[This is the text of a press release that went out on July 3rd. In spite of the historical nature of the subject, no major publications have yet written about it.]
Nothing Personal: Representative Sander and Senator Carl Levin at the Clawson 4th of July Parade shortly after speaking with Libertarian Congressional candidate Jim Fulner, and Recall organizer Scotty Boman.
Detroit, MI – Activist are free to begin circulating petitions to recall Senator Carl Milton Levin starting this Independence Day; their petition language has been deemed clear in the manner described by Section 168.952 of Michigan Election law which states:
“(3) The board of county election commissioners, not less than 10 days or more than 20 days after submission to it of a petition for the recall of an officer, shall meet and shall determine whether each reason for the recall stated in the petition is of sufficient clarity to enable the officer whose recall is sought and the electors to identify the course of conduct that is the basis for the recall.Failure of the board of county election commissioners to comply with this subsection shall constitute a determination that each reason for the recall stated in the petition is of sufficient clarity to enable the officer whose recall is being sought and the electors to identify the course of conduct that is the basis for the recall.”
Notarized certified letters containing the most recent language were signed for on June 11th, and Wayne County Election Chairman Milton L. Mack acknowledged receiving the language on June 14th in a letter written to the petitions sponsor, Scott Avery Boman. In the letter Mack wrote that, “…the Wayne County Election Commission will not accept petition language directed to a United State Senator.” According to Boman, Director of Elections Delphine Oden told him (by phone on June 22nd) this meant they would not be holding a clarity review hearing. Section 168.121 (United States senator; recall) reads: “Persons holding the office of United States senator are subject to recall by the qualified and registered electors of the state as provided in chapter 36 of this act.”
On May 1st the commission held a hearing to review the clarity of previous language and found the prior language to be unclear. The new approved (by default) petition language reads,
“He co-authored and introduced an amendment regarding detention provisions (Subtitle D Section 1031) to S.1867 (the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012). He voted in favor of the final version (H.R. 1540) which contained the detention provisions in section 1021.”
Sponsors cite Levin’s pivotal roll in provisions they describe as “de facto martial law,” as their reason to initiate the recall effort. The recall will require 468,709 signatures. Boman said, “Warren and I can’t do this on our own. We can get this started with a build-it-and-they-will-come approach. In 2008 1,810,234 people voted against Carl Levin. We need to have about a quarter of these people sign the petition, and a much smaller portion to step up and be activists.”
County officials also have standard recall petition forms that may be filled out by hand. Co-sponsor Warren Raftshol said, “We are building an internet campaign via Facebook, and these petitions are legal and official. I invite people to forward the link to Carl Levin’s Facebook page and tell him they object to NDAA detention.”
Boman said, “Independence Day is the perfect day to launch this effort. The tyranny Levin has brought us with this law rivals the oppression imposed on the colonists by the British in 1776.”
In February, I endorsed libertarian-Republican Ron Paul. My confidence that, if elected, he would be the best president in generations is unshaken. Naturally, I voted for him in Michigan’s presidential primary. Unfortunately, by Dr. Paul’s own admission, his nomination at the Republican Convention in Tampa is extremely unlikely. In fact nothing short of Romney’s exit from the contest would make it possible.
I don’t wish to discourage Ron Paul delegates. They have an unprecedented opportunity to give the Republican Party a more libertarian national platform, and they have the numbers to do it; delegates are committed to a candidate on the first ballot, but no such restraints apply to matters of policy.
So where do we go from here? There will be a number of choices on the ballot. The typical approach for supporters of a Republican candidate is for those people to rally around their party’s nominee, but Ron Paul supporters are not motivated by a love of politics as usual. Rather, they are motivated by a message of maximum liberty in the context of a constitutionally limited republic, and a desire to elect a president who feels as they do.
Gary Johnson and Scotty Boman at Libby Fest.
The good news is that they still have an opportunity to elect such a president! The Libertarian Party has nominated New Mexico’s former two-term Governor Gary Johnson as their presidential candidate. Governor Johnson has been the most libertarian governor in United States history:
He vetoed 750 of the bills that were passed by the New Mexico legislature; more than all other governors combined.
