Call meeting to order: by Vice President Bill Tarbell Time 6:20 P.M.
Pledge of Allegiance: Vice-President Bill Tarbell
Prayer: Tim Stoffel
Minutes were reviewed and passed for May 2nd, 2017.
George Lee – Treasurer’s Report: The new balance is $1633. A $30.00 donation was given to the WCRCC by a member.
Vice Pres. Bill Tarbell Bill Tarbell reported that he actively participated in the Nevada legislature as an unpaid lobbyist. The Democrats controlled both the assembly and the Senate. The Democrats failed to cooperate with the Republicans. Bill also stated that he wrote and delivered several letters to the Governor’s office.
Bill also reported that he had talked with Michael Kadenacy. Their talk focused Republicans working together on committees and precinct teams.
Bylaws – Gary Schmdt Gary reported on bylaws progress.
Discussion Craig Newton brought up the idea of writing a letter to Senator Dean Heller. Dean Heller will be at the upcoming Republican picnic on June 11th.
Roger Edwards moved that a draft letter be written and delivered to Senator Dean Heller at the June 11th picnic. This letter would urge Senator to support President Trump. Jackie Hager seconded the motion. The motion was discussed. Bill Tarbell, Carole Fineberg and Vicky Maltman will draft the letter and deliver it on June 11th. The motion passed.
Roger Edwards moved that the meeting be adjourned. This motion was seconded and passed.
The meeting was adjourned at 7:28 pm.
Minutes by James M. Benthin
Minutes approved on:
District Court Judge invents reasons to protect member of the government-class
For Immediate Release
CARSON CITY, NV — Ignoring a 2004 AG advisory opinion, a 1967 binding Nevada Supreme Court precedent and the plain language of the state constitution, District Judge James Russell Tuesday dismissed a separation of powers lawsuit against State Senator Heidi Gansert.
“Judge Russell seemed determined to protect a member of the political class, irrespective of what the law says,” commented Center for Justice and Constitutional Litigation Director Joseph Becker.
Representing plaintiff Doug French, The Nevada Policy Research Institute’s Center for Justice and Constitutional Litigation filed the suit in February, alleging Gansert is violating Article 3, Section 1 of Nevada’s State Constitution by occupying a seat in the state legislature while also working in Nevada’s executive branch.
Judge Russell dismissed the lawsuit in a bench ruling, saying in part that because other legislators would be negatively impacted by any potential ruling, the suit should have named every single lawmaker similarly employed in the executive branch as “necessary parties.”
“Essentially, we were told that in order to sue Senator Gansert for a constitutional violation, the Plaintiff must file similar suits against every other potential violator.” explained Becker.
“However, in 2004, the Nevada Supreme Court ruled in Heller v. Nevada Legislature that such is simply not the case.”
Becker further stated that Judge Russell’s dismissal flatly ignored the legal arguments put forward in the case, instead choosing to adopt as law a Legislative Counsel Bureau opinion.
A 1967 Nevada Supreme Court decision, on the other hand, makes it clear that strict adherence to the separation of powers provision is vital to preservation of individual liberty. The court explained that even ministerial function by persons conducted across branches violates Nevada’s separation of powers clause. And a 2004 Attorney General Advisory Opinion authored by then-Attorney General Brian Sandoval advised that attempts to hold positions in more than one constitutional branch, as Gansert is attempting, are patently unconstitutional.
“Rather than following binding legal authority, however, the judge treated a proffered LCB opinion as law,” explained Becker. “Apparently the non-binding LCB opinion held more weight with Judge Russell than the actual text of the Nevada constitution or the Nevada Supreme Court opinions, which interpreted that constitutional provision in Plaintiff’s favor.”
The Judge’s order will likely be filed within the next two weeks, at which time CJCL and Plaintiff Douglas French will determine whether or not to appeal this issue of critical importance to all Nevadans.
Click the link above
Thanks Darla for the Information
Thanks Oti and Ken
Before long a monkey will go to the stairs and climb toward the banana.
You then spray ALL the monkeys with cold water.
