Starting in 1996, Alexa Internet has been donating their crawl data to the Internet Archive. Flowing in every day, these data are added to the Wayback Machine after an embargo period.
This is a time to get together and eat and talk , just time for our friends. There is no format, dues, agenda etc., We can meet anytime or place we decide, picnic pot luck, local food, anything we want to, even invite speakers. But for now please show up, eat and talk to like minded friends. No need to RSVP just stop by and eat.
This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it
Trana if you like.
(Cross-posted with permission from The PrairieBlog.)
Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, who, from all I can tell, is generally not a wacko, has joined forces, or actually taken leadership of, a group of wackos who want to repeal parts of the 14th amendment to the United States Constitution, specifically Section 1, which grants automatic citizenship to anyone born in the United States. Specifically, that section says, simply, “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”
Graham is apparently trying to regain some conservative credibility after getting too cozy with Senator Byron Dorgan and other moderate Democrats, but he’s in bad company on this one, with the likes of Senator John Kyl, former Rep. Tom Tancredo, Rep. John Boehner, and Senate candidate Rand Paul.
This is a mean-spirited effort to gain political points in an election year by highlighting the illegal immigration issue once again. Repeal of the 14th amendment would deny citizenship to children born of illegal immigrants. And also those children born of legal immigrants. It’s been in the news lately and you’re going to hear more about it. This is the amendment given to us by President Abraham Lincoln and a Republican Congress to guarantee everyone equal protection under the law. This was one of the reconstruction amendments which abolished slavery and then prevented states from passing their own laws regarding slavery and equal protection. These people, Republicans all, do not deserve to be part of the Party of Lincoln.
I wish these people had known my mother. And two friends of hers, Adolf Schmidt and his wife Leni.
Adolf and Leni (pronounced Laney) emigrated from Germany to Hettinger, North Dakota, in the years after World War II. Adolf had a cousin who ran a café in Hettinger, and they came here, with their pre-school age daughter, Elke, to work in that café. Adolf was a trained chef, and he cooked while Leni waited on tables. Through hard work and good fortune, they were able to buy that restaurant from Adolf’s cousin. They worked 18 hours a day, 7 days a week, and in their little spare time they learned English and studied for their U.S. citizenship test.
After a few years, Leni became pregnant. She worked right up until it was time to have her baby, and then was whisked off to the brand new Hettinger Community Memorial Hospital, the finest medical facility she had ever seen. She gave birth to a son, which she and Adolf had agreed to name Kent. Adolf stayed behind at the café that day, and at closing time, he trotted up the hill to that hospital as fast as his short, fat little German legs would take him.
He found Leni propped up in her hospital bed. She looked up at him and said, in her still-broken English “Adolf, we have a son. His name is Kent.” And then, her face beaming in joy and wonderment, she said “And guess what? He is already an American.”
My mother was the o.b. nurse on duty at the hospital that night, and she was standing at Leni’s bedside when Adolf came in. She loved to tell that story. She called it “the miracle of America.” She said that, as important as that son was to Leni and Adolf, equally important was the fact that their son was a United States citizen. By birth. Adolf and Leni could imagine nothing more wonderful, more important, than being a United States citizen. And they could only marvel that despite the fact they were not yet United States citizens, because of that wonderful document called the United States Constitution, their son was. Their son was an American.
My mother had many fond memories of her 40-plus years in nursing, but none more wonderful than that one.
Adolf and Leni and Elke eventually became naturalized citizens. Adolf and Leni ran the café until they sold it and retired. Kent was a citizen from the moment he took his first breath. He moved away when he grew up. I hope he lives in a state whose Senators and Congressman will oppose this effort. If not, I hope he calls them and tells them his story.
“He is already an American.” Surely some of the best words ever spoken in North Dakota.
(Cross-posted with permission from The PrairieBlog.)
Stop the presses. You read that headline correctly. I agree with Bill O'Reilly and the Fox "News" Actresses.
Bill O'Reilly had a couple of Foxxy "News" actresses ("NA") on the Factor last night to talk about his perception of "feminism." They spent some time talking about the important subject of Jennifer Aniston, and then got to this...
B.O. -- The governor of North Carolina, his daughter posed for bikini shots.
NA1 -- North Dakota
NA2 -- North Dakota
B.O. -- North Dakota, I'm sorry, North Carolina. There she is.
B.O. -- North Dakota.
NA1 -- South Dakota
B.O. -- No, it's North Dakota.
NA2 -- She's actually a model.
B.O. -- She's a model. [undecipherable] [Note:She's apparently moved on from modeling and is now working at pappie's bank.]
B.O. -- So here's the question: Does... Do children of famous people, whether they be in show business or political figures, doing bad things, reflect back on the famous person?
NA1 -- They... They... The only reason they're making news is because of the famous person.
B.O. -- That's true...
