Two fun Saturday challenges for eager readers: watch Friday's episode of Annette Bosworth's daily Jesus show (emphasis on show) from Friday, review the transcript below, and tell us (1) what she is saying and (2) where she is saying it.
I've listened to the text and can't figure out what she is reading from her script. Do these words have any meaning, or are they just a flustermumble of politics and theology cobbled together as a vehicle for cathartic piety?
Today I get to watch our laws unfold.
I believe that the law is the foundation of our country's freedom, but over the last two decades, the density of those laws has become so thick that the average person doesn't understand them, let alone trust them, that our culture has changed, that people no longer feel they can act on their best judgment. It's as if they're looking over their shoulder to see is there a rule against this reasonable decision.
Today's a snowy day in South Dakota, and as you walk on the sidewalk today, if there is a dispute, the question is, is there somebody in our society who sees it as their job to affirmatively protect you for doing and acting reasonably. In our state in our country, that person doesn't exist. That is what calls me to run for the U.S. Senate.
Today's a big day, and I'd like to lead us in prayer.
Heavenly Father, help me to not be dictated by fear, but instead to trust in you. Pray that you will help us to act, because on the final day, you will not say the words, well fought. You will not say the words well said, or well planned, or well prayed or well intended. You will say the words well done, my good and faithful servant. Help to protect the doers of your word. In Jesus name, Amen [Annette Bosworth, Facebook video, 2014.04.04].
Watch our laws unfold: that suggests a legal proceeding of some sort.
Density of those laws has become so thick: Density doesn't become thick. Density is thickness.
Act on their best judgment...rule against this reasonable decision: Bosworth's tired (literally, tired: she looks worn down, don't you think?) complaint about hard-to-understand laws sounds like a rationalization for having broken some of those laws.
In our state... that person doesn't exist: What? No one in South Dakota is standing up for... for exactly what again? For truth? Justice? Annette herself? And is she really saying that she's running for Senate because everyone else in South Dakota is an abject coward?
Bilked former campaign consultant Ethan Crisp (if we can trust handles in the Dakota War College peanut gallery) responds to this video by asserting that Annette Bosworth was in Pierre yesterday. Another source to this blog has claimed that Bosworth was called to see the Secretary of State and Attorney General to discuss her challenged nominating petition. Bosworth's Facebook post places this video in Sioux Falls, posted around 3 p.m. Central. Bosworth's husband Chad Haber FourSquare's them in Brookings last night around 8 p.m. Central.
But look at that photo: where's that wallpaper? Where's that generic framed picture? Anyone recognize the location?
I invite your analysis of Bosworth's prayer and her GPS coordinates.
Gant tweeted yesterday they're reviewing her petitions and will release results today.
Scary. Do you get the feeling that this is like listening to Rev. Jim Jones' last sermon while they were serving the Koolaid? South Dakota has spawned its share of kooky candidates, but Annette is taking the public on a ride where no previous South Dakota candidate has gone.
Senator Bosworth, your second floor suite is ready at Avera Behavioral Health.
The Democrat got caught violating the law, Annette gets caught red handed perjuring herself and she doubles down with lawyer Arends who apparently suborned such perjury.
Well, as long as we all forgot about the mysterious death of Rounds' former Secretary of Economic Development, and the millions Rounds lost in the EB-5 corruption federal investigation.
Let's not forget that diehard Rounds supporters Dan Lederaman and Joel Arends have been behind Bosworth's campaign.
She needs to keep praying the part "Help me to not be dictated by fear, but instead to trust in you" and leave off the rest. A longer prayer isn't a better prayer.
what's scary Rick is some of the comments. some really strange people out there.
Or maybe I'm one of the "average" people who don't understand the denisty of our laws.
In a way, I'll be sad to see her dropped from the ballot. Stuff like this is so entertaining! On the other hand, I agree with Rick. It looks and sounds like the ramblings of someone who is completely un-hinged and may do something drastic.
She's partly right. Republicans' efforts at voter suppression and petition suppression has made it harder to vote and to petition government. But the stuff that she's done is outright fraud, and is not the result of "density" of laws.
Some of her staff people are in Pierre today trying to campaign at the SDEA meeting. Sounded like they were on the phone to her asking what they should do since their request to hand out flyers inside the convention hall was denied.
I recognize that photo-that is San Quentin's gas chamber-"Old Sparky"(tic). Bos is regurgitating claptrap about over-regulations by Dems-a recurrent wingnut talking point. Very predictable. When they regulate women's reproductive choices,that is freedom and enabling women. When Dems allow women to make their own choices,that is tyranny. My next prediction is when Rs finally discover the tide on the ACA is shifting towards acceptance,they drag out old faithful-Dems are giving away free healthcare to buy votes for this year's elections. Wah,wah,wah!
Really? Why can't they hand out flyers? Private property? First Amendment? Get the SDEA on the horn!
Who are the staff, and what do the flyers say?
Rick-if memory serves,didn't "Raven's" followers serve kool-aid at gunpoint? Bosworth's followers apparently drink of their own volition,so far.
I walked on the sidewalk the same day Annette made this video while it was snowing here. I acted reasonably, as I always do. Nothing happened. No one bothered me. I never felt that my freedom was threatened. If Annette really wanted to help, she could have grabbed a snow shovel and helped clear the sidewalk, as it was becoming a bit slippery, but I can't imagine how her serving in Congress would have made my day or future any better or more secure. Try to imagine someone rambling such nonsense on the floor of the U.S. Senate. Capitol doctors would be called to order a psych evaluation.