Pretty soon, when another monkey tries to climb the stairs, the other monkeys will try to prevent it.
Now, put away the cold water.
Next, remove another of the original four monkeys, replacing it with a new monkey.
Then, replace a third original monkey with a new monkey, followed by the fourth.
Now, the monkeys that are beating him up have no idea why they were not permitted to climb the stairs.
Neither do they know why they are participating in the beating of the newest monkey.
Nevertheless, not one of the monkeys will try to climb the stairway for the Banana.
Why, you ask?
This is how today’s House and Senate operates, and this Is why from time to time,
DISCLAIMER: This is meant as no disrespect to monkeys.
Wikileaks’ Julian Assange is continuing his attempt to “take down America any way he can” by accurately reporting the truth. Saturday on Twitter, Assange highlighted an article from Thursday where the Financial Times noted how many Syrian rebels are getting salaries from the CIA.
From Muth’s Truths
OK, let’s talk about the “failure” of Republicans in the Senate to pass an ObamaCare repeal-and-replace bill this month. But first, a little history lesson.
After the Revolutionary War, the new states – former colonies – owed a boatload of debt for financing the war effort.
Then-Secretary of the Treasury Alexander Hamilton favored a robust central government and wanted the feds to assume the debts of the states. As such, according to Hamilton biographer Ron Chernow, Hamilton proposed “a gigantic package of fiscal measures (related to “assumption”) that he wanted accepted all at once.”
Then-Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson abhorred the notion of a strong central government and opposed the funding proposal. And on April 12, 1790 “the House voted down Hamilton’s assumption plan…and two weeks later voted to discontinue all debate on the issue.”
But there was another very controversial issue front-and-center at the time: Where the new national capital would be located. Hamilton desperately, adamantly wanted it to be in New York close to all his banker buddies. Jefferson, however, wanted it somewhere on the Potomac River – where Washington, DC is today.
You can see where this is going, right?
Yep. In order to get his assumption plan passed, Hamilton gave up his burning desire for New York to be the new nation’s capital.
Why did he ultimately capitulate? Because, Chernow writes, Hamilton clearly saw that the funding scheme “created an unshakeable foundation for federal power in America.”
The kind of federal power that today forces every single American to purchase health insurance or pay a fine for not having it on their tax return!
As Hamilton himself wrote about his reason for compromising away the capital to get his assumption plan passed…
“Whoever considers the nature of our government with discernment will see that obstacles and delays will frequently stand in the way of the adoption of good measures, yet when once adopted, they are likely to be stable and permanent. It will be far more difficult to UNDO than to DO.”
And this is exactly the political corner Republicans now find themselves backed into as it relates to ObamaCare. As difficult as it was to do, it’s even more difficult to undo.
Now, with our history lesson out of the way…
Senate Republicans DO own ObamaCare now – despite President Donald Trump’s declaration to the contrary. Yes, Democrats approved ObamaCare without a single Republican vote. But Republicans campaigned last year on “Elect us and we’ll repeal it.”
That check has now arrived. The bill is due. And the GOP owes it – even though it is, in fact, harder to undo ObamaCare than it was to do it.
The problem, of course, is that while we have a Republican majority in Congress we do NOT have a conservative majority. As such, a handful of liberal and populist Republicans have been able to block the bill – including some who voted for repeal in 2015 when they knew President Obama would veto it.
There was no real political risk then. No responsibility. A coward’s way out.
That said, understand that the fat lady hasn’t sung on this yet, because Donald Trump has a completely different concept of “failure” than most members of Congress and the talking heads in the fake news media.
To a businessman and entrepreneur like Trump, failure just means you found something that doesn’t work. Which means only that you need to try something else. Failure only occurs if you quit. And “quitting” is not an option in Donald Trump’s world.
So you can bet that behind closed doors in The Swamp, negotiations will continue and ObamaCare repeal is not dead. It’s just in a coma – until it’s resurrected.
And while I know many conservatives are not exactly fans of Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, don’t sell the man short. He’s been at this game a long, long time. And he’s perfectly capable of pulling a Harry Reid-like “Louisiana Purchase” or “Cornhusker Kickback” out of his hat to get the one, two, three or four votes he needs for ultimate passage.
