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. email Trana if you like.
Okay, here’s your North Dakota Political Trivia test for today:
Name the six candidates for public office in North Dakota in 2012 who raised at least a million dollars for their campaigns.
That should be easy, shouldn’t it? Let’s start at the top.
Rick Berg ($6,502,926) and Heidi Heitkamp ($5,642,938), who ran for the U.S. Senate.
Kevin Cramer ($1,321,178) and Pam Gulleson ($1,023,930), who ran for the U.S. House.
Jack Dalrymple ($2,769,668), who ran for Governor.
Okay, that’s five. But who’s the sixth?
Ryan Taylor? Nope—only $604,423.
Shane Goettle, who ran for Congress at the Republican convention? Nope—only $158,384.
Brian Kalk, who ran against Kevin Cramer in the Republican primary? Nope—only $319,768.
Hmm. Who’s left?
Ah! Duane Sand!
Yep, good old Duane, who ran against Rick Berg in the Republican primary election last June.
Duane raised . . . you ready for this? $1,085,246.
Now, wait a minute, you say. Duane raised a million dollars? How come I don’t remember seeing any of his ads on TV? Or hearing them on the radio?
Well, that’s because there weren’t any. Duane didn’t produce any ads. He didn’t buy any air time. In fact, he really didn’t run much of a campaign, other than a little rally in Fargo with Herman Cain, and an east coast “fundraising dinner” with Dick Morris.
He did have a website, with a nice picture of himself wrapped in the flag (literally), but he seems to have converted www.sandforsenate into a telemarketing website. Does that surprise anyone?
When the campaign was over, Duane’s FEC report, filed at the end of January, 2013, showed that he raised that $1,085,246, and he spent $1,080,467 Yep, spent it all, except for about $5,000.
So where’d that money go, then? What’d he spend that million dollars on?
Well, except for a few thousand dollars for airplane tickets and motel rooms and rent on an office in Bismarck, he spent it all on . . . fundraising.
We wrote about this last year a little bit. Duane’s been doing this for a few years. He runs for office, and he signs on with this direct mail firm in Washington, D.C. called Base Connect, and then he turns them loose on conservative fundraising lists, and he raises lots of money, but only enough to cover the fees charged by Base Connect and its related little mini-companies, who do everything for Duane, from conceptualizing and printing a fundraising brochure, to writing the fundraising letter, to buying the mailing lists, to printing the letters, addressing and stuffing the envelopes, affixing postage and hauling them to the post office. And picking up the mail with the responses in them, and depositing the money in Duane’s account. All Duane has to do is write a check on that account back to Base Connect and its related companies who do all that for Duane (they’re pretty much all in the same office in Washington, and for all I know, they are all owned by the same people).
They let Duane keep a little bit of the money for incidentals—maybe 5 per cent—and they get all the rest. It’s a great gig for these D.C. entrepreneurs who have cooked up this scheme. They have these suckers around the country like Duane who like to see their name in the paper and on the ballot, and it doesn’t cost Duane a thing except his time, which he seems to have plenty of, being a retired Navy officer. And he doesn’t spend much time at it either. He doesn’t campaign, doesn’t waste time shooting commercials, doesn’t meet with campaign managers and media consultants and advertising agencies, doesn’t have press conferences or rallies–in fact, about all he does is write checks to his direct mail firms. The only thing I’m wondering about is this: Is it just possible that they’re slipping Duane some of the money back under the rug for letting them use his name? Just askin’.
So who are these people who give Duane all this money. Well, let me tell you, I’ve talked to a few of them, and for the most part, they seem to be pretty nice folks—if a little gullible. After I talked to some of them, I compiled a profile. Well, actually, a short profile. A very short profile. They have two things in common: The first number in their age in almost always 8 or 9, and almost none of them are from North Dakota.
A typical donor was John Valerius, age 81, from Irving Texas (a suburb of Dallas), who sent Duane a check every time he got one of Duane’s letters, which was pretty often, because his total for the campaign was $3,050. Beginning back in 2011, John sent Duane $200 on November 17 and another $100 on December 15. Here’s a list of John’s 2012 contributions to Duane’s campaign: Jan. 10, $200; Jan. 26, $100; Feb. 24, $400; March 19, $400; May 1, $100; May 30, $100; June 21, $600; July 6, $100; July 20, $50; July 30, $100; Aug. 21, $200; Sept. 20, $200; Oct. 15, $100.
