Posts Tagged ‘Scotty Bowman’

Tenth Amendment: Key to Drug Policy Reform

April 28, 2009

The Libertarian Party supported Proposal 1 in the last election.
The Democrats and Republicans would not touch it.

The Libertarian Party is the ONLY political party that has consistently called for the re-legalization of Drugs as a matter of principal.

Democrats & Republicans have been equally antagonistic to your right to control your own body chemistry.

  • Presidents can pardon all federal prisoners. 
  • Governors can pardon all state prisoners.
  • They have not used this power as they should…
    This so-called “Land of the Free” has a larger portion of it’s citizens in prison, than any other country on Earth.  With a half million people being in jail for violating drug laws.

Nonetheless I applaud those who have worked to reform the major parties.  Regardless of partisan affiliation, we must make the right to control ones own bodies a hot-button issue.  We must make it clear to the politicians that we will not vote for any candidate who supports the continuation of prohibition.

Politicians who have been enacting federal drug laws (that do not address border crossings, or trade across state lines) are themselves criminals.

The Constitution only permits the federal government to regulate trade between states, not trade within states.  The Federal Government has no authority to trump state medical marijuana laws. 

As long as you don’t take drugs across state lines, sell drugs on Federal property, or use federal services to deliver drugs, they have no authority over this trade.

What about our current leaders?

  • Candidate Barack Obama said he would not enforce federal Marijuana prohibition in states where it was legal.  Yet President Obama has failed to stop raids on dispensaries, and has not pardoned federal prisoners who were openly providing Marijuana in compliance with state laws.
  • Secretary of state Clinton has blamed the second amendment for drug related violence at the Mexican border, when we all know drug prohibition is the root problem.
  • Our Senators fall back on a Supreme Court ruling that medical marijuana violates federal law.  Yet they completely ignore the tenth amendment that states,

“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

But even if the Federal government begins to respect its Constitution, action at the state level is essential.

In Lansing, State Senator Patterson, submitted SCR004.  The goal of the resolution is to “affirm Michigan’s sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States over all powers not enumerated and granted to the federal government.” 

Everyone here needs to call and write their State rep and urge him or her to support HCR0004.  Also contact your state Senators and urge them to support SCR004.

Finally, the initiative process is under fire.  Many of the politicians in Lansing are unhappy with the way we the people have changed state law without their permission.  They want a Constitutional convention in 2010 so they can take that right away from you. 

Please vote NO on the Constitutional Convention in 2010.

I will be sharing this message with people at Detroit Liberation Day 2009.  I hope to see you there. 

Come to Detroit Liberation Day 2009

Come to Detroit Liberation Day 2009

Meanwhile, enjoy this video from the 2009 Ann Arbor Hash Bash.

Vultures Hatched by Conservative Inconsistency Have Come Home to Roost

November 16, 2008

 

While I have frequently identified with conservatives and conservative causes, I am not a conservative.  I am a libertarian.  I use the small case “l” to distinguish my party from my philosophy.  There are many libertarian-Republicans, for instance, who have no affiliation with the Libertarian Party.  True conservatives are much more libertarian than what is commonly referred to as neo-conservatives, but there are still some critical differences.

 

Ideological conservatives place a great deal of emphasis on principals such as individual liberty, personal responsibility, private property, and limited government.  These are also libertarian principals.  The difference involves the scope of application.  Libertarians are inclined to apply this to as many issues as possible; conservatives apply theses ideas to a limited range of issues.  This has been a source of confusion for people who have been programmed to think in terms of a one-dimensional left-right spectrum.  If you are among them, I suggest looking over a Nolan chart or taking the smallest political quiz.

 

Libertarians have frequently come under fire for supporting peoples right to act offensively or amorally so long as the behavior did not violate the natural rights of others. This recognition of a person’s rights has often been misconstrued to be acceptance or approval.  This is not the case.  Libertarians have long argued that we must tolerate individual differences, if we expect to be tolerated.  Stated another way, a threat to one person’s rights is a threat to all rights.  The reason for this linkage is the power of philosophical consistency.

 

Giving in to the idea that the government could censor radio content was like letting the camel’s nose in the tent.  The right of broadcasters to control the content of their programming is thereby forfeited. What remains is an illusion of liberty granted at the whims of those in control.  So it is with all sacrifices of principal.  The specifics that were derived from the forfeited principal are only vestigial remnants.  Bending to whims may be expedient and gain one favor in the short run, but consistency wins in the long run.  No social movement has been able to grow and prevail, if it discarded its integrity for short-term gain.  Conversely, worldviews that offer clear-cut answers and absolute principals survive.