Just like the assumption/capital compromise between Jefferson and Hamilton.
But make no mistake. If McConnell doesn’t get this done before the 2018 elections, both the country and his GOP majority in the Senate are screwed. This is the last chance to uproot ObamaCare before it’s set in stone – like Social Security. And like Social Security, it will only grow bigger and get worse until it collapses under its own weight.
Which will make repeal far more painful down the road or make “saving” ObamaCare far more expensive.
The bottom line is this: It ain’t over ‘til it’s over. Trump won’t quit. And McConnell still has cards to play. The media can call what happened this month a “failure,” but it’s a nine inning game and we haven’t even hit the seventh-inning stretch.
On the other hand, Republicans never seem to blow an opportunity to blow an opportunity. And if they blow this one, they will pay dearly for it at the polls in 2018 – just like they did in 2006 and 2008.
Pirates, ye be warned!
Dr. Chuck Muth, PsD
Professor of Psephology (homeschooled)
Nevada’s #1 Irritator of Liberals and RINOs
Thanks to a republican friend for this info
As a “joke”, my Chev dealer gave me a Volt as a loaner while my full-size pick-up was getting some attention. He thought it was funny to give his energy company CEO this thing here on Vancouver Island! I live 30 kms outside of Victoria near Sidney.
The battery was dead – later he admitted they almost never charged it. While the car was “ok”, on gasoline, it was pretty anemic. So for the extra money, even taking into account Chev rebates and Provincial incentives, you get an under-powered, heavy car that felt “too small” for its actual size (battery has to go somewhere).
Now the kicker: at a neighborhood BBQ, I was talking to a Neighbor, a BC Hydro executive. I asked him how that renewable thing was doing. He laughed, then got serious. If you really intend to adopt electric vehicles, he pointed out, you had to face certain realities. For example, a home charging system for a Tesla requires 75 amp service.
The average house is equipped with 100 amp service. On our small street (approx 25 homes), the electrical infrastructure would be unable to carry more than 3 houses with a single Tesla, each. For even half the homes to have electric vehicles, the system would be wildly over-loaded.
This is the elephant in the room with electric vehicles … Our residential infrastructure cannot bear the load. So as our genius elected officials ram this nonsense down our collective throats, not only are we being forced to buy the damn things and replace our reliable, cheap generating systems with expensive, new windmills and solar cells, but we will also have to renovate our entire delivery system! This latter “investment” will not be revealed until we’re so far down this dead end road that it will be presented with an oops and a shrug.
If you want to argue with a green person over cars that are Eco-friendly, just read the below:
Note: However, if you ARE the green person, read it anyway. Enlightening.
Eric test drove the Chevy Volt at the invitation of General Motors…and he writes…For four days in a row, the fully charged battery lasted only 25 miles before the Volt switched to the reserve gasoline engine.
Eric calculated the car got 30 mpg including the 25 miles it ran on the battery. So, the range including the 9 gallon gas tank and the 16 kWh battery is approximately 270 miles.
It will take you 4 1/2 hours to drive 270 miles at 60 mph. Then add 10 hours to charge the battery and you have a total trip time of 14.5 hours. In a typical road trip your average speed (including charging time) would be 20 mph.
According to General Motors, the Volt battery holds 16 kWh of electricity. It takes a full 10 hours to charge a drained battery. The cost for the electricity to charge the Volt is never mentioned so I looked up what I pay for electricity. I pay approximately (it varies with amount used and the seasons) $1.16 per kWh. 16 kWh x $1.16 per kWh = $18.56 to charge the battery.
$18.56 per charge divided by 25 miles = $0.74 per mile to operate the Volt using the battery. Compare this to a similar size car with a gasoline engine that gets only 32 mpg. $3.19 per gallon divided by 32 mpg = $0.10 per mile.
The gasoline powered car costs about $15,000 while the Volt costs $46,000………So the American Government wants proud and loyal Americans not to do the math, but simply pay 3 times as much for a car, that costs more than 7 times as much to run, and takes 3 times longer to drive across the country…..