And yes, you read those last six dates right. They were all after Duane was no longer a candidate. Just because Duane lost the primary in June last year didn’t mean he stopped sending out letters. Nope. He kept on sending, and the checks kept on coming, even though he was out of the race.
Well, I called John, down in Irving, Texas, and asked him why he was such a big fan of Duane Sand. John said “I support candidates who standup for biblical principles. I would like to send more but my funds are limited.” Hmmm. Limited to $3,050. Not TOO limited, John.
So I asked John if he knew that Duane had lost the primary, and that he had sent Duane six checks when Duane was no longer a candidate. “I did not know he lost the primary,” John said. “I’m troubled now that I know it. I would have sent less if I had known it.”
I talked to Raymond Tobin, an 85-year-old conservative from San Diego, who gave Duane a total of $1,650, including a $300 check in August, two months after the primary. “Well, I send money to conservative candidates,” Raymond told me. “There aren’t many conservatives here in California, and I liked what he said to me in his letters.”
Raymond is on a lot of mailing lists. He keeps a post office box at his local post office, and goes there every morning. “Most days there’s a little blue slip in the box, telling me to come to the window, where they give me a box of letters. It’s kind of a pain in the rear end.” How does he decide who to give to? “I look these guys up on the Internet, I talk to friends in other states.” I didn’t do the math for the whole campaign, but Raymond said he had written checks for more than $7,000 by the end of March last year. He hadn’t added up the rest of the year yet.
Marthe McKinnon, from Princeton, NJ, is a relative youngster in this crowd, only 71. She sent Duane a total of $2,800. “I wanted to help elect conservative Senators,” Marthe told me. “I give to lots of conservative candidates. No, I did not know he lost the primary.”
Then there’s Philip Ritch, 89, from Hawaii. “I’ve gotten 3 or 4 letters from Duane Sand, I guess. I support conservatives and TEA party candidates,” Philip told me. “I felt we had a chance to win this year. I remember Duane Sand was a Navy veteran. I’m a veteran too. Duane wrote to me after the primary and said he needed a little help to offset the costs of the campaign, so I sent him some more money.” Philip actually got off pretty easy. Most of his checks were for $10 or $20. He sent a total of $403 for the campaign.
The list goes on, hundreds and hundreds of names. Here’s just a sampling. The checks listed are those sent AFTER the Primary Election in June, when Duane was no longer a candidate. The total for the cycle is how much they sent him in 2011 and 20012.
Mary Rosencranz, 88, Mystic CT, four checks, $3,204 total for the cycle
Eva Moore, 96, Rockville MD, $2000 on July 26, $3,800 total for the cycle
Elizabeth Brunette, 92, Grosse Pointe, MI, 3 checks, $225 total for the cycle
Susan Brunoff, 86, New Holland, PA, 4 checks, $3,224 total for the cycle
Beatrice Menghi, 85, Staten Island, NY, 5 checks, $975 total for the cycle
Edith Palmer 87, Chester, NJ, $500 on Sept. 20, $1,500 total for the cycle
Robert Pitzer, 87, Hallandale B each, FL, 3 checks, $950 total for the cycle
Grace Baron, 91, West Springfield, TX, $100 on Sept. 26, $400 total for the cycle
George Brownlee, 82, Kingfisher, OK, 2 checks, $615 for the cycle
William Spencer, 90. Smith River, CA 4 checks, for $40 each, $9,300 total for the cycle
Small, but representative sample. If you want to see the whole list, go here, to his FEC report. You just have to type in his name, find North Dakota on the list of states, and click on “Get Listing.”
I didn’t have the heart to tell any of those folks that none of the money they sent went to help get Duane elected, that it all went to a direct mail house in Washington, D.C., and Duane never even saw their checks. Maybe they know that. But I don’t think so.
At the bottom of Duane’s FEC report is a line that says “Debts.” It says Duane owes a little over $92,000, all to the mail houses in Washington, D.C. So I thought I’d try to find out how they intend to collect that money. I called Base Connect, Duane’s direct mail firm. I got a guy on the phone who said his name real fast and wouldn’t repeat it. I asked how they were going to collect the debt, wondering if they were going to send out more letters to try to raise the money for Duane to pay off the debt.
