Tag Archives: Nevada Republicans

Adam Laxalt: The Grandson of Immigrants doesn’t like immigrants?

Adam Paul Laxalt seems to have forgotten that he is a descendant of Dominique and Therese Laxalt.  He also appears to have forgotten that Dominique Laxalt started life in the great American west as a sheepherder.  I supposed he’d prefer Nevadans identify him as the grandson of former Governor Paul Laxalt, popular politician and friend of Ronald Reagan — not especially as the great grandson of a Basque sheepherder.   He must be only tenuously connected to his immigrant roots because that’s the only rational explanation for his joining the “anti-sanctuary city” case brought by 11 AGs:

 “The brief urges the court to reverse a U.S. District Court judge’s order preventing the implementation of the federal government’s executive order pertaining to sanctuary cities. The case is an opportunity to remedy the threat California’s “sanctuary cities” pose to Nevada safety, Laxalt’s office stated.” [Sierra Sun]

First let’s look at the rational as published by the Sierra Sun, and evaluate Laxalt’s position.  Part One:

“Nevada’s law enforcement officials, including all 17 currently elected county sheriffs, have consistently opposed sanctuary-city policies that would prevent compliance with federal law and compromise public safety, the office stated. In the vast majority of cases, an individual must be arrested for committing a crime and booked into a jail or detention facility before Nevada law enforcement agencies check whether the individual is sought by federal immigration authorities and, if so, alert those federal authorities, the office stated. Sanctuary-city policies that prohibit this communication allow violent offenders to be released back into the community, the office stated.”

The part about “compromising public safety” needs a bit more explication.  In standard law enforcement practice, a person does something criminal, that is commits a felony or a misdemeanor, and is detained. After detention law enforcement looks into the person’s background — outstanding warrants? Outstanding court issues? …. Immigration status? The Oval Office Anti-Immigrant policy inserts ICE into the arrest process, and herein lies a problem — If the individual arrested for being publicly intoxicated thereby disturbing the peace  (NRS 203.010) is named Smith, Johnson, or Baker what is the likelihood the sheriff’s office is going to check with ICE for his or her immigration status?  What we have here is an invitation to discrimination, whites detained face misdemeanor penalties and Hispanics face more extensive investigations by ICE for being named Hernandez.

The odds are in Nevada the person with the Hispanic surname is US born.  Hispanics are 28% of the state’s population, and of this number 61% were born in the United States. [Pew]  The most common Hispanic name in Nevada is Garcia.  [Anc.com] If Garcia is the most common surname for a person of Hispanic heritage in Nevada then we can add Jose as the most common name for a boy of Mexican descent.  Now, consider for a moment what happens when a Jose Garcia is picked up in violation of NRS 203.010 and his “name is compared” to an ICE target list.  Think there aren’t ample opportunities for mistakes to be made? Maybe think again.  As for releasing “violent offenders back into communities…” that needs to be discussed as well.

Sanctuary-city policies that prohibit this communication allow violent offenders to be released back into the community, the office stated.”  This is a misvioleading conflation of the first water. The statement works IF and Only IF we assume that the person detained is automatically assumed to be a violent offender or if violent offenders are the most commonly arrested.  It also works IF the audience assumes “those people” are likely to be violent offenders, the release of any one of them puts the population in peril.  To make these assumptions AG Laxalt would have to ignore the 2016 Crime in Nevada report. (long pdf)

A person doesn’t get far into the 2016 Department of Public Safety report before it’s obvious that the most common index crimes in this state are good old fashioned garden variety property crimes: burglary, larceny.   The five year average for property crime (2012-2016) stands at 76,833 far outpacing personal crime averages.  So, even for ‘serious’ crimes, the ones that get reported as indexed, the odds are a person didn’t get picked up for a violent crime against a person.  Therefore the argument that we should turn our local deputies into ICE officers because otherwise we’d have roving rapists and murderers in our midst is more fear mongering than reality.  Not that this prevents AG Laxalt from turning up the burners:

 “Sanctuary cities in California pose a danger to neighboring states like Nevada by making it easier for those not lawfully in this country and with violent criminal histories to evade law enforcement and travel out of state. What’s more, these cities undermine the rule of law and prevent cooperation between federal and local officials.”

