Be proud, Republicans!
How do creeps like this get elected? Never mind: the question is futile. “Incompetent” doesn’t quite do Holmberg justice, either.
Ray Holmberg, a powerful GOP state senator served in the North Dakota Senate for 45 years, representing Grand Forks. He resigned in 2022 as a consequence of his interesting and expensive hobby. He admitted in federal court yesterday that he liked to take trips to Europe so he could have sexual relations with children. “The boys rent at around $60 (sex is extra),” Holmberg wrote in an email to a friend using an alias. Good to know!
Holmberg traveled to Prague 14 times between 2011 and 2021 to purchase sex and other intimate contact with boys under 18. Some of the these trips were paid for with taxpayer money. Now that was just careless: I told you he was incompetent. Holmberge resigned after reaching the pinnacle of his power as North Dakota Senate Appropriations Committee chair because he was the target of a federal investigation into child pornography and traveling for sex with children.
A search of his home under a federal warrant had uncovered incriminating emails. The age of consent in the Czech Republic is 15, but U.S. law forbids travel for sex with adolescents under the age of 18 whether it is legal in the locale or not. What do you want to bet that U.S. libertarians think Holmberg is a victim of excessive government interference with personal liberties, since he broke no laws in his man-boy sex playground?
When an elected official is discovered to be this despicable, disgraceful and untrustworthy, the party that nominated him should have to suffer some kind of penalty, and a more serious one if it is determined that the party knew or should have known how bad its representative was. (Hi there, George Santos!) Maybe then parties will start taking their responsibilities to the public seriously.
A candidate for high state or national office should have to endure background checks as stringent as those one must undergo for positions requiring national security clearance.
Ethics Alarms 
Jack wrote, “A candidate for high state or national office should have to endure background checks as stringent as those one must undergo for positions requiring national security clearance.”
I completely agree but I’m sure it would be struck down as being unconstitutional.
To say nothing of the fact that this guy has been in office for 45 years. A background check all those years ago may not have uncovered anything. Plenty of people allow the power, influence and money of political office to corrupt them over time.
Why? It wouldn’t stop them from running. If FBI background checks aren’t unconstitutional, why would these be? Background checks for gun ownership aren’t unconstitutional either. If the issue is that unenumerated privacy thingy, I’d take that SCOTUS case on a contingent fee basis,
Forgive me if I’m incorrect; I thought there was base criteria for federally elected offices that are similar to the base criteria for being POTUS and that base criteria doesn’t require security level checks as stringent as those requiring national security clearance. The only ones that get can apply for national security clearance checks are the ones that need it for their specific position that is exposed to things related to national security, such as top secret documents or briefings.
Is my thinking incorrect?
That’s right, but it doesn’t mean that requiring a background check would be unconstitutional.
I think I’m a little confused.
As I read it, I thought you were talking about a new base minimum requirement for “a candidate” and if the Constitution is where the base minimum criteria for the official position is enumerated then adding anything new to the requirement would be unconstitutional until a Constitutional Amendment is passed to change it, correct?
I all for something like this to be a requirement, it would have eliminated some individuals from office that have had a sketchy past from running, but it would have to be done in such a way that there is absolutely no way of violating the constitution.
Candidate. And a check would not be “criteria,” just a mandatory process. Presidents also have to have enough signatures to get on ballots, but that’s not unconstitutional.
The biggest concern for me is who knew and didn’t say anything to protect him, the party, and/or their own political career. Someone had some idea that something fishy was going on, I’m sure of it. I guarantee there were rumors around the capitol about him that were ignored because “our guy” has a powerful position. But no one in the system cares to punish those people.
Absolutely.
“What do you want to bet that U.S. libertarians think Holmberg is a victim of excessive government interference with personal liberties, since he broke no laws in his man-boy sex playground?”
Sure, I’ll bite. The US law is an unreasonable restriction on the personal activities of citizens that it has no legitimate authority to enforce. I don’t care what consenting adults do under whatever laws the state in question considers a consenting adult. The US culture just happens to be prudish about sex because the country was founded largely by religious puritans. The law looks even stupider when you consider that there are numerous US states where the age of consent is 16, but traveling to another country to have sex with a 16 year old would be illegal. The only thing Holmberg did wrong was using government funds for his personal sex vacations.
Thanks, I won my bet!
“The age of consent in the Czech Republic is 15, but U.S. law forbids travel for sex with adolescents under the age of 18 whether it is legal in the locale or not.“
I have a problem with that part. I’m not keen on the idea that any government can project its own laws onto its private citizens’ behavior in another country. Should the government declare that one can’t eat magic mushrooms in Amsterdam? (Aside: The age of consent in the Netherlands is 16, by the way.)
I was wondering the same.
I take exception to the line “Be Proud Republicans”
That to me suggests guilt by association because Republicans somehow allowed his behavior.
There are quite a few Republicans and Democrats whose party affiliation is chosen based on the expected electoral value of that political choice.
Unfortunately some politicians adopt a mantle of propriety by claiming to be a D or an R when in fact they are Marxists or corporatists in ideology.
