The Old Blog in the Desert

They stood outside the Roasting House, talking, watching Hell Betty in her bright red long handles walk across C Street to Priscilla Old Tyme Photos, where she worked, and enter the front door.

Seconds later, a sharp white light flashed from inside the shop. Worried something was wrong, the two men, including her brother Robert, rushed to the shop.

“Are you okay?” Robert called out.

No answer. Again, Robert shouted.

From the back room, Hell Betty returned, “Yeah, I’m okay?”

“What was that flash?” he asked.

“Nothing really,” Hell Betty answered, laughing. “Just the backdoor flap on my longjohns failing.”

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has drafted a lawsuit against Nevada Secretary of State Francisco Aguilar, alleging that incorrect information provided by Aguilar’s office jeopardized his bid to appear on the ballot as an independent candidate in the Silver State.

In March, the Kennedy campaign announced it had collected over 15,000 signatures in Nevada and introduced Nicole Shanahan as his running mate. Yet, because Shanahan was not on the petition, the signatures were deemed invalid.

The campaign now faces a tight deadline until Friday, August 9, to collect the necessary signatures to secure a place on the November ballot. The Secretary of State’s office acknowledged their error following the March announcement from the campaign.

Despite this admission, Aguilar expressed readiness to contest the matter in court.

“Nevada has a rich history of independent and third-party candidates for office. Each of those candidates managed to attain ballot access by following the law,” Aguilar stated to CBS News. “We look forward to seeing Mr. Kennedy’s team in court.”

Despite this setback, the Kennedy campaign has gathered enough signatures to appear on the Utah ballot. The super PAC supporting Kennedy, American Values 2024, claims to have secured sufficient signatures for him to appear on the ballot in Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, and South Carolina.

The PAC has also announced plans to spend an additional $10-$15 million on signature collection efforts in other states.

However, the Democratic National Committee (DNC) has filed a complaint with the Federal Election Commission, alleging illegal collusion between the Kennedy campaign and American Values 2024 regarding ballot access.

The core issue remains that a staffer from the Nevada Secretary of State’s office incorrectly advised the Kennedy campaign that he did not need to list a vice presidential candidate on the petition to qualify for the ballot, despite state law requiring independent candidates to include their running mate.

Nevada State Police have identified Joshua Fitzgerald, a 31-year-old man from Mount Shasta, Cal., as the victim of a crash on Interstate 80 in Fernley on Tuesday, April 16. According to Nevada State Police, Fitzgerald succumbed to injuries sustained in the crash on Wednesday, April 24.

The crash, near mile marker 53 on eastbound I-80, involved Fitzgerald’s gray 2013 Dodge Ram. Preliminary investigations revealed that Fitzgerald lost control of the vehicle, causing it to overturn multiple times before resting on its roof between two travel lanes.

A 2024 Freightliner towing an enclosed trailer, traveling in the adjacent travel lane, was also involved in the incident. In an attempt to avoid the overturned Dodge, the Freightliner driver braked and steered left, but the front right of the Freightliner struck the side of Fitzgerald’s vehicle, causing the Dodge to rotate clockwise and come to rest on its roof facing southbound in the right shoulder dirt area.

The Nevada Highway Patrol Northern Command West has investigated eight fatal crashes resulting in ten fatalities in 2024.

Many people today are increasingly concerned about media bias and coordinated attacks against those who challenge the prevailing narratives. These concerns often stem from personal experiences and observed patterns within the media landscape.

For example, Jeff Church, a notable figure, faced allegations of sexual harassment that he claimed were part of a deliberate attempt to tarnish his reputation. According to Church, a whistleblower revealed that WCSD President Beth Smith orchestrated a plan to frame him.

Despite having evidence, including video footage showing Church was not near the accusers, mainstream media outlets like the Reno Gazette-Journal (RGJ) did not fully report the story. Instead, they released a version just before Judge Breslow dismissed the Church case, allegedly without allowing Church to present his defense. Breslow reportedly described the case as reading “like a political blog,” further fueling suspicions of bias.

Similarly, public officials have dismissed election-related grievances as the “rantings of a conspiracy theorist,” an unusual move that raises questions about the impartiality of public servants. Such dismissals contribute to the perception there is a concerted effort to suppress dissenting voices.

This perception becomes reinforced by the observation that various media outlets, local and national, appear to synchronize their messaging, often attacking individuals who challenge the status quo. Critics argue that this coordinated effort is more about pushing a specific agenda than practicing real journalism.

In political campaigns, the same consultants and media companies often represent both candidates and incumbents, creating a network of interests that seem to work in unison against perceived threats. For instance, Alexis Hill and Beth Smith are part of a group that targets dissenters, particularly those who question the use of tax dollars in the election system, school system, and homeless initiatives.

