What, oh what, to call politicians who flip-flop on an issue in a single day?

I can’t decide if they are dithering dolts or vacillating varlets or wavering wastrels.

Eight Republicans this week voted against amending a Senate bill to allow concealed carry permittees to carry their concealed weapons on college campuses, but seven of them later joined as sponsors of a new bill (Assembly Bill 487) that would accomplish the same thing, according to the Las Vegas newspaper account today. The Assembly vote against the amendment was 24-18.

Can’t tell whether they grew new spines or were kicked in the butt. The paper lists the seven changelings as Assembly members James Oscarson, Jim Wheeler, Melissa Woodbury, Derek Armstrong, Chris Edwards, Stephen Silberkraus and Lynn Stewart. Majority Leader Paul Anderson, who also voted against amending the Senate bill, is not listed as a sponsor.

On Friday conservative activist Chuck Muth sent an email missive listing the eight Republicans who voted against the “campus carry” amendment along with their phone numbers. He called them shameful and quoted another conservative activist, Tony Warren, as saying, “Remember these names. They are not worthy to serve as our representatives. Damn them to HELL.”

Muth included this detail of the events:

Our good friend Janine Hansen at Nevada Families reported on another aspect of this shameful display of betrayal and cowardice yesterday.

Assembly Speaker-of-the-Weak John Hambrick called for a voice vote on the SB175/AB148 hybrid gun bill.  He ruled from the chair that the vote was too close to call and ordered a “division of the house.”

A division of the house simply means everyone who supports the bill stands up and the total is counted, and then everyone who opposes the bill stands up to be counted.

The problem with that is that each individual legislator is allowed to escape casting a RECORDED vote in the official record.

So conservative Assemblywoman Michele Fiore – God bless her – stood up and asked for a roll-call vote.

Hambrick ruled her out of order and rejected the request.

Fiore than asked for a one-minute recess – a request that rarely, if ever, is denied.

Hambrick rejected her request.

(“So he (Hambrick) was in league with the anti-gun rights Republicans,” ((Janine)) Hansen wrote. “This is a disgrace!!! Why elect Republicans when they betray us on the most basic liberty issues like self defense?”)

Darned good question.  But back to Fiore…

After being shot down by Hambrick, the Las Vegas Republican immediately left the Assembly chamber and headed to her office where she called the lead lawyer at the Legislative Counsel Bureau (LCB), Brenda Erdoes, to ask if Hambrick really had the power to deny a request for a roll-call vote and/or one-minute recess.

But to give you an idea of just how paranoid and unhinged some folks are in Carson City about Fiore, apparently somebody thought she might have left the chamber to go get her gun and was afraid she’d come back and shoot the place up.

So, I’m told, legislative police were called to the first floor to secure the Assembly chamber and block Fiore from returning to her seat!

Un-freaking-believable.

Eventually, Fiore was allowed back on the floor and later in the day rose and issued a statement, FOR THE RECORD, identifying by name the eight Republicans who turned tail and ran when the heat got too hot in the kitchen and sold out campus carry supporters.

The Review-Journal reported that Republican Assembly Judiciary Chairman Ira Hansen criticized the creation of the new bill as an effort to gain “political cover.”

“And that is a huge mistake politically, and it was the wrong thing to do, and they abandoned their own party’s base,” he is quoted as saying of the votes against the campus carry amendment. “And now what they want to do, is come back when it is not going to make any difference and they know it, and have me go through the whole hearing process again as we already did on (AB)148, to give them political cover.

“And I think it stinks, and I think we had a shot if they would have stuck to their guns. …

“So they chickened out, they caved in on the whole issue and now they want to come back and pretend like they are going to be the heroes and resurrect the bill.”

Michele Fiore speaks on the Assembly floor Friday. (R-J photo)

The Reno newspaper account simply said:

Fiore stormed out of the chamber after that vote was taken when Speaker John Hambrick, R-Las Vegas, refused to call for a roll call vote on the issue or stop the floor session for a brief time out.