“Undermining the rule of law” is a common refrain among right wing anti-immigration advocates.  We could as easily argue that what undermines the rule of law is to have people arrested and detained because they have the same name as a person on an ICE list, or that if one’s name is Smith or Jones there will be no extra scrutiny but if your last name is Garcia or … Laxalt… then the person can sweat the possibility of mistakes.  The rule of law can also be undermined by immigration agents who dump water bottles in the desert (and brag about it) or threaten a doctor with deportation for juvenile offenses ages ago, and make it all but impossible for immigrant women to press charges for sexual assaults because to do so would invite deportation proceedings.  It also undermines respect for the law if we deliberately ignore the fact that the statistics on crimes don’t support the assertion illegal immigrants commit more crimes:

“The tone and tenor of the president’s executive order blurs the line between who’s a serious criminal and who isn’t,” and between documented and undocumented immigrants, said Randy Capps, the institute’s director of research for United States programs. There is no national accounting of criminality specifically by people who are in the country illegally. But Mr. Nowrasteh said he had analyzed the available figures and concluded that undocumented immigrants had crime rates somewhat higher than those here legally, but much lower than those of citizens.”  [NYT] (emphasis added)

3 Comments

Filed under Immigration, Nevada, Nevada politics, Politics

GOP Air Balls: ACA Repeal would increase Nevada uninsured by 95%

Trump Favorite Picture This ought to be just a little chilling:

If Republicans go through with their plan to dismantle the Affordable Care Act using a similar model as their failed 2015 Obamacare repeal, the number of uninsured would double, a new report by the Urban Institute report warns. (pdf)  Taking into account the two or so year delay GOP lawmakers say they will include in the repeal bill, the non-partisan think tank estimates that in 2019 the number of uninsured nonelderly people would rise from about 29 million to nearly 59 million.  [TPM]

And the numbers represent what? Answer:

Eighty-two percent of the people becoming uninsured would be in working families, 38 percent would be ages 18 to 34, and 56 percent would be non-Hispanic whites. Eighty percent of adults becoming uninsured would not have college degrees. [UrbanInst. pdf]

Percentages have a way of sounding bland, so some clicking on the Plastic Brain results in approximately 33,040,000 of those people who would lose their health insurance by 2019  being non-Hispanic white people.  47,200,000 would be those without a college education, and thus presumably not in a position to secure the kind of employment providing the resources to find individual health plans.

If the 2015 bill is used as the framework or model, then the Urban Institute projects that there will be 762,000 uninsured individuals in Nevada only 18% of whom would be eligible for assistance; causing a 95% increase in the number of uninsured in Nevada.   Those Nevada politicians who have been denouncing the Affordable Care Act (read Rep. Mark Amodei R-NV2) may want to pause before “taking credit” for creating a 95% increase in the number of Nevadans without health insurance.

It’s important to recall that the Big Lie about the Affordable Care Act is that it is “socialized medicine.”  In reality it’s an Insurance Law. It doesn’t create a nationalized health care system – it merely increases the number of people who have “access” to health care by providing more people with the capability of purchasing health insurance policies.

Senate Democrats have already signaled that should the “Straight Out Of The Gate Repeal and Replace” come from the majority Republicans the GOP can expect no assistance from the Democratic side of the chamber. [TPM]

And, then there’s the politics of the repeal.  If the GOP decides to use the Reconciliation Process (needing only 51 votes for repeal) then Senator Dean Heller (R-NV) raises a question:  “What we are trying to figure out is what the restrictions on reconciliation,” Sen. Dean Heller (R-NV) told TPM. “Does reconciliation allow for a replacement? And it may or may not.” [TPM]

If the process doesn’t allow for “replacement” then the Republicans have chucked the insurance for those with pre-existing medical conditions, insurance coverage for mental health, insurance coverage maternity care, protections from junk insurance policies with maximum limits, and other popular features of the ACA.  They may also be chucking hospitals under the bus.