 

The human mind requires some semblance of consistency to work, so it is that luke-warm conservatism is on the decline, but even conservatism is luke warm when it comes to liberty.  Objectivist philosopher Ayn Rand saw this in April of 1964 when she wrote:

 

It was the so-called “conservatives” — including some of the pioneers, some of the broadcasting industry’s executives who, today, are complaining and protesting — who ran to the government for regulations and controls, who cheered the notion of “public property” and service to the “public interest,” and thus planted the seeds of which Mr. Minow and Mr. Henry are merely the logical, consistent flowers. The broadcasting industry was enslaved with the sanction of the victims — but they were not fully innocent victims.

 

So it is that today’s conservative radio pundits are not fully innocent either.  They have conceded the need to have government control over the content of radio broadcasts, by either approving censorship, or mocking liberals who disapproved.  The fact of the matter is that Democratic Senator Chuck Schumer made an insightful point when he told a Fox news reporter:

 

The very same people who don’t want the fairness doctrine, want the FCC to limit pornography on the air.  I am for that; I think pornography should be limited.  But you can’t say ‘Government hands off!’ in one commercial enterprise but the government intervenes in another.  That’s not consistent.

 

He’s right:  It isn’t consistent. 

 

Ironically, his so-called “Fairness Doctrine” would only call for fairness between inconsistent “liberal” and “conservative” speech.  Even if it included equal time for libertarians, it would still be just as wrong, and I would oppose it.  The first amendment made no exceptions.

 

For those who fear hard-core porn on prime-time TV, consider the content of basic cable programming.  It is immune to the restrictions placed on broadcast TV.  Sure “adult programming” is there for those who subscribe to it, but commercial standards for family viewing exceed the standards set by the FCC.  If this isn’t good enough, parents can fire the TV from baby-sitting duty (mine did).  The market works if we let it.*  This is another mantra recited by self-described conservatives.  The difference is that libertarians actually believe it.

 

When a person goes against one’s principal, he or she gets a funny feeling.  It’s called “guilt.”  Those who fail to form principals are confused.  People who look to government or the collective to solve their problems are called “statists” those who trust individuals over governments are libertarians.

 

I’m not guilty, statist, or confused; I trust you to run your life.

 

 

 

 

* Here I am referring to a free market in which peoples rights are protected.  Marketing in abuse is not a free market principal.  That would be a contradiction.  Individual rights cannot include the right to enslave.

Congratulations Senator Carl Levin

November 5, 2008

Honorable Senator Carl Levin:

 

I Congratulate you on your re-election to the United States Senate.  

 

As an opposition candidate turned constituent, I hope your future votes in the United States Senate make me happy you won.

 

Sincerely,

 

Scotty Boman

2008 Libertarian Candidate for United States Senate

313-247-2052

http://boman08.com

Straight Talk from THE Candidate

November 4, 2008

Apparently, comments by WDIV viewers, many of whom are my supporters, had an effect.  It is the eve of the election, so I will make this brief.

 

I will let each of these emails speak for themselves.

 

—————————————————————————————-

 

Dear Devin Scillian:

 

At 11:30 AM you opened the special “Straight Talk” with the announcement that all of the candidates for President, Senate, and Congress (7th through 13th Districts) were invited to give brief statements about why they were the best choice.  Imagine my surprise, since I had not received such an invitation.

 

I am writing you now to accept the invitation I did not receive.  I would like to record my 4.5 minutes.  Since the election is only a day away, it is imperative that you reply quickly.

 

I will be in the vicinity of 550 West Lafayette Boulevard this morning.  Probably around 10:00 AM.  I will have my phone with me.  My number is…

 

I look forward to hearing from you.

 

—————————————————————————————–

 

I made an impromptu visit to the WDIV studio, at 10 AM this morning.  I was greeted politely and was met by the show’s producer in the “Green Room.” After that discussion and a couple clarifying phone calls, I composed the following letter:

 

—————————————————————————————–

 

Dear Producer Olive:

 

When you spoke to me in the WDIV Green Room you said I could suggest wording that would clarify the fact that not all candidates were invited to “Straight Talk” or any future program using the same criteria, and that you would take this into consideration.