“We won’t comment on that,” he said.
So I thought I better ask Duane directly. I first tried his office number, at the North Dakota Heroes Foundation. Seriously. You can look at his website here. That phone was disconnected. So I tried his home phone. Got an answering machine. Left a message. Haven’t heard back yet. When I do, I’ll update this report.
Oh, by the way, Duane does a little side business with Base Connect as well. He sells his own list through a little sister company called Legacy List Marketing. Got almost 12,000 names on it. Here’s a flyer, in case you’re interested in raising some money.
One more thing: I’ll let you know as soon as Duane files his 2014 campaign committee with the FEC. He’s got to raise some more money. He’s got bills to pay. $92,000 or so.
Right now, different states can have different requirements for concealed carry permits. Some states have affirmatively elected to participate in reciprocity with other states, but they don't have to. Today, California and New York, for example, might chose to make it harder for people to get permits to carry concealed weapons. They might want, for example, concealed carry permit holders to have some minimum level of intelligence and gun-safety knowledge when it comes to guns. Some other states with radical, right-wing legislatures that are bought-and-paid-for by the big business -- like Mississippi, Alabama or North Dakota -- might want to have laws requiring that every inmate must be handed a concealed carry permit as they are released from prison. They might want laws requiring night clubs to hand out concealed carry permits to every drunk who picks a fight with a bouncer. The Cornyn Race To The Bottom Amendment would have made it so that every state would have to recognize and accept concealed carry permits from the states that chose to hand out concealed carry permits to violent convicts and drunken bar brawlers.
I was interested to learn that MORE U.S. Senators voted to support the Race To The Bottom Amendment than voted to support the background check amendment that's supported by about 90% of all Americans, including 74% of NRA members. The Race To The Bottom amendment died with only 58 votes (to 42 against) as compared to the 54 votes the background check amendment had. Among the Senators voting for the Race To The Bottom Amendment were both of North Dakota's senators: Heidi Heitkamp and John Hoeven. (Check the roll-call vote by clicking here).
Both Heitkamp and Hoeven will likely preserve their "A" ratings with the Gun Manufacturers' Association. I'm not sure what else they're accomplishing by voting with the 6% of North Dakotans who think it should be easy for violent felons to buy guns at gun shows. Maybe I'll figure it out another day. Or maybe not.
So Cramer has raised $43,111.00 in the first full quarter after being elected (see line 6.a., above). That's less than $14,500 per month. That's quite a bit less than $500 per day raised by a United States Congressman. That doesn't seem like much.
How does that compare to former Congressman Rick Berg, the unpopular Fargo slumlord? Let's take a look at that:
So in Berg's first full quarter after being elected, he raised $163,337.38 in campaign contributions (see line 6.a., above). So Berg raised just over $54,400 per month; more than Cramer raised in the entire three-month period.
Berg raised 3.8 times as much during the comparable period of time the first quarter of in his one term.
So I'm wondering why this is. Do you suppose it's because people are quickly figuring out what a racist, radical liability Cramer is? Or is it something else?
UPDATE: Perhaps it's just a national trend. Perhaps all the deeply unpopular radical racist Republicans are having a hard time raising money. See The Huffington Post article on this.]
Frank Pavone, who is being heralded as a leader of the anti-woman movement celebrating this week at the North Dakota State Capitol Building in Bismarck today, has a bit of a troublesome, sketchy past. Here's a couple snippets. First:
Frank Pavone, the leader of Priests for Life, has been suspended from engaging in active ministry outside the Diocese of Amarillo, Texas, as a result of concerns about financial improprieties.
The local bishop, Patrick J. Zurek, wrote in a letter to all of the bishops in the US, “My decision is the result of deep concerns regarding his stewardship over the finances of the Priests for Life (PFL) organization. The PFL has become a business that is quite lucrative which provides Father Pavone with financial independence from all legitimate ecclesiastical oversight.”
Indeed, the lesson of Pavone's rehabilitation may be that in today's Catholic Church, it helps to have friends in high places, and to be battling on an issue -- abortion -- that is such a priority for Rome, especially during a critical presidential race. Whatever PFL's financial woes, keeping Pavone in business trumped the usual niceties of ecclesiastical life.
