✓ Go here to support Scotty’s Liberty run for office!
✓ Scotty’s website: Boman12.org.
✓ Scotty’s Liberty Candidates’ Meetup page!
✓ Twitter: Bowman2012
✓ Blog: Boman08.wordpress.com
✓ Meetup: ScottyBoman
✓ My Space
Scotty’s Signed Pledges:
Scotty answers the Liberty Candidate questions below:
I) Re. the U.S. Financial System:
What is your view of the monetary system in the U.S. today?
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 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.
What corrective actions could we take right now to improve the economy?
Get out of the way. Stop ridiculous regulations that nobody even wants (like banning certain light bulbs and only allowing toilets that won’t flush). Never pass another deficit budget. Drastically cut spending by changing policy. This includes ending federal support of programs not enumerated in the Constitution.
Not only will I insist on balanced budgets and transparency of expenditures, I would support a sufficient budget surplus to (at minimum) cover annual interest on the debt, and push for additional spending cuts to start paying down the debt.
Do you agree with the actions the Federal Reserve has taken to solve the financial crisis?
If not, what could the Fed have done differently?
It doesn’t have the authority to dissolve itself. It could have discontinued the creation of new credit by only issuing loans in balance to collections. While it was ultimately a failure, the Greenspan approach of trying to artificially mimic a gold standard, could have brought some temporary stability.
The main problem is systemic since, given the opportunity; the short term expediency of creating financial bubbles is tempting so long as it is possible. This system must be ended to remove the temptation.
Should the Federal Reserve be audited fully, no secrets, or does it need to keep some information under wraps?
Fully: No secrets.
II) Re. Foreign Policy:
What is your opinion on current US foreign policy?
Global occupation is unsustainable, bleeds our economy, causes untold human suffering, and makes the American people less secure. The price we pay in blood and treasure is too great for the results we reap. No matter how noble the objectives, a nation that can’t support itself will become too weak to defend itself (or anyone else). We have the greatest military in the world, but it’s spread too thin. A non-interventionist foreign policy provides the best means by which to secure both prosperity and security. Furthermore, the unintended consequences and animosity that interventionism inspires has only made us less secure. If our way of life rather than interventionism was the incentive for terrorism, then why do they hate the United States more than Canada?
How should we fight a “war on terror”?
Actions should be based, in part on the context. If a suspected terrorist is captured, he or she can be tried for a variety of crimes depending on the form the terrorism takes. In the context of battle they may be regarded as prisoners of war, and Congress should consider using letters of marque and reprisal to stop the less accessible offenders.
From a preventative perspective, vigilant citizens have done more to stop or shed light on specific acts.
Should the U.S. occupy other countries?
No. Not beyond the brief time that would be needed to complete a military objective against a nation or faction that has attacked these united states of America.
If not, would you push to close all bases?
Yes, though not all at once. By “close” I assume this means to “discontinue US control.” Bases that are sold or given to host nations would remain open at the discretion of their new owners. There would need to be dates set by which nations who depend on us would become fully responsible for their own defense.
Are there any you would keep open?
None come to mind. By “open” I assume this means “under US control.” Bases that are sold or given to host nations would remain open at the discretion of their new owners. If there is over-whelming evidence that a specific base is still needed for defense, even in the context of a non-interventionist policy, I could see making an exception.
Should the U.S. maintain its standing army?
The Constitution forbids a standing army. Congress has the authority “To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;” The only peacetime forces authorized in the Constitution are the Navy and the state militias.
So the answer must be “no.” Regardless of any personal opinions. At the very least the Army must be re-funded every two years, but original intent is better served if peacetime functions performed by the Army and air force are re-structured to be under the auspices of Constitutionally lawful peacetime forces such as the Navy and state militias (AKA national guard).
Is the Patriot Act necessary to protect America?
If not, would you vote to repeal it?
III) Re. Personal Liberty:
What information may the U.S. government legally gather about its citizens?
It may gather any information that is voluntarily provided. It may not gather information that is shared in a context where there is a reasonable expectation of privacy without a warrant.
It should only request information to carry out basic functions such as birthdate for a passport or state of residency for the census.
When would it be necessary to overstep those boundaries?
It may not gather information that is shared in a context where there is a reasonable expectation of privacy without a warrant. Information requested, beyond that appropriate for a constitutionally recognized function is improper and unnecessary. For instance, the census should ask about residency, sex and birthdate. Not a long invasive questionnaire.