NA1 -- So of course they reflect back on the famous person. It actually matters, I think, how the famous person handles the brouhaha. I think the swimming suit thing is not a brouhaha. You've got a beautiful daughter who's a model. Scott Brown also posed in a centerfold. Scott Brown's daughter is also wearing bikinis. I don't think it's a big deal to get caught in a bikini.
For the first time, ever, I think I might agree with these people about one thing they said. But for the right wing being all up in arms about this, this would be "no big deal." I still don't understand why people are talking about this now.
I don't understand why the dishonest shills on the "Right" are suggesting Democrats or leftists or progressives are attacking Hoeven for his daughter's modeling career. I still haven't seen that anywhere, ever. It seems like what they're doing is they're making up a story about liberals criticizing Hoeven for something, though liberals aren't, and then they're attacking the liberals for blowing that non-existent controversy out of proportion.
That just seems like something a dishonest, corrupt, untrustworthy political hack would do. Not something a legitimate news commentator or reliable person would do. It's fake journalism.
Oh!!!! He's too busy golfing in Utah with two of America's most radical right-wing politicians, Orrin Hatch and Robert Bennett. And they're golfing and charging people $1,000 to play with them.
What!?!? The $100 large you got selling your soul to Wall Street wasn't enough?
Sounds pretty typical.
At least he isn't spending the weekend hiding under his desk.
The Bismarck Tribune is reporting today (or yesterday)t that the Burleigh County States Attorney's (BCSA) office is telling former North Dakota Workforce Safety and Insurance Director Charles "Sandy" Blunt to poop or get off the pot.
Today Blunt is a convicted felon, having been tried by a jury of his peers for misapplication of entrusted funds. He was accused of mishandling state government money, to the tune of thousands of dollars, was convicted, sentenced, and appealed the conviction. The North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The case was recently sent back down to the trial court.
Meanwhile, as the appeal slowly worked its way to the top of the North Dakota Supreme Court's pile, "someone" -- and I'm pretty sure I know who [hint: initials "S.C."] (but I can't confirm because the process is a "big secret" -- filed an ethics grievance against the prosecutors, alleging the BCSA had withheld exculpatory evidence (i.e. evidence likely to prove Blunt's innocence) from Blunt's attorney in the prosecution. Now, when I say the process is a "big secret," I put quotation marks around "big secret" because "someone" (and I'll bet I know who [hint: initials "S.C."] (but I can't confirm because that, too, is supposed to be a "big secret.") brought a copy of some of the otherwise confidential papers to someone at the Tribune. I can't find out who because I'm a little too big to crawl under the belly of a snake to find the people at the Bismarck Tribune who print S.C.'s magazine and who chose to write about the "big secret." But the "big secret" of the ethics grievance ended up in a recent story in the Bismarck Tribune, despite its status as a "big secret."
Because of some correspondence from Blunt's lawyer to the BCSA (and presumably because of the allegations in the ethics complaint), it would appear reasonable to assume Blunt is considering bringing a "post trial motion," asking the court to throw out the conviction because of "newly discovered evidence"; evidence that there was prosecutorial misconduct; misconduct in the form of withholding exculpatory evidence. Allegedly.
It appears that the day before yesterday, assistant states attorney Cynthia Feland -- a candidate for district court judge in the Bismarck area -- filed a Motion "In Litis Contestatio" in the Blunt criminal case. The purpose of the motion appears to be an effort by the BCSA to make Blunt bring his heavy artillery if HE really, truly, sincerely believes the BCSA withheld evidence. It's a "poop or get off the pot" motion and brief if I've ever seen one. It looks like the BCSA office is saying to Blunt, "Prove it." Blunt and his attorney now have 10 days to poop.
I've read the motion and attachments. You should too, if you have a bunch of free time. Here it is.
After reading the brief and extensive attachments, I have to say that I don't see any evidence proving documents were withheld from Blunt. There may be an "other side to the story" and I think Blunt deserves a chance to present that. But unless he has something earth-shattering, frankly, it looks like his allegation -- repeated ad nauseam by Steve Cates in his Dakota Bleacon rag and also picked up by a couple other useful idiot bloggers (here and here and I'm sure by Rob Port at SayNothingBlog) -- that documents were withheld from Blunt and his attorney is a frivolous, nonsense claim. From the motion and attachments, it also looks like the ethics complaint against Feland is frivolous. Frankly, unless there's something significant that Feland hasn't addressed -- and I can't imagine what it would be, as she's attached a lot of correspondence and other documents to her motion -- I'll be surprised if the ethics grievance continues to be pursued. But I've been wrong before.
Once.
I've read several other ethics grievances written by Steve Cates -- local publisher of plagiarism and right-wing fringe nut propaganda (does $100,000 mean anything to you?) -- and the Bismarck Tribune story about the ethics grievance against the BCSA has Cates' stink all over it.
(This also raises the question "Is the Tribune still printing the Dakota Beacon?" I don't know, but I assume so.)