 

Based upon our complete correspondence (phone, voice mail, and in person). I have crafted this statement:

 

Other candidates will be on the ballot, but we only invited candidates who met one of the following criteria:

 

* Their campaign has raised over $100,000 dollars.

 

Or

 

* An anonymous consultant of ours thinks they will receive at least 10% of the vote.  This determination may be made without any supporting polling data.”

 

To clarify any misunderstandings about this year’s program, the following statement should be made by one of the reporters on tonight’s evening news programs, as well as the morning broadcast:

 

Some viewers have expressed confusion over our criteria for including candidates in this past Sunday’s straight talk program.  Please accept our apologies for any misunderstanding.

 

Other candidates will be on the ballot, but we only invited candidates who met one of the following criteria:

 

* Their campaign has raised over $100,000 dollars.

 

Or

 

* An anonymous consultant of ours thinks they will receive at least 10% of the vote.  This determination was made without any supporting polling data.”

 

Thank you for your time, consideration, and candor.

 

Sincerely,

 

Scotty Boman

Libertarian for US Senate

 

———————————————————————————–

 

I have a sneaking suspicion that this disclaimer will not be used.  I think they know most viewers would be as disturbed as I, by this accurate and direct characterization of the criteria.

Mike Walenta diverts your tax dollars to his favorite politicians!

October 17, 2008

Mike Walenta is diverting your tax dollars to his favorite two Senate candidates.  He is doing so via an in-kind contribution in the form of an exclusive press conference.  He has dogmatically clung to his claim that he is applying certain “standards”  However, when I could show I met all verifiable standards, he regurgitated the same drivel.

For instance he claims I am not running a “visible campaign.”  Apparently he hasn’t driven past the billboard that is only a few miles from WGVU.   I haven’t seen any for the other candidates.

He uses statewide polling data as a criteria when there is no polling data that includes me as a choice.

Clearly he doesn’t care about these “standards”  he ignores them then uses them as a smokescrean for the real standard.

Here is the real standard:

You must be the candidate nominated by the Republican or Democratic Party.

That is the only standard he goes by….

Your tax dollars at work.  Here is the complete text of our Correspondence:

616-331-6737

walentam@gvsu.edu

Scotty Boman wishes to join in the DebateThursday, October 9, 2008 9:43 PM
From: “Scotty Boman” <scottyeducation@yahoo.com>View contact details To: walentam@gvsu.edu
Dear General Manage Mike Walenta:

It is my understanding that you are holding a Senatorial Debate on Sunday October 19th.  I will be pleased to participate, however you haven’t contacted me about this directly.  I am sure this was not intentional since WGVU is a non-partisan organization that would not organize a partisan activity to promote some candidates over others. Please contact me with important details such as arrival times, format, and rules.     Please feel free to call me at: 313-247-2052

Sincerely,

Scotty Boman

Libertarian for United States Senate

http://boman08.com

PS: Have any of the other United States Senate candidates accepted the invitation besides Carl Levin and Jack Hoogendyk?

————————————————————————————

– On Fri, 10/10/08, Michael Walenta <walentam@gvsu.edu> wrote:

From: Michael Walenta <walentam@gvsu.edu>
Subject: Re: Scotty Boman wishes to join in the Debate
To: scottyeducation@yahoo.com
Date: Friday, October 10, 2008, 4:58 PM
Dear Mr. Bowman:

This email constitutes a formal response to your communication regarding the upcoming WGVU-sponsored debate between the Republican and Democratic candidates for the US Senate from Michigan. WGVU has hosted such programs for many years and has utilized these criteria when extending invitations to candidates.  Candidates must meet all three criteria:  

(1)  the person seeking to participate must have qualified for the ballot;
(2) the candidate must be running a visible and comprehensive campaign as determined by WGVU; and
(3) the candidate must show a certain fixed level of support — at least 5% — in professionally conducted  public opinion polls.

These criteria were adapted by WGVU from those developed by our broadcast partner, National Public Radio and have been used  by WGVU for U.S. Senate debates in 1996, 2000, 2002,  2006, and again this year. While you meet criterion one, it is WGVU’s judgment that you do not meet criterion two or three.  For that reason, we did not extend an invitation to you. We appreciate your interest in public television and thank you for your letter.

