SHERMAN COUNTY — One person was injured in an accident just after 5 p.m. Monday in Sherman County.
The Kansas Highway Patrol reported a 2004 Freightliner semi driven by Craig K. Busse, 38, Bird City, was northbound on County Road 28 one mile east and 13 miles north of Edson.
The driver lost control of the semi as he was attempting to maneuver a curve to the right and overturned. EMS transported Busse to the hospital in Goodland. He was not wearing a seat belt, according to the KHP.
Barbara Jean Nolte, 76, passed away Sunday, November 10, 2019 at Clara Barton Hospital in Hoisington. She was born July 31, 1943, in Great Bend, the daughter of Armin F. and Isabelle (Karst) Deutsch. She was united in marriage to Roy Nolte on November 21, 1965, in Hoisington.
Barbara was a lifetime resident of Hoisington and Susank area. She was a member of the Concordia Lutheran Church and the LWML. She loved spending time with her family especially her grandchildren.
Survivors include husband Roy of the home; son Gary Nolte and wife Christina of Wamego; two daughters Christy Henry and husband Kris of Gardner and Cindy Wilborn and husband Brian of Hoisington; mother Isabelle Deutsch Dumler of Hoisington; brother Mel Deutsch and wife Diana of Lawrence; sister Jolene Hindman and husband Paul of Claflin; eight grandchildren Hannah (Colton) Lagerman, Madison, Nolan Wilborn, Tyler and Marly Henry, Charlie, Isabelle, and Jack Nolte, She was preceded in death by her father Armin Deutsch and brother Ronald Deutsch.
Visitation will be Wednesday, November 13, 2019 from 11:00 am to 8:00 pm with family present 6-7 pm with prayer service at 7:00 pm, at Nicholson-Rick Funeral Home. Funeral service will be 10:30 am Thursday November 14, 2019, at Concordia Lutheran Church with Rev Gary Wolf officiating. Burial will follow at St John Lutheran Cemetery in Susank.
Memorials have been established with Concordia Lutheran Church or The Lutheran Hour, in care of Nicholson-Ricke Funeral Home, Po Box 146, Hoisington, KS 67544.
TOPEKA— A Kansas felon involved in a chase and fatal crash November 7 in Topeka is out of the hospital and in jail facing a murder charge.
Brandon Jordan, 48, was booked Sunday and is being held on a $500,000 bond in the Shawnee County Department of Corrections on requested charges of first-degree murder in the commission of a felony, interference with law enforcement, obstruction, failure to yield at a stop sign, flee or attempt to elude. He is also being held on charges of forgery and a probation violation, according to online records.
Jordan was driving a 2003 Acura TL linked to a bad-check cashing case and caused a deadly crash while trying to get away from a Kansas Highway Patrol trooper.
The chase westbound on Holly Lane in Topeka lasted only a couple seconds, according to the KHP.
Jordan ran a stop sign and crashed into a 2016 Ford Explorer driven by Dennis E. Affolter, 69, Topeka. EMS transported Affolter to Stormont Vail where he died.
Jordan has 19 previous convictions that include forgery, burglary, theft, obstruction and for drugs, according to the Kansas Department of Corrections.
Well, we gotta wonder, besides getting that prom date you hoped for, what is better than having $510 million more to spend in the upcoming legislative session than you thought you’d have when you left Topeka last summer?
Hmmm…not sure…
The Consensus Revenue Estimating Group, as we predicted last week, boosted the state revenue estimate. And now that the state’s budget experts and three university economists have released their estimate—it is $510 million in increased tax revenues for the remainder of this fiscal year and next—we’ll see how good this gets.
Already, we know that about $65 million of that new, or, rather, predicted new money is already spent even before the Legislature convenes. That’s the estimate of how much more the state is going to have to spend this year and next on social services for the state’s poor to provide the services that they get now. That estimate just came in a day before the revenue estimate. Think welfare, foster care, and health care for the state’s poor. Not flashy, not anything that’s going to be a big campaign issue, but a necessary state expenditure from that $510 million.