He cut over 1,200 government jobs without firing anyone.
He got government out of the way thereby allowing for the private creation of 20,000 more jobs.
He left New Mexico with a budget surplus.
He cut taxes 14 times while never raising them.
…the list goes on. Throughout the early Republican campaign for the nomination he repeatedly advocated libertarian solutions for national problems, and as a two-term governor he enters the race with stronger political credentials then any other Libertarian nominee, and he has more executive experience then Barack Obama and Mitt Romney combined.
Furthermore, a vote for Gary Johnson is a vote for the party of principal. The Libertarian Party has been the choice for advocates of individual liberty and limited government for 40 years. Many of it’s founders were Goldwater Republicans who were disgusted with Nixonian statism. In 1988 Ron Paul was the Party’s nominee President. At the 2012 convention, delegates nominated Judge Jim Gray as Gary Johnson’s running mate. Judge Gray is an outspoken critic of the war on drugs.
For these reasons, I wholeheartedly endorse the Libertarian candidate, Governor Gary Johnson, as my choice for President of these United States.
Shelby Township, MI – United States Senate candidate, Pete Hoekstra backed out of a candidate forum after
Boman Speaks as Hoekstra looks on in Grandville on May 14th, at the Eternal Word Church.
learning he would have to face Libertarian hopeful Scotty Boman. The forum was held by the Romeo Area Tea Party at the Palazzo Grande in Shelby Township and was moderated by WJR Radio Personality Frank Beckmann.
During introductory statements, Beckmann explained the absence of former Congressman Pete Hoekstra by saying that Hoekstra was uncomfortable with the format, and objected to the inclusion of Scotty Boman in the forum. Boman commented that he expected Hoekstra to have a “…thicker skin than that.” The following morning (May 22nd) Beckmann addressed the snub again during the first segment of his 9:00 AM to Noon radio program on WJR AM. He specifically cited comments made by Boman at a forum held on May 14th as making Hoekstra uncomfortable.
At the May 14th forum in Grandville, Boman speculated on who he would vote for in the Republican Primary if he didn’t qualify to be in it saying, “We’re still a little short and if these are the only candidates I have to choose from, I’m going with Clark Durant…He’s a person that really sticks to principle. He’s a man who has professional talent to get things done.” This forum, at Eternal Word Church, was only attended by Pete Hoekstra, Gary Glenn, Randy Hekman, Clark Durant, and Scotty Boman. Peter Konetchy (who qualified for the Republican primary) did not attend.
On his May 22nd radio broadcast, Beckmann said Hoekstra viewed Boman and Durant as “a slate,” due to Boman’s favorable remarks about Durant. When asked, Boman has clarified this as a comment about his Republican Primary preference and that he would be voting Libertarian in November.
In September of 2011 libertarian activist, Scotty Boman announced his effort to seek the Republican Party nomination for United States Senate, but fell short of the 15,000 signatures needed to file for the Republican Primary. As a result, Boman’s name cannot appear on the Republican Party’s Primary ballot.
In 2008 Boman was on the general election ballot as a Libertarian. He placed third in the election. Libertarians nominate their State-wide candidates by a self-funded convention rather than a tax-payer funded primary. As a result, Libertarians can select their candidates at conventions, while also voting in major party primaries.
As a liberty candidate, I provide people with an opportunity to vote their conscience if they seek a candidate who is consistently for less government and more individual liberty in all areas. In some cases this opportunity is afforded to voters in specific districts or municipalities.
Voters in Michigan’s 11th Congressional District and residents of Berrian County have such an opportunity.
Ray Kirkus has been a devoted activist for the cause of liberty in a number of ways. He is a skilled organizer who understands how the system should work, and is quick to point out where it fails. He supports fully informed juries and a locally supported local government. He holds steadfastly to the values that are needed at all levels of government to save our republic: a respect for individual rights, and a realistic recognition of the hazards of unrestrained government.