She later returned and apologized.

Muth just posted a follow-up this morning under the headline: “Who Shot Campus Carry? A Muth’s Truths Investigation – Part I.”

In this posting Muth notes that Gov. Brian Sandoval does not want a campus carry bill to make it to his desk and force him to veto it and suggests certain Republicans are trying to protect him.

 

Anti-picketing bill is a self-erasing exercise in futility

We often think of laws as being etched in stone — like the Ten Commandments.

But there is a bill in the Nevada Legislature that is written on an Etch-a-Sketch. It is self-erasing.

Assembly Bill 356 opens by declaring:

“Sec. 2. A person shall not damage, injure, harm, threaten or maliciously disrupt the lawful activities of any business or any employee or representative of that business with the intent to coerce or intimidate that business.

“Sec. 3. A person shall not intentionally or recklessly destroy, mark or damage the property or merchandise owned by or in the control of any business.”

Damaging, injuring, harming and marking are already against the law, so what’s the point in piling on another law?

Then the bill wipes out the coerce and intimidate aspects altogether by stating:

“Sec. 4. The provisions of sections 2 and 3 of this act are not intended to infringe upon or impede any lawful exercise of rights provided by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, including, without limitation, lawful picketing …”

Lawful picketing is coercion and intimidation … and free speech. AB356 is a self-erasing law. It says thoy shalt not in one breath and thou mayest in the next.

We understand that Assembly member Michele Fiore is trying to find some way to curb the unsavory practices of union picketers, especially on the Strip where tourists are often the targets of vile language, but blocking traffic and doing physical harm are already illegal, though perhaps not aggressively enforced, and threatening violence is assault, also a crime. But vile language is protected speech.

If laws can’t prevent burning American flags or block protestors at the funerals of soldiers, they can’t stop union picketers from calling tourists scabs.

This bill is an expression of frustration and an exercise in futility.

Police arrest union picketers on the Strip. (AP photo)

 

 

 

Only four state senators vote against governor’s margin tax lite

Only four state senators had the gumption today to vote against the governor’s margin tax lite, which taxes businesses based on their gross receipts in the same way as the proposal on November’s ballot, which was defeated by voters by a 4-to-1 margin.

The four were Republicans Pete Giocoechea, Donald Gustavson, Scott Hammond and James Settelmeyer. That means seven Republicans and all the Democrats voted for Senate Bill 252, making the final vote 17-4. It now goes to the Assembly, where its fate is unknown.

State Treasurer Dan Schwartz and Controller Ron Knecht jointly sent out a press release calling on the Assembly to reject the bill. Press release on SB252

“To propose a tax that has been explicitly rejected by Nevada voters displays a blatant disregard for the democratic process. The Governor has called for alternatives. Those have been provided. They should be considered along with reprioritizing several proposed expenditures,” said Schwartz.

Assembly member Michele Fiore sent out an email pointing out that SB252 has 1,811 unique tax brackets based upon gross receipts. (The state Constitution states: “The Legislature shall provide by law for a uniform and equal rate of assessment and taxation …”)

She noted that the unemployment rate is still 7.1 percent in Nevada and “the last thing the Legislature should be doing is taking money out of the private sector, where it’s needed to create jobs, and transferring it to the public sector so that government can continue to spend beyond its means.”

Nevada Policy Research Institute’s Executive Vice President Victor Joecks commented:

“The voters of Nevada made clear in November that they do not want to impose a gross-receipts business tax, yet today the Senate passed a similar tax. Unlike the 17 Senators who voted in favor of SB252, Nevada voters recognized that raising taxes on businesses that are struggling or even losing money will only hurt families and parents throughout Nevada.”

Actually, as a survey reported by NPRI points out, Nevada voters apparently aren’t paying any attention. The poll, conducted by Google Consumer Surveys in March, found 89.4 percent either did not know Sandoval supports the largest tax increase in Nevada history or mistakenly thought the governor supports keeping taxes low.

