Apr 052021
Kill AB99: The Committee Vote is Tuesday at 9pm
AB99 has been hijacked by the Democrats. Instead of stopping the Taxpayer Rip-off of Prevailing Wage, AB99 has lowered the threshold from $100,000 to $2,000 and now requires the Nevada System of Higher Education (colleges & universities) to pay prevailing wages (exorbitant union wages) on essentially all jobs. This is a payoff to unions for Democrat votes.
This bill originally would have increased the threshold to $250,000 now with a proposed amendment will lower it to $2,000 and will require prevailing wages to be paid on essentially all jobs. The only reason for prevailing wages is for Dems to reward the unions. Prevailing wage is a huge rip-off of the taxpayers. The median prevailing wage for a union worker is on average 64% higher than their average wage. For instance for the category “painters, construction and maintenance” the regular pay is $29 an hour plus benefits. Under prevailing wage it goes up to $61 an hour. There may be an amendment to include rural county governments in this bill as well as NSHE. See the information from Nevada Policy Research Institute: Prevailing Wage Rates, 2019 | Nevada Policy Research Institute (npri.org)
Apr 052021

Did you know that Washington D.C. is not financially viable on it’s own? Even the way the democrats are trying to carve it up will not work fiscally.

Washington DC was never created to become a state in any way shape or form. Were Washington DC to become a State, they would lose a ton of money. The cost would be staggering:

In fact, the most strident opposition to D.C. statehood is likely to come from D.C. residents themselves – once they calculate the real and substantial costs to statehood. D.C. statehood would devastate the District of Columbia’s local budget, eliminate hundreds of millions of dollars in federal aid and wipe out social services, health care, transportation, and social welfare programs.

“Like most things, life in Washington involves tradeoffs: D.C. residents are closer to the levers of federal power than anyone else, they have free access to many of the nation’s foremost cultural treasures, and they have some of the highest average household and individual incomes in the country,” contends Boston Globe columnist Jeff Jacoby (Jacoby, The Constitution says no to DC statehood, 2020).

Even the Left-Leaning Urban Institute confrims: D.C. #1 in Federal Support

On a per capita basis, D.C. residents enjoy federal payments that are orders of magnitude greater than residents of other states. Even the left-leaning Urban Institute is forced to acknowledge that “the District of Columbia’s per capita spending exceeded all states” (Urban Institute, 2020).

• Number #1 in Welfare at $265 per DC resident.
• Number #1 in K-12 spending per capita at $3,466 per DC resident.
• Number #1 in Medicaid spending per capita at $3,669 per DC resident.
• Number #1 in Housing spending per capita at $814 per DC resident.
• Number #1 in Parks spending per capita at $285 per DC resident.
• Number #1 in Public Transit per capita at $2,145 per DC resident. (Urban Institute, January 2017)

There is simply not enough of a tax base in Washington DC to run an effective State Government.

Look at just how much DC depends on the Federal Government:

Net Federal Expenditures Per Capita: D.C. $37,457 vs. -$1,181 for Ohio

For decades, Washington, D.C. has experienced incredible net federal expenditures compared to other states. According to federal budget data for the Fiscal Year 2004, net federal expenditures per capita, after subtracting taxes paid, showed D.C. on top at $37,457. That was nearly 5x greater than second place Alaska at $8,005. Meanwhile, residents of Ohio lost -$1,181 on a per capita basis, with Delaware at a shocking -$7,010 (MacEwan, October 11, 2016).

By 2010, the gap had expanded even further. D.C. residents were receiving $72,292 on a per capita basis, a figure nearly 7x greater than second place Alaska at $11,123. Meanwhile, residents of Ohio remained in the negative on a per capita basis, with Delaware at -$8,019 (MacEwan, October 11, 2016).

2017 Council of State Governments Report: DC Funding at $82,508 Per Capita

A 2017 Council of State Governments report, which analyzed $3.4 trillion in federal spending in five categories: retirement benefits; nonretirement benefits; salaries and wages; grants; and contracts, concluded that D.C. residents received $82,508 per capita, compared to $17,052 for second place Virginia. Residents of Utah, meanwhile, received a meager $7,327 on a per capita basis (Hopkins, 2017).

And for a specific example of the impending fiscal disaster of statehood – look at just the courts:

$274 Million Federal Subsidy of D.C. Courts
D.C.’s courts would be unable to function without federal assistance. “In fiscal year 2016, the federal government paid for the costs of running D.C.’s court system, a total of $274 million” (Lefrak, 2016).

Then – look at this, Washington DC’s bonds are Junk Bonds! Ouch.