If elected, Kerry Bentivolio would be a Congressman ready to follow in the footsteps of Ron Paul and Justin Amash, by leading us toward a society where politicians follow the Constitution and serve the citizens. He has consistently spoken out for free speech, the Bill of Rights, civil rights, and a rational economic policy. He has worked closely with people in his community for that goal. Residents in the 11th district would be wise to show up for the August primary to ensure his participation in the general election.
I am a Republican candidate for United States Senate as well as a Precinct Delegate. I have been a delegate at the last two Republican State conventions. Prior to being a Republican candidate, I ran for a variety of public offices as a Libertarian. I first met Ron Paul in 1988 when he ran for President as a Libertarian. I worked on his Republican campaign in 2008, and have been knocking on doors and phoning from home to get him elected in 2012.
Many people campaign on a platform of liberty, and many others get elected to public office. Ron Paul not only speaks about liberty, he has manifested it through his service as a veteran, and his voting record in Congress; always standing on the side of right even when he must stand alone. He is the only viable candidate who stands consistently for free markets, honest money, and a non-interventionist foreign policy in a constitutionally limited Republic.
I proudly accept responsibility for any of my political opinions, and am not acting as the spokesperson for any employer or organization I am involved with.
Some people will be surprised to know that I am in two teacher unions. AFT and MEA. My union local at Wayne County Community College District is AFT-2000. They do excellent work representing the membership, and dues are not used for political action. So even though membership has been voluntary, I have been a member.
One downside is that they frequently endorse candidates that I can’t stand. So I was pleasantly surprised tonight when Wallace O. Peace, the president of my local (AFT-2000), endorsed Ron Paul for the Republican presidential nomination. He told all those attending the meeting that the primary wasn’t closed, and that we should vote for Ron Paul and stop Romney!
As of this posting the Bill has not been signed by President Barack Obama. There is an online petition on the White House website. It may seem hopeless to petition the president on his own webpage, but this is the most popular petition there.
On the night of Tuesday November 29th I participated in a Senatorial Debate hosted by the Brighton TEA Party, Rattle With Us, RetakeOurGov, Lakes Area TEA Party and the West Oakland County TEA Party Patriots. Thank you to all of them for hosting a fair and balanced forum. On the way home I found myself dwelling on differences I had with some of the other candidates. I was starting to think that even Debbie Stabenow might be better than one or two of them.
Then I got home and went online.
To my disbelief and horror I learned that Michigan’s own Carl Levin, and former Presidential nominee John McCain had introduced an amendment to a bill (S. 1867) that would give the President the authority to order troops to arrest and indefinite detention of people in the United States without any due process. A casual reader of this Bill (it’s long so search for “Subtitle D—Detainee Matters”) might point out that this bill only applies to people who are supporters of al-Qaeda or related groups, but this language begs the question. Since there is no due process, this qualification need only be claimed, not proven.
So the bottom line is that this bill would give the president the authority to send troops into US streets, round up innocent civilians, load them into box cars, and store them in detention camps for the remainder of their lives. President Obama originally said he didn’t want that power and would veto this bill. Later he retracted the veto offer and is now threatening to sign it.
So what does all of this have to do with Stabenow and the Senatorial debates? Senator Debbie Stabenow is among the Senators who voted “Yea” on this bill
(Motion to Invoke Cloture on S.1867). Well, none of the disagreements I have with any of my Republican opponents is this bad. As much as I have opposed Pete Hoekstra’s bailout vote, or Gary Glenn’s anti-LGBT policies, I can’t compare their folly on these issues to the outright fascism that Debbie Stabenow approves of.
The people who voted in favor of this bill have attempted to do more harm to America than any act of terror. Rather than a specific tragedy on a specific day, we face the prospect of continuous terror in a prison nation where any one of us could disappear on any given day.
This was an act of treason, and the 88 traitors who have taken this action deserve no more respect or mercy than any one who is correctly called a terrorist. A later vote was even more disturbing: 93 in favor and only seven against.