Gov. Brian Sandoval has said the so-called business license fee based on gross receipts will eventually rake in $250 million a year. The Nevada Registered Agent Association commissioned a study that says his figure is off by $65 million. NRAA Study

When Texas launched its margin tax it was expected to bring in $5.9 billion a year, but only netted $4.45 billion its first year and $4 billion the next.

Never mind that most of what Sandoval plans to spend on improving education will not work and has not worked when tried elsewhere.

Giocoechea

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Gustavson

Hammond

Settelmeyer

Newspaper column: On the issue public lands, first, you have to get their attention

When my ol’ pappy broke the two-by-four across the muzzle of our stubborn 2,000-pound black Angus bull, he explained: “First, son, you have to get his attention.”

Perhaps that is one way to look at Assembly Bill 408, which would prohibit the federal government from owning or regulating land and water rights in the state of Nevada without legislative approval.

Looming over debate on the bill is an opinion from the Legislative Counsel Bureau, essentially the lawmakers’ lawyer, that AB408, under current case law, is unconstitutional. And so it is.

But case law can change. At one time case law stated that “separate but equal” was constitutional and internment of American citizens of Japanese ancestry was constitutional.

Perhaps it is time to get the federal government’s attention and make its lawyers defend its 150-year control of nearly 87 percent of the land in Nevada.

The Counsel Bureau notes the courts over the years have upheld the federal government’s hegemony over the West.

One of those cases out of the liberal 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in 1997 ruled against rancher Cliff Gardner of Ruby Valley, who contended the state and not the federal government should have sovereignty over Nevada land. Gardner testified in favor of AB408.

During the Bundy standoff a year ago. (R-J photo)

The 9th Circuit ruled that the Equal Footing Doctrine, under which all states admitted to the Union are to have equal footing with the original 13 states, does not mean what it clearly says.

“The Equal Footing Doctrine, then, applies to political rights and sovereignty, not to economic or physical characteristics of the states,” the court ruled.

Surely, equal footing means equal economic opportunity and the equal ability to provide tax revenue, as well as political rights, when you look at the plain meaning of the words.

In 1828 seven states from Illinois to Florida successfully argued that the federal government should release its ownership of vast tracts of public land within their borders, saying: “When these States stipulated not to tax the lands of the United States until they were sold, they rested upon the implied engagement of Congress to cause them to be sold, within a reasonable time. No just equivalent has been given those States for a surrender of an attribute of sovereignty so important to their welfare, and to an equal standing with the original States.”

Today those states have less than 4 percent federal public land holdings, compared to 50 percent across the West

In fact, the Nevada statehood document includes language saying the state would get “five percentum of the proceeds of the sales of all public lands lying within said state, which shall be sold by the United States subsequent to the admission of said state into the Union …”

That is an implicit promise that the land shall be sold.

The year before the Gardner case the voters of Nevada repealed the 1864 Disclaimer Clause that said the state does “forever disclaim all right and title to the unappropriated public lands lying within said territory …” That was just to assure a clear title, since the land shall be sold.

Nearly 20 years since that ballot initiative, Congress and the courts have failed to act. So much for a right to redress grievances, as guaranteed by the First Amendment.

There is an alternative to AB408 wending its way through the halls of the Legislature. That is Senate Joint Resolution 1. It urges Congress to enact legislation that would allow transferring title to more than 7 million acres of the 58 million acres of federal public lands to the state of Nevada in the manner outlined in a report prepared by the Nevada Land Management Task Force.

Meanwhile, U.S. Rep. Mark Amodei is not waiting for supplications from Carson City. He has introduced a bill called Honor the Nevada Enabling Act of 1864 Act, which calls on Congress to hand over 7.2 million acres to Nevada in a first phase.

The bill states: “The Federal Government promised all new States, in their statehood enabling Act contracts, that it would dispose of federally controlled public lands within the borders of those States,” but it failed to honor the promise.

The bill has been referred to the Committee on Natural Resources, where co-sponsor Rep. Cresent Hardy sits.