Sincerely,
Michael T. Walenta

General Manager

WGVU TV & Radio
———————————————————————————-

———————————————————————————–

My Reply on Oct 10


Dear Michael Walenta:

Thank you for responding promptly, and giving me the chance to educate you on some facts. I have met the first 2 criteria:
1. You agree on one.
As for # 2….  2. Define: ” visible and comprehensive campaign” I can’t think of anything my campaign isn’t doing that Jack Hoogendyk’s is doing.  The only way I am “less visible” is by being excluded from partisan media events.  Thus you have created the very outcome this condition addresses.
3.  As for the third, please provide me with the results of one state-wide poll in which I was included as one of the choices.  I have looked for such a poll and found none.  This again becomes a procedure that fixes the outcome in advance to not satisfy or fail this criterion.

Sincerely,

Scotty Boman

PS: It is B-O-M-A-N.  Say what you want about me but please spell my name right.

PPS:  I will be checking campaign finance reports after the election to see that the other candidates properly list this as an in-kind contribution.

———————————————————————————-

— On Mon, 10/13/08, Michael Walenta <walentam@gvsu.edu> wrote:

From: Michael Walenta <walentam@gvsu.edu>
Subject: Scotty Boman wishes to join in the Debate
To: scottyeducation@yahoo.com
Date: Monday, October 13, 2008, 1:20 PM

Dear Mr. Boman,
 
First I want to apologize for misspelling your name in my previous e-mail to you.  It was certainly not intentional and I regret the error.
 
Secondly I want to acknowledge your e-mail from October 10. 
 
As stated previously, the criteria we use were adapted by WGVU from those developed by our broadcast partner, National Public Radio and have been used  by WGVU for the past 4 U.S. Senate debates.  These criteria are again being used for this debate.
 
While you meet criterion one, it remains WGVU’s judgment that you do not meet criterion two or three.  For that reason, we did not extend an invitation to you.
 
We appreciate your interest in public television and thank you for your response.
 
Sincerely,
 
Michael T. Walenta
General Manager
WGVU TV & Radio

———————————————————————————-

My Final Reply (He did not respond after this)

Dear Michael Walenta:

How is it that I don’t meet criteria 2? My campaign is as visible as the Republican’s.  Google it.  I have a billboard up, I haven’t seen his.  We both have lawn-signs, bumper stickers and literature all over the state.  We have both been on radio.  He has been a no-show at three candidate forums (which I attended) that he did not show up to.  In some respects my campaign is more active than his.

Please identify the state-wide survey you used to determine I don’t meet criteria 3 (a scientific poll that included me as one of the choices).

Of course I already made these points, and you didn’t have an answer to rebut them. Since you can’t show that I don’t meet the criteria, I may can only assume that this is a simple matter of political bias on the part of yourself and WGVU.  

Can you at least drop the charade and admit that?

Sincerely,

Scotty Boman

Thank you Ron!

September 13, 2008

 

Dear Ron Paul:

 

I hope this message reaches you.  I know what it is like to get more mail than one has time to read.  Clearly you are blessed with an even larger volume of mail than I.

 

As a candidate and an activist in a third party, I wish to express my deepest gratitude for your September 10th press conference.  I was especially impressed with the respectful manner in which you handled unexpected surprises.

 

By resisting the demands of the Republican Leadership and giving a forum to their opposition, you have put your own re-election to Congress at risk.  We are blessed to have such a courageous person in Congress.

 

In Michigan, I had the fortune of being the Libertarian representative at the first meeting of the Michigan Third Parties Coalition (MTPC).  One thing I learned through this experience, is the value of respecting people who hold to beliefs that conflict with my own.  The formation of the MTPC was initiated in a letter sent out by a socialist, Matt Erard.  He understood the need to form a group that was non-ideological. 

 

Ideology is more than symbolic for people in the freedom movement, but there is a need for Detente in cases where people with irreconcilable differences face a common threat.  Clearly you get that.  I only wish everyone in our movement were so enlightened, but I have no right to apologize for the short-comings of others.

 

Without honest elections, the hope for peacefully bringing about a free society is dashed.  Those who honestly believe in the correctness of their beliefs have nothing to fear from an unfettered candid discussion of the transcendental challenges of our time.

 

When the debate process and other parts of our broken election system are remedied, it will be much easier to bring about liberty in our time and resuscitate our constitutionally limited republic. 

 

Thank you for bringing us one step closer to that day.  Libertarians everywhere owe you a great debt of gratitude.

 

Scotty Boman

Libertarian for United States Senate