Minutes after President Trump announced in the Rose Garden this past week a plan to revise the priorities under which immigrants are accepted into the United States, Democrats and media outlets were calling his proposal dead on arrival, having no chance of being approved by Congress.
Sometimes good intentions can create more problems than they solve. Take Senate Bill 165 for example.
Nevada lawmakers held hearings recently on this bill that would legalize and tightly regulate physician-assisted suicide for the terminally ill. The bill would allow competent adults diagnosed to be within six months of death, as diagnosed by two physicians, to be prescribed medication that the patient could self-administer to “peacefully end his or her life.”The problem is that the 28-page bill goes far beyond that simple, seemingly liberating and decriminalizing notion by opening up the potential for widespread abuses and unintended consequences.
The ongoing ‘War on the West’ By Stephen Moore– – Sunday, March 3, 201 ANALYSIS/OPINION: President Trumpgave one of his most memorable and impactful speeches two weeks ago when he systematically dismantled the case for socialism. In that speech, he […]
It was not easy for them to agree on the best form of government for the newly liberated nation. They did much research, analysis, and debate to come to the final definition of our Constitutional Republic.
A large portion of the consideration was to the understanding of the failures of other efforts both currently and in history, and how those failures would be prevented.
We asked in an editorial published shortly before the November election whether the constitutional amendment on the ballot in Nevada and other states — known as Marsy’s Law and sold as a victim rights measure — could prevent the release of names of crime victims and crime reports that keep the public aware of public safety issues and how well justice is being delivered by our elected and appointed police, prosecutors and judges.
Marsy’s Law is being pushed nationwide by the wealthy family of Marsalee “Marsy” Nicholas, who was killed in 1983 by her ex-boyfriend. Family members were miffed when they walked into a grocery store and saw the ex-boyfriend, who had been released on bail without their knowledge. Whether bail would have been granted even if they were informed of the hearing is a matter of conjecture.
After learning this past week that the Department of Energy had secretly shipped a thousand pounds of weapons-grade plutonium to the Nevada National Security Site in Nye County before the state had filed a federal lawsuit in November seeking to block such shipments, Democratic Gov. Steve Sisolak and the state’s entire Democratic delegation to D.C. flew into paroxysms of apoplexy, accusing the Trump administration of deception and dealing unfairly with the state.
Sisolak put out a statement declaring, “I am beyond outraged by this completely unacceptable deception from the U.S. Department of Energy. The Department led the State of Nevada to believe that they were engaging in good-faith negotiations with us regarding a potential shipment of weapons-grade plutonium, only to reveal that those negotiations were a sham all along. They lied to the State of Nevada, misled a federal court, and jeopardized the safety of Nevada’s families and environment.”
In a section of the 88-page brief filed with the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that argues that prosecutors were simply trying to balance disclose of data against “protecting witnesses and victims from real and on-going threats,” prosecutors note that “in June 2014, Jerad and Amanda Miller, two extremists who had been at Bundy’s property in April, murdered two Las Vegas police officers as they ate lunch, then draped a Gadsden flag over one of the officers and shouted this was the start of ‘a revolution,’ and later killed a civilian as well.”
What they continue to neglect to mention is that the Millers were a couple of leftist, anti-authoritarian lunatics who showed up at the Bundy ranch standoff with BLM agents trying to confiscate his cattle but were told by the Bundys to leave because of their “very radical” views.
For the past year a national commission has been studying the issue of whether all young Americans should be required to perform public service — either military or some form of civilian service — and whether women should be required to register for the draft as men are currently required to do, even though the draft has not been used since 1973.
The National Commission on Military, National and Public Service is chaired by former Nevada Congressman, emergency room physician and Army Reserve Brig Gen. Joe Heck. He was interviewed on NPR public radio this past week about the status of the commission’s endeavors.
If you kill your baby in the womb, the government can have nothing to say about it but if you allow the child to live, the government is gonna’ be ALL up in your business.
Oregon Governor Kate Brown is pushing to make the state the first to require universal home visits for newborn children.
If your internal “uh-oh” alarms are not sounding loudly, please check your batteries.
The bill was introduced last month and orders the Oregon Health Authority to “study home visiting by licensed health care providers.”
The U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments in a case this past week that could alter the ability of a private citizen to seek justice in his state’s courts when public employees from another state abuse their powers and step over the line of common decency. The case is titled Franchise Tax Board of California v. Hyatt.
It all started in 1993 when a tax auditor for the Franchise Tax Board of California read a newspaper article about how wealthy California computer chip inventor, Gilbert Hyatt, had recently moved to Nevada, which, unlike California, has no income tax. The auditor investigated and concluded Hyatt had not moved to Nevada as early as he claimed. The tax board said Hyatt owed California nearly $15 million in taxes and penalties.