Because the District lacks a state-level economic system, it has resorted to junk bonds and accounting gimmicks. In 1995, President Bill Clinton authorized the financial control board, officially called the District of Columbia Financial Responsibility and Management Assistance Authority, to rescue D.C. form its $518 million structural deficit (Delgadillo, Kurzius, & Sadon, 2019).

I can only guess that the democrat leadership are fixated on the Two extra Senators and nothing else. One would hope that responsible members of Congress will stand up and look at the totality of the situation and realize what they would be doing to the residents of Washington D.C. should this hare-brained scheme pass.

Call Susie Lee and encourage her to stay away from this.

Mar 292021

When Nevada Governor Steve Sisolak Vetoed the National Popular Vote Compact – his words were quite clear:

“Once effective, the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact could diminish the role of smaller states like Nevada in national electoral contests and force Nevada’s electors to side with whoever wins the nationwide popular vote, rather than the candidate Nevadans choose.”

One of the primary arguments against Washington DC Statehood is that it will disenfranchise Small States – by diluting their representation in the US Senate.

Here is another and it is devastating. Washington D.C.’s entire economy is the care and feeding of Government:

Supporters of D.C. statehood argue that the District’s population exceeds two states, Vermont and Wyoming (Paunescu, 2019). However, John S. Baker, Jr., a visiting professor at Georgetown Law School, establishes the important distinction between cities and states. “The District of Columbia lacks the status of statehood … because it is a city. The United States, unlike medieval Europe, does not have city-states” (Baker J. S., 2020)

Through a larger geographic footprint, states represent a multiplicity of interests. Historian John Steele Gordon says: “Every large state has a multiplicity of interests that must be balanced: agricultural, mining, fishing, banking, insurance, etc. But the District of Columbia has only one interest: the care and feeding of the federal government. It is the ultimate company town.” (Jacoby, 2019)

A city-state basically violates the constitution.

Then the scheme of making Washington DC a City-State further shreds the voice of small states like Nevada by creating supervoters. The scheme would effectively shrink Washington DC to a tiny area with a few thousand voters that still have their 3 electoral votes.

Democrats’ plan for D.C. statehood would create severe inequities in electoral representation with the creation of “super voters.” In order to bypass the U.S. Constitution, H.R. 51 preserves a capital district of just two miles (Lefrak, 2016). However, this district – under the 23rd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution— would retain its 3 electoral votes (Hewitt, 1993).

“As long as the 23rd Amendment is in force, the District of Columbia is guaranteed at least three votes in the Electoral College,” points out columnist Jeff Jacoby. “Under the House bill, those votes would be controlled by the microscopic population of the drastically shrunken district, making them far and away the most influential voters in the nation. Such an outcome would obviously be absurd, yet it would be unavoidable unless the 23rd Amendment were repealed” (Jacoby, The Constitution says no to DC statehood, 2020).

Constitutional amendments are a lengthy and cumbersome process requiring BOTH a two-thirds approval of both houses of Congress AND ratification by three-fourths of the states (Erickson, 2017). Therefore, if or until such an amendment was approved, voters within this two square mile area would hold tremendous control over the selection of the U.S. President.

IT seems amazing that a Congresswoman from an R-Leaning District is considering gutting the voice of her own state. But this is the state of politics in 2021. Please contact Susie Lee and ask her to stay away from the DC Statehood.

Mar 252021

Since its founding on July 16, 1790, Washington, D.C. has served as the independent capital of the United States of America. The District of Columbia holds a unique and prestigious place in American history as the central seat of the U.S. federal government.

In addition to substantial benefits for its 705,749 residents (U.S. Census Bureau, 2020), D.C. independence has remained a vital national interest to protect against extreme states’ rights power grabs that could imperil the operations of American government.

As of right now, Susie Lee who is in an R-Leaning Congressional District NV-03 is not a co-sponsor of HR51 to make Washington DC a state. The Right on Daily Nevada Blog is encouraging everyone to contact her and her office to tell her not to make this mistake.

We are going to walk Susie Lee through several aspects of the DC Statehood drive and how it actually hurts the residents there!

H.R. 51: D.C. Statehood Bill in 116th United States Congress (The current bill in the 117th Congress has the same number)

In June 2020, the Democrat-controlled House of Representatives approved H.R. 51, a simple-majority vote bill that would make Washington, D.C. the nation’s 51st state (Jones, 2020). Sponsored by Rep. Eleanor Holmes Norton, D.C.’s elected Democrat Member of Congress, the bill passed on a 232 to 180 vote, with only Democrat support (Roll Call 122, 2020). In fact, one Democrat, Rep. Collin C. Peterson of Minnesota, broke ranks with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and opposed the bill, demonstrating bipartisan opposition to the measure (Tumulty, 2020).