I'm so sure I recognize the stink of this story that I would bet $10 Cates' fingerprints are all over the ethics grievance against the BCSA. I'd also bet he was involved in "leaking" the documents to the useful dupes at the Tribune. Cates has made Blunt's "persecution" and this alleged withholding of "exculpatory" evidence his right-wing rag's crazed obsession. (Don't believe me? Go to the Dakota Beacon's website, and click on the "Sandy Blunt Persecution" category in the right column. See how obsessed this crackpot is.) And I'm familiar with other frivolous ethics complaints filed by Cates, and this looks like his handy work. I'm also familiar with his crack-pot-i-ness, as I've personally had to engage the police to get Cates' to stop harassing me at home. It's true.
Regardless of whether I win my proposed $10 bet, unless Blunt can -- within the next 10 days -- prove the information Feland has filed with the court is forged or otherwise false, it looks like the "exculpatory" information "withheld" from Blunt was neither "exculpatory" nor "withheld."
Let me summarize that, too. Blunt apparently claims a memo/summary written by an auditor in the State Auditor's Office was not provided to him before trial. He claims the "summary memo" proves (or tends to prove) his innocence. The BCSA's brief and numerous attachments seem to show that the memo actually did not prove Blunt's innocence (in fact, it looks like it might even further prove his guilt [which is kind of... interesting]). AND the BCSA explains that the memo is a summary of other information that WAS provided to Blunt. In other words, it was repetitive/duplicative. Blunt and his attorney already had all the supposedly "exculpatory" (though not exculpatory) information in the memo, though not in summary form. As is noted by Feland in her brief, Blunt's attorney even had an opportunity to cross examine witnesses based upon the identical, non-summary information, and did.
There's also the fact that the BCSA has an "open file" policy. BCSA claims it had sent a notice to Blunt's lawyer inviting him to stop in and read everything in the BCSA's file. I'm not a big fan of this argument, but it's out there. And, I'd note, the State Auditor's file is an open record, too. I read the whole file before Blunt's trial took place. I'd like to assume Blunt and/or his lawyer did too.
It appears Blunt has 10 days to explain why that summary of information he already had that appears to further prove his guilt was something he needed to help prove his innocence.
I'll be sitting on the edge of my seat, waiting for Blunt, a convicted felon, to respond.
ABC News is reporting this morning that John Hoeven is among the bipartisan list of senate candidates whoring selling themselves out to Wall Street.
This past spring, about two dozen bankers and hedge fund managers gathered at a New York City hotel to meet with a pair of Republican senators, Minority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky and Texas' John Cornyn, chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee.
According to media reports, the two powerful GOP leaders had come to let Wall Street know its help would be needed to win back control of the Senate in the upcoming midterm elections.
Apparently, Wall Street got the message.
[...]
The top 10 recipients of financial industry donations were: Illinois Republican Mark Kirk ($535,280); Ohio Republican Rob Portman ($394,096); Pennsylvania Republican Pat Toomey ($319,459); California Republican Tom Campbell ($314,900); Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev. ($254,970); California Republican Carly Fiorina ($254,451); Sen. Blanche Lincoln, D-Ark. ($252,781); Missouri Republican Roy Blunt ($229,912); Sen. Michael Bennet, D-Colo. ($181,350) and Indiana Republican Daniel Coats ($174,651).
Only three other candidates, each of them Republican, broke the $100K mark in Wall Street contributions. They were Michael Castle of Delaware, Trey Grayson of Kentucky and John Hoeven of North Dakota.
I'm a believer in public funding for presidential and congressional (house and senate) campaigns. Our political system has been so corrupted by big corporate money that it's hard to differentiate our government from its corporate masters anymore.
The Republicons have been calling for Earl Pomeroy to return money he got from someone's PAC recently. I had been wondering when those ethically pure Republicons were going to refund all the money they -- and John Hoeven and Adam Hamm, etc., etc. -- got from the family that "accidentally" hired 32 undocumented farm workers recently.
Now I'm wondering when Hoeven is going to stop selling his soul (or whatever soul he had left) to Mitch McConnell's buddies on Wall Street.
That's right, kids. You were thinking... "He's not gonna go there. He's not gonna go there. He's not gonna go there."
But then he went there.
I'm amazed people still watch Glenn Beck. I can honestly say I've never watched more than 2 or 3 minutes of his show, and I think I've probably done that three times. I don't get why he's relevant.
So you’re asking “What’s up with Gary Emineth?” Me too. HIS story is he’s going into the burrito business and doesn’t have time to be the Republican State Chairman any more. But he has time to campaign for Republican National Chairman. And he’s caught the eye of some (conservative) national media.
The Washington Times reported “With Republican National Committee Chairman Michael S. Steele facing a barrage of calls to resign, North Dakota Republican Party Chairman Gary Emineth, a social conservative, told The Washington Times on Friday he is quitting his post to prepare a possible challenge of Mr. Steele after November's midterm elections.”