If mainstream Republicans had known about his behavior he and those who hid his activities would have been ostracized by those Republicans.
There is a big difference between swampy R’s and the rank and file.
I blame parties for the candidates they nominate, and any member of a party who nominates someone like this creep, or Santos, or many others, (like Kamala Harris) should wear a bag over his or her head. There is no excuse for it.
How does either party stop a candidate from running under their registered political banner? The only thing the party can do is not give any support and promote another candidate. To hold the party leaders responsible for pervs like this guy requires that we know that they knew of his proclivities. People like him don’t go making it well known they rent young boys for sex.
This reminded me of the Hoke Case:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoke_v._United_States#:~:text=Hoke%20v.%20United%20States%2C%20227%20U.S.%20308%20%281913%29%2C,for%20purposes%20of%20prostitution%20or%20other%20%22immoral%20purposes.%22
The Supreme Court ruled that the Feds could regulate interstate travel for purposes of prostitution. This was more of a case of human trafficking, but the analogy between interstate travel and international travel is probably analogous.
It could be distinguished based upon the fact that he could have been travelling to Prague to see Kafka’s final resting place and then go to one of Kafka’s favorite brothels.
I share the concerns about Federal overreach here, but, if the issue is forced, Hoke would likely be the touchstone for a decision either way.
-Jut
Well, he can always go to Minnesota because Minor Attracted Persons (aka pedophiles) are a protected class and cannot be discriminated against because of legislation promoted by Walz. Source: reporter from Hotair on Vince Colognese show on WMAL 8/9/2024
I disagree on your background check idea, and given the current political climate I have to chalk it up to a kind of government version of Gell-Mann Amnesia. (That is, for this purpose you’re viewing the government as some kind of neutral watchdog, in spite of having written extensively about the government being the opposite.)
Who gets to decide what disqualifies someone on a background check? The FBI, who would have rejected Trump for collusion with Russia that Hillary invented? The Secret Service who will assign some DEI hires to the job? Should Biden’s justice department vet Trump? That would save them some time on the lawfare. Do we set up some new “non-partisan” agency like the TSA who put Tulsi Gabbard on the no fly list or the IRS who investigated people at Obama’s request?
The people are in charge of vetting their own leaders because the people are in charge of hiring and firing those leaders. If we let the government veto our choices without a very stringent due process (like impeachment proceedings) we’re at the mercy of whoever is currently in power to tell us who we’re allowed to choose.
That said, speaking of supposedly neutral watchdogs who are anything but, what you’re talking about is exactly what the press should be doing.
Bingo Emily
Exactly. The background checks for firearms are a perfect example. Martin Luther King was turned down because ‘he didn’t need one’. Common people in NYC are all turned down. Approval is completely political. There would be NO Republican candidates in many states if this happened.
Well stated Emily. While I also disagree with the background check for the reasons stated I support cognitive testing for federal officials. The testing should recorded and available for all to see on line. Ideally the testing would be conducted annually and should be mandatory for federal judges, congress, President, VP, and the cabinet.
Who gets to decide what in a background check disqualifies a candidate? The voters, of course. Nothing in my recommendation implied that there would be any consequences of the background check’s results other than the voters being better informed. They are the ones doing the “hiring” after all.
Then the question becomes who decides what gets made public?
Suppose the FBI or Office of Candidate Information decides that the Steele Dossier is important information the voters should know, but decides info on Hunter Biden’s laptop that Joe Biden might have been involved in influence peddling is Russian disinformation?
Is it relevant who Kamala slept with? Who her husband slept with? Who Melania Trump slept with?
I’m not saying it couldn’t be, I’m saying that you shouldn’t trust a government organization to report it any more fairly or truthfully than the media.
In fact, we already pay NPR to do investigative reporting on candidates… I’m not sure it makes sense to pay more investigators from a different set of letters to put out the same information (or lack thereof) which people will trust even more.
Exactly. You can’t trust an unethical government to tell you who the ethical candidate it. It is especially true in this particular area. As I have said, when I first heard that the world was controlled by a group of powerful pedophiles, I thought the idea was ridiculous. As more and more examples come out, it becomes pretty clear that idea had merit.
Why is it that all the deviant LGBTQTIAA++ ideology is being targeted at children? Why to all the trans and ‘queer’ promoters claim that it is their right to talk about sex to children? Why do the CEO’s of Caterpillar, Harley-Davidson, Tractor Supply, etc support pushing stuff like this on children even though they know it would hurt the company?
Do you think the government officials are any different? If anything, an agency vetting people would declare Vance ‘weird’ and rejected and hide Clinton’s trips to Epstein’s Island. Who were the clients of Epstein and Maxwell? Why don’t we know their names? Why weren’t they prosecuted? Weren’t the same people responsible for that who would be responsible for such ‘background checks’? Remember, MAPs are misunderstood and oppressed heroes while traditional hereosexual white Christians are deviant in the official morality of the state. Who is passing the background check?
Again, I never said that the background check should include any conclusions or analysis, and it shouldn’t. Just the fact. If someone thinks being a pedophile makes candidate more appealing, so be it. It’s still something voters should know.