While this may be like tapping Congress on the shoulder and asking for the next dance, after 150 years of being a wallflower, perhaps Nevada should also wield a two-by-four.

A version of this column appears this week in the Battle Born Media newspapers — The Ely Times, the Mesquite Local News, the Mineral County Independent-News, the Eureka Sentinel, the Lincoln County Record and the Sparks Tribune — and the Elko Daily Free Press.

Follow-up: According to the Review-Journal, that controversial Assembly Bill 408 that demanded the federal government cede control of much of the federal public land in the state has beencompletely rewritten.

“The bill as amended declares that sheriffs and their deputies are the primary law enforcement officers in the unincorporated areas of their respective counties. It would allow county sheriffs to enter into agreements with federal agencies to exercise law enforcement authority on land managed by the federal agency,” says the story posted online Thursday. All other provisions about acquiring the land were excised.

Reporter Sean Whaley said the bill passed out of committee on a party-line vote — Republicans in support and Democrats opposed.

 

 

Perhaps AB408 would get the federal government’s attention

When my father broke the two-by-four across the muzzle of a recalcitrant 2,000-pound black Angus bull, he explained: First, you have to get his attention.

Perhaps that is one way to look at Assembly Bill 408 that would prohibit the federal government owning or regulating land and water rights in state of Nevada without legislative approval.

There was a big rally and a couple of hours of testimony about the bill Tuesday in Carson City.

Looming over all the debate over the bill was an opinion from the Legislative Counsel Bureau that AB408, under current case law, is unconstitutional. And so it is.

At one time case law stated that “separate but equal” was constitutional, internment of Japanese citizens was constitutional and free speech could be curbed if it challenged military conscription law.

Perhaps it is time to get the federal government’s attention and make its lawyers defend the 150-year control of 87 percent of the land in Nevada by the federal government.

As the Counsel Bureau opinion states, the courts over the years have upheld the federal government’s hegemony over much of the West.

One of those cases out of the liberal 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in 1997 ruled against rancher Cliff Gardner of Ruby Valley, who contended the state and not the federal government should have sovereignty over the unappropriated land in Nevada. Gardner was one of those testifying in favor of AB408.

The court ruled that the Equal Footing Doctrine, under which all states admitted to the Union have equal footing with the original 13 states, does not mean what it clearly says.

“The Equal Footing Doctrine, then, applies to political rights and sovereignty, not to economic or physical characteristics of the states, the court ruled.

But in 1828 states from Illinois to Florida successfully argued:

“If these lands are to be withheld from sale, which is the effect of the present system, in vain may the People of these States expect the advantages of well settled neighborhoods, so essential to the education of youth, and to the pleasures of social intercourse, and the advantages of religious instruction. Those States will, for many generations, without some change, be retarded in endeavors to increase their comfort and wealth, by means of works of internal improvements, because they have not the power, incident to all sovereign States, of taxing the soil, to pay for the benefits conferred upon its owner by roads and canals.

“When these States stipulated not to tax the lands of the United States until they were sold, they rested upon the implied engagement of Congress to cause them to be sold, within a reasonable time. No just equivalent has been given those States for a surrender of an attribute of sovereignty so important to their welfare, and to an equal standing with the original States.”

In fact, the Nevada statehood documents include language saying the state would get: “five percentum of the proceeds of the sales of all public lands lying within said state, which shall be sold by the United States subsequent to the admission of said state into the Union …”

That is an implicit promise to sell the federal land.

The year before the Gardner case the voters of Nevada repealed the 1864 Disclaimer Clause that says the state does “forever disclaim all right and title to the unappropriated public lands lying within said territory, and that the same shall be and remain at the sole and entire disposition of the United States.”

Nearly 20 years later Congress and the courts have failed to act on that vote. So much for the right to redress grievances as promised by the First Amendment.

AB408 might just be the right two-by-four across the federal muzzle to get their attention.