So which is it, Gary? Burritos or the National Chairmanship? Something doesn’t smell right. Seems to me that Emineth’s chances of being National Republican Chairman would be enhanced if he could claim that his party back home claimed the U.S. Senate and U.S. House seats held by Senator Byron Dorgan and Congressman Earl Pomeroy, if that should come to pass, or at least got close enough to scare the North Dakota Democrats (more likely).
No, my guess is that Emineth got on the wrong side of Rick Berg after Berg’s campaign used a party list prior to his endorsement. Remember this story from the AP:
“Republican U.S. House candidate Rick Berg improperly used a closely guarded e-mail list of GOP supporters to promote himself over GOP rivals in a contest to unseat Democrat Earl Pomeroy, the state party chairman says. Gary Emineth said he was convinced that the state lawmaker's campaign used the list, which is off limits to candidates during party endorsement campaigns. Emineth said e-mails were received by people whose addresses he personally "salted" within the list as a way to spot misuse.”
Berg had to end up firing his campaign manager, who had previously worked for the State GOP and had apparently brought the party’s e-mail list with him to the Berg campaign. Complete with Emineth’s additions (His dog? His cat? His mother-in-law’s second cousin once removed?).
Berg was contrite. It was just days before the state Republican convention when Emineth dumped on him. Likely it was just days AFTER the state Republican convention when Berg told Emineth to take a hike.
Berg’s case is interesting, because the Republican party has a history of rejecting their own State Legislators who seek high office (witness David Nething and Gary Nelson). Of the current crop of Republican state officials (and there are a slug of them), only Wayne Stenehjem and Jack Dalrymple came directly from the Legislature, and Dalrymple was essentially picked by Hoeven, and then ratified by the convention. (Public Service Commissioner Tony Clark once served in the Legislature, but was an official in state government during the Ed Schafer administration before being elected. More on him in a minute.) So it might not have been so surprising to see Emineth dump on Berg right before the convention. He expected Kevin Cramer to be the U.S. House candidate, and thought he might even help Cramer along by involving Berg in a mini-scandal right before the delegates were about to choose.
But Berg fooled them. And now he has his revenge. Don’t underestimate this guy. He built a following in his two decades in the Legislature. He was elected Speaker of the House when he was just in his early 30’s, a position generally reserved for elder statesmen in the majority party. He then served as majority leader, and it was his legislative allies who organized their districts back home to get him the Republican nomination for Congress this year.
With John Hoeven moving into the “superstar” category (a la Dorgan, Conrad and Pomeroy), Berg is now titular head of the party.
So now you’re asking “What’s up with Tony Clark?” Me too. Actually, this one is a bit easier to figure.
First, Clark is a Rick Berg protégé. Rick helped him get elected to the Legislature back in the ‘90’s. Once Rick got rid of Emineth, Clark was his choice for interim party chairman (and giving Rick one more little slap at Clark’s fellow PSC’er Cramer). If things work out the way he and Rick have it figured—a Republican landslide in 2010--Clark’s going to be able to claim some credit for jumping into the breach, and his standing in the party is going to go way up. That’s important, because the GOP has a big bench, and Clark, if he wants to move on, needs to move nearer the head of that bench. He needs to break from the pack, and this is his chance. The pack includes Wayne Stenehjem, Jack Dalrymple, Kevin Cramer, Drew Wrigley, John Warford, Dennis Johnson, Brian Kalk, Adam Hamm, Corey Fong, David Sprynczynatyk, Connie Sprynczynatyk, and perhaps a legislator or two and a businessman or two. Did I leave anyone out? Remind me if I did, please.
So this is Tony Clark’s big move. He’s paying his dues, and he can afford to take a little heat from the Democrats and the media. That will be short-lived. But should Kent Conrad decide to retire in two years, as Byron Dorgan did this year (not likely, but Berg and Clark are gamblers), Clark becomes the odds-on favorite for that nomination. And then there’s the Governor’s office. If Hoeven wins the U.S. Senate seat this year as Berg and Clark expect, Jack Dalrymple gets a two year free ride as Governor, but don’t expect him to go unchallenged in 2012. Somebody on that list, probably more than one of them, will go after him.
Meanwhile, Emineth’s in the burrito kitchen. What’s up with that? This is fleischkuekle country.
Footnote: I got a fundraising letter from Rick this week. I was actually kind of excited about it, because on the envelope were pictures of President Obama, House Speaker Pelosi and Congressman Pomeroy, which made me think “Wow, this Rick Berg guy is a cool dude, to put pictures of three of my favorite politicians on the envelope he sent me. If he’s looking to get on my good side, this envelope is a good start.” Until I opened it and saw what he had to say about three of my favorite politicians on the inside. Problem was, in the letter he called me James, and in the 40 or so years we’ve known each other, he’s never called me James (a few other things, but not James). So I must have ended up on some mailing list that his campaign staff bought, where I’m listed as James. Because we’re kind of friends. It would be like me sending him a letter reading "Dear Richard." We’re both from Hettinger. I said earlier this year he was going to cause me a lot of heartburn on Election Day, because Hettinger has never had a Congressman, and I might be willing to be a little more loyal to my hometown than to my chosen political party. But then Kevin Carvell reminded me I was wrong—Hettinger had a three-term Congressman named Norton back in the early days of the 20th Century. So I’m off the hook. And if I have any extra money to send this year (also not likely), I’ll probably send it to the people on the outside of the envelope.