So, we’re at about $445 million in new spendable cash for the governor and legislators to scrap over.
The unsexy way to use that money? Rebuild the staffing shortages in state agencies that provide Kansans services. Pump more into K-12 education and produce a more valuable workforce for the state. Keep some balance in the State General Fund in case something unexpected happens.
But will that happen? That’s where the fight starts.
Remember, last year Democrat Gov. Laura Kelly vetoed a massive tax-cut bill the Legislature sent her that would have fit into that $445 million with a little room to stretch. Remember? Of course, we didn’t know how much money would be available when she vetoed the bill. Republican legislative leaders essentially said don’t worry, it’ll work out. Well, it did, but we just didn’t know that last year.
So, this upcoming session?
There are several balls in the air. Kelly wants stable finances while she’s in the driver’s seat. Who wants to be captain of a sinking ship—especially because in just three years, she may want to be re-elected?
For the Legislature? That’s where it gets interesting.
Republicans in both chambers basically want sizable tax cuts to help them get re-elected and have lobbyists buy them drinks and meals for the next two years (House) and four years (Senate). They’ll leave it to Kelly to figure out how to keep the state running in the years leading to her re-election.
Besides the tax cuts/fiscal stabilization scrap, it’s also a chance to load up a tax-cut bill that Kelly might feel she has to veto. Who, even Democrats, wants to vote to sustain a veto of a tax-cut bill in an election year?
Oh, and that GOP tax-cut bill can be made very attractive to Democrats. Think a two percent cut in the sales tax on food. Biggest cut ever considered on a Democrat- and maybe even some Republican-hated tax that the state can, with its new revenue estimate, probably afford.
See the squeeze here? It’s Republicans finding a lever that puts an election-year veto-proof vest on big tax cuts. It might force Democrats to hold their noses and vote for de-coupling of state income tax deductions from the federal standard deduction, worth about $60 million to the more prosperous and likely Republican Kansas income tax filers.
The Consensus Revenue Estimate has handed Republicans a political baseball bat. Had the estimate shown no increase in revenues, or just a small increase, the upcoming legislative session would be dull.
It’s starting to sound like a prom date now, isn’t it…?
Syndicated by Hawver News Company LLC of Topeka; Martin Hawver is publisher of Hawver’s Capitol Report—to learn more about this nonpartisan statewide political news service, visit the website at www.hawvernews.com
During the month of September and through Oct. 17, Lifetime Dental Care, Hays, educated patients on oral systemic health in celebration of National Dental Hygiene Month and Oral Systemic Health Month.
The office chose three local organizations for patients to choose where $5 of their hygiene visit cost would be donated.
The Center for Life Experience was one of the selected organizations.
“We were inspired by the many groups that benefit from the Center and some of those are even impacted by oral systemic health such as cancer, stroke and Alzheimer’s,” Lifetime Dental Care staff said in a press release.
— SUBMITTED
PHILLIPSBURG — Fill Up, Give Back kicked off Nov. 1 and lasts through the end of the year. For every gallon of E15, E20, E30 and E85 sold at USA Clean Fuels in Phillipsburg, 3 cents per gallon will be donated to the Phillips County Sheriff’s Office.
USA Clean Fuels has partnered with the sheriff’s office to promote the benefits of using higher blends of ethanol, while allowing the public to actively give back to our local law enforcement.
The mission of the Philips County Sheriff’s Office is to enhance the quality of life in Phillips County by working cooperatively with the public and within the framework of the U.S. Constitution to enforce the laws, preserve the peace, reduce fear and provide for a safe environment.