One private equity spokesperson noted last November, “… hospitals, especially those in rural areas, could be tremendously hard hit if the replacement rolls back the progress made under the ACA to insure patients and incentivize them to get care before their illnesses require emergency room visits or hospitalization.”

Thus, with the lack of any specificity from Republicans about the nature of the “replacement” we could posit some serious problems for the members of the Nevada Rural Hospital Partners – in Winnemucca, Fallon, Battle Mountain, Boulder City, Carson Valley, Ely, Winnemucca, Incline Village, Hawthorne, etc.   A 2016 report for the American Hospital Association provides some general conclusions from which we can contemplate the effect on Nevada’s rural health providers:

”The loss of coverage would have a net impact on hospitals of $165.8 billion  with the restoration of Medicaid DSH reductions; The ACA Medicare reductions are maintained and hospitals will suffer additional losses of $289.5 billion from reductions in their inflation updates; Full restoration of Medicare and Medicaid Disproportionate Share Hospital  (DSH) payment reductions embedded in ACA would amount to $102.9 billion.”  [AHA pdf] 

The technical term for these losses might be “ouch?”   There is a point at which rhetoric meets the road.  It’s all well and good to bellow “Repeal and Replace?” Or, “Get Rid of Socialized Medicine.”  It’s another thing entirely to puzzle out the impact of repeal on all the stakeholders in this issue – the customers and patients, the health care providers, the hospitals and clinics, the insurance companies, and the investors who have an increasing stake in privatized health care in this country.

There are some elements of the Affordable Care Act which could be improved.  However, the Burn the Barn Down political pandering on full display among Republicans isn’t leading to any current and serious discussions of how to make these improvements viable.  And, this is chilling for policy holders, insurance companies, health care providers, hospitals and clinics, and the investors therein.

Perhaps the Pottery Barn rule applies to Republicans: If you break it you own it.

Comments Off on GOP Air Balls: ACA Repeal would increase Nevada uninsured by 95%

Filed under Amodei, Health Care, health insurance, Heller, Nevada politics, Politics, public health, Republicans, Rural Nevada

FYI: Five months of active voter registration in Nevada

Nevada Statewide Active Voters 2016

Stats from the Nevada Secretary of State’s office for January – May 2016, active voters in Nevada. Yours to play with at will.

Comments Off on FYI: Five months of active voter registration in Nevada

Filed under Nevada Democrats, Nevada politics, Politics

Council of Conservative Citizens and the Problem of Money in Nevada Politics

Earl Holt NV On August 21, 2010 the Friends of Sharron Angle received a $500.00 donation from one Earl Holt, Longview, Texas.  There was another donation from the same source on October 12, 2010, also for $500.00.  However, pouring money into Mrs. Angle’s failed campaign wasn’t Earl Holt’s only interest in Nevada.  On September 30, 2012 the Heller for Senate received $500.00 from the generous Mr. Holt. [LVSun]

Mr. Holt and his organization have come under scrutiny since the Charleston church massacre as the probable source of inspiration for the killer.  From the Associated Press, the Guardian, and Politico. And, now Senator Heller has announced he will give his prize money from Holt to the Mother Emanuel Hope Fund. [LVRJ]

The donation is good news indeed, the bad news is that the $500 from Holt’s Hate Band has been in Senator Heller’s account from September 30, 2012 until June 22, 2015 without notice on the part of Heller’s own staff.

This says something about money in politics and Republican money more specifically.

Given the massive costs of running a statewide campaign, especially in the top echelon races, it’s comprehensible that individual donations of relatively small amounts wouldn’t be cross checked for provenance.  However, it’s not like the Council of Conservative Citizens is an unknown group. 