Bismarck Attorney Tim Purdon was confirmed tonight by the U.S. Senate as North Dakota's next U.S. Attorney. Purdon has been criticized by Republicans because he does not have his predecessor, Drew Wrigley's, experience as Executive Director of a political party, nor does he have Wrigley's experience as a speeding ticket prosecutor for the City of Philidelphia.
Contacted for comment on tonight's Senate action, Purdon had this to say: "No comment."
I've been watching last week's news about the Obama Administration's apparent desire to stomp all over citizens' privacy rights, and the right to be protected against unreasonable searches and seizures...
The Obama administration is seeking to make it easier for the FBI to compel companies to turn over records of an individual's Internet activity without a court order if agents deem the information relevant to a terrorism or intelligence investigation.
The administration wants to add just four words -- "electronic communication transactional records" -- to a list of items that the law says the FBI may demand without a judge's approval. Government lawyers say this category of information includes the addresses to which an Internet user sends e-mail; the times and dates e-mail was sent and received; and possibly a user's browser history. It does not include, the lawyers hasten to point out, the "content" of e-mail or other Internet communication.
This is another one of those instances where I wonder whether we actually elected a Democrat to the White House, or if we've just got another typical, run-of-the-mill, big-government, anti-civil-liberties Republican as President.
I haven't seen a lot about this in the local media; probably because it's too hard for them to understand. One thing that's surely been lost on North Dakota's half-brained local media is that the national criticism of Obama's anti-civil-liberties proposal relates directly to a brand new law being used and abused by North Dakota's Republican Attorney General Wayne Stenehjem, right now. Here's a look at the law Stenehjem pushed through the legislature in 2009:
NDCC Sec. 12-60-08.1. Power of the attorney general to issue subpoenas in bureau investigations. The attorney general may issue an administrative subpoena compelling the recipient to provide records or information to an agent of the bureau of criminal investigation in any criminal matter being investigated by the bureau.
See how North Dakota's law is so much broader than Obama's proposal? North Dakota's law allows any Assistant Attorney General -- including, presumably, any Special Assistant Attorney General -- to issue a subpoena, compelling the recipient to turn over ALL records and ALL information in ANY matter the A.G. says is being investigated by the A.G.'s investigative branch. No checks and balances. No review. No requirement to disclose if/when they don't find anything.
But you know what makes it worse? It's not JUST Wayne Stenehjem that can dig through your emails. Apparently all of his Assistant Attorneys General (AAG) can dig through your emails, too. By my count, Stenehjem has 28 AAGs and roughly another 250 "special" AAGs.
So I requested copies of all the subpoenas issued by Wayne Stenehjem and his deputies since the law went into effect about a year ago. Stenehjem's office has sent me some of the subpoenas, but they've also told me they've withheld some. What can I report based upon what they've given me?
* At least three different lawyers have issued these administrative subpoenas. It might be more than three, but it is definitely not fewer. Stenehjem is one of the three.
* There have been occasions when at least three or four of these subpoenas have been issued on the same day.
* The AG's office has no formal rules governing when one of these subpoenas will be issued, or controlling which assistant(s) may issue them, or requiring a review of the appropriateness of them. I've been told there are some guidelines one of the three follows, but they are just suggestions.
* The AG's office never has to give a meaningful explanation to anybody as to why the subpoena is being issued. The form used simply says it is "in furtherance of an official criminal investigation conducted by the office of Attorney General" and that the "Attorney General has probable cause to believe a crime has occurred."
* There is no official oversight or review for the issuance of these subpoenas. Unlike the emergency provisions in the federal FISA law, no judge ever confirms that there actually is or was "probable cause" to have the subpoena issued. There are no "checks and balances" for this process. Some assistant AG could be using these subpoenas to check up on his/her ex-spouse, and you, I, and he/she would never know it.
* If the statute authorizing the use of these subpoenas is unconstitutional -- and I believe it is -- one day the AG's office is going to get some information about a crime, and they are going to use that information to charge someone with a crime. When a judge suppresses all of the evidence obtained illegally through the use of one of these unconstitutional warrants, some criminal is going to get away with a serious crime. I might be okay with that as long as I am the criminal's lawyer and not the victim or a friend or family member of the victim.
* In the past, the AG's office has refused to tell me how many other subpoenas they are withholding from me (and you). I have not bothered to ask again. There is no way to know whether they have issued dozens more, hundreds more or thousands more. (Oops. I asked. See below.)