“We drive more miles {using higher blends} than most people in Phillips County, we’re proud to help promote the benefits of ethanol at USA Clean Fuels,” said Sheriff Charles Radabaugh,
“E15 is EPA approved for vehicles 2001 and newer – about nine out of 10 vehicles on the road today. Multiple studies have shown mid-level blends, E20-E30, to be the most economical, high octane fuel choice that offers a boost in engine performance. E85 is the best choice for your flex fuel vehicle, which are specifically designed to run on E85, gasoline, or any mixture of the two. Choosing higher blends of ethanol supports your neighbor corn farmer, positively impacts your local economy and promotes cleaner air through an up to 50 percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. Ethanol also replaces harmful carcinogens and toxic additives like methyl tert-butyl ether (MTBE) and benzene that can be found in petroleum-based fuels,” USA Clean Fuels said in a news release. “The choice is an easy one. Fill up at USA Clean Fuels on east highway 36, and during the months of November and December your purchase will give back to the individuals that work to ensure our safety, day in and day out.”
If you don’t use it, you’ll lose it. I bet I’ve heard and repeated this age-old aphorism a million times. But can it be over-used?
The adage about using it certainly fits when trying to enhance wellness for all sorts of medical systems: working the brain with puzzles and conversation helps ward off memory loss; walking fast enough to cause one to huff and puff, keeps the heart and lungs strong; regular sexual activity helps prevent impotence; filling the gut with a high fiber diet keeps the bowels in shape and makes you a regular sort-a-guy.
But what can you do when it hurts to move those old joints? Should you rest or should you exercise a joint with degenerative osteoarthritis? Experts say this depends on the state of that arthritis. If it is a hot and inflamed joint, it’s better to address it first with expert advice, medication and time and not to force a lot of movement until later when it is cooled down. If, however, it is the cool-yet-stiff type of arthritis, then that’s a different story.
I always go back to a famous study that involved older people with very bad osteoarthritic knees, the kind that the orthopedic surgeon would call bone-on-bone. Scientists divided these arthritic patients into two groups. The first group continued their sedentary habits and the second group was pushed to regularly walk, stretch, and move on those worn out knees. Which group do you think did better? You guessed it, the members of the exercise group rated themselves to be in less overall pain, were better able to stay mobile and considered themselves happier in general than the sedentary group. One physician friend advised me once that, “Motion is the lotion for keeping those stiff joints moving.”
The American College of Rheumatology gives us the following recommendations:
So, say it again to yourself every morning while looking at the person in that mirror: “Use it or lose it.”
Richard P. Holm, MD is founder of The Prairie Doc® and author of “Life’s Final Season, A Guide for Aging and Dying with Grace” available on Amazon. For free and easy access to the entire Prairie Doc® library, visit www.prairiedoc.org and follow Prairie Doc® on Facebook, featuring On Call with the Prairie Doc® a medical Q&A show streamed most Thursdays at 7 p.m. central.
WASHINGTON (AP) — Protections for 660,000 immigrants are on the line at the Supreme Court.
The justices are hearing arguments Tuesday on the Trump administration’s bid to end the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program that shields immigrants brought to the U.S. as children from deportation and allows them to work in the United States legally.
The program was begun under President Barack Obama. The Trump administration announced in September 2017 that it would end DACA protections, but lower federal courts have stepped in to keep the program alive.
Now it’s up to the Supreme Court to say whether the way the administration has gone about trying to wind down DACA complies with federal law.
A decision is expected by June 2020, amid the presidential election campaign.
Some DACA recipients who are part of the lawsuit are expected to be in the courtroom for the arguments. People have been camping out in front of the court since the weekend for a chance to grab some of the few seats that are available to the general public. Chief Justice John Roberts has rejected a request for live or same-day audio of the arguments. The court will post the audio on its website .
A second case being argued Tuesday tests whether the parents of a Mexican teenager who was killed by a U.S. border patrol agent in a shooting across the southern border in El Paso, Texas, can sue the agent in American courts.
If the court agrees with the administration in the DACA case, Congress could put the program on surer legal footing. But the absence of comprehensive immigration reform from Congress is what prompted Obama to create DACA in 2012, giving people two-year renewable reprieves from the threat of deportation while also allowing them to work.
Federal courts struck down an expansion of DACA and the creation of similar protections for undocumented immigrants whose children are U.S. citizens.