“The Council of Conservative Citizens (CCC) is the modern reincarnation of the old White Citizens Councils, which were formed in the 1950s and 1960s to battle school desegregation in the South. Among other things, its Statement of Principles says that it “oppose[s] all efforts to mix the races of mankind.” Created in 1985 from the mailing lists of its predecessor organization, the CCC, which initially tried to project a “mainstream” image, has evolved into a crudely white supremacist group…” [SPLC]

Flags As the Republican Party has been co-opted or at least significantly  influenced by the ultra-conservative Tea Party membership, the origins of money are ever more likely to come from organizations which have dubious racial and ethnic agendas – i.e. white supremacists.

Our second “given” is that it is always easier to beg forgiveness than to ask  permission.  Several prominent members of the Republican Party have donated CCC money to charity in the last week, all presumably because the tainted nature of the origins came to light.  Granted this is speculation, but what IF by some miracle the killer in Charleston had not acted on his evil ideation? What if the basis for the hate wasn’t the propaganda of the white supremacist’s associations?  Would those donations still be available to the politicians to buy air time and advertising?

In an era of Dark Money, Big Money, PAC money, and questionable non-profit money – here’s some unsolicited advice:

Well coordinated campaigns have good lines of internal communication.  Policy advocates and specialists should know where the money’s coming from, and the finance specialists should be aware of the image the candidate wants to project.   If a candidate doesn’t wish to be guilty by association with white supremacist groups then that needs to be conveyed to the finance directors with an admonishment to screen donations which appear questionable.

Bluntly speaking, Citizens United, while beneficial to Republican candidates in terms of corporate donations, may have made it harder for individual campaigns to discern the ultimate origins of campaign donations, which when discovered could prove embarrassing – or career ending.  We have a current example – Rep. Scalise, his speech to a David Duke related organization, and Duke’s threat to reveal his connections to other politicians. [HuffPo]

When in doubt – there’s always Google?

1 Comment

Filed under Angle, campaign finance reform, campaign funds, Heller, Nevada politics, Politics, racism

Vote Suppression Bills Emerge in Nevada Legislature

Vote suppression 2 Here they go again: SB 433AN ACT relating to elections; requiring the county clerk and city clerk to publish the voter turnout for each day of early voting by midnight of the following day; prohibiting an election board officer from displaying a political preference or party allegiance while serving; requiring the county clerk and city clerk to use certain criteria in determining polling places for early voting; revising the hours and days for early voting;…  And they’re off, galloping toward making it more difficult to cast a ballot in Nevada elections —

Sections 4, 5, 12 and 13 of this bill provide that no permanent or temporary polling place may open before 7 a.m., remain open after 7 p.m. or open on Sundays during early voting.”

This in a state in which one of the leading employers is the “hospitality” sector, and people in that sector work various shifts which are generally not associated with so-called ‘standard hours.’   Here’s a conservative idea: How about allowing local governments some discretion in how they conduct their elections?

Consider for a moment the section in the bill which alleges to be “fair” about the location of polling stations.  Heretofore, county clerks and local election officials have had some latitude to establish these on the basis of local returns and traffic.  However, SB 433 adds some language which contains another wrinkle.  The Bill says,

“2. The county clerk shall: (a) Provide by rule or regulation for the criteria to be used to select permanent and temporary polling places for early voting by personal appearance . [; and] The criteria used to select permanent and temporary polling places for early voting by personal appearance must, without limitation: (1) Ensure that permanent and temporary polling places are located near residential areas of the county, to the extent possible. (2) Ensure that a permanent or temporary polling place is located in every geographic area of the county, to the extent possible. (b) At a meeting of the board of county commissioners, inform the board of the sites selected as permanent and temporary polling places for early voting by personal appearance. 3. The number of permanent and temporary polling places for early voting by personal appearance in a county with multiple assembly districts must be divided equally among the assembly districts.” (emphasis added)

First, there’s the waffling language inserted “to the extent possible,” without specifying what criteria should be used to determine whether a location is feasible.  Secondly, take a another look at the portion underlined above.  What counties have multiple assembly districts?  Clark (Las Vegas), Washoe (Reno-Sparks), and in general members of the Nevada Assembly represent about 64,299 residents.