A. Back off and let those men who want to marry men, marry men.
B. Allow those women who want to marry women, marry women.
C. Allow those folks who want to abort their babies, abort their babies.
In three generations, there will be no more Democrats.
10 Poorest Cities in America (How did it happen?)
City, State, % of People Below the Poverty Level
1. Detroit, MI 32.5%
2. Buffalo, NY 29.9%
3. Cincinnati, OH 27.8%
4. Cleveland, OH 27.0%
5. Miami, FL 26.9%
6. St. Louis, MO 26.8%
7. El Paso, TX 26.4%
8. Milwaukee, WI 26.2%
9. Philadelphia, PA 25.1%
10. Newark, NJ 24.2%
What do these top ten cities (over 250,000 pop.) with the highest poverty rate all have in common?
Detroit, MI – (1st on poverty rate list) hasn’t elected a Republican mayor since 1961
Buffalo, NY – (2nd) hasn’t elected one since 1954
Cincinnati, OH – (3rd) not since 1984
Cleveland, OH – (4th) not since 1989
Miami, FL – (5th) has never had a Republican mayor
St. Louis, MO – (6th) not since 1949
El Paso, TX – (7th) has never had a Republican mayor
Milwaukee, WI – (8th) not since 1908
Philadelphia, PA – (9th) not since 1952
Newark, NJ – (10th) not since 1907
Einstein once said, ‘The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.’
It is the poor who habitually elect Democrats… yet they are still POOR.
“You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich.
You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong.
You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift.
You cannot lift the wage earner up by pulling the wage payer down.
You cannot further the brotherhood of man by inciting class hatred.
You cannot build character and courage by taking away people’s initiative and independence.
You cannot help people permanently by doing for them, what they could and should do for themselves.”
~ Abraham Lincoln
“Any man who thinks he can be happy and prosperous by letting the government take care of him had better take a much closer look at the American Indian.”
Please–Do something for your country, forward this
Thanks to member Judy for bringing this to our attention
In Our View: Turn to Yucca Mountain
Administration on right track to revive Nevada site for nuclear waste disposal
Published: July 3, 2017, 6:03 AM
We often have difficulty finding common ground with the Trump administration, but when it comes to pursuing Yucca Mountain in Nevada as a repository for nuclear waste, we are of one mind: Get it done.
Energy Secretary Rick Perry made clear in recent testimony before Congress that the administration plans to revive a process that was shelved by the Obama administration in 2010.
As The Hill reported, ” ‘We have a moral obligation … to remove this from as many of these sites as we can and put it in the safest repository,’ Perry said at a House Appropriations Committee subpanel hearing.”
It has been clear for years that is the best approach. In March 2006, the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee issued a report titled, “Yucca Mountain: The Most Studied Real Estate on the Planet.”
The committee report clearly explains why, after years of study and expense, the Nevada site was considered the optimum location for a nuclear waste disposal: “In deep geologic disposal, the one overriding concern is the potential for radioactive contaminants to reach the accessible environment. Every known process for degrading and transporting such contaminants involves water. Yucca Mountain is one of the driest locations in the United States, receiving an average annual rainfall of only 7 inches. Ninety-five percent of the water falling on Yucca Mountain either evaporates or runs off, further limiting the amount available to seep into the repository. It also provides a minimum of 1,200 vertical feet of dry solid rock above the water table.”
The Hill reported, “The Trump administration is seeking $120 million in fiscal year 2018 for the Department of Energy to restart the licensing process for the Yucca Mountain site, which Congress designated in 1987 to be the nation’s sole repository for high-level nuclear waste. Nevada has repeatedly resisted the designation.”
That opposition was led for years by Sen. Harry Reid, but his retirement doesn’t mean Nevada’s obstruction has ended. Quite the contrary. Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto of Nevada grilled Perry about the administration’s plan to revive Yucca Mountain, the state’s Pahrump Valley Times reported.