Trump’s anti-immigrant rhetoric was a key part of his presidential campaign in 2016, and his administration pointed to the invalidation of the expansion and the threat of a lawsuit against DACA by Texas and other Republican-led states as reasons to bring the program to a halt.
Young immigrants, civil rights groups, universities and Democratic-led cities and states sued to block the administration. They persuaded courts in New York, San Francisco and Washington, D.C., that the administration had been “arbitrary and capricious” in its actions, in violation of a federal law that requires policy changes be done in an orderly way.
Indeed, the high court case is not over whether DACA itself is legal, but instead the administration’s approach to ending it.
————-
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court is taking up the Trump administration’s plan to end legal protections that shield 660,000 immigrants from deportation, a case with strong political overtones amid the 2020 presidential election campaign.
All eyes will be on Chief Justice John Roberts when the court hears arguments Tuesday. Roberts is the conservative justice closest to the court’s center who also is keenly aware of public perceptions of an ideologically divided court.
It’s the third time in three years that the administration is asking the justices to rescue a controversial policy that has been blocked by several lower courts.
The court sided with President Donald Trump in allowing him to enforce the travel ban on visitors from some majority Muslim countries, but it blocked the administration from adding a citizenship question to the 2020 census.
Roberts was the only member of the court in the majority both times, siding with four conservatives on the travel ban and four liberals in the census case. His vote could be decisive a third time, as well.
The program before the court is Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, an Obama-era program that aimed to bring out of the shadows people who have been in the United States since they were children and are in the country illegally. In some cases, they have no memory of any home other than the U.S.
With Congress at an impasse over a comprehensive immigration bill, President Barack Obama decided to formally protect people from deportation while also allowing them to work legally in the U.S.
But Trump made tough talk on immigration a central part of his campaign and less than eight months after taking office, he announced in September 2017 that he would end DACA.
Immigrants, civil rights groups, universities and Democratic-led states quickly sued, and courts put the administration’s plan on hold.
There are two questions before the Supreme Court: whether federal judges can even review the decision to end the program and, if they can, whether the way the administration has gone about winding down DACA is legal.
In that sense, the case resembles the dispute over the census citizenship question, which focused on the process the administration used in trying to add the question to the 2020 census. In the end, Roberts wrote that the reason the administration gave for wanting the question “seems to have been contrived.”
There also are similarities to the travel ban case, in which the administration argued that courts had no role to play and that the executive branch has vast discretion over immigration, certainly enough to justify Trump’s ban. In the Supreme Court decision, Roberts wrote that immigration law gives the president “broad discretion to suspend the entry of aliens into the United States. The President lawfully exercised that discretion.”
The Supreme Court fight over DACA has played out in a kind of legal slow motion. The administration first wanted the justices to hear and decide the case by June 2018. The justices said no. The justice Department returned to the court a year ago, but the justices did nothing for more than seven months before agreeing to hear arguments.
The delay has bought DACA recipients at least two extra years because a decision now isn’t expected until June 2020, which also could thrust the issue into the presidential campaign.
In part the court’s slow pace can be explained by a preference to have Congress legislate a lasting resolution of the issue. But Trump and Congress failed to strike a deal on DACA.
Janet Napolitano, the University of California president who served as Obama’s homeland security secretary when DACA was created, said the administration seems to recognize that ending DACA protections would be unpopular.
“And so perhaps they think it better that they be ordered by the court to do it as opposed to doing it correctly on their own,” Napolitano said in an interview with The Associated Press. She is a named plaintiff in the litigation.
Solicitor General Noel Francisco, who is arguing the administration’s case at the Supreme Court, pushed back against that criticism.
“We think the way we did it is entirely appropriate and lawful. If we did it in a different way, it would be subject to challenge,” Francisco said at a Smithsonian Institution event exploring the current Supreme Court term.
The Trump administration has said it moved to cut off the program under the threat of a lawsuit from Texas and other states, raising the prospect of a chaotic end.