The 42 Assembly districts include 30 districts wholly within Clark County, 8 districts in the Washoe County/Carson City/western Nevada area, and 4 Assembly districts within the 2 rural Senate districts.”  [nvleg]

Now, if each of the Assembly elections in multi-district counties have the same number of polling stations what would the impact of this be on those districts which have more than the average number of residents and those which have less?  This is a problem which could easily be sorted by local officials who know how many people live where – but the Republican bill would treat everyone “equally” when such a solution might not in itself be equitable. 

There are three “overpopulated” districts in Nevada after the 2010 census:  Clark Senate District 9, 173.9% overpopulated;  State Assembly District 22 at 246.7% overpopulated; and,  Nevada Assembly District 13 with 298.8% overpopulation. [ballot]  Perhaps we might want to think about installing more polling stations in those districts which are overpopulated rather than being “fair” by allowing all districts an equal number no matter the overpopulation figures? Interestingly enough those two overpopulated Assembly seats are currently held by Republicans, as is Senate District 9.  It’s hard to conceive of Republicans advocating long lines in polling places for their own incumbents – but perhaps when ideology trumps common sense that could be the outcome?

This could also prove to be the case in the infamous SB 169, photo ID bill.  What makes SB 169 of special interest is that it only recognizes state, federal, and tribal identification forms of identification.  The result is essentially disenfranchisement.  And, disenfranchisement with a big price tag for taxpayers:

“The bill was referred to the Senate Finance Committee because of its undermined cost of providing voter identification cards to those who lack other acceptable forms for photo ID.

There’s also the expense of educating voters on the requirement, Story said, adding Indiana, on which the Nevada bill is modeled, spent millions of dollars on such efforts.’ [LVRJ]

Additional, costly, voter identification measures to solve a non-existent problem, combined with the shrinking number of hours available for voters is a recipe for vote suppression, exactly what Republicans have been clamoring for in recent years.  Bill Moyers compiled a short but illustrative guide to GOP vote suppression thoughts, which deserves a review at this point before the Republicans in Nevada make voting the preserve of the rich and all but impossible for the poor.

Comments Off on Vote Suppression Bills Emerge in Nevada Legislature

Filed under Nevada, Nevada legislature, Nevada politics, Vote Suppression, Voting

ALEC and Nevada GOP launch vote suppression bills

vote suppression

It isn’t quite true to say that vote suppression bills are “a solution in search of a problem,” because the “problem” as seen by ALEC and associated Republicans is that too many people are voting, thus placing a permanent GOP majority in doubt.  Here’s a portion of AB 266, the perfectly predictable photo ID bill:

“Section 2 sets forth the acceptable forms of proof of identity which are: (1) certain government-issued documents or identity cards that show a recognizable photograph of the person to whom the document or card is issued; (2) a voter identification card; or (3) certain documentation from an administrator of certain health care facilities that are licensed by the State.”

What’s the problem? Just show the election officials your driver’s license? That, according to the Brennan Center isn’t a solution to the real problem – encouraging more people to participate in our electoral politics.

“Approximately ten percent of voting-age Americans today do not have driver’s licenses or state-issued non-driver’s photo ID. Based on Americans’ moving patterns, many more do not have photo ID showing their current address. And getting ID costs substantial time and money. A would-be voter must pay substantial fees both for ID cards and the backup documents needed to get them-up to $100 for a driver’s license, up to $45 for a birth certificate, $97 for a passport, and over $200 for naturalization papers. The voter may also have to take several hours off of work and travel significant distances to visit government offices open only during select daytime hours. Finally, many identifying documents cannot be issued immediately, so potential voters must allow for processing and shipping, which may take from several weeks to an entire year.”