Michele Fiore, main sponsor of AB408 testifies Tuesday

LCB letter

How can Nevada take control of more federal land?

How will lawmakers in Carson City decide to grab federal land for the state?

There are two pieces of legislation pending in Carson City whose intention is allow the state to take control of at least some of the federal land that constitute about 87 percent of the land inside the state boundaries.

Senate Joint Resolution No. 1 the culmination of years of planning and calculating that really dates back to the Sagebrush Rebellion days.

It’s label reads: “Urging Congress to enact legislation transferring title to certain public lands to the State of Nevada in accordance with the report prepared by the Nevada Land Management Task Force.”

Michele Fiore, sponsor of AB408

That task force estimates the state could generate far more revenue from control of the public land the paltry sums doled out be Washington in the form of pay in lieu of taxes.

SJR1 calls for the state over the next decade taking control of 7.2 million acres of the 48 million acres the feds now control.

But slated for a hearing by the Assembly Committee on Natural Resources, Agriculture, and Mining Tuesday afternoon is a more brazen attempt to grab federal lands, Assembly Bill 408, whose chief sponsor is Assembly member Michele Fiore.

The label on this bill reads:

“AN ACT relating to public lands; prohibiting the Federal Government from owning or regulating certain public lands or the right to use public waters; requiring the State Land Registrar to adopt regulations that provide for the appropriation and registration of grazing, logging, mineral development or other beneficial use rights on public lands; requiring the State Land Registrar to sell permits for grazing, logging, mineral development or other beneficial uses on public lands for which such rights are not registered and appropriated; requiring the board of county commissioners of each county to impose a tax on profits from the beneficial use of public lands; and providing other matters properly relating thereto.”

Considering how the courts have traditionally given deference to the supremacy of the federal government rather that the 10th Amendment states’ rights, the bill is viewed by many as a futile gesture.

This is the case, even though the Constitution says Congress only has the 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, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings …”

But a number of lawmakers, including a few of its sponsors, are also questioning some of the details in bill, fearing the language could jeopardize long held water and grazing rights.

It is that phrasing about beneficial use that concerns people. Could a failure to graze a given tract during a drought constitute giving up a grazing right, since it was not put to beneficial use? What about competing uses for the same tract of land?

The bill’s language includes: “Provide for the appropriation of grazing, logging, mineral development or other beneficial use rights on public lands: (a) To the first person who used the land for which the rights are claimed and who continues to use the land for that purpose; or (b) If the land for which the rights are claimed has not been used in the manner for which the rights are claimed, to the first person who claims the rights. 2. Establish procedures by which claims to such rights may be registered with the State Land Registrar. Each right must be identified by priority date, the manner in which the land is being used, the geographic boundaries of the land being used and the person who claims the right.”

The devil may be in the details.

 

 

Hambrick fires back at Fiore’s allegations and contentions

The circular firing squad of the Republican Assembly Caucus keeps firing — ready, fire, aim.

This afternoon Assembly Speaker-designate John Hambrick responded on Facebook to Assembly member Michele Fiore’s Friday public email providing tit for tat, point by point.

John Hambrick’s Facebook mug

The key question is whether or not Hambrick has the authority to oust Fiore from her “elected” post as Assembly majority leader. Fiore cited the National Council of State Legislatures as her authority that her position is elected. Hambrick counters with a 1996 textbook, “The Sagebrush State: Nevada’s History, Government, and Politics” by Michael Wayne Bowers.

Sure enough on page 72 the book says: “In the assembly, the presiding officer is the speaker of the assembly. The speaker, who is selected by the majority party caucus, not only presides over the assembly but also serves as his party’s leader. In that capacity, he appoints his party’s members to the various committees and selects the majority leader, the speaker pro-tempore, and the committee chairs.” (emphasis added by Hambrick)

Is either authority, as Al Gore would say, controlling legal authority?