Was a time when the human race regarded verbal incoherence as the prime symptom of a dysfunctional mind. Am I the only person who wonders how a person who thinks and acts as Bosworth does obtained a medical degree? Competent diagnosis requires a level of observational and deductive skills that Bosworth has never demonstrated in public.
Let's rein in this bit about where and when. Plenty of folks who produce video do so a day or two ahead and then post it online.
As for Brookings, Sioux Falls and Pierre, we have this nifty thing called the interstate that allows people to get from one place to another.
Let's keep this from getting farcical please.
Do you mean any more farcical?
"Where's Waldo?" will always be more popular than "Where's Annette?".
just saw the tweet from Gant. Bosworth still on the ballot. Cory's challenge failed to satisfy the SOS. Will we learn why?
Forwarding it on to the Attorney General's office...the plot thickens...er densifies.
http://www.keloland.com/newsdetail.cfm/challenge-to-bosworths--nominating-petition-unsuccessful/?id=162653
PIERRE, SD -
A formal challenge of the signatures to Dr. Annette Bosworth’s Nominating Petition was not successful.
An affidavit was filed earlier this week calling into question the validity of some of the signatures on Bosworth's petition.
South Dakota Secretary of State Jason Gant says that of the 3,648 signature lines submitted it was determined that 2,305 were valid signatures.
Bosworth’s name will continue to appear on the ballot.
Of those 3,648 signature lines:
795 were blank
275 were registered to vote but not registered as Republicans
125 were not registered
148 were not valid due to other reasons such as duplicates, invalid date of signing, invalid notary, etc.
Another issue in the affidavit cited that Bosworth was not present at the time of collecting signatures. The Secretary of State does not have the statutory authority to investigate the claims that were listed in the challenge.
The issue has been forwarded with the affidavit and relevant petition sheets to the Attorney General's office for their review.
State law requires that a Republican candidate for the US Senate must have 1,955 valid signatures.
© 2014 KELOLAND TV. All Rights Reserved.
Does this mean that Gant declined to decide on the issue of Chad and Annette swearing to witness signatures while they were in the Philippines?
I believe he is saying he does not have the authority to determine their whereabouts during the time in question.
So now it's up to the AG to accept or toss those petitions?
In her april 1 vid about praising God be discussing the stories that are names represented by numbers, she states she submitted 2,750 signatures. Cory's complaint refers to 2,868 signatures. Then the SOS says she had 3,648. Good thing she had those extra 900 she seems to not have known about.
Nick, i believe the ag would be reviewing this for crimes, and has no role in validating the petitions.
Jim-the SOS said there were 3648 spaces for names on turned in petitions and 795 spaces were blank. He ended up with less names to start with than Cory originally reported. SOS said she had 2853 names to start with.
This is good news for all or for the Left at least. She stays on the ballot to eventually help the Dems and the legal concerns are still on the table as it has been forwarded to the AG's office for review.
Let us eat the apple a bite at a time. The SOS does not have power to investigate fraud or perjury-only whether the signees are legitimate and the numbers are sufficient to allow her on the ballot. Up to the AG to determine if she committed suic.....er some crime or other.
Hasn't the SOS rejected Democrat signers because of problems with actual observance of signatures and notary problems in the past? Being unable to consider these factors now seems awfully convenient unless laws and regulations have been recently changed.
SOS and AG are both republicans, move along, nothing to see here.
Ohh. Thank you Mike.
I can't even find the powers of the SOS regarding nominating petitions on the LRC or SD Gov page. Anybody have a direct link to anything regarding actual powers?
".... and as you walk on the sidewalk today, if there is a dispute, the question is, is there somebody in our society who sees it as their job to affirmatively protect you for doing and acting reasonably. In our state in our country, that person doesn't exist. That is what calls me to run for the U.S. Senate ...."
Heh. "Reasonably." Convenient, so convenient, that word .... "Well, I thought I was being reasonable" seems like a pretty big escape-hatch. But, isn't that the whole bloody purpose of our legal system (perhaps more in theory than in practice; still, /no one/)?
And what difference whether someone "sees it" as their job? So long as the function is performed, personal perspective is relatively unimportant. And I don't even know what meaning to tease out of "affirmatively protect."
I agree that Bosworth appears dead-exhausted; mightn't be the best time to be shooting a devotional.
Gant denied this petition but then recanted his reasons after he got outed accepting Brian Gosch's signatures for the same violation.
Guess he only has the authority to reject Democrat petitions?
The statutes the SOS has to follow in determining validity of petitions are, I think, found here:
http://legis.sd.gov/Statutes/Codified_Laws/DisplayStatute.aspx?Type=Statute&Statute=12-6
But they could all be worthless if someone decides to invoke the last clause, 12-6-64, which reads: Liberal construction of primary election laws. The laws of this state pertaining to primary elections shall be liberally construed so that the real will of the voters may not be defeated by a mere technicality.
of course, there are also the rules for the State Board of Elections
http://legis.sd.gov/Rules/DisplayRule.aspx?Rule=05:02
In particular, Section 8 on petitions is useful.
Rhoden laughing.
Rhoden laughing.
Jessie, thanks for those links. I think I had seen all before however. I don't see anything that looks like a checklist for the SOS in approving or disproving petitions or limitations such as the SOS claims prevent him from considering factors such as the person claiming to have circulated the petition was out of the country at the time.
Sorry Cory. I was not getting updates. Anyway, they could not pass out fliers on the floor of the convention. You can't even pass out fliers for SDEA candidates on the floor of the convention. There is no issue, that I could see, of handing them out during breaks in the hallway. Whether they did that or not I do not know. I was at the History Conference down the hall (which near as I can tell got ignored by AB's crew). I just stood outside the SDEA room while Rick Weiland spoke to hear his remarks and saw this all occur.