Concerns about financial transparency and accountability are at the heart of these criticisms. Questions about using substantial funds—such as the $300 million spent on the Cares campus or the $1.3 billion school budget—remain unanswered, with critics suggesting misuse due to a lack of auditing.

In cases involving the judiciary, such as those in the Washoe County Courts, there is a sense that the ones who wear the robes are ignoring legitimate grievances. When court decisions align with negative media coverage, it raises further suspicions of a coordinated effort to protect vested interests. This pattern is evident when Rubber Stamp Russell appeared to disregard the law and dismissed a case, followed by a barrage of media attacks coinciding with the Nevada Supreme Court’s rejection of an appeal.

These observations suggest a web of interconnected interests among candidates, incumbents, courts, and media outlets. Critics argue that this network acts together to suppress challenges to their power and funding in elections, schools, and homelessness.

Professor Ferguson leaned against the Silver Dollar bar, his eyes alight with the fire of a man who had glimpsed secrets hidden in the dust of time.

“You see,” he began, his voice carrying the weight of conviction, “dinosaurs didn’t succumb to some mass extinction event. No, they were simply the prehistoric snacks of the Nephilim.”

The bartender, accustomed to the eccentricities of Virginia City’s patrons, raised a skeptical eyebrow.

“But why?”

Ferguson’s grin widened, his gaze distant yet intense.

“Because,” he declared, “when ancient beings stroll through time, they craved a hearty meal, and what’s heartier than a dinosaur?”

Nevada abortion advocates announced on Monday, May 20, that they gathered nearly double the number of petition signatures required to place a measure on the November ballot to enshrine reproductive rights in the state constitution.

Nevadans for Reproductive Freedom President Lindsey Harmon reported that supporters collected and submitted over 200,000 signatures, significantly exceeding the 102,000 valid signatures needed by Wednesday, June 26, to qualify for the ballot.

“The majority of Nevadans agree that the government should stay out of their personal and private decisions … about our bodies, our lives, and our futures,” Harmon stated during a rally of about 25 supporters outside the Clark County Government Center in Las Vegas.

The proposed measure would ensure “a fundamental, individual right to abortion” while allowing regulation of the “provision of abortion after fetal viability…except where necessary to protect the life or health of the pregnant individual.”

Election officials in all 17 counties must now verify the signatures, a process with an uncertain timeline.

In 1990, Nevada voters approved a law making abortion available up to 24 weeks of pregnancy. However, following the overturning of Roe v. Wade, there has been a push to further abortion access.

Several Republican-controlled states have tightened abortion restrictions or bans, while 25 states, including Nevada, allow abortions up to 24 weeks or later with limited exceptions. Most states with Democratic legislatures, including California, Kansas, Kentucky, Michigan, Montana, Ohio, and Vermont, have implemented laws or executive orders to protect abortions.

Melissa Clement, Nevada Right to Life director, expressed opposition, saying her organization will continue to fight the proposed amendment in courts and at the ballot box. She criticized the Democrat-controlled legislature for politicizing a difficult and traumatic decision for women.

The effort to secure the measure on the ballot follows two tracks.

To amend the Nevada Constitution, voters must approve a measure twice. If the abortion amendment qualifies and is approved this year, it will go before voters again in 2026.

Additionally, Nevada lawmakers passed a 24-week right-to-abortion measure last year along party lines, setting up another vote in the next legislative session in Carson City. If it is approved, the proposed constitutional amendment will appear on the 2026 statewide ballot.

The Biden administration announced it intends to reclassify the drug from its current Schedule I status to Schedule III.

The decision signals a departure from the longstanding classification of marijuana alongside substances like Heroin and Ecstasy. Instead, the drug will now be categorized under Schedule III, placing it in the company of drugs such as Ketamine and Anabolic Steroids.

While the reclassification holds symbolic significance, its practical implications are far-reaching. One of the most immediate impacts will be felt by the burgeoning cannabis industry, particularly in states like Nevada, where marijuana is legal for both medical and recreational use.

By moving marijuana to Schedule III, businesses in the industry stand to benefit from tax write-offs previously unavailable to them, alleviating a significant financial burden and potentially boosting profitability. However, the effects of the reclassification may not be immediately apparent for Nevada businesses.

Clark County Commission Chairman Tick Segerblom, a longtime cannabis advocate who claims having toked on the White House roof, said the 280E burden has significantly handicapped the cannabis industry in Nevada.

“It’s just so hard to make money when you can’t deduct your expenses,” he said in an interview.

“Hotels maybe can’t sell yet, but there’s no reason they couldn’t have a room or multiple rooms where guests are allowed to go smoke,” he said, adding that he has already discussed the idea with hotel operators.