Hambrick turns Fiore’s authority back on her by quoting from it:

“Caucus rules. Most legislative party caucuses have not developed formal rules for their proceedings. More often, caucus business is governed by informal rules loosely based on senate or house parliamentary procedure, by unwritten caucus traditions or simply by the style of the caucus leader who presides over the meeting.” (Hambrick underlined much of that)

Hambrick’s strongest argument is tradition. He claims, without citing a source that from 1973 until 2013 — with the exception of 1985 for which he had no information — the “Assembly Majority Floor Leader was appointed by the Speaker.“

He also said Fiore has no authority to call a caucus meeting on Monday.

What will happen on Monday?

 

Nevada Republican Assembly Caucus about to get raucous

Dust off your Robert’s Rules of Order and lawyer up, it is going to be a bumpy ride.

The already chaotic Republican Assembly Caucus is about to reach critical mass.

Michele Fiore (AP photo)

On Monday the governor and other statewide constitutional offices will be sworn in and most legislators are expected to show up for the shindig. There was a meeting of the Republican Assembly Caucus tentatively scheduled for that day, but on Thursday John Hambrick, Assembly speaker-designate, sent a text message to the Las Vegas newspaper saying there would be no meeting.

On Friday, Assembly member Michele Fiore — the “elected” Assembly majority leader who was unilaterally ousted by Hambrick, reinstated and then ousted again — sent an email to Hambrick saying she, in her role as “elected” majority leader, was scheduling a caucus meeting for 3:30 p.m. Monday so the caucus could vote and select its leadership.

Fiore’s missive questions Hambrick’s authority to remove her from an elected leadership post and points out that, according to the National Council of State Legislatures, the caucus “elects” its leaders.

She writes:

“There is no rule in the Assembly Standing Rules that allows you to arbitrarily remove me from an elected Caucus position. Neither have the members of the Caucus been presented with any evidence from any source that allows you to overrule my election by a majority of the Assembly Republican Caucus as the Majority Leader of the Caucus. You need to know that a sizeable portion of the members of the Caucus still consider me the Majority Leader, as do I. I will be occupying my Majority Leader office January 5th.”

Hambrick told The Associated Press on Friday that he didn’t want to comment publicly on the matter.

The Republican Assembly Caucus leadership and committee assignments have been shaken up more than a dry martini in recent weeks.

It will be interesting Monday to see if Fiore can pull in a quorum of the caucus to take a vote.

Fiore herself is none too sure of the outcome:

“Until you prove otherwise, I question your power to remove me and wish to state that may only be done by a Caucus vote.

“I do know how to count votes and realize I might not survive a new vote for Majority Leader, but that vote must be taken, and it must be taken as soon as possible. The January 5, 2015 meeting that you unilaterally canceled would have been the perfect time for that vote, and I urge you to reconsider. As the Majority Leader I’m calling that meeting. Our caucus will meet January 5th at 3:30pm in our caucus room. It is in the best interests of the Caucus to bring this unfortunate incident to a conclusion.

“I will abide by the decision of the Caucus and look forward to working to bring about the real changes Nevada needs and the people who elected us deserve.”

According to the aforementioned National Council of State Legislatures, the Assembly caucuses “usually” ban the press and the public from their meetings, and, though Fiore ranted in her email about transparency and how “This is not an issue that should be resolved behind closed doors via ‘internal communication only,'” I don’t expect Monday’s meeting, if there is one, will be open to the press or public.

John Hambrick (AP photo)

This is especially so because Fiore further stirred the pot by calling on Hambrick to slap down Republican Assembly member Pat Hickey for his recent column in several state newspapers in which he called the caucus a “Clown Caucus.”

“For the record, is this sort of offensive personal attack on our caucus by a fellow caucus member acceptable under your leadership?” Fiore asks, rhetorically I’m sure, as she twists the knife in the wound. “If (it) is not acceptable, why have you decided to reward this type of behavior by assigning Mr. Hickey premier office space(?)”

In his column, Hickey ironically complained, “Intraparty squabbling, like what we’re seeing from Assembly Republicans, doesn’t score points with constituents, nor does it leave a lasting legislative legacy.”