* The subpoenas provided to me by Stenehjem's office were used to obtain people's private records from West River Communications Cooperative, Verizon Wireless, Souris River Telephone, Alltel, Qwest, Microsoft (hotmail.com), TracFone Wireless, Yahoo, Sprint, Daktel, Golden West Telecommunications Coop., Moore & Liberty Telephone (Enderlin, ND), Google (gmail.com), and MySpace.com. If you've ever used one of those services, Wayne Stenehjem might have a copy of your private records in a file on his desk. If you've never used one of those services, you probably don't have anything to worry about. Well, that's true unless Stenehjem has withheld YOUR subpoena from me. [Follow-up: I just realized I use five of these services: Qwest, Verizon, WRT, gmail, and hotmail.]
* I believe there is evidence on the face of several of the subpoenas provided to me that prove the Attorney General is already abusing the unconstitutional power given to his office by the legislature. The statute gives authority for the A.G. to use these subpoenas ONLY in criminal investigations. Some of the subpoenas have been issued in matters that were not criminal investigations.
* The A.G.'s office takes the position that they can use these subpoenas without restriction and without review because they have craftily and deceptively called them "administrative subpoenas." They are not ACTUALLY administrative subpoenas, as they relate in no imaginable way to an "administrative action" (in fact, the law says they can only be used in criminal investigations and makes no reference to administrative investigations). Criminal investigations are not administrative actions. Never have been. Never will be.
* If someone (or a company) ever got one of these subpoenas and chose to ignore it, the Attorney General couldn't do anything about it. There is no enforcement provision in the law. In other words, Attorney General Wayne Stenehjem is tricking people (and companies) into turning over information they do not have to turn over.
* The last sentence on each of the subpoenas tells the recipient not to disclose that the existence of the subpoena, "except as required by law." Of course, there is no requirement that people keep these illegal subpoenas secret. So they are tricking people into turning over people's private information, and then they are tricking them into not saying anything about it. How's that for making law enforcement look like a bunch of liars and crooks?
We have a law in North Dakota (NDCC § 54-12-06) that says all AAG appointments must be filed by the AG with the Secretary of State's office. I asked Al Jaeger (R) for Mr. Trenbeath's appointment and they told me they did not have one, but that Mr. Trenbeath has signed an "oath of office" form and filed it with the Secretary of State's office. The form says Trenbeath is North Dakota's "Chief Deputy Attorney General." We have a law in North Dakota that tells us which elected officials can have a deputy. Here's what the law says:
The secretary of state, state auditor, state treasurer, insurance commissioner, agriculture commissioner, commissioner of labor, district assessor, and city assessor each may appoint a deputy. The appointment must be in writing and is revocable in writing at the pleasure of the principal, and the appointment and revocation must be filed as the oath of the principal is filed.
See that? The AG doesn't have legislative authority to appoint a deputy. So Trenbeath is not an assistant, he is not a special assistant, and he can't be a deputy. So he's just some random lawyer issuing subpoeans so he can snoop around in people's private business. Cool, huh?
* We have a constitutional provision in North Dakota called the "Separation of Powers" provision. This provision essentially says that each branch of our government -- legislative, judicial, executive and the media (just kidding) -- serves separate functions. Functions authorized by one branch cannot be performed by another branch. The Courts in North Dakota decide who gets to issue subpoenas, and there are numerous rules about when and how subpoenas can be issued. I think an argument could be made that the law regarding these "administrative" criminal investigative subpoenas is a violation of the most basic separation of powers principal.
* I've been given 24 of these subpoenas and I've been told there are another 7 to 10 more that have been withheld from me, approximately. The law went into effect almost exactly one year ago today. That means 2 to 3 of these illegal subpoenas are issued each month by North Dakota's top cop, Wayne Stenehjem, and people working for him. That's completely consistent with Stenehjem's previous conduct in thumbing his nose at the law in North Dakota. We should not be surprised.
I wonder: How does it make you feel, knowing there are over 270 government lawyers who have authority to snoop around in your private business, and another government lawyer who doesn't have authority to snoop around in your private business, but he does it anyway, and none of them will ever have to convince a judge there's probable cause to believe you did anything wrong before they snoop around in your junk?
Republicans don't care about facts. They really don't. Watch and learn.
Three years ago, a reader/fan sent me a link to modeling photos of Governor Hoeven's daughter, Marcela Hoeven. People send me stuff all the time, and this was no different from any other random thing people send me. There was nothing snarky about what came to me. I didn't get a "go attack Marcela Hoeven" message.
The reaction of John Hoeven and his minions was a little disturbing and surprising. The photos were pulled from the modeling website within 24 hours. Word got back to me that Governor Hoeven was concerned that the photos did not portray the kinds of family values he wanted North Dakota's conservative Repubublican voters to think when they think of John Hoeven. Hoeven was embarrassed, angered and outraged at what his daughter had done. I heard some other things too, but I'm not going to go into that here.