Section 280E of the Internal Revenue Code is a tax provision that denies standard business deductions and credits to companies engaged in federally illegal activities. Meanwhile, other challenges remain, particularly in banking and financial services.

The conviction of former President Donald Trump has sparked controversy across political lines. The fairness of the legal proceedings has come under intense scrutiny, raising fundamental questions about the principles of justice and the impartiality of the legal system.

The trial, which centers around alleged financial irregularities and campaign finance violations, has been marred by contentious developments. From the composition of the jury to the conduct of the presiding judge, numerous aspects of the legal proceedings have drawn sharp criticism from Trump’s supporters and legal experts.

One point of contention revolves around the jury composition drawn from a district dominated by Democrats. Critics argue that this demographic makeup may have skewed the jury pool, potentially depriving Trump of a fair trial by a jury of his peers.

Concerns about impartiality continue regarding the presiding judge, Judge Juan Merchan, who has a history of political donations to Democratic candidates and affiliations with anti-Trump groups. Additionally, Merchan’s daughter is actively involved in Democratic organizing efforts, raising questions about his ability to preside over the case without bias.

Throughout the trial, Merchan’s rulings have come under scrutiny, with critics pointing to instances where testimony from Trump’s experts was restricted or blocked while allowing “immaterial, prejudicial, salacious testimony” from witnesses such as Stormy Daniels. Merchan’s decision to impose gag orders on Trump and his legal team, and not similar restrictions to the prosecution, fuels allegations of unequal treatment under the law.

Critics argue that the very basis of the prosecution has been called into question, with concerns about the expiration of the statute of limitations for the alleged misdemeanor and the absence of clarity regarding the underlying crime that elevated the charges to a felony. The prosecution’s reliance on the testimony of Michael Cohen, a former associate of Trump with a history of perjury, has raised serious doubts about the credibility of the case.

The legal battle surrounding Trump’s trial has broader implications for the legal rights and privileges afforded to current and former presidents. Critics argue that the proceedings have set dangerous precedents, eroding protections such as executive privilege, attorney-client privilege, and the right to a fair trial. Furthermore, concerns have been raised about the potential chilling effect on free speech and the erosion of presidential immunity.

Beyond the specifics of the trial, the case has raised broader constitutional questions, including the authority of vice presidents to challenge disputed electoral votes and the procedures for resolving contested election results. The trial’s outcome will have far-reaching implications for the balance of power between branches of government and the integrity of the electoral process.

As the legal wrangling unfolds, the fairness of the proceedings and the principles of justice hang in the balance. With the eyes of the nation watching, the trial of former President Donald Trump has become a lightning rod for debate, raising fundamental questions about the rule of law and the principles upon which the American legal system was built.

He met her at the Silver Queen. She asked if he would like to go upstairs to her hotel room and get lucky.

Once in her room, she said, “Make yourself comfortable, I am getting my baby dolls.”

He quickly undressed, leaving on only his boxers, before he climbed atop the four-poster bed.

She had appeared from the bathroom, shutting off the overhead light with a click. Now, only the glow from C Street provided light for the room.

He leaned back smiling, waiting, when suddenly he was overwhelmed by dozens of baby dolls, scratching and tearing at his skin.

A web of political connections and land use policies has ignited controversy, raising ethical questions about the intersection of public office and private interests.

At the center of the storm is Sandra Jauregui, Nevada Assembly Majority Leader, whose recent opposition to Governor Joe Lombardo’s calls to release federal lands for affordable housing development has drawn scrutiny. Jauregui’s stance, contrasting her Congressional colleagues and Governor Joe Lombardo, has left many questioning her motivations.

Jauregui’s ties to Hilltop Public Solutions, a left-of-center political consulting firm with a history of managing Democratic campaigns and advocacy efforts, are being questioned. The firm’s client list, which includes prominent Democratic figures like Hillary Clinton and environmental advocacy groups, raises concerns about conflicts of interest. Doubts remain about Jauregui’s stance on affordable housing aligning with her constituents or her connection to Hilltop.

Adding fuel to the fire is the involvement of Megan Jones, a partner at Hilltop and Senior Political Advisor to Vice President Kamala Harris. Her marriage to Clark County Commissioner Justin Jones, while embroiled in a housing development scandal adjacent to Red Rock National Park, adds to the situation because of an ongoing lawsuit by Gypsum Resources against Clark County.

Lombardo has cautioned against limiting the use of federal lands for development, citing concerns about the potential effects on the economy and society, especially considering the recent designation of Avi Kwa Ame as a national monument, stating that while environmental conservation is crucial, it should not come at the cost of accessible and affordable housing.