The paper reported, “Cortez Masto questioned Perry’s ‘doubling down’ on the Silver State when he suggested temporarily placing it at the Nevada National Security Site. The senator asked why the administration would not seek a consent-based approach to finding areas to take nuclear waste, and why it dismissed Obama administration decisions that the Yucca Mountain site was unworkable. ‘At least look at the science,’ Cortez Masto implored.”
We suggest the senator take her own advice. As the Senate committee report of 2006 makes clear, “the science” supports Yucca Mountain for nuclear waste disposal. The time and study that went into that conclusion involved not just government scientists, but outside experts from around the country and the globe.
And while we endorse the administration’s push for Yucca Mountain, we would add its “moral obligation” extends to ensuring the federal government keeps its end of the bargain in cleaning up the Hanford Nuclear Reservation and not attempt to cut the budget for said cleanup, as has been suggested.
No one wants a nuclear waste repository in their state. But nuclear waste around the country, not just at Hanford, is a serious problem the federal government is obligated to address. And the answer already exists. Now our officials must act like real leaders and make it a reality.
NEVADA NEWS & VIEWS
The Democrats’ Best GOP Friends in the Nevada Legislature
Reporters Megan Messerly and Jackie Valley of the new Nevada News Bureau that Citizen Outreach founded back in 2009 published a report over the weekend analyzing how many times Republican legislators “broke with their caucus” and voted with their Democrat colleagues during the 2017 session.
Now, this research includes all votes – and not all votes are on issues in which there is a clear philosophical difference between the parties. But such a report is definitely smoke that indicates there’s a RINO (Republican in Name Only) fire lurking below the surface. Some observations…
The reporters looked at 91 bills in the Assembly in which seven or fewer of the 15 Republicans voted with the Democrats – and, wow, what a stark difference between the best and the worst.
Of those 91 votes, conservative freshman Assemblyman Jim Marchant of Las Vegas only voted with the D’s three times (3 percent). On the other end of the spectrum, liberal freshman Assemblywoman Jill Tolles of Reno sided with the D’s and against her GOP colleagues a staggering 70 times (77 percent).
Ladies and gentleman, I think we’ve found the RINO Queen!
Other conservative Republicans in the Assembly who only rarely voted with the far-left Democrat majority in 2017 include Assemblyman Richard McArthur (4), John Ellison (6) and Robin Titus (9).
Other Republicans in the Assembly who often helped give Democrats “bi-partisan” aid-and-comfort include freshman Keith Pickard (55), Minority Leader Paul Anderson (52), Chris “Let’s Make a Deal” Edwards (43), Al Kramer (43), Melissa Woodbury (36), John Hambrick (35) and James “The Big Selloutski” Oscarson (34).
Over in the Senate, the reporters took a look at 35 votes and tallied any bill that received four or fewer GOP votes.
Leading the GOP’s Aid-and-Comfort Caucus in the upper house was Sen. Becky Harris with 25 out of 35 votes (71 percent) with the Democrats instead of the majority of her Republican colleagues. Coming in second place is liberal Sen. Heidi Gansert (R-UNR) with 21. In third place is liberal Sen. Joe Hardy with 14.
In contrast, conservative Sen. Don Gustavson voted with the Democrats only ONE time out of the 35.
Again, for conservative ratings purposes it will be important to look at each of these individual bills to make sure there’s a philosophical component, not just a partisan one, to determine whether any of these folks who voted with the D’s so often are, indeed, liberal sell-outs.
But as they say, if it walks like a RINO and votes like a RINO…it’s probably a RINO.
You created “us” when you attacked our freedom of speech.
You created “us” when you attacked our flag
You created “us” when you decided to vote for progressive ideals.
You created “us” when you decided to let our government get out of control.
You created “us” when you took a knee, or stayed seated or didn’t remove your hat during our National Anthem.
You created “us” when you forced us to buy health care and then financially penalized us for not participating.
And we became fed up and we pushed back and spoke up.
With ballots, not riots.
With ballots, not looting.
With ballots, not blocking traffic.
With ballots, not fires, except the one you started inside of “us”
Please keep in mind that 3 of the 4 Republican County Commissioners voted for Ratti