The mainstream media has completely ignored this travesty. Only a few Television personalities such as Judge Judge Andrew P. Napolitano on the Fox Business Network dared touch it. Since this time, the Bill has moved through the House of Representatives and up to the President’s desk. On December 14thH.R. 1540 was made compatible with S. 1867. 283 Representatives supported the final version and 136 opposed it. My representative, Hansen Clarke, did the right thing and voted “Nay.”
Finally, it went back through the Senate with the offending clauses still intact.
Some have argued that this is a false alarm, but a careful reading of the Bill shows all concerns to be justified. In response to emails and phone calls, Senator Stabenow defended her actions claiming, “The National Defense Authorization Act only codifies into law what is currently U.S. policy.” The implication being that unconstitutional policies are somehow better if made law. The opposite it true. It is much easier to contest a wrongful government action in court if there is not a law legitimizing it.
Stabenow further claims,
“I voted to ensure that only terrorists who are members of al-Qaeda and who commit an act of war against the United States can be detained. For the first time, detainees now have the right to a hearing before a judge with a defense lawyer present. The bill, which passed the Senate by a vote of 93-7, also protects the right of habeas corpus. In addition, I voted for an amendment, which passed, explicitly stating that nothing in the bill shall be construed to affect existing law related to U.S. citizens, lawful resident aliens, or any other persons who are captured in the U.S.”
The relevant portions (Subtitle D—Counterterrorism) can be found in the final version, and do not support the Senator’s claim:
Section 1031a. Reads, “IN GENERAL.—Congress affirms that the authority of the President to use all necessary and appropriate force pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107–40) includes the authority for the Armed Forces of the United States to detain covered persons (as defined in subsection (b)) pending disposition under the law of war.” Part 2 of that subsection identifies possible “covered persons” to include, “A person who was a part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners, including any person who has committed a belligerent act or has directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy forces.” Note the use of wedge phrases like “associated forces,” “belligerent act,” and “substantially supported.” It is also noteworthy that this makes people who oppose governments of coalition partners into “covered persons” even if they are not part of al-Qaeda (which is more of a movement than an organization).
Another critical phrase here is “Disposition under law of war.” This is spelled out in Subsection b:
“1 (c) DISPOSITION UNDER LAW OF WAR.—The disposition of a person under the law of war as described in subsection (a) may include the following:
(1) Detention under the law of war without trial until the end of the hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force.
(2) Trial under chapter 47A of title 10, United States Code (as amended by the Military Commissions Act of 2009 (title XVIII of Public Law 111–10 84)).
(3) Transfer for trial by an alternative court or competent tribunal having lawful jurisdiction.
(4) Transfer to the custody or control of the person’s country of origin, any other foreign country, or any other foreign entity.”
So it may include, “Detention under the law of war without trial until the end of the hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force.” This is the smoking gun that shoots down the Senator’s claim. Yes it may also include trials, but not necessarily. This allows for detention WITHOUT TRIAL. This can be a life sentence, since the “…end of the hostilities…” is an arbitrary moment when the enemy is a loosely knit movement like al-Qaeda (or “associated forces”), and the “hostilities” take the form of sporadic acts of homicide against a variety of people at a variety of locations.
But all of this knit-picking misses on major point which is that without a trial ANYONE becomes a covered person since a person is innocent until proven guilty and the trial is the means by which guilt is determined. In other-words, the Senator’s claim that the law would, “…ensure that only terrorists who are members of al-Qaeda and who commit an act of war against the United States can be detained.” Completely begs the question.
As for other claims. The phrases “habeas corpus” and “defense lawyer” are nowhere to be found in the document. There are unrelated references to “attorneys who provide pro bono legal assistance to members of the Armed Forces.” The only thing resembling such due process is a clause referring to MILITARY judges and MILITARY council under “PROCEDURES FOR STATUS DETERMINATIONS.” This is not the due process civilians are entitled to under the Bill of Rights, and remember this is not required since the law provides for, “Detention under the law of war without trial until the end of the hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force.”
