Tag: Scotty Boman

If this is a true and factual account, (there is no reason to suspect it is not) then there had best be some heads mounted on the Attorney General's trophy room wall before long. Scotty Boman, former US Senate candidate and current candidate for Detroit City Clerk underwent an assault on his person July 30, and his rights were violated by those who pledge to serve.  According to the Michigan Libertarian website:

Campaigning has become dangerous for Detroit City Clerk candidate Scotty Boman. According to Boman, a member of the WCCCD campus police attempted to intimidate him while he was taking pictures of his opponent's (Janice Winfrey) signage at the early voting location at the Northwest Campus of WCCCD on Tuesday July 30th. After he moved to where volunteers for other candidates were handing out literature, he was assaulted by the officer, then thrown to the ground by additional officers as he attempted to hand campaign literature to a passers-by. Boman said he was then held prisoner until a campaign forum, that the officers knew he was scheduled to attend, was nearly over.

"As soon as I took out my camera and pointed it at Janice Winfrey's banner (which was draped over the voting location's entrance) this one officer stormed out of the polling place and shouted, `What do you think your doing!' I responded that I was taking a picture of the banner." Boman went on to say, "I then went to take a picture of another nearby sign that read `Vote here Janice Winfrey City Clerk.' At this point a poll-worker, came out to where I was taking the picture. I started recording video of our conversation regarding Winfrey's signage when the Officer who previously shouted at me came out and told me to put away the camera. I asked if my photography was illegal, and which law it violated. I emphatically stated that I would follow her instructions immediately if she asserted I was breaking the law, but she could not cite any."

After he was detained in a closet by police.  

Trespassing?  On publicly owned property?

"The Tea Party conservatives have been increasingly supporting Pete Hoekstra over the years as a result of his staunch fiscal policies in Congress," Cain said in a statement to the paper.

If that statement is true, it's disgusting.  Cain is either ignorant about the Party power brokers in play in Michigan in general, or as I suspect, merely playing the old political payola game for other obvious agendas.  Either way, no plausible excuse is acceptable anymore.

Several questions were asked, but one that stood out as an interesting contrast point, was the question on the 17th amendment.  Most readers understand the 17th amendment was the point which state's rights were severely hobbled.  I have supported the repeal of the 17th amendment since learning the reasons for which the founders had purposefully avoided it.  Of course I was never exposed to such radical ideas in public school, so it was full blown adulthood, and fighting off the years of indoctrination which provided a sense of truth how this country was meant to be.

The Mi4CS (Michigan 4 Conservative Senate) vetting questionnaire asked:

"Do you believe the Framers were in error in providing for the election of Senators by the State Legislatures and if so do you believe the 17th Amendment, (ratified during the Wilson administration), is the proper solution. Would you introduce/support a repeal of the 17th Amendment?"

The 5 participating candidates had an interesting array of answers. While I would vote for ANY of these distinguished gentlemen over the meat puppet Debbie Stabenow, I was not enthusiastic about a couple of views.  I WAS intrigued by the thought process which went into each however.  Well done.

The debate was lively and each candidate did well enough, but each of them would also be hoping to have earned the straw poll top result afterward.  That result will be announced later by the MI4CS.

The Social Security Question.

Interesting responses.

However, When one looks at the bigger picture of this Ponzi scheme, it seems that some further out of the box answers may be necessary.  Opting out perhaps?

I wonder what Pete Hoekstra or Clark Durant would say?  Shame they didn't show up for this GOP sponsored event.

What about Obama care?  What should we do about it?

As we look to the possible results of next year's elections, the Senate will be playing an important part in how this is handled going forward.  If the SCOTUS says it stands with an expected ruling in April of 2012, it will be especially important to have Senators who are principled enough to destroy it from within the body of its creation.

It was too bad that candidates Hoekstra and Durant "couldn't attend" this debate, as it would have allowed us to see how committed they are in reversing the trend of big government mandates  and encroachment on our rights.  Perhaps for Pete, and his record, its best to stay "mysterious" so that some are easily fooled into thinking he might actually carry sufficient principle into this fight when its time. As For Clark, I don't know him well enough yet.  Maybe a video response by either of them would be a sufficient way to answer?

Less Government, more individual responsibility, and with God's help a better world. Do you have a problem with that as a Senate principle to follow?

Each of the participants had 2 minutes each to answer.