The ban on D.C. statehood has been enshrined in the U.S. Constitution. Constitutional scholars point out that “Maryland could object to the establishment of a New Columbia, arguing that it ‘did not cede the land for the purpose of creating a new state on its border’” (DeBonis, 2014).

Similar to the National Popular Vote effort which has been rigged and factored to circumvent the constitution, the DC Statehood effort is the same.

U.S. Constitution: Article 1, Section 8

As Time Magazine notes: “… the lack of statehood for the capital is enshrined in the Constitution. Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17 of the document reads, “The Congress shall have Power To …exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States” (Berenson, 2016).

“Congress cannot change the status of the capital district simply by redefining it.”

Democrats Flout Prima Facia Constitutional Barriers

Curiously, Democrats openly celebrate the unconstitutional nature of H.R. 51 (Wolf, 2020). Rather than amend the U.S. Constitution, the bill would reduce the size of the federal district to just two square miles and then admit the remaining territory of D.C. as a new state, the State of Washington, Douglass Commonwealth (MacFarlane, Bensen, & Staff, 2020). The federal-controlled district would include the White House, the Capitol, the Supreme Court and the principal federal monuments, while the state would consist of 66 of the 68 square miles of the present-day District of Columbia (Norton, 2020).

Let this sink in, the cynical nature of this effort should be alarming to any reasonable person.

As we continue, we are going to start laying out the disasterous consequences for the people of Washington DC if they become a state.

BTW – here is a poll in 3-2021 showing 55% of Americans opposing DC Statehood versus a paltry 29% in favor.

Mar 272019


Increases 5 Taxes including:Property Taxes, Sales Taxes, Car Registration Taxes, and other Taxes

This was WC1 in 2016 in Washoe County.  The Republican Caucus told me that this new bill applies to Washoe County and all 15 rural counties.  

This is a disastrous shift away from Representative Government from the elected Legislature, County Commissions and School Boards and gives power to an Unelected Biased Committee (see list of appointed members below) to recommend increases in possibly 5 taxes including: PROPERTY TAXES, GOVERNMENT “SERVICE TAX” FOR DRIVING A VEHICLE (registration), SALES TAXES, REAL ESTATE TRANSFER TAX, and Room taxes for hotels and motels.

After the Committee recommends the tax increases the County Commission puts it on the ballot. The Pro-Tax-Increase special interests then spend Millions of dollars to get it passed.

These new taxes are supposed to be used to build and fix school buildings. In Washoe County this has resulted in people leaving that county to purchase a vehicle in another county to avoid increased sales taxes, so it has hurt business and revenues for the county. (See additional information below) HEARING: Thursday, March 28, 4pm, Assembly Taxation Carson City Room 4100Video conferenced to Las Vegas: Room 4406 of the Grant Sawyer State Office Building, 555 E. Washington Ave., Elko, Room 121 of the High Tech Center, Great Basin College, 1500 College Parkway. 

Vote No on AB244. This is a sneaky way to raise 5 taxes by appointing a biased pro-tax- increase committee to determine if the schools are overcrowded and in need of repair. Then these pro-tax groups spend lots of money to impose new taxes when it goes on the ballot. We cannot afford new property taxes, vehicle registration taxes, sales taxes, and property transfer taxes. Why are un-elected and unaccountable people determining whether or not taxes need to be raised? This violates our Constitutional right to a republican form of government.

 Contact the Republican Sponsor: Assemblyman Al Kramer, representing Carson and Washoe Al.Kramer@asm.state.nv.us, 775-684-8825, Ask him to withdraw the bill.

Contact the Republican Assembly Minority Leader and ask why a Republican is bringing this Sneaky Tax: Assemblyman Jim WheelerJim.Wheeler@asm.state.nv.us, 775-684-8843

Contact all Members of the Assembly Taxation Committee: Chair: Dina.Neal@asm.state.nv.usLesley.Cohen@asm.state.nv.usShea.Backus@asm.state.nv.usTeresa.BenitezThompson@asm.state.nv.usEdgar.Flores@asm.state.nv.usSusan.Martinez@asm.state.nv.usEllen.Spiegel@asm.state.nv.usHeidi.Swank@asm.state.nv.us,

Republicans: Chris.Edwards@asm.state.nv.usGreg.Hafen@asm.state.nv.usAl.Kramer@asm.state.nv.us (Sponsor) Share your opinion on Legislative Bills: https://www.leg.state.nv.us/App/Opinions/80th2019/

Text AB244: https://www.leg.state.nv.us/Session/80th2019/Bills/AB/AB244.pdf Background: AB244 authorizes the Board of Trustees of a School District to establish the Public Schools Overcrowding and Repair Needs Committee. This un-elected Committee then recommends the possible imposition of 5 tax increases on property taxes, government service tax for vehicles, sales tax, property transfer tax, and taxes on the gross receipts from the transient lodging (hotels/motels) to fund capital projects of the school districts.