Then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions determined DACA to be unlawful because Obama did not have the authority to adopt it in the first place. Sessions cited an expansion of the DACA program and a similar effort to protect undocumented immigrants who are parents of American children that were struck down by federal courts. A 4-4 Supreme Court tie in 2016 affirmed the lower court rulings.
Texas and other Republican-led states eventually did sue and won a partial victory in a federal court in Texas.
The administration’s best argument is a simple one, said Josh Blackman, a professor at South Texas College of Law in Houston: “The Supreme Court should allow the Trump Administration to wind down a policy it found to be unlawful, even if reasonable judges disagree about DACA’s legality.”
Trump has said he favors legislation on DACA, but that it will take a Supreme Court ruling for the administration to spur Congress to act.
On at least one point, Trump and his DACA critics agree.
“Only legislation can bring a permanent sense of stability for all of these people,” said Microsoft president Brad Smith. Microsoft joined the challenge to the administration because, Smith said, 66 employees are protected by DACA.
The Department of Homeland Security is continuing to process two-year DACA renewals so that in June 2020, hundreds of thousands of DACA recipients will have protections stretching beyond the election and even into 2022.
If the high court rules for the administration, it is unclear how quickly the program would end or Congress might act.
SHERMAN COUNTY— One person was injured in an accident just after 5 p.m. Monday in Sherman County.
The Kansas Highway Patrol reported a 2004 Freightliner semi driven by Craig K. Busse, 38, Bird City, was northbound on County Road 28 one mile east and 13 miles north of Edson.
The driver lost control of the semi as he was attempting to maneuver a curve to the right and overturned. EMS transported Busse to the hospital in Goodland. He was not wearing a seat belt, according to the KHP.
ST. JOSEPH, Mo. (AP) — A woman who drowned her 6-month-old son has been sentenced to life in prison.
The St. Joseph News-Press reports Sydney Jones was sentenced last week for child abuse resulting in death. Jurors found her guilty in July after a prosecution witness testified that he found Jones holding her son, Keith Lars III, down in the water in 2017.
Police have testified that she acted strangely, saying she was “a child of God.” A psychologist testified that she believed state mental health workers missed a diagnosis of paranoid schizophrenia, noting that Jones said she felt possessed.
Jones said during the hearing that, “I wake up every day and think I couldn’t save my son.” A jail official testified that Jones had gotten into several fights while incarcerated.
___
JACKSON COUNTY — Law enforcement authorities are investigating a suspect after two pursuits in two Kansas counties.
Just after 1a.m. Sunday the Jackson County Sheriff’s Office was notified that the Shawnee County Sheriff’s Office had terminated a pursuit near 86th and Topeka Blvd., according to Sheriff Tim Morse.
It was indicated that the suspect was allegedly involved in vehicle burglaries in Shawnee County.
A short time later, a Shawnee County deputy observed the suspect vehicle northbound on S. Road from the county line in Jackson County.
A Jackson County Sheriff’s Deputy located the 2002 Toyota Camry reported stolen from Silver Lake had wrecked, but was still running in the ditch just north of 102nd and S. Road with no one around.
While deputies were on scene at approximately 2 am a dark colored 2017 Volkswagen passenger car approached the area. Deputies believed the vehicle was in the area to pick up the driver of the Camry.
A pursuit ensued westbound on 102nd Road. The vehicle allegedly failed to stop at stop signs at US Highway 75 and continued westbound. The suspect vehicle headed north on P4 Road where the driver lost control and the vehicle rolled due to excessive speeds and icy conditions, according to Morse.
Two passengers in the vehicle were evaluated at area hospitals. It was determined the 2017 Volkswagen had been reported stolen out of Lawrence, and the tag on the vehicle was stolen from a residence in Shawnee County.
Deputies arrested the driver, Michael Francis Dorsch, 34, of Horton. He was booked into the Jackson County Jail on a series of requested charges including Felony possession of stolen property, possession of stolen property, possession of methamphetamine and marijuana, possession of drug paraphernalia, driving while suspended, interference with law enforcement, 2 counts of aggravated battery and fleeing and eluding a law enforcement officer.