Finally there is the claim that, she, “… voted for an amendment, which passed, explicitly stating that nothing in the bill shall be construed to affect existing law related to U.S. citizens, lawful resident aliens, or any other persons who are captured in the U.S.” OK. It does say that, but then why have the other parts of the law there to begin with? Any new law pertaining to “U.S. citizens, lawful resident aliens, or any other persons who are captured in the U.S.” must affect existing law by adding to it. All this really does is say that existing laws remain on the books and are not amended by this one. It does not negate the fact that this additional law is also on the books and may be used on the aforementioned persons. Furthermore, courts have routinely ruled in favor of laws that conflicted with the United States Constitution or “existing laws.” So this doesn’t hold much weight, and if one is being held without trial, the opportunity to invoke existing law may not arise.
The bottom line is that Congress has passed a law that that puts dictatorial powers in the hands of the President. It has been brazenly ignored by the establishment media. This, at a time when there is apparently no urgency or extraordinary circumstances. This is not an accident. We are destined to live in interesting times.
On November 22, 1913, Representatives Robert L. Owen and Carter Glass introduced HR 7837. A bill that, (after a month and various modifications) became the Federal Reserve Act. Since then, the dollar has lost over 99% of its value as measured in gold, which had been the basis of the dollar for more than a century. Since that time, we’ve seen the value of 1/21-oz. of gold go from $1 to $83.44
The worse example of Federal intrusion into, and collusion with, a special interest is the Federal Reserve System. As a federally sanctioned cartel of privately owned banks, the Fed has unparalleled privileges. The deal is further sweetened by the appointment of its Chair by the President, giving it the prestige of a fourth branch of government. I would re-introduce legislation to audit and retire this institutional leach on American prosperity.
I would vote in favor of a comprehensive audit of the Federal Reserve System, repeal legal tender laws, ban the creation of new credit (out of thin air) by Federal Reserve member banks, and dissolve the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.
The governments roll should be to prevent fraud concerning financial instruments, by setting standards as enumerated in Article 1 Section 8. A free market of currencies that would ultimately follow a gold standard is the best option, though a treasury certified gold standard on backed currency would be constitutional, and be better than the current approach.
I have been opposed to the Federal Reserve System for decades and have been actively campaigning against it since 2008:
The establishment has been able to pull wool over people’s eyes by making them think it is too complicated for mortals to understand. Here is an informative cartoon to break down such barriers:
[Authors note: This column was originally published in the Michigan Libertarian. Several readers have commented that I needed to share these thoughts with a larger readership. Recent inappropriate reactions to the events in Arizona (which attempt to link a killers tragic behavior to non-violent expression) highlight the need for more people to read this.]
Freedom is the right to tell people what they do not want to hear. – George Orwell –
There is a stealth attack on our liberties and most people don’t even recognize it. Before people are conquered by coercion and force, they must be disarmed philosophically. Once people accept a false premise, exalted opinion makers can use that premise to promote their agenda.
A consistent philosophy is like a sophisticated piece of architecture or a machine; without structural integrity it will collapse or fail. Sometimes there are specific elements of a structure that are needed to support the rest. In a building it may be a cornerstone, keystone or column. In a machine it may be a simple pin, filter, or chip.
The distinction between violence and communication is critical to liberty and civil society. Without it there can be no principled defense of free speech, nor can there be principled objection to violence being used in response to speech. The statist agenda has been well served by the recent MSM fixation on so-called “cyber-bullying.” The phrase is such a clear example of Orwellian newspeak that I would expect this to be nothing more than hyperbolae or a metaphor. “Bullying” is a phrase that has been associated with violence. The use of “Cyber” as a prefix is consistent with the use of certain technology. If the terminator starts making threats and beating people up, that’s cyber-bullying, but that is not how the phrase is being used.
People are being called cyber-bullies for making unwelcome remarks about peers and colleagues on the Internet. This wouldn’t be a matter of concern, if the word-use were understood to be metaphorical. For example, politicians will refer to “attack ads,” with full understanding that they need not draw a gun to defend themselves. But talk show hosts, law enforcement officials, and politicians actually believe that verbal and electronic taunting is an act of violence.