Page 4 Section 2 of AB244: the Committee “shall, on or before April 2, 2022: (a) Prepared recommendations for the imposition of one or more of the taxes …to provide funding for the school district….” Then the Count Commissioners SHALL at the next general election, submit the question to the voters. What happened in Washoe County on WC1 in 2016 is that a Million Dollars were spent to pass the question. It passed. (see info from Jeff Church below)     

Makeup of the Biased Pro-Tax Committee: Superintendent of the School District. One State Senator whose District encompasses part or all of the School District. One Assemblyman whose District encompasses part or all of the School District.

One member each representing: the Nevada Association of Realtors, Retailers Association of Nevada, Board of County Commissioners, Mayor of each city in the district, Oversight Panel for School Facilities, Labor organization appointed by the AFL-CIO, licensed Educator appointed by Teachers Union NSNEA, one member of the general public appointed by the PTA, member appointed by Regional Economic Development Authority, Gaming appointed by gaming association, business and commercial interestes appointed by chamber of commerce, homebuilders appointed by homebuilders association.

The U.S. Constitution Art. IV Section 4: “shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government…” That means that we are not governed by un-elected unaccountable “Committees”. It does mean that we are governed by duly elected Representatives. This is a good way for elected Legislators, County Commissioners and School Board members to avoid accountability for raising taxes.

AB244 Tax for School Building Information from Jeffrey Church: www.RenoTaxRevolt.comRenoTaxRevolt@sbcglobal.net Summary: AB244 is likely illegal and (WC1) has proven to be a disaster for Washoe County. WC1 hurt Reno-Sparks-Washoe tax revenue and the school district lacked any funding for teachers in buildings once completed. There are alternatives (listed at end). 

AB244 is based 100% on two prior measures from 2016 and 2018 in Washoe County. 2018 failed but WC1 in 2016 has proven to be a disaster for many reasons. Neither has been tested in court but there are many legal issues to be addressed. The lawsuit on 2018 was well researched drafted but as the measure failed the point became moot.  Because the research is done and before we go thru any costly elections, we need an LCB opinion or recognize the prior LCB opinion (Sept 7, 2015 on SB119) and kill this. Tax increases are the responsibility of the legislature by a 2/3 majority. LCB has opined that the legislature may pass that authority to an elected local government. “…a bill which only authorizes or enables but does not require, a local government to take action…” “… the discretionary decision… is left to the ultimate determination of the local government…” AB244 violates that opinion. Legally, it has never been resolved if the legislature may so delegate to local government however this delegates the authority to a obviously biased unelected committee. Research nationwide shows this in unprecedented. Under AB244 the unelected committee determines the type, length and amount of tax and the elected County Commission is “required” to place it on the ballot. Please see Writ that has been drafted. And NV Constitution Art 4 -18(3):  Only the legislature “may refer any measure … to the people…” not to a biased committee. A majority of all of the members elected to each House may refer any measure which creates, generates, or increases any revenue in any form to the people of the State at the next general election, and shall become effective and enforced only if it has been approved by a majority of the votes cast on the measure at such election. 

From a previous related matter: I’ve gotten an opinion from LCB (Legislative Counsel Bureau) Legal that says the Legislature, by majority vote, can approve or authorize the Clark County Commission to impose a sales tax,” Segerblom said. “And then the Clark County Commission, by a majority vote, can enact a sales tax. “The (LCB) advised the Legislature that it was the opinion of this office that the two-thirds majority requirement does not apply to a bill delegating discretionary power to a local government which authorizes or enables, but does not require, the local government  to carry out taxation.” Legislative opinions entitled to deference (Nev. Mining Ass’n 117 Nev. At 540) (Howell, 26 Nev. At 114)

Outside of the legal issues WC1 2016 in Washoe had the following result:

Passage of WC1 (2016) resulted in DECREASED tax revenue for Reno and Washoe and related governments.Estimated that over a million dollars was spent by special interests for WC1 and the opposition had no such funds. It was simply unfair. 