As the Brennan Center relates, there’s nothing “free” about the documentation needed to get voting photo identification cards, even though the card itself is supposed to be issued at no charge.  And, who are those most likely to be suppressed by this legislation?  No surprise here:

“The impact of ID requirements is even greater for the elderly, students, people with disabilities, low-income individuals, and people of color. Thirty-six percent of Georgians over 75 do not have a driver’s license. Fewer than 3 percent of Wisconsin students have driver’s licenses listing their current address. The same study found that African Americans have driver’s licenses at half the rate of whites, and the disparity increases among younger voters; only 22% of black men aged 18-24 had a valid driver’s license. Not only are minority voters less likely to possess photo ID, but they are also more likely than white voters to be selectively asked for ID at the polls. For example, in New York City, which has no ID requirement, a study showed that poll workers illegally asked one in six Asian Americans for ID at the polls, while white voters were permitted to vote without showing ID.”

Whose vote is in jeopardy?

Predictably that would be elderly people, students, people with disabilities, low income Americans, and people of color.  We’ve covered this territory before in terms of Nevada voting, especially in rural areas.  The geography of this state, and the fact that most of the population tends to live in just two counties, means that rural voters are also at risk.

It’s also no surprise that some of the same people who walked off the ALEC gang plank into the depths of vote suppression are the same who made the same march previously, see here.  AB 266 also brings back memories of Senator Roberson’s 2011 SB 373.

How does this fly in the face of American judicial principles? 

Here’s a reminder:

“If you signed your registration form in Nevada declaring under penalty of perjury that you are at least 18 years of age, are a citizen of the United States, are not among the classes of persons held ineligible, and are a resident of the state.  The burden of proof that you have committed perjury rests with the state.

The burden of proof always rests with the state — in any prosecution for anything.  If a person is alleged to have voted once in Clark County and again in Nye County that would call for a prosecution of a crime under NRS 293 — but the burden of proof rests with the state.   If a person is alleged to have voted using an assumed identity, then this calls for prosecution, and once again — the burden of proof rests with the state.

Any suggestion that the citizen be required to “show proof of citizenship” at the polls is not only redundant, but shifts the burden of proof from the state to the individual.  That’s not the way the American system of jurisprudence works.  It’s not the way the American judicial system has ever worked.

A person in any court in the United States is never presumed guilty until he or she can demonstrate innocence.  A person need never prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he or she did not commit a burglary, an arson, a theft, a manslaughter — the burden of proof always rests with the state.  Demanding “proof of citizenship” at the polling stations presumes that unless a person can “prove” otherwise he or she is a fraudulent voter upends the very foundation of our criminal justice precepts.” [DB]

Fancy Focus Group Terms Don’t Hide The Intent

Conservative Republicans are fond of using terms like “election integrity,” as if there was something amiss in our current system.  There isn’t.  The one question these advocates of vote suppression don’t want to answer is:  How many cases of voter impersonation fraud have been identified in this state?  As of August 2014, there were 31 cases of voter impersonation fraud in the entire country, and not one case was associated with a Nevada election. [WaPo]

But, but, but…sputter the advocates, “Photo ID will make people feel better about their elections.”  That’s false, too.  When researchers from Harvard and Columbia put this to a statistical test, the results didn’t support this contention:

“Because actual evidence of voter impersonation fraud is rare and difficult to come by if fraud is successful, reliance on public opinion as to the prevalence of fraud threatens to allow courts to evade the difficult task of balancing the actual constitutional risks involved. In this short Article we employ a unique survey to evaluate the causes and effects of public opinion regarding voter fraud. We find that perceptions of fraud have no relationship to an individual’s likelihood of turning out to vote. We also find that voters who were subject to stricter identification requirements believe fraud is just as widespread as do voters subject to less restrictive identification requirements.” (emphasis added)

Conclusions

Vote suppression bills are precisely that – legislation intended to make it more difficult for groups least likely to need or afford photo identification to vote in state and national elections.  They are promoted by associations like ALEC, which produces the model legislation, in order to secure a permanent GOP majority in elected bodies.  Let’s slip out on the tree limb and conjecture that if the elderly, students, the disabled, and the poor were voting for eliminating the minimum wage, enhancing corporate tax breaks, and terminating the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau … the GOP would be demanding same day registration, and ALEC’s bill mill would be going full bore.

Vote suppression bills are unconstitutional. Discrimination should be the last thing found in polling stations. Further, to place the burden of proof on a “defendant” is counter to the very basic principles of American justice.

