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, 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, 775-684-8843

Contact all Members of the Assembly Taxation Committee: Chair:,

Republicans: (Sponsor) Share your opinion on Legislative Bills:

Text AB244: 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: 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

You can help Nevada Families for Freedom by contributing online:    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, 



Share your opinion on Legislative Bills:

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:

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:

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.” “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.” “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:    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

Share your opinion on Legislative Bills:

Send Testimony to: 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:

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:    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: in Testimony to:

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: 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 Marriage

Here’s what the Supreme Court Says about Religious Liberty

You can help Nevada Families for Freedom by contributing online:    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 

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.st 

Share your opinion on Legislative Bills: Text of AB95: Send in Testimony to:
We depend on your individual free will gifts! Thank you!

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

Feb 282019

Oppose AB186 National Popular Vote Colorado has just passed NPV putting us only 89 electoral votes away from implementation of the National Popular Vote Compact

We must get 3 Democrats on the Committee to Oppose AB186

Article Below on how NPV Hurts Democrats 

In order to defeat this in committee we must get 3 Democrats to vote against. We anticipate that the 2 Republicans will vote No. You can check to see if you live in their district at If you do be sure to mention it and get your neighbors to call Please contact them even if you are not in their district. CALLS are IMPORTANT! We are targeting: 

Assemblyman Fumo (Democrat Clark Dist 21) who has said he is against but is listed as a co-sponsor of SB186 NPV: 775-684-8839,

Assemblyman Skip Daly (Democrat in a swing district Washoe 31 so he cares especially about calls from his district) who said he hasn’t made up his mind. 775-684-8563,

Assemblyman William McCurdy II, (Democrat Clark Dist 6) whose position is unknown but friendly.775-684-8545,

Assemblywoman Selena Torres (just elected Democrat Clark Dist 3) appears to be leaning in favor.775-684-8599,

MESSAGE: Please Vote NO on AB186 National Popular Vote. It could hurt the chances of a Democrat winning the Presidency, especially if there is an Independent Candidate. It will make small states like Nevada meaningless fly over states in the Presidential Election( Or write your own message) More information below. 

The following States plus the District of Columbia have already signed onto the NPV State Compact. Notice that every one of these states voted for Hillary Clinton in the most recent election. The states are listed with their number of electoral votes: California 55, Connecticut 7, District of Columbia 3, Hawaii 4, Illinois 20, Maryland 10, Massachusetts 11, New Jersey 14, New York 29, Rhode Island 4, Vermont 3, Washington 12, and Colorado 9 equaling 181 electoral votes. This means that according to NPV Compact they are more than 67% of the way to their goal or just 89 electoral votes short from putting the Compact into effect! If only a portion of the additional states not listed above voting for Hillary passed the NPV Compact, it would go into effect. This article explains how NPV could harm Democrats…Remember we are trying to get 3 Democrats to vote against NPV.The DANGERS of National Popular Vote

By Janine Hansen, National Constitutional Issues Chairman Eagle Forum The First Danger of NPV: The National Popular Vote Compact has no minimum percentage for a candidate to be declared the National Popular Vote Winner. What this means is in a 3 way race a candidate could win with 35% of the popular vote or even less. If we look at recent Presidential Election history from 1992, we will see that Ross Perot, an Independent millionaire and self financed Candidate, received 19% of the vote most likely causing George H. W. Bush to lose his second term. Before Ross Perot withdrew and then reentered the race, he was polling at 39%. Although Ross Perot received no Electoral College Votes, in a National Popular Vote Election that does not matter. If he or some other Independent Candidate received 39% of the popular vote, they would probably have obtained enough votes to be named the National Popular Vote winner. Before the 1992 election Republican Bush was polling at 31% and the Democrat Clinton had 25%. This could happen again in the 2020 Presidential Election. Starbucks mogul Howard Schultz has announced he is running for the Presidency as a “centrist independent”. If National Popular Vote is in force Schultz as an Independent Candidate, could win the presidency with only 39% or less of the popular vote.

His candidacy could devastate the Democrat Presidential Candidate. Like Ross Perot he is a millionaire and could be self financed. Up to 42% of Americans identify as “Independents”. People are increasingly becoming disenchanted with both political parties. There are other third parties, which would also deprive the major parties of some of the national popular votes including the Libertarian Party, Independent American /Constitution Party, Green Party and others.

Because the National Popular Vote Compact has NO minimum percentage required for the NPV Winner we could elect a candidate with no national mandate. United States has had more than one 3 way race for the presidency. In 1912 Teddy Roosevelt bolted the Republican Party and organized the Bull Moose Party. His success was to split the Republican vote so that William Howard Taft lost, electing Democrat Woodrow Wilson. Teddy Roosevelt, as a former President and as a third Party candidate actually garnered more popular votes than the Republican candidate. Wilson received 41% of the popular vote with Roosevelt receiving 27% and Taft 23%. In 1860 when Republican Abraham Lincoln was elected there were actually four candidates in the race. Lincoln received 39% of the popular vote, Stephen A. Douglas (Northern Democrat Party) received 29.5%, John Breckenridge (Southern Democrat Party) received 18%, and John Bell (Constitutional Union Party) received 12% of the popular vote. We know what happened with the election of Lincoln. He had no national mandate winning with only 39% of the Popular Vote. The stark divisions in the nation at that time resulted in the Civil War and the bloodshed and death of 620,000 Americans. 