Once passed as a sales tax making Reno-Washoe the highest sales tax in Nevada, car buyers fled in droves to Carson, Fernley and Lyon. A new Jeep and Dodge dealer opened in Fernley (an off shoot of Reno Dodge) and a Chevrolet Dealer (Wild West) in Yerington. Car dealers outside Washoe saw sustained double digest increase in sales. Washoe “big ticket” car sales saw a drop in April and only a single digest rebound thereafter as the economy boomed and Reno’s population increased 7% annually. With the added Washoe RTC gas tax many residents report they travel outside Reno to buy gas and shop. That decrease in revenue hurt other local government that depend on sales tax. In other words Reno and Washoe lost millions in revenue every time a buyer went outside of Washoe. On a $40,000 truck, that’s at $3,000 sales tax loss. I have the stats! They are monthly from the Nevada Department of Taxation. Take a look! The next failure of WC1 is that Washoe thus far built 3 new schools but due to budget issues had not a single new teacher! Not one! Classroom overcrowding increased not decreased! And finally, anytime a bidder sees dedicated money open to public record they know they can bid high. WCSD estimated the cost of a high school at an outrageously high price of $110 million. Damonte Ranch cost $36 million. Upon the passage of WC1 the cost of schools doubled and the new Wildcreek HS is estimated at $220 million! Yes $36 million vs $110 million vs $210 million. That’s taxpayer money! Those that don’t remember the lessons of the past are condemned to relive them. Again AB244 is legally flawed and needs LCB review. Of course even then if passed, the case will likely be decided by the Nevada Supreme Court.

Alternative: Authorize the lawfully elected County Commission to draft and place a measure on the ballot. Of course other viable alternatives exist. A more “think outside the box” alternative is listed next:

Alternative #2: A State funded rural boarding School. Why do only the rich get to go to boarding schools? Unfortunately one of the highest costs is at risk children, many living with parents, single working parents, drug abuse in the home and actual homeless. A voluntary live-in boarding school rurally located with sports, horse back riding, tech training, and a quality education takes a major burden off local school districts and a win-win for all. Jeffrey Church www.RenoTaxRevolt.comRenoTaxRevolt@sbcglobal.net

You can help Nevada Families for Freedom by contributing online: www.nevadafamilies.org    Please make checks payable to Nevada Families, not tax deductible, 186 Ryndon Unit 12, Elko, NV 89801

Mar 262019

AB281: Makes Nevada a Sanctuary State for Illegals We need lots of people to come to the hearing in Carson & Las Vegas. HEARING: Friday, March 29, 8am, Assembly Judiciary Carson City Room 3138Video conferenced to Room 4401 of the Grant Sawyer State Office Building, 555 E. Washington Ave., Las Vegas MESSAGE: Vote NO on AB281 which makes Nevada a sanctuary state. You should be concerned about the safety of Nevada citizens rather than illegal aliens who have broken the law. The recent murders by an illegal alien in Northern Nevada accentuate the importance of cooperating with Federal Immigration Authorities.

Contact all Members of the Assembly:Assembly Judiciary Committee, 

Chair: Steve.Yeager@asm.state.nv.us, Lesley.Cohen@asm.state.nv.usShea.Backus@asm.state.nv.us,Skip.Daly@asm.state.nv.usEdgar.Flores@asm.state.nv.usBrittany.Miller@asm.state.nv.usRochelle.Nguyen@asm.state.nv.usSarah.Peters@asm.state.nv.usSelena.Torres@asm.state.nv.usHoward.Watts@asm.state.nv.us,

Republicans: Chris.Edwards@asm.state.nv.usAlexis.Hansen@asm.state.nv.usLisa.Krasner@asm.state.nv.usTom.Roberts@asm.state.nv.usJill.Tolles@asm.state.nv.us

Share your opinion on Legislative Bills: https://www.leg.state.nv.us/App/Opinions/80th2019/

Democrat members of Committee: Chair Steve Yeager: 775-684-8549 Assemblywoman Lesley Cohen: 775-684-8855 Assemblywoman Shea Backus: 775-684-8505 Assemblyman Skip Daly: 775-684-8563 Assemblyman Edgar Flores: 775-684-8583 Assemblyman Brittany Miller: 775-684-8833 Assemblywoman Rochelle Nguyen: 775-684-8541 Assemblywoman Sarah Peters: 775-684-8559 Assemblywoman Selena Torres: 775-684-8599 Assemblyman Howard Watts: 775-684-8835 Text AB281: https://www.leg.state.nv.us/Session/80th2019/Bills/AB/AB281.pdf