At least that's what Mayors Against Illegal Guns polling data from January/February shows. Ninety-four percent of likely North Dakota voters think there should be background checks before felons can buy guns at gun shows.
Here's an excerpt from their press release (which you should go read by clicking on the link right after this excerpt):
NEW POLL FINDS 94 PERCENT IN NORTH DAKOTA FAVOR MANDATORY BACKGROUND CHECKS FOR ALL GUN BUYERS
Survey Released [March 5th] By Mayors Against Illegal Guns Finds Overwhelming Majority of North Dakota Residents Favor Background Checks for All Gun Buyers
Polling data released today by Mayors Against Illegal Guns shows that likely voters in North Dakota overwhelmingly support expanding the gun background check system to include all gun buyers. The data is the first to be released from a survey conducted in more than 60 states and congressional districts by Schoen LLC for the bipartisan coalition of more than 850 U.S. mayors.
“That 94 percent of North Dakota residents want every gun buyer to pass a criminal background check speaks volumes about the changing public mood on guns,” said pollster Doug Schoen.“This margin is unlike any I’ve seen on this issue, and it marks a real sea change. Voters want their elected officials to fight gun violence, and after Newtown, they’re demanding it.”
“Newtown broke our hearts. Two months later, it’s time for Washington to hear the call coming from North Dakota, and from every corner of the country, to close the loopholes in the background check system,” said John Feinblatt, chief policy advisor to New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who co-chairs the coalition with Boston Mayor Thomas Menino. “Even with major loopholes, the system blocks more than 70,000 felons and other dangerous people from buying guns every year. We can reform the system and save many lives – and Americans are virtually unanimous in demanding that Congress do it now.”
Okay, I gotta say a few things about this poll: (1) I've never heard of the polling firm that did this poll, Schoen, LLC. I'm not a polling expert, but I know enough about polling to know that polling in North Dakota isn't like polling in other states. (See, e.g., all the polling on the Heitkamp/Berg race in 2012). I'd be surprised to learn 94% of North Dakotans could agree on the color of a clear sky (teabaggers would all call it red, I'm sure). But if Schoen polled us in a generic poll, I think his numbers could be off by quite a bit, but (2) Not by 45 points, (3) I'd like to see the crosstabs on this poll, and to know more about how the poll was conducted. I am a little skeptical, but not skeptical enough to say I reject its results completely. I just would want to know more; (4) The press release is from March 5th relating to polling data from January and February. I haven't seen anything about this in any local press. I assume that's the case because dead kids from Connecticut don't buy ads in the Fargo Forum, the Bismarck Tribune or on KFGO or KFYR radio. I only learned of it because MotherJones magazine's Facebook wall had a reference to it this week and I Googled it after seeing that to confirm.
But let's say -- for discussion's sake -- that these numbers are accurate. If they are, then how does yesterday's story in the New York Times make any sense. Here's a snippet from that story:
WASHINGTON — The families of the Newtown, Conn., shooting victims who have converged on Capitol Hill this week made a point of visiting Senator Heidi Heitkamp, a freshman Democrat known for the “North Dakota nice” of her home state, but on the main issue that brought them here — limiting the capacity of gun magazines and universal background checks — she curtly rejected their pleas for support.
“In our part of the country, this isn’t an issue,” Ms. Heitkamp explained in an interview afterward. “This is a way of life. This is how people feel, and it is extraordinarily difficult to explain that, especially to grieving parents.”
Bottom line, she said, “I’m going to represent my state.”
I'm having a hard time with this. Heitkamp "curtly rejected" the pleas of the family members of the dead Sandy Hook kids and teachers. I don't think of her as being heartless and out of touch. But if this polling data is accurate, these two facts cannot be reconciled. On the one hand, this poll suggests 94% of North Dakotans support background checks. On the other hand, Senator Heitkamp says she's going to listen to North Dakotans and NOT going to listen to big city billionaires and is going to oppose background checks. Even if the Schoen LLC poll is off by 30 points, 64% of North Dakotans support background checks to stop violent criminals from buying guns at gun shows. If that's the case, you'd think Heitkamp would support background checks before criminals can buy guns.