The Second Danger of NPV: There is No National Authority for determining the accuracy of the National Popular Vote for President. The Nevada legislative proposal AB186 is exactly the same as proposals in other states. AB186 requires on page 2 line 26: …the chief election official of each member state shall determine the number of votes for each presidential slate IN EACH STATE OF THE UNITED STATES AND THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA in which votes have been cast in a statewide popular election and SHALL ADD SUCH VOTES TOGETHER TO PRODUCE A “NATIONAL POPULAR VOTE TOTAL” for each presidential slate. Wow! So our Secretary of State is responsible for determining the validity of the presidential election vote in 50 states and the District of Columbia. And that is also true for each “chief election officer in each state. Who is the arbitrator if states don’t agree? There is no answer in the NPV Compact.

Currently, the Director of the Federal Register has been designated by the Archivist of the United States and is responsible for obtaining from the states the certificated results of the election. There is a careful process for determining the correct election results. There is nothing comparable to that well defined and safeguarded process in the National Popular Vote Compact. How will the public be able to trust the election results by 51 chief election officers when there is no national process to certify the votes? In the past some states have even failed to send their results to the Archivist of the United States.

What happens if, as a part of the Compact, Nevada’s Secretary of State designates a different National Popular Vote Winner than the one of the other states in the Compact designate? What if a Chief Election Officer of a state wherein the Popular Vote differs from the National Popular Vote “Winner” REFUSES to betray the voters of his state and does not certify the electors for the National Popular Vote “Winner”? Will the other States take that State to Court? Will it throw the election into the hands of the Supreme Court? What happens, as just happened in North Carolina, if Voter Fraud is discovered and the election is overturned? Does that nullify the National Popular Vote Total and nullify the Presidential election? Does it delay the election of the President throwing the nation into a Constitutional Crisis and political chaos? Will it result in endless recounts and lawsuits? 

The Third Danger of NPV National Popular Vote sets up a system of betrayal of the Voters. Under NPV if Nevada votes for the Democrat Presidential Candidate, but the National Popular Vote winner is determined to be the Republican or the Independent, the Secretary of State in Nevada will be forced to betray the Voters of Nevada certifying presidential electors for the candidate who did not receive the popular vote in Nevada. This kind of betrayal will infuriate the voters of Nevada and subject those who supported such a vote stealing scheme to their wrath of the voters! National Popular Vote creates instability jeopardizing what the Electoral College has provided for over 200 years—the peaceful transfer of power. 

Share your opinion on Legislative Bills:

Text of AB186:

We depend on your individual free will gifts! Thank you!

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

Feb 202019

Take Action Against Universal Background Checks: Contact your County Commissioners New Mexico’s Counties pass resolutions declaring themselves Second Amendment Sanctuary Counties!

16 of 17 Counties in Nevada (all but Clark) voted against Bloomberg’s Universal Background checks. New Yorker Bloomberg poured $18 million into our state to force background checks. The statewide vote was 558,631 in favor and 548,732 only 9,899 difference. Statewide it was 50.45% in favor and 49.55% opposed. The results from all counties but Clark voting against Background Checks range from Washoe at the lowest with 54.34% against, Carson 65.65% to Eureka at 90.28%. Other rural counties range from 75% to 88.63%.  New Mexico’s County Commissions faced with their state Legislature imposing Universal Background checks have begun to pass county Second Amendment Sanctuary Resolutions with the support of their sheriffs. “The purpose is to get the attention of Albuquerque and Santa Fe,” Sheriff Ferrari said. ”

As Sheriff, I want to keep guns out of the hands of criminals. As Sheriff, I want to keep guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens.”

“San Juan, Lincoln, and Eddy counties are just the latest to make the move and approve such resolutions. Quay, Union, Curry, and Socorro counties have all drafted resolutions that represent the latest push back against state firearms legislation.” 

The Nevada Legislature passed SB143 Universal Background checks and Governor Sisolak signed it into law which goes into effect January 2, 2020. Text of Nevada’s SB143 Universal Background Checks. Nevada’s County Commissioners should begin their push back with similar resolutions to New Mexico.

Contact your pro-Second Amendment Commissioners and Sheriffs. Defend the Second Amendment against Nevada’s Bloomberg Universal Background Check..

SOURCE: Nevada Families 186 Ryndon Unit 12, Elko, NV 89801

Feb 202019

Yesterday the Nevada State Senate introduced an outrageous abortion bill SB179 which removes from our law the requirement of “informed consent” before having an abortion, including making sure the woman is pregnant and informing her of how many weeks pregnant she is, what procedure for the abortion will be used, the proper procedures for care after the abortion and the risks after the abortion.

In addition, the bill removes the provisions for parental notification for a minor child before they can have an abortion. These provisions were overturned by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals but have remained in our law. If we had an Attorney General who was willing to challenge it again with our new U.S. Supreme Court it could be reactivated. It is outrageous that the Progressive Democrats oppose parental notification and informed consent. They really don’t care about parents or girls and women but only their radical agenda which has now become apparent…even killing babies after they are born. SB179 is so extreme that it repeals NRS 201.150 “Concealing birth; penalty. Every person who shall endeavor to conceal the birth of a child by any disposition of its dead body, whether the child died before or after its birth, shall be guilty of a gross misdemeanor.” What?!!! It will not be a crime to dispose of a child’s dead body! No hearing has been set yet. I have enclosed some information from Nevada Right to Life who we are partnering with in opposing this bill.

MESSAGE: Please oppose SB179. It is irresponsible to remove informed consent protections from abortion laws leaving women open to exploitation. Removing parental notification for abortion from our law is thoroughly disdainful of parents’ rights and responsibilities. Please protect our minor daughters from the abuse of others who do not have their best interests in mind. (Or write your own message)

CONTACT: Democrat Senators:,,,,,,,

Share your opinion on Legislative Bills:

Text of SB179: We are working closely with Nevada Right to Life on this important issue.

Content from: Nevada Families, not tax deductible, 186 Ryndon Unit 12, Elko, NV 89801