Background: “No state or local law enforcement agency, school police unit or campus police department shall detain a person on the basis of a hold request, except where there is an independent finding of probable cause.”     This means state and local law enforcement will not cooperate with federal immigration authorities and clearly would make Nevada a Sanctuary State! It prohibits a state or local law enforcement agency, school police unit or campus police department from detaining a person on the basis of a “hold request” from the U.S. Immigration Enforcement and the U.S. Dept of Homeland Security, except where there is an independent finding of probable cause. A “hold request” means a request by a federal immigration authority that a state or local law enforcement agency, school police unit or campus police department maintain custody of a person who is in the custody of that agency beyond the time the person would otherwise be eligible for release, to facilitate the transfer of custody of the person to the federal immigration authority. An “Independent finding of probable cause” means “a warrant which is based upon probable cause which is issued by a federal judge, etc”. A determination which is based upon clear and convincing evidence that authorizes a federal immigration authority to take into custody that person.

Illegal Immigrants Crime: https://www.foxnews.com/politics/ice-nabs-illegal-immigrants-with-convictions-including-child-sex-crimes-in-ny-raid-slams-politicians-for-protecting-them

Cost of Illegal Immigrations to Nevadans In a special report by Federation for American Immigration Reform published in 2009, “The Costs of Illegal Immigration to Nevadans,” the author Jack Martin gives some startling numbers. But remember…the numbers are 8 years old and things are much worse now. “In 2008, the foreign born population in Nevada represented nearly one in every 5 residents (19.6%), and illegal aliens constitute nearly one in every twelve residents (8.1%). The share of children of immigrants is even higher. More than one-in-three (36.2%) Nevada residents under 18 had an immigrant parent.”

http://www.fairus.org/site/docserver/nv_costs.pdf “Nevadans spend nearly $70 million annually to educate the children of illegal immigrants in K-12 schooling. (2008 figures) An additional $45 million is being spent annually on programs for limited English students who are likely children of illegal aliens. Nearly one in six (15.8% in 2008) K-12 school students in Nevada is the child of an illegal alien, and this share has grown as the illegal resident population has grown.”

According to the Center for Immigration Studies 62% of households headed by illegal immigrants used one or more welfare programs…and there is a child present in 86% of illegal immigrant households using welfare, and this is the primary way that these household access programs.” 

http://cis.org/Welfare-Use-Legal-Illegal-Immigrant-Households “FAIR estimates that the annual fiscal burden on Nevada taxpayers associated with illegal immigration to be about $630 million (in 2008). This equates to an annual average cost of about $763 per native-born headed household in the state. In addition, there is a cost to the state’s economy resulting from remittances sent abroad that amounted to $618 million in 2006. From 2004 to 2006 remittance flow increased 38%. Estimated taxes collected from the illegal alien population are about $216 million.” 

Credit to: www.nevadafamilies.org    Please make checks payable to Nevada Families, not tax deductible, 186 Ryndon Unit 12, Elko, NV 89801

Mar 182019

HEARING CANCELLED Oppose SJR5 Annual Sessions

“No man’s life, liberty or property are safe while the Legislature is in session.” Mark Twain

See details of this Constitutional Amendment under Background.

We need people to come to the hearing and testify!! HEARING: Mon. March 18, 2:30pm (or upon call of the Chair), Senate Legislative Operations & Elections Committee, Rm 2144, Videoconferenced to Rm 4412E of the Grant Sawyer Building, 555 E. Washington Ave., Las Vegas, NV. MESSAGE: Vote No on SJR5 annual sessions for the Legislature. Increasing the time the Legislature meets will make it more difficult for citizen legislators and citizens to participate. We want less government not more. Reduce the numbers of bills allowed to be introduced so you don’t need as much time. (Or write your own message)

Subject line on email: No on SJR5 Annual Sessions
CONTACT: James.Ohrenschall@sen.state.nv.usNicole.Cannizzaro@sen.state.nv.usYvanna.Cancela@sen.state.nv.usKeith.Pickard@sen.state.nv.usHeidi.Gansert@sen.state.nv.us

Share your opinion on Legislative Bills: https://www.leg.state.nv.us/App/Opinions/80th2019/

Send Testimony to:  SenLOE@sen.state.nv.us 24 hours in advance Toll Free Numbers to contact members of the committee: 800-995-9080, From Las Vegas 702-486-2626,Reno Carson 775-684-6800 or 775- 684-6789

Background: Currently the Nevada Constitution provides that the Legislature meets for 120 consecutive days in every odd numbered year. This bill provides that the Legislature meet every odd numbered year for 90 “Legislative Days” which means that weekends and any day that the Senate or Assembly or a Legislative Committee does not meet does not count towards the 90 day number. Just adding weekends, extends the 90 days by 34 more days equaling at least 124 days, exceeding the current Constitutional limit of 120 days they meet now. In addition, upon agreement of the Senate Majority Leader and the Assembly Speaker they may call a “recess” which does not add days towards the 90 day total.     