OPINION — If someone asked you to describe what an example of leadership might look like, what would you say? For most of us, the temptation would be irresistible to point to someone else – anyone else – who is in a position of prominence.
I can think of a better example.
A longtime friend in Southern Utah recently noted on Facebook that, after 45 years, he was changing his voter registration to unaffiliated.
This was no petulant overreaction to a political race that didn’t go his way. It was a conscious and principled decision to part ways with a political party that has been in decline for many years.
“WE NEED Your HELP!”
Todd Engel has written a letter
“A Long Trail of Abuses”
Please read the letter and then mail this letter to:
1600 Pennsylvania Ave, NW
Washington, DC 20500
The usual suspects are at it again, filing a federal lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia demanding the court halt a plan by the Bureau of Land Management to remove all the feral horses in a 40-mile radius around Caliente.
The American Wild Horse Campaign, Western Watershed Project, The Cloud Foundation and a Beatty outdoor enthusiast are suing the BLM, saying it failed to adequately document and support its roundup decision, though what would ever be adequate for them is difficult to say.
Some of the same plaintiffs brought a similar lawsuit in 2011 over a planned removal of wild horses from Jakes Wash west of Ely, but the suit was mooted when the BLM backed down rather fight the matter.
In 2009 there were only 270 wild horses in the 900,000-acre Caliente area, but a year ago there were more than 1,700, a number the BLM deems unsustainable.
The right to free speech includes the right to not be compelled to speak.
That includes not being required to pay dues to a union whose political view might be different from yours, not being required to advertise abortion availability at your faith-based pregnancy counseling service, not being required to use your cake baking talent to create a special cake or your flowing arranging expertise for a gay wedding.
All of these have come down from a closely divided U.S. Supreme Court in a matter of days.
Today the court ruled that public employees could not to be forced to pay dues to unions with which they might not agree. Justice Samuel Alito writes in the 5-4 opinion:
Bias, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder.
Earlier this year a three-judge panel of the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals overturned a decision by Reno federal Judge Robert Clive Jones involving water rights in the Walker River Basin and ordered him removed from the case, saying he was biased against the federal government’s attorneys.
“We reluctantly conclude that reassignment is appropriate here because we believe (1) that Judge Jones would have substantial difficulty putting out of his mind previously expressed views about the federal government and its attorneys, and (2) that reassignment will preserve the appearance of justice,” wrote Judge A. Wallace Tashima, noting that in two previous cases the 9th Circuit had said Jones “harbored animus toward the federal agencies” and that “the judge’s bias and prejudgment are a matter of public record …”
The rights of all are being challenged by someone that has publicly stated that he fights FOR these very rights.
We acted in good faith. Several people were attacked during this conflict. Redoubt News will always stand behind our journalists and affiliates in this battle. We will never sit back and allow their integrity to be put into question over unfounded accusations.
****** Editors Comment ********* As many are aware, It Matters How You Stand & Doug Knowles were impacted by this as well. Doug Knowles had his Personal Account deactivated by these False copyright infringement claims. thanks to Shari Dovale and Redoubt News for taking the effort and spending the Money to fight this Fraud. Watch for our next article that will exp0lain how Facebook Tracks us and what you can do about it.
The Trump administration has settled a lawsuit filed by Nevada and 19 other states over Obama administration rules that sweepingly redefined what constituted critical habitat for endangered species and has agreed to rewrite those rules.
The suit, filed in November 2016 against various federal land agencies, accused the federal bureaucrats of essentially rewriting the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA) to give themselves potential veto power over any use whatsoever on every square foot of rural land, public or private, in the country.
Though the ESA gives the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service authority to protect “critical habitat” occupied by endangered or threatened species, the rewritten rules redefined “critical habitat” to include land currently unoccupied by those species but just might someday, in some way, somehow — as a result of global warming or a meteor strike, perhaps — later become “critical habitat.”
Those rules gave federal agents the power to block or alter any activity — grazing, farming, buildings, mining, recreation, roads, fences, pipelines, ditches, power lines, irrigation, oil and gas exploration — that might somehow adversely affect a potential habitat for certain protected rodents, minnows, bugs, birds, reptiles, beasts and weeds.
There are two sides to every story.
Four years ago the Bureau of Land Management locked the gate to Little Ash Springs north of Alamo for what was described as a couple of weeks due to a crumbling wall on a manmade pool. It remains closed.
Recently, the Secretary of the Interior Ryan Zinke told the Las Vegas newspaper, “This is exactly why the federal government needs to clean up our act. I’m not in the business of locking the public out.”
He added, “We need to work with local communities and be better neighbors …”
Speaking of neighbors, Joe and Andrea Barker own the 13-acre tract adjacent to and downstream from the 1-acre BLM-controlled Little Ash Springs. Their property is known as Big Ash Springs and has 50 springs feeding 94-degree water into meandering shallow rivulets that are home to two endangered species — the White River springfish and the Pahranagat roundtail chub found only in the Ash Springs system.
