful German state. It led the unification of Germany, which set the stage for what would become Nazi Germany. Although some of my Prussian ancestors came to America before this occurred, others stayed behind and may have become a part of the evils of those wars. Do I share responsiblity for what happened over 50 years ago? How many people can find similar stories in their ancestory? Must we try to stay separate peoples with separate "dark chapters" in our histories or can we become one people, become one people out of many peoples? Can we become just Americans? The Americas were the last lands of the world inhabited by people. Many "first Americans" are descendants of the northern Asia Mongols who migrated across a land bridge in the Bering Strait. Research continues on the origins of the peoples of the Americas, but it appears there were several more migrations or immigrations from diverse groups rather than a single migration. Peoples from at least three major immigrations settled the Americas. Besides the Mongols of northern Asia, other people came from Africa by way of Australia and from southern Asia. It seems America has always been the world's melting pot. America has always been a country whose people have become one out of many. Our national motto, adopted in 1782, is E pluribus unum, Latin for "out of many, one." Does it accurately describe the United States of today and the Americas of antiquity? So, what do we do? We are the United States of America and we are one people, Americans. We can learn from the past or live in the past. We can meld into one people or maintain divides. We can gain strength from diversity or weakness from division. We have a choice. It's worth some thought. Print Page (http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/20100301-Its-our-choice.pdf) | 2/28/10 | Free | View In iTunes |
|
19 |
Government economics and free markets | Can our free market economy survive the federal government? The president and Congress may get to learn what C.S. Lewis meant when he defined experience as "that most brutal of teachers. But you learn, my God do you learn." Hopefully, you do learn, bu... | 2/21/10 | Free | View In iTunes |
|
20 |
Well-intentioned missionaries or criminals? | This is the question Haitian courts will answer to determine the fate of the jailed Idaho missionaries who tried to take children out of Haiti illegally. When arrested, the missionaries initially claimed they were trying to "rescue" orphaned children from the disaster caused by the earthquakes. But, the changing story makes it difficult to decide how truthful they are. First, we heard they were taking orphans to an orphanage in the Dominican Republic. When authorities learned most of the children had families, the missionaries quickly claimed the families willingly gave them their children. Then, their attorney in the Dominican Republic fired their Haitian attorney amid rumors he was trying to bribe officials to release the missionaries. Not long after, the Dominican Republic attorney himself faced questions about his possible link to a human trafficking case. Now, questions are surfacing about the group's organizer. Reportedly, she was near-obsessively determined to open an orphanage in Haiti's neighbor, the Dominican Republic, planning to use the orphanage as a base to arrange adoptions by Americans, the Haitian earthquake simply accelerating her plans. Prior to leaving the United States, she repeatedly contacted a couple in Kentucky who had already received permission to adopt three Haitian children, telling them she would "like to pick up their kids" for them. Despite the couple's continual refusals, the missionaries went to the orphanage where the children were living and tried to convince the caretakers to give them the children, the couple saying she even told the orphanage she was a family friend. When this failed, the missionaries went to other orphanages literally begging for children, despite the reality that those children were already receiving needed care. That failing, they expanded their search to include children from intact families - families they claim freely gave them their children. With 33 children, only 13 of them orphans, they headed for the border where authorities stopped them and arrested them - potentially for child trafficking. Why was the group, or at least the group's organizer, recklessly trying to get children out of the country? The many unanswered questions, the many coincidences and the ongoing changing explanations make it hard to believe all they were doing was trying to help. The seriousness of the questions parallels the vagueness of the answers. Are these missionaries, as the Journal suggested, rescuers rather than criminals? Are caring and good intentions enough to enter an area like Haiti? Was their goal to save children or something more? Did they have the right to take children from their families in the midst of this crisis? Did the families who gave up their children really have a choice? Imagine being in the parents' situation. Imagine losing everything, no home, no income, nothing. Imagine the fear of not being able to care for your children. Imagine life an unreal blur. And then, just when you lose hope, strangers approach, explaining the many wonders they can offer one or more of your children. All you have to do is give them your children, receiving nothing more than a promise that one day they will return. What might you do? How easily could you be convinced to give away your children in this situation? Did these missionaries offer families hope or did they offer coercion? Unfortunately, similar situations occur in our hospital emergency departments with families crushed by unexpected tragedies. It is difficult to help people in a crisis sort through the life and death decisions they need to make and well intentioned is not enough. Without skill, experience and the proper motive, you could easily get people to agree with what you think best, rather than helping them decide what they think best. These missionaries set out to find children for American families, and find them they did. But, what they did was neither proper nor defensible. | 2/14/10 | Free | View In iTunes |