The big addition is that under this proposed Constitutional Amendment in the even numbered years the Legislature would meet for 60 “Legislative Days” that means weekends and “recesses” excluded. That would extend the 60 day session at least 22 additional days just excluding weekends equaling 82 days not including any recesses. 124 days in odd numbered years added to 82 days in even number years equals 206 Legislatives Days. This increases the Legislatures days in session by 84 days or more if there is a recess called, greatly exceeding the 120 days the Constitution now provides.  

  Mark Twain said it best, “No man’s life, liberty or property are safe while the Legislature is in session.”    

The Legislature is not limited to budget issues during the even numbered Legislative session but may consider, introduce and pass any measure during either session. It is often argued that we need annual sessions to deal with the budget. Of course all this government will cost more.     

1250 Bill Draft Requests have been submitted this session. There is absolutely no reason and no need for so many bills.     SJR5 also provides that Legislators be paid at regular intervals instead of for only 60 days that they serve. I think this is reasonable and helps to maintain a “Citizen Legislature” with not just people who can afford to serve without pay.      Text of SJR5:  https://www.leg.state.nv.us/Session/80th2019/Bills/SJR/SJR5.pdf

Previously we were having problems with online donations but that should be fixeD. If you have a problems please let me know.

We depend on your individual free will gifts! Thank you!You can help Nevada Families for Freedom by contributing online: www.nevadafamilies.org    Please make checks payable to Nevada Families, not tax deductible, 186 Ryndon Unit 12, Elko, NV 89801

Mar 122019

Christians will be subjected to Government Sanctioned Discrimination & Persecution

Oppose *AJR2 which overturns Nevada’s Constitutional Amendment for Marriage  between and man and a woman.

Although, the U.S. Supreme Court has overturned marriage between a man and a woman, if this Constitutional Amendment passes in Nevada, Christians will be subjected to government sanctioned discrimination & persecution. 

When I asked the question during the Assembly hearing in 2017, which Constitutional Amendment will take precedence, AJR2 the gender marriage Constitutional Amendment or the Nevada Constitutional Declaration of Rights Art. 1 Section 4 protecting Religious liberty…the Legislative Counsel Bureau (attorney for Legislature) said in Committee that the newest Constitutional Amendment, gender marriage, would take precedent over religious Liberty.  Goodbye religious liberty!!!

Please oppose *AJR2. There is no need to change Nevada’s marriage amendment. The U.S. Supreme Court has already rendered it inoperative. However, changing Nevada’s marriage amendment will subject Christians to government sanctioned discrimination and persecution. Although clergy are minimally protected, church volunteers, employees, members and other religious organizations are unprotected. Individuals exercising their deeply held religious beliefs in their businesses will be subjected to religious targeting, discrimination and persecution. Please protect religious liberty. (Or write your own message) More information below.


Share your opinion on Legislative Bills: https://www.leg.state.nv.us/App/Opinions/80th2019/Send in Testimony to: AsmLOE@asm.state.nv.us

Background: This Constitutional Amendment will replace marriage between a man and a woman which was passed by 70% of the people in two consecutive elections in 2000 and 2002. *AJR2 already passed the Legislature in 2017 and when it passes the Legislature this session it will go on the ballot. It will mean that schools will teach LGBTQ marriage (and everything that goes with it) on an equal basis with God ordained marriage between a man and a woman. It will mean that people in business will be forced by law to participate in supporting gender marriage or go out of business. Day by Day…bill by bill…we are losing our Religious Liberties.

Text of *AJR2: https://www.leg.state.nv.us/Session/80th2019/Bills/AJR/AJR2_79.pdfText of *AJR2: Deleted in Red, Added in Blue, Current state law black,
RESOLVED BY THE ASSEMBLY AND SENATE OF THE STATE OF 2 NEVADA, JOINTLY, That Section 21 of Article 1 of the Nevada Constitution be amended to read as follows: [Sec:] Sec. 21. [Limitation on recognition] Recognition of marriage. [Only a marriage between a male and female 6 person shall be recognized and given effect in this state.] 1. The State of Nevada and its political subdivisions shall recognize marriages and issue marriage licenses to couples regardless of gender. 2. Religious organizations and members of the clergy have the right to refuse to solemnize a marriage, and no person has the right to make any claim against a religious organization or member of the clergy for such a refusal. 3. All legally valid marriages must be treated equally under the law.