I wrote a follow-up blog post, noting that most or all the photos had been pulled from the interwebs.
Early this morning our server has been "lit up" with google search traffic for "Marcela Hoeven." And I got a stack of google alert emails telling me something was going on. What I found was some clown at a website called "TheOtherMcCain.com" had posted a story that includes this turd blossom:
[I]t appears that there are some fiendish Democrats who hope that “family values” conservatives will be horrified to discover that the governor’s daughter Marcela looks good in a bikini:
[and a photo of Ms. Hoeven]
TheOtherMcCain.com
That story was picked up by a bigger tool at "Instapundit.com" and so now half the world is looking for bikini photos of Marcela Hoeven. The other half is expressing outrage at how the Democrats are trying to make a big deal about those three or four year old photos. They're saying it's a desperate attempt to make up for some numbers in the polls.
I'm stumped. I can't find any Democrat, anywhere, who's brought up these old photos. I can't find a Democrat that's trying to make a big deal out of them. There's nothing out there, or at least nothing I can find. I've tried to post a comment at TheOtherMcCain.com's website to clear up the story, and the lying cowards there won't publish it (or they haven't as of this writing). I've challenged them -- and I'd challenge you -- to show me where a Democrat has attacked John Hoeven's family values because of some modeling photos his daughter put ont he internet several years ago.
I'd like to be proven wrong here. But I won't be. Because Republicans don't care about the truth or facts. They care about uninformed, ignorant "outrage."
But that shouldn't surprise anybody. They do this all the time. They are liars. Republicans don't like it when facts get in the way of a trumped-up, illegitimate outrage.
Newt Gingrich (R) has expressed his outrage at the horrible impact the recent Prop 8 ruling in California has had on Gingrich's traditional, Christian, family values sensibilities. Gingrich is outraged by the assault on the sacred, holy institution of marriage.
None of his three wives (including his current wife, with whom he was having an extra-marital affair during the congressional investigation of Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky scandal) were contacted for comment.
I happened to stumble over Gingrich's Christian values on CSPAN the other night. I think it was a replay of a speech Newt gave at the Young America's Foundation conference, a conference for oppressed young, upper-middle-class, protestant, white people. I tuned in just before Gingrich started talking about a case out of New Jersey, involving a restraining order sought by a woman that had been beaten up by her husband. I immediately thought of Rep. Dave Weiler (R-Bismarck), a North Dakota legislator convicted last year of assaulting his wife and who remains in the legislature, promoted to leadership roles by his fellow Republicans.
But before I go on, I have to admit: Newt Gingrich is a brilliant teabagger propagandist. I can barely watch his speech without vomiting. About every 3 seconds he spits out an inaccurate, untrue, misleading right-wing talking point. And he smirks as he does it; as if to let intelligent people know that even he realizes how ridiculous he sounds. But listening to him is like listening to a rapid-fire teabagger talking point seminar, filled with scary catch-phrases and half-truths. It's as if Gingrich goes home every night to the Heritage Foundation, where he listens to seminars on how to sound like a right-wing tool. There haven't been very many people in history that can spit venom like he can. My hat goes off to Newt for this.
But as Gingrich went on, I thought of something else. I can't get a clip of just the relevant section of the video, so I'll embed the whole speech here, and then urge you to skip ahead to about the 9:34 mark on the ticker.
A man was brought into court in New Jersey and his wife was trying to get a restraining order on the grounds that he had been torturing her for several hours at a time and then raping her. ANd he had done this a number of times over a three week period. And the judge found that the man was not guilty on the grounds that under Shariah he believed it was his right to do anything to his wife that he wanted to and therefore, "who was the judge to impose his views..."
You gotta agree with Newt Gingrich: Some of the things people do in the name of their religion are pretty awful. Consider, also, the story in the latest Time magazine. Here's an excerpt:
The Taliban pounded on the door just before midnight, demanding that Aisha, 18, be punished for running away from her husband's house. Her in-laws treated her like a slave, Aisha pleaded. They beat her. If she hadn't run away, she would have died. Her judge, a local Taliban commander, was unmoved. Aisha's brother-in-law held her down while her husband pulled out a knife. First he sliced off her ears. Then he started on her nose.
This didn't happen 10 years ago, when the Taliban ruled Afghanistan. It happened last year. Now hidden in a secret women's shelter in Kabul, Aisha listens obsessively to the news. Talk that the Afghan government is considering some kind of political accommodation with the Taliban frightens her. "They are the people that did this to me," she says, touching her damaged face. "How can we reconcile with them?"
Why do these people do these things? They'd tell you it's because they have a sincerely held religious belief that compels them to beat and mutilate these women.