I just don't know how to reconcile these two things. Has Heitkamp been the victim of a calling campaign from the NRA? Is she "curtly rejecting" the pleas of the family members of the dead children and teachers at Sandy Hook based upon false assumptions and stereotypes about North Dakota? That can't be.
Are these polling numbers really off by 45 percentage points? Does Heitkamp have internal polling numbers showing North Dakotans think violent felons ought to be able to buy guns without having to go through the overwhelming hassle of a five minute background check? I just don't know.
Maybe the Keystone XL -- though it won't create any meaningful jobs and will cause gas prices to go up if you still pick up your fuel the old fashioned way (at gas stations) -- is a better way to deliver fuel to people where they need it most: at home.
I guess I probably should rethink my opposition to Keystone XL. It's obviously a part of a bigger plan to improve our delivery system.
I hope you caught the section of an AP article making the rounds earlier this week. I missed it, but a link was forwarded to me by a friend who did some worthwhile analysis. First, the clip, then the analysis:
OIL TAX TRUST FUND
North Dakota's oil tax "Legacy Fund" could hit $1 billion this month and a state board now is recommending that half of the fund's assets be shifted to the stock market and other investments.
North Dakota voters approved the fund in 2010 and it's been rising faster than predicted with booming oil production. None of the money can be spent until 2017, and even then it takes a two-thirds vote of the Legislature to get into it.
March deposits were about $87 million, bringing the fund's total to $927 million, according to Darren Schulz, the interim chief investment officer of North Dakota's Retirement and Investment Office.
Oil revenue began gushing into the fund only since September 2011 and analysts initially estimated it would have a $618 million balance when the state's current two-year budget period ends on June 30.
Revenue from the fund has been invested mostly in short-term, low-risk and low-return U.S bonds, guaranteed by government agencies, Schulz said. But annual earnings from the fund, about 1.6 percent last year, is barely keeping pace with inflation, he said.
The seven-member Legacy Fund advisory board, created by the Legislature, now wants to build on the fund with a broader investment policy by placing 50 percent of the money in stocks and other types of investments.
The new strategy is estimated to bring an annual return of 6.35 percent, but will still be in line with the state's conservative investment policy, North Dakota Treasurer Kelly Schmidt said.
"This allocation will give the fund an opportunity to preserve principle for future generations and maintain purchasing power," she said.
North Dakota's Investment Board, which supervises the Retirement and Investment Office and oversees state and local government employee pension funds, is expected to adopt the Legacy Fund advisory board's recommendation later this month.
First things first: I'm not a math professor; I'm just a caveman lawyer. The math in this might be a little over my head. But I'm gonna do the best I can with my limited math brain capacity.
First, let's assume Kelly Schmidt is quoted accurately. If so, she claims the state’s “conservative investment policy” [massive amount of LOL on my end after reading that] would have the Legacy Fund realizing a 6.35% return rate if HALF of it were invested in the stock market. This is coming from Kelly Schmidt, mind you. She's the person who tripled the investment fees for the veterans post-war trust fund while, in real terms, going from positive to negative rates of return at the same time.
And then the North Dakota State Investment Board dude -- Darren Schulz -- says in the article that last year the Legacy Fund realized a 1.6% rate of return. Now, without drilling down any further into the underlying numbers, consider these two concerns:
(1) Is there any chance Kelly Schmidt and Darren Schulz are on crack?
(2) If 50% of the Legacy Fund is going to be placed in the casino investments the North Dakota State Investment Board (SIB) is famous for (with 2 to 3 times the fees over industry averages, 100% stock fund turnovers [i.e. gambling not investing], disguising junk bonds and risky alternative investments as normal low risk investments when reporting their investments to the public employees so its consultant, Callan, can charge more fees, etc., etc., etc. -- then that means 50% of the Legacy Fund will stay in the 1.6% rate of return range – basically T-bills and muni-bonds - and the other 50% will go to the market as managed by Kelly's buddies in retail investment houses who send her illegal campaign contributions.