The Nevada Constitution in Article 1 Section 4 states: Liberty of conscience. The Free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship without discrimination or preference shall forever be allowed in this State…but the liberty of (conscience) hereby secured…” 

The Nevada Constitution Ordinance provides “That perfect toleration of religious sentiment shall be secured, and no inhabitant of said state shall ever be molested, in person or property, on account of his or her mode of religious worship.”    

The Preamble of the Nevada Constitution states: “We the people of the State of Nevada Grateful to Almighty God for our freedom in order to secure its blessings, insure domestic tranquility, and form a more perfect Government, do establish this Constitution.

The Christian Right has a New Strategy on Gay Marriagehttps://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-christian-right-has-a-new-strategy-on-gay-marriage/

Here’s what the Supreme Court Says about Religious Libertyhttps://www.christianitytoday.com/news/2018/august/same-sex-wedding-cakes-christian-service-refusals-prri.html

You can help Nevada Families for Freedom by contributing online: www.nevadafamilies.org    Please make checks payable to Nevada Families, not tax deductible, 186 Ryndon Unit 12, Elko, NV 89801

Mar 062019

Nevada Dems have a problem, they are getting caught.

Reno Gazette Journal USA TODAY NETWORK State Sen. Majority Leader Kelvin Atkinson, D-North Las Vegas, resigned Tuesday after saying he intends to plead guilty to federal campaign finance law violations.

Atkinson, who was serving his first year in the top legislative post, announced his departure in an emotional speech from the Senate floor.He offered few details on an apparently ongoing investigation into his personal use of campaign funds.His attorney did not immediately return requests for comment.

I’ll bet they won’t have much to say over pleading to a felony.

Tuesday’s resignation marks the first time a lawmaker has left mid-session since 2013, when Assemblyman Steven Brooks was expelled from the statehouse amid ongoing mental health issues

That’s right, the top dem in the Nevada State Senate is going to Prison for a felony.

Mar 032019

State Affiliate National Eagle Forum 186 Ryndon Unit 12, Elko, Nevada 89801, 775-397-6859, Sparks 775-356-0105 Janine Hansen director@nevadafamilies.orgwww.nevadafamilies.org 

March 3. 2019, In the Year of Our Lord                                                     

When you forward please delete bottom portion which says unsubscribe or someone will unsubscribe for you. Thank you for Acknowledgement. 

Please pray for the Governor and Legislators. Oppose AB95 Which takes 75% of a domestic well owners allotment! HEARING: Monday, March 4, 4:00pm, Assembly Natural Resources, Room 3148, Videoconferenced to Room 4401 Grant Sawyer Bldg, 555 E. Washington Ave., Las Vegas.  Videoconferenced to Room 129, Leonard Center for Student Life, Great Basin College, 1500 College Parkway, Elko, NV 

AB 95: This bill attempts to retroactively take 75% of a domestic well owner’s water allotment which will devastate any chance of a rural lifestyle. Domestic use of water was purposely exempted from Nevada law. The language in this bill is to confuse legislators to think that domestic wells have a priority date tied to the appropriation date of water rights. This bill is attempting an unconstitutional taking without compensation. 

\MESSAGE: Please Vote NO on AB95 which attempts to take 75% of a domestic well owner’s water. This will devastate our rural lifestyle. Domestic water use was purposely exempted from Nevada law. This bill is an unconstitutional taking without compensation.  (Or write your own message) 

CONTACT: Heidi.Swank@asm.state.nv.usShannon.BilbrayAxelrod@asm.state.nv.usAlex.Assefa@asm.state.nv.usMaggie.Carlton@asm.state.nv.usOzzie.Fumo@asm.state.nv.usSarah.Peters@asm.state.nv.usHoward.Watts@asm.state.nv.usJohn.Ellison@asm.state.nv.usAlexis.Hansen@asm.state.nv.usRobin.Titus@asm.state.nv.usJim.Wheeler@asm.state.nv.us 

Share your opinion on Legislative Bills: https://www.leg.state.nv.us/App/Opinions/80th2019/ Text of AB95:  https://www.leg.state.nv.us/Session/80th2019/Bills/AB/AB95.pdf Send in Testimony to: AsmNRAM@asm.state.nv.us
We depend on your individual free will gifts! Thank you!

You can help Nevada Families for Freedom by contributing online: www.nevadafamilies.org    Please make checks payable to Nevada Families, not tax deductible, 186 Ryndon Unit 12, Elko, NV 89801