The lack of publicized dissension to this doublethink is mind numbing. Most pre-schoolers of the prior generation had superior intellectual integrity to the opinion leaders of today. They had a simple, though accurate phrase, “Sticks and stones can break my bones, but names will never hurt me.” The degree to which a person believed the phrase was the degree to which the outcome would support it; the words may be harmless, but the response one has to them may not be.
It has now become politically correct to disarm those who are most vulnerable, and convince them that they are emotionally defenseless, against criticism. As a teacher, I have seen the so-called “anti-bullying” hype that gives the impression that the way to address criticism is to silence the critic. Rather than learning that ideas are to be fought with better ideas, youth are learning that unwelcome criticism must be fought by silencing the critic. Civil liberty considerations not withstanding, this is a terrible disservice to young people. So long as someone takes ownership of his or her responses, he or she has a way to preserve his or her self-esteem amidst a surge of insults. Without these coping tools, the object of the taunts is helplessly waiting for help from others.
This leads me to the next critical piece of the philosophy that is in danger. The distinction between one person’s actions and those of another. Once again, the intellectual integrity of most pre-millennial preschoolers towers above the philosophical cesspit of contemporary pundits. The childhood wisdom would be encapsulated in a rhetorical question: “If someone dared you to jump off the bridge would you do that too?” Back in the day this would prompt a person to reflect on the stupidity of blaming his or her actions on the fact that someone else dared him or her to do it. These days it could be cause for prosecution.
Nowadays, pundits will say that unwelcome words or online postings “cause” a suicide. Remarkably, this double-think goes unchallenged. This is one of those cases where the truth is so self-evident that explaining it becomes difficult. The word “suicide” is reserved for killing one’s self. By definition the killer and the victim are the same person. To say someone else caused a suicide is to say that the act is not what it is. This is not just a matter of minutia. People are often put in prison or executed for killing other people. By definition the victim causes the suicide.
The reader may choose to respond with anger and disbelief, but the fact of the matter is that suicide victims cause their own deaths. Putting the truth plainly is not the most sensitive thing to do, but often it is the kindest thing to do. Tragically, statists exploit the grief of suicide victims families. Rather than guiding them to acceptance and helping them move on, suicide victims are used as poster children for laws that squelch discourse, and empower bureaucrats. Personal tragedies, childhood crushes, and teachable moments become part of a media circus, with children playing the Orwellian character, “Boxer” in the center ring.
The immediate outcomes are personal, but the paradigm shift this facilitates is even more abominable. If a writer is responsible for the way readers respond, then all writers are potential unwitting murderers. This not only has the effect of incriminating the innocent, but also absolving the guilty; if the author of an email or posting can “cause” a person to kill him or her self, the author could also “cause” a person to kill someone else. Thus a killer could use the “somebody dared me to do it” defense!
Some readers may think I am being alarmist, and that these semantic sins won’t have legal consequences. Unfortunately, the tree of irrationality is already bearing tyrannical fruits:
I attended a school assembly where an FBI agent told children that he has had to arrest kids for sending unwelcome emails, and they have been taken from their parents and put in juvenile detention. Missouri has made “cyber-harassment” a Class D felony.
State Representative Lisa Brown supports similar legislation in the Michigan Legislature. She supports fines for adults who make unwelcome remarks about other adults in blogs.
I have made a distinction here between words and violence, but I don’t wish to say words are of no consequence…. Just the opposite. Words communicate ideas. Belief in certain ideas can be lethal. The philosophy we have, guides our response to the words we hear.
When one’s philosophy equates words with violence, one is inclined to respond with violence. Not only does this bring greater tragedy, but it does nothing to defeat the depraved ideas. Brute force is impotent against flawed beliefs. The best way to defeat false beliefs is with the truth. This is much easier said than done, but that doesn’t make it less true. The ultimate alternative is the draconian approach of criminalizing ideas and executing heretics. In the battle of ideas there is no substitute for philosophy.
[Republication of the unabridged article with credit to Scotty Boman is welcome]
The Boman 08 Blog 