I have never met John in person, I have talked with him over the phone and seen all the good he has done for all the P3. I like him as a person from what he has shown me. He has never done me any wrong. I called him about this issue. He stands firm that he did not give permission for this to be filmed or shared with others. That it was all his deal. He seamed very earnest in this declaration, a declaration that I now believe is composed of lies and retribution for what he thinks are wrongs against another friend. I am saying believe because I do not have the hard evidence in my own hands but it will come out soon enough. John has done many good works, and I praise him for every good thing that he has done on behalf of my friends, the Finicum family, and other patriotic prisoners, but that does not excuse the bad behavior that he is exhibiting now.
I have talked to others involved and I get a very different story and things done to appease John. All but taking the video down, because at this point in time consent or implied consent was given, again I was not there so I cannot say for fact.
OPINION – On the second anniversary of LaVoy Finicum’s death, I had the privilege of spending some time with his widow, Jeanette Finicum.
We spoke about our favorite memories of LaVoy and discussed the wrongful death lawsuit that Jeanette has filed against those who may bear direct or indirect responsibility in his killing. I was struck by a number of realizations as we visited.
The entire Finicum family has been on the receiving end of a monstrous injustice
First, and most importantly, the driving forces behind this lawsuit are justice and accountability for the various agencies and individuals who played a role in LaVoy Finicum’s death. The entire Finicum family has been on the receiving end of a monstrous injustice.
Rather than railing about vengeance or calling for blood, the Finicum family has consistently taken the high road over the past two years.
This week perhaps the biggest victory in the history of government prosecution and legal criminal defense was realized in a federal court in Las Vegas, Nevada. There, after Cliven Bundy and his sons, Ryan and Ammon, had been wrongfully charged by Obama deep state Justice Department prosecutors for conspiring to threaten federal law enforcement at gun point when Bureau of Land Management (BLM) agents, with the support of Federal Bureau of Investigation special agents, stormed the Bundy Ranch at Bunkerville, threatened the lives of the Bundys, violently assaulted family members when they would not relinquish their cattle and then, for “good measure,” killed tens of male cattle (aka bulls) used to procreate the herd and buried them in a secret mass grave, the federal judge who presided of the trial dismissed the government’s indictment with prejudice based on flagrant and outrageous prosecutorial misconduct.
Some think that the Bundys got off scot-free when U.S. District Judge Gloria Navarro dismissed cases against Cliven, sons Ammon and Ryan, and co-defendant Ryan Payne and accused their prosecutors — the government — of willfully withholding evidence from Bundy lawyers in violation of the federal Brady rule, thus denying them due process. She referred to it as “flagrant prosecutorial misconduct” and set the defendants free “with prejudice,” preventing the government from trying them again on this case.
So what price did the Bundys pay for defending the Constitution and freedom? Cliven Bundy certainly felt it high: “I have been a political prisoner for more than 700 days.” Let’s review the story of Bundy justice.
Though the most recent trial of four defendants in the April 2014 standoff between armed protesters and Bureau of Land Management agents trying to confiscate Cliven Bundy’s cattle ended in a mistrial, the case will stand as a historic example of how sweeping secrecy can cast doubt on whether justice is being served.
This past week U.S. District Judge Gloria Navarro halted testimony in the trial and sent the jurors home while she heard arguments behind closed doors over whether the prosecution had failed to provide the defense with potentially exculpatory evidence quickly enough. The judge said the prosecution’s repeated failure to timely disclose information was “sufficient to undermine the confidence in the outcome of the trial,” which she said could result in a mistrial. This week she declared a mistrial.
Attorney Maggie McLetchie — representing the Las Vegas Review-Journal newspaper and Battle Born Media, which publishes weekly newspapers in Mesquite, Ely, Eureka, Sparks and Lincoln and Mineral counties — promptly filed a motion seeking to intervene, which was granted. The newspapers are asking that all documents previously filed under seal be unsealed and that future hearings be conducted in open court.
In identifying the Misdeeds of Government, it requires a diligent search of available information. However, often that research produces some interesting results. That is the situation with this article, since it begins with events surrounding the arrest of Dave Bundy (The Bundy Affair – #12 – Dave Bundy’s Two Citations), on April 6, 2014, and ends with the declaration of Mistrial on Decembers 20, 2017. However, in that span of time, over three and a half years, the following events played out.
Dave Bundy was pulled over on Nevada State Highway 170, a road that goes from Interstate 15, near the road to the Bundy Ranch, to Bunkerville. The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) had attempted to close the highway.
Dave got into a dispute with the BLM and was arrested and charged with two citations (explained in the linked article above). It is this arrest that begins this series of events. First, we have, from the National Park Service “DIRECTOR’S ORDER #9: LAW ENFORCEMENT PROGRAM”, which, on page 2, explains when and where arrests may be made.