More information may be subpoenaed if there are criminal proceedings involving the violation of laws that are grounded in the enumerated powers of Congress.
What limits, if any, should be placed on the U.S. government’s ability to search its citizens without a warrant?
It is not permitted beyond searching the person being arrested in a public place for a felony. Here, the search must be limited to the disarming of the person arrested, and a warrant must still be obtained to perform an outright search. Again, these arrests must be for laws grounded in the enumerated powers of Congress such as those against counterfeiting or piracy.
“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”
Ought the U.S. government be allowed to protect its citizens’ health by outlawing foods it considers unsafe, or to force medicate (i.e., fluoridation) or force vaccinate citizens?
What controls, if any, should be placed on the right to own a gun?
None on law abiding citizens.
Is there an effective way to keep guns out of the hands of madmen and criminals without encroaching on the rights of free, law-abiding citizens?
Government agents should be prohibited from knowingly selling weapons to criminals who have a record of using them for kidnapping and murder. Agents and supervisors who allow such sales should be impeached, fired, and prosecuted as accomplices for the crimes they have thereby knowingly facilitated.
If a person has been convicted of a crime, prohibitions on gun ownership may be part of the sentence.
This would be reasonable in cases where the crime was violent.
If a person was exonerated for a crime by reason of insanity, or been adjudicated mentally ill to a degree that indicates a propensity for criminal acts of violence, it would then be appropriate to block him or her from gun-ownership. Due process is essential though.
IV) Re. U.S. Sovereignty:
Is our involvement in and subjugation to global organizations, such as WHO, NATO, the UN, etc., a benefit to U.S. citizens?
No. They usurp our sovereignty and place constitutionally limited republics in a context of moral equivalence with totalitarian regimes. They also direct financial resources away from domestic our needs.
Would you work to repeal international agreements that purport to hold U.S. citizens and/or property under its jurisdiction, or do you think there might be times when benefits outweigh concessions?
Repeal. No politician has the authority to nullify our rights and hand us over to foreign control.
Are trade agreements with other nations, i.e., NAFTA, CAFTA, good for U.S. citizens?
No. These agreements create a legal labyrinth and multinational bureaucracy that impedes true free trade.
Should the U.S. give foreign aid to other countries? If yes, for what purposes would it be justified? If not all countries, which would you continue to support?
No. It should leave the door open to voluntarily funded, non-governmental assistance.
V) Re. State Sovereignty:
When does state law take precedent over federal law?
When it is not an enumerated power of the Federal government in the Constitution. For example, the Federal government does not have the authority to regulate intra-state commerce.
Would you stand up to the federal government and demand that it stay within the bounds of its enumerated powers and out of state business?
Do federal officers have the right to arrest non-military citizens within the individual states for any crimes?
They must have the permission of the local sheriff. The crimes are limited to those enumerated in the United States Constitution including treason, counterfeiting, piracy or felonies on the high seas, or violations of civil rights by officials.
VI) Illegal Immigration:
What do you see as the #1 problem with illegal immigration?
Government policy is the #1 problem: Criminal activity along the border is largely supported by drug prohibition, and government handouts attract immigrants who have no other means of support. Worse yet, government agents arm members of criminal organizations who are known to be involved in murders and kidnappings along the boarder.
What actions could we take to stop illegal immigrants from taking advantage of social services?
The Federal government should not be the provider of social services. Private charities should be free to decide whom they aid since they are not depending on taxpayers. States can set requirements (such as proof of legal residency or citizenship). We need to appoint judges who recognize the validity of common sense eligibility requirements such as legal status.
VII) Misc. Questions:
If you could make one amendment to the U.S. Constitution, what would it be?
Congress shall make no law restricting interstate commerce. (If read correctly, the current Constitution already implies this, but this redundancy seems to be needed for the thick headed).
Would you vote to end government subsidies to private industry?
What should our government’s action be against Julian Assange, if any?
None… Unless he requests political asylum.
Do you know what Agenda 21/Sustainable Development and the Communitarian agenda is? Yes.
Do you support it? No.
Why or why not?
This is so pervasive that many reasons could be cited, but I suppose I could sum it up by stating that these documents take the form of directives that seek to micromanage the life of people. These directives are not just the writings of a random utopian author, but are a manifesto of the United Nations globalist agenda. National sovereignty and individual rights take a back seat in this grand scheme. It is yet another reason to get out of the United Nations while we still can.