Vote suppression bills serve no one except corporate interests, as the Harvard/Columbia research reports – they don’t even make people feel any better.

AB 266, and its companions SB 169, and AB 253 should find their way to the bottom of some committee file cabinet – and not their way to the Governor’s desk.

Comments Off on ALEC and Nevada GOP launch vote suppression bills

Filed under Nevada, Nevada legislature, Nevada politics, Vote Suppression, Voting

The Great Nevada Bundy Babe Battle

Fiore

Assemblywoman Michele Fiore (R-LV4) will chair the Assembly Taxation Committee?  Sometime before the February 2nd opening of the Assembled Wisdom, Nevada Republicans need to get the clown car in operating condition.  Part of the reclamation project seems to be to explain the part where a person with tax liens gets to head a Taxation Committee.  She’s heading the Taxation Committee? She’s not heading the Taxation Committee? She’s not heading the Taxation Committee because there’s a GOP war on Women? She is heading the Taxation Committee because there’s no war on women, or she is heading the Taxation Committee because she can explain the tax liens? [Ralston]  [RGJ]

Those tax liens aren’t piddling, they add up to more than $1 million [[RGJ]  And, yes, she’s explained that an embezzling employee is at the root of the unfortunate matter – and there will be consequences (unspecified) — [CO] A list of the liens and release dates can be located here.  Scroll down and there’s another list of liens, some of which have not been released.  The Assemblywoman’s assertion that she is ‘all clear’ with the IRS indicates she might not be quite so entrenched as her compatriot Cliven Bundy in the Don’t Pay Taxes To the Occupying Government bunker — At least not so much as to Go Down Waving The Gadsden Flag before the almighty Government image she’d prefer during engagements with the Nevada GOP/Tea Party?

Fiore describes herself as a ‘health care industry CEO,’ of “Always There Personal Care,” and as manager/managing member of “Always There 4U LLC”, she’s also listed as once associated with Stage Left Productions LLC (now dissolved), and Galactic Pictures Corporation (permanently revoked). [NVSoS] Always There 4U LLC is listed five times in the Department of Health’s notices of investigations for deficiencies (2009-2014), and Always There Personal Care was the subject of two. [NSDH] Most were resolved without further action by the state agency.  Fiore may believe herself to be beleaguered by government red tape, but the record indicates she’s had relatively few and usually mild encounters with state regulatory agencies.

While her “anti-government” protestations may resonate weakly in terms of her actual business experiences, her propensity for “saying bad words” could push her into the Ira Hansen wing of racially repugnant Republicans, in the wake of the Bundy Battle her words were almost pure Limbaugh:

“At the station, Fiore continues her attacks on BLM agents, whom she called “Nazi-minded” bullies. During a commercial break, she criticizes government leaders for dividing America by race and political party. She uses Democratic Rep. Steven Horsford as an example, saying Horsford was the first person to accuse Bundy of being a racist on Twitter, while Horsford’s wife, an education scholar at UNLV, promotes the “negro student of America” in her writing.

“You talk about a racist household,” Fiore says later. “What if I went and printed an article saying the ‘white woman student of America.’ What would happen? I mean, we have Black Entertainment Television. What would happen if we started White Chick TV? Are you kidding me?” [LVSun]

Attempting to play the role of victim in a society beset with white privilege usually isn’t successful.  However, it may play well with the 16-18%:

“Overall, 79 percent of Americans in the poll said “racism is still a problem in American life,” while only 16 percent said it was not. Among white Americans, 77 percent said racism is a problem, with 18 percent saying it is not. In fact, 57 percent of Americans, including 58 percent of white Americans, said they know someone who is racist.” [HuffPo]

At any rate, the Nevada Republican Party members in the statehouse have until February 2nd to figure their messy leadership problems out, and more Nevadans will have time to calculate the damage some of these people can do before the 2016 general election.

Comments Off on The Great Nevada Bundy Babe Battle

Filed under Nevada politics, Politics