So, for the “new strategy” to get a total fund rate of return average of 6.35% they're claiming the Legacy Fund will get, that would mean that the 50% that will be going into stocks “and other types of investments” will have to get an average rate of return of 10.2% so the average of the 50% in T-bills and the 50% in stocks works out. (10.2%/1.6% = 6.375%)
Now, to get 10.2% return on investment with the nonsensically high fees SIB pays for no reason, the “new strategy” needs a 12-13% gross rate of return on the 50% of the Legacy Fund going into the stock market. Let’s compare that to the S&P 500. From January 1st, 2000, until December 31st, 2012, the S&P 500 grew at .95% annual average (inflation adjusted), and 3.65% (non-inflation adjusted). [And I gotta tell you I found a variety of different sources for these numbers, and they were all inconsistent with one another. But let's just take these numbers and run with them.]
In a nut shell: The “new strategy” for the Legacy Fund is to beat the market by 3 to 4 fold (3.65% market average and they need 12-13% to get a total Legacy Fund average of 6.35%) Since nobody beats the market over the long term, and all academic reviews of the high fee strategies SIB uses prove they don’t beat the market - we are asking the people of our state to lay our Legacy Fund money into the hands of people that think they can have triple the return of the stock market with half our money.
Makes sense, right?
Which brings us back to question Number One again: ARE THESE PEOPLE ON CRACK???
The retail investment consultants pushing this are already shopping for new yachts.
I posted this on Facebook immediately after getting the press release this morning, but I wanted to post it here on the main NorthDecoder.com website, because it's important and because I want those of you who aren't on the Facebook to see it and comment, if you want.
HEITKAMP STATEMENT ON MARRIAGE EQUALITY
Friday, April 5, 2013
FARGO, ND- Today, Senator Heidi Heitkamp released the following statement regarding her position on marriage equality:
“In speaking with North Dakotans from every corner of our great state, and much personal reflection, I have concluded the federal government should no longer discriminate against people who want to make lifelong, loving commitments to each other or interfere in personal, private, and intimate relationships. I view the ability of anyone to marry as a logical extension of this belief. The makeup of families is changing, but the importance of family is enduring.”
If you contacted the senator's office and asked her to support marriage equality, this is yours.
If you didn't, call your senator and thank her for doing the right thing.
At a time when Williston North Dakota is fighting for the dubious title of “rape capital” of North America, the state’s Republican dominated legislature and Republican Governor Jack Dalrymple have teamed up to pass the most restrictive anti-abortion law in the country, which would ban abortions even in the case of rape or incest after just six weeks of pregnancy (a standard that is set so early that many women are not yet aware they are pregnant). Both the state house and state senate have also passed a resolution calling for a fetal personhood amendment that if approved by voters, would ban all abortions and possibly even most forms of contraception in the state altogether in 2014. Again, no exceptions are allowed for cases involving rape, incest or if the life of the woman is endangered by carrying the pregnancy to term. In a state where rape is on the rise, lawmakers have essentially decided that rape victims must be compelled to carry their pregnancy to term and to give birth to the rapist's baby.
Speaking of rapists and the pregnancies they cause, I picked up a copy of the latest issue of the Great Plains Examiner yesterday, just to see if it's still got its radical right-wing slant. (Spoiler: It does.) The former ND Republican Party chairman who owns and operates that paper now has obviously decided he doesn't care whether his right-wing rag has any women readers, and might even want women to boycott all of the paper's advertisers, has clearly thrown in with the women-oppressing radicals. His anti-choice editorial wouldn't be quite so offensive if there weren't also -- in the same issue -- a column by a Bismarck church leader who takes the position that -- and this is the title of the column -- "Life Begins Before Conception." Swear to God. And no time like a discussion about Choice in the context of rape and incest to bring in a car analogy:
Consider an example. My grandfather owned a 1978 Chevy Malibu. If I was to ask him when his car was made he might say in the summer of 1977 when production began at the Oshawa Car Assembly. Or, if he really thought about it, he might say that his car was made in 1976 at the GM Tech Center in the minds of the engineers who designed it.
See... for the folks at the Great Plains Examiner life starts in the "design" phase. As is true with the manufacturing of a car, human life begins as soon as the rapist starts thinking about raping someone. That's a great car analogy. Makes perfect sense, right?
It's no wonder North Dakota's radical Republicans don't even believe in having exceptions to their anti-choice Personhood laws, even for victims of rape and incest. According to them, apparently, if you become pregnant as a result of a rape or incest, the rape or incest was all just a part of God's big plan.
I just don't know what to think about a God whose grand plan includes rape.