You know who's fighting for these people? You know who's fighting for the wife beater in New Jersey and the Taliban commander in Afghanistan? Every single one of the sponsors of the proposed, new "religious liberty" constitutional amendment in North Dakota. But, also, all of the people signing the "religious liberty" constitutional amendment petition are fighting for the rights of these people to beat up their wives and to cut off their body parts.
Don't know what I'm talking about? (We've written about this before; you can read that by clicking here.)
There are people in North Dakota -- RIGHT NOW -- advocating for that restraining order trial court judge's position. They want a constitutional presumption in the law that says Shariah law trumps all of North Dakota's other laws. Here's the language they're duping North Dakota's easily-manipulated population into supporting:
Government may not burden a person's or religious organization's religious liberty. The right to act or refuse to act in a manner motivated by a sincerely held religious belief may not be burdened unless the government proves it has a compelling governmental interest in infringing the specific act or refusal to act and has used the least restrictive means to further that interest. A burden includes indirect burdens such as withholding benefits, assessing penalties, or an exclusion from programs or access to facilities.
Now... don't get me wrong. By calling the supporters of this constitutional amendment "easily manipulated," I'm not suggesting that I definitively oppose their pro-Shariah (and pro-Satanism) (and pro-Rastafarianism) law change to our constitution. (Not all of North Dakota is "easily manipulated," but that segment sure comes in handy for the right-wing fringe now and then.) Though I'm still a little bit on the fence about this, the criminal defense lawyer in me still likes this proposed constitutional amendment.
You don't have to be a big thinker to imagine how the proposed North Dakota law change would have been applied to Newt Gingrich's New Jersey case. The case was quickly reversed by an appellate court in New Jersey. In North Dakota -- if this constitutional amendment is adopted -- the appeal would have a different outcome. What would likely happen in North Dakota (post constitutional amendment) is that the State would have to be allowed to intervene in the restraining order case so it could be allowed to prove (1) there is a compelling governmental interest in infringing "the specific act or refusal to act" (i.e. the beatings and rape) and (2) that it has used the least restrictive means to further that interest. The government would also have to prove these things in the parallel criminal case. (We're going to need a whole bunch of new government lawyers, too, I think.)
See... I could make a pretty good argument that a restraining order isn't the "least restrictive means" to further the interest of stopping domestic violence. What about forced anger management counseling? What about a restraining order that just keeps the wife beater 10 feet away from the victim, rather than 100 feet? What about requiring that a third party (anybody, really; the man's brother, for example) be present in the room when they spend time together? I can think of a lot of "less restrictive" means that could arguably accomplish the same goal.
Wife beaters -- including Republican state legislators -- in North Dakota will be able to point to Shariah law or some Biblical passage to support their sincerely held religious belief that women can be beaten if they do not abide by their oath to "obey" their husband.
If you're interested in learning more about the New Jersey case, here's a relevant passage, and a link to the full decision.
The Court further determined that those who made polygamy a part of their religion were not excepted from the statute's operation. Ibid.
If they are, then those who do not make polygamy a part of their religious belief may be found guilty and punished, while those who do, must be acquitted and go free. This would be introducing a new element into criminal law. Laws are made for the government of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious belief and opinions, they may with practices. Suppose one believed that human sacrifices were a necessary part of religious worship, would it be seriously contended that the civil government under which he lived could not interfere to prevent a sacrifice? Or if a wife religiously believed it was her duty to burn herself upon the funeral pile of her dead husband, would it be beyond the power of the civil government to prevent her carrying her belief into practice?
So here, as a law of the organization of society under the exclusive dominion of the United States, it is provided that plural marriages shall not be allowed. Can a man excuse his practices to the contrary because of his religious belief? To permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and in effect to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself. Government could exist only in name under such circumstances.
S.D. v. M.J.R. , Docket No. A-6107-08T2 (Superior Court of New Jersy, Appellate Division) (July 23, 2010)
What North Dakota's pro-Shariah constitutional amendment campaign proposes to do is to "introduce a new element into the criminal" AND civil law. It's an incredibly manipulative bait and switch these folks are doing.
I just wonder if they're doing it because they are brilliant and are sincerely concerned about the rights of wife beaters. Or if they're doing it because they are complete idiots.
Remains to be seen.
I should ask Newt what he thinks. I bet he'd oppose North Dakota's proposed pro-Shariah constitutional amendment.
ABC News is reporting this morning that John Hoeven is among the bipartisan list of senate candidates 
Bismarck Attorney Tim Purdon was confirmed tonight by the U.S. Senate as North Dakota's next U.S. Attorney. Purdon has been criticized by Republicans because he does not have his predecessor, Drew Wrigley's, experience as Executive Director of a political party, nor does he have Wrigley's experience as a speeding ticket prosecutor for the City of Philidelphia. 
I've been watching last week's news about the Obama Administration's apparent desire to stomp all over citizens' privacy rights, and the right to be protected against unreasonable searches and seizures...
Republicans don't care about facts. They really don't. Watch and learn.
Newt Gingrich (R) has 