|
21 |
It’s our Constitution | 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,... | 2/7/10 | Free | View In iTunes |
|
22 |
Supreme Court – Constitutional guardian or Guardian Council? | 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 shou | 1/31/10 | Free | View In iTunes |
|
23 |
The Consitution v. the federal government | The Declaration of Independence states, “. . . these united Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States.” This sentiment was reaffirmed in 1781 in the Articles of Confederation which states, “Each state retains its sovereignty, ... | 1/24/10 | Free | View In iTunes |
|
24 |
The Bill of Prvileges | The Bill of Rights, the first 10 amendments to the United States Constitution, was ratified by three-fourths of the states in 1791. The Constitution was ratified four years earlier in 1787. Our Bill of Rights came into existence amid debate and deliberation. Many anti-federalists who supported it previously opposed ratification of the Constitution because that document did not provide many of the individual protections that would be guaranteed in the Bill of Rights. But the federalists, voiced by Alexander Hamilton, considered the Bill of Rights unnecessary, believing “the people surrender nothing” in the Constitution, and offering protections of specific rights would imply that any unmentioned rights were not protected. With obvious disagreements, the Bill of Rights, proponed by Thomas Jefferson, was introduced by James Madison during the First United States Congress in 1789. Near-prophetically, these anti-federalists feared the Constitution created too strong a national government which was a threat to individual rights and would lead to the President becoming a King. Thomas Jefferson offered this resigned assessment: “Half a loaf is better than no bread. If we cannot secure all our rights, let us secure what we can.” So was born the Bill of Rights, our constitutionally guaranteed rights protecting us from the government. And there lies the problem. Which government? Until the early 1900s, the Supreme Court held the view that the Bill of Rights only applied to the federal government, a fact supported by the failure of Madison to get any specific mention of state governments into the Bill of Rights. The high court did not change its interpretation until decades after ratification of the 14th Amendment in 1868. Rep. John Bingham, the framer of the 14th Amendment, argued that it applied the first eight amendments of the Bill of Rights to the states, the ninth and tenth not referring to specific individual rights. He believed the first eight amendments to the Constitution, ratified by the states, better represented the people’s wishes than case-by-case rulings of the Supreme Court. He did not want the justices arbitrarily deciding how to apply the 14th Amendment to the states, contending the needed individual “due process” protections of the 14th Amendment were already present in the first eight amendments. The Supreme Court disagreed. Justice Felix Frankfurter said the court would decide which sections of the Bill of Rights should apply to the states by determining if abridgment of the right would “shock the conscience,” meaning the court would decide, case-by-case, if the Bill of Rights applied to the states. The first real application of the Bill of Rights to the states occurred in 1925, when the Supreme Court ruled that states must uphold the First Amendment right of “freedom of speech.” And so started an ongoing application of parts of the Bill of Rights to the states; most cases using the “Due Process Clause” of the 14th Amendment as the basis for the new application of the Bill of Rights. The process continues today, the justices deciding our constitutional rights, injecting personal biases of what they want the Constitution to say. The court is currently hearing the case of McDonald v. Chicago, which asks the court if the Second Amendment “right of the individual to keep and bear arms” applies to states rather than just federal enclaves like Washington, D.C. Some 218 years after the Bill of Rights was ratified, we continue going before the Supreme Court, trying to regain our rights. We the people “plead our case,” hoping the court will return to us constitutionally guaranteed rights—constitutional rights that are to protect us as citizens of the United States, regardless of our state of residence. Perhaps I was too hard on President Clinton. Perhaps he was truthful when he expressed confusion over “what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is.” As it turns out | 1/17/10 | Free | View In iTunes |
|
25 |
“Humans are more important than hardware” | On Christmas day, a Nigerian man boarded Northwest Flight 253 from Amsterdam to Detroit with a bomb he planned to detonate over the United States, his success prevented more by luck than skill. The President responded saying there were "human and syst... | 1/10/10 | Free | View In iTunes |
| Total: 25 Episodes |