Before this is all over, there could be blood.

The leadership of the Nevada Republican Party, notoriously short on cash, could sell tickets to this grudge match.

Is Nevada GOP snatching defeat from the jaws of victory?

mer·cu·ri·al mərˈkyo͝orēəl/ adjective 

(of a person) subject to sudden or unpredictable changes of mood or mind.

Republican Assembly Speaker-apparent-perhaps-maybe John Hambrick has changed his mind again. First, he ousted arch-conservative Michele Fiore as majority leader and chair of the Taxation Committee, after old allegations about liens placed on her companies by the IRS. Then, without explanation, he reinstated her. Now, after she has tried to explain her situation and say she has negotiated a deal with the IRS, he has ousted her again.

“I found that Michele’s explanations of her IRS issues were unacceptable,” Hambrick was quoted as saying by the Las Vegas newspaper. “They left unanswered questions, were full of deflections and slanderous allegations that have left our caucus further divided. At this time I feel it is best to (relieve) Assemblywoman Fiore of her leadership roles in the Assembly.”

Michele Fiore (R-J photo)

The current story online says Fiore was not available for comment.

 The story did not say who she slandered, but on Alan Stock’s KDWN radio program earlier this week she said she was being targeted by Monte Miller, a key GOP fundraiser, and two paid political consultants.

Doubtlessly this will fuel further talks of a nuclear option, in which RINO Republicans join with the 17-member Democratic minority in the Assembly to name someone other than Hambrick as speaker.

To flip a phrase from Will Rogers, I think these players can honestly all say they don’t belong to any organized political party, they are Republicans.

‘Identity’ politics keeps raising its ugly head

“All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.” — George Orwell

We just can’t seem to escape “identity” politics. It should be an oxymoron. Politics should be about ideas, not looking out for your kind, your group — whether gender, complexion of skin, social standing, youth, etc.

But no, it is the first rejoinder cast.

When the new Assembly Speaker-apparent John Hambrick summarily ousted Assemblywoman Michele Fiore and Assemblywoman Victoria Seaman from their posts as chair and vice chair of the Taxation Committee, respectively, the women promptly fired off a scathing email accusing Hambrick of engaging in a Republican war on women.

“It appears a few men in our party are not happy that we have Republican woman in key leadership roles in the legislature, and may look to Democrats for help in unraveling more leadership roles”, said Fiore.

“To replace the two women elected to the Taxation Committee with two men, sends a very dangerous message to Nevada women voters.  Women pay taxes too in Nevada,” Seaman added.

Hambrick — who gave no reason for the ouster — almost immediately reversed himself, again without explanation.

This broad brush (pun wasn’t intended but will stand, perhaps to my chagrin) painting of one group or other as victims is just as repugnant as showing favoritism. But we can’t seem to resist.

Who can forget Harry Reid’s exclamation:

“I don’t know how anyone of Hispanic heritage could be a Republican, OK. Do I need to say more?”

Blacks tend to vote Democratic, despite the fact minority economic well-being seems to suffer when the Democrat wins, even if that Democratic is half black.

We all are minorities of one. We are not lemmings. Are shouldn’t be.

Reason, logic and facts seem to go out the window when any demographic is singled out.

Apparently we can now add “identity” justice to “identity” politics.

Congressional staffers walked out onto the steps and raised their hands in that hands-up-don’t-shoot gesture, though a grand jury found that to be an utter fabrication.

Politics and justice should be based on facts and not us against them.

Ramirez cartoon

Speaking a couple of months ago at the Human Rights Campaign’s annual black tie dinner — which would exclude me right there — former President Bill Clinton said:

“I believe that in ways large and small, peaceful and sometimes violent, that the biggest threat to the future of our children and grandchildren is the poison of identity politics that preaches that our differences are far more important than our common humanity.”

He reminded in audience that “we’re 99 and a half percent the same.”

What is in our heads is far more important than the pigment of our skin or our biological plumbing.