Michael Mann's defamation suit chills the free press

Photo by Matt Popovich on Unsplash

When newspapers are under threat of lawsuit for any opinion that a jury might find objectionable, what remains of freedom of the press? How will public pursuit of the truth be advanced if anyone can sue for defamation to shield himself from honest critique?

Monday, November 25, the US Supreme Court denied Certiorari to National Review Inc. (NRO) v. Mann and the parallel case, Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) v. Mann. Their decision means that climate scientist, Dr. Michael Mann, can go forward in his defamation lawsuit. He is suing these news outlets for two opinion columns printed on July 13, 2012 and July 15, 2012.

Justice Samuel Alito dissented. He wrote that this case goes “to the very heart of the constitutional guarantee of freedom of speech and freedom of the press: the protection afforded to journalists and others who use harsh language in criticizing opposing advocacy on one of the most important public issues of the day.”

Alito supported this statement with two basic arguments. First, he questions whether a jury, untrained in science, is competent to judge “[w]hether an academic’s use and presentation of data falls within the range deemed reasonable by those in the field.” Juries judge matters of justice and common sense, but they should not be expected to judge the validity of data and methods hotly and politically contested.

Second, Alito writes that even the best-case scenario for the accused journalist is a burden that could suppress freedom of expression. “A journalist who prevails after trial in a defamation case will still have been required to shoulder all the burdens of difficult litigation and may be faced with hefty attorney’s fees. Those prospects may deter the uninhibited expression of views that would contribute to healthy public debate.”

Alito’s dissent is spot on. In fact, his concerns are not only theoretical possibilities. I recently watched these twin pressures operate in real time to scrub my own true and verifiable words from the public record. This is my story.

*   *   *

On September 3, 2019, I published an article in the Uinta County Herald titled, “Is man-made global warming Mann-made?” It discussed how Mann’s years-long, multimillion-dollar suit against fellow scientist Dr. Timothy Ball had recently been dismissed with prejudice from the Supreme Court of British Columbia.

Michael Mann

The article described how Mann had drastically rewritten surface temperature data for the past millennia by publishing his “hockey stick graph” in 1998. This became an iconic rallying cry in debates about man-made global warming. The article asserted that Mann has kept some details of his data from public scrutiny by asserting the rights of “intellectual property.”

The central claim of the article was that “In January 2017, a judge agreed that Mann would have to hand over the data and gave him two years to do so... The deadline came and went with no data ever produced. In May, Ball’s legal team asked the judge to throw out the lawsuit based on Mann’s refusal to release the data. On August 23, the judge granted the motion to dismiss. Not only that, but he also took the unusual step of requiring Mann to reimburse all of Dr. Ball’s legal costs.”

A shortened version of that article was subsequently published in the Wyoming Tribune Eagle later that week. That’s when the fireworks began. Hours after the article appeared in Cheyenne, Mann wrote an email to the editor and publicist of the Uinta County Herald which he then copied to Brian Martin, editor of the Wyoming Tribune Eagle: “Your newspaper has just published a commentary that makes false and defamatory statements about me and my research. The claims made in the piece that our data are not available or that we did not provide materials requested by the court are provably false. And they are libelous.”

Mann concluded the email with an implicit threat, “I expect the column to be taken down immediately. I have copied my lawyers John B Williams of Williams Lopatto PLLC, Peter Fontaine of Cozen-O’Connor, and Roger McConchie of McConchie Law.”

Less than an hour and a half after receiving the menacing email, the Cheyenne paper informed me that my article was taken offline. At some point, the Uinta County Herald also took it down. For evidence of error Mann supplied two links. First was an FTP site with reams of numerical data. Second was an article from a fellow scientist who wrote about the “robustness” of Mann’s research.

Robust is not the same as infallible. Nor is a data-dump equivalent to full disclosure. But name recognition and legal threat caused both papers not only to amend some specific point of error, but to quietly scrub an entire published article.

Asked to comment on the publisher’s decision, I sent my sources to Martin with the following note:

Dr. Timothy Ball

I believe that my article accurately represents the data presented above. Specific to Dr. Mann's assertion about data disclosure, Dr. Ball reports, “We agreed to an adjournment with conditions. The major one was that he [Mann] produce all documents including computer codes by February 20th, 2017. He failed to meet the deadline.” If Ball spoke wrongly in this published statement, Dr. Mann has had two years to prove it in open court. He obviously has not proven this before the British Columbia Supreme Court. 

I waited for the paper to weigh the evidence and either repost the article or ask for a correction. After several days, I called Martin directly. He informed me that the newspaper simply did not have either time or manpower to check the sources.

This is precisely Alito’s point. If a capitol newspaper, staffed by investigative reporters with decades of combined experience, does not feel competent to judge the falsifiability of a claim, how can jurors, picked from the untrained public, be expected to do the same?

The Wyoming Tribune Eagle also forward my note to Mann with the following inquiry: “Mr. Mann, The column has been taken down, but here is the columnist’s response. Do you have any response to this? Are his sources all biased against climate change?”

Mann’s reply is telling: “These are a list of right-wing blogs, not a single legitimate media source in that list. The claims made in the piece are, as I explained and demonstrated to you previously, false and defamatory, and would readily be shown as such in court. I trust that is adequate to resolve this matter.”

To a newspaper with the circulation of only 14,000 the words “defamatory” and “court” must be frightening. Martin confirmed this to me by noting that the Tribune Eagle is not in a position to mount legal defense against a libel lawsuit. Alito’s dissent anticipated exactly this response. But what does it matter? After all, it’s only a couple of small newspapers.

Consider that despite Mann’s strong language, he never directly disputed the quote from his adversary. Dr. Timothy Ball was the only other party in the courtroom. His public statement, published over two years ago, is that Mann did not “produce all documents including computer codes by February 20^th, 2016.” At my suggestion, Martin specifically asked Mann about that. He responded, “I’m happy to let things stand where they are.”

Four days later, I wrote Mann directly. I sought to know his specific objections and address them honestly. Then, I concluded, “I am not happy to let things stand as they are. I would rather either retract or clarify my article than to allow false information to stand uncorrected… If Dr. Ball’s statement is untrue, I stand ready to correct or retract the article. I am even willing to issue an apology for the public record.” That email went unanswered. Three days later, I re-sent it—this time with a subject line sure to get Mann’s attention.

As of this writing, Mann has never once disputed Dr. Ball’s published statement. Nor has he ever asked for a retraction or correction. He, rather, ignored my offers to make one. His final word on the matter remains, “I’m happy to let things stand where they are.”

Newseum Washington, D.C. - Closing Dec. 31, 2019

As things are, two “legitimate media sources” have printed over 15,000 copies of a statement that is undisputed by Mann or anyone else present in the courtroom. And yet, nobody could know that fact by executing an internet search.

Without retraction or correction, it has simply disappeared into the memory hole. By threatening to sue a couple of struggling newspapers one party to an important and vigorous debate has succeeded in keeping critical words off established print-news websites. As far as internet users are concerned, this information has never been published in a “legitimate media source,” but only in “right-wing blogs.”

If the US Supreme Court will not deny participants in public discourse this power to silence opponents, it will happen with increasing frequency. Justice Alito was absolutely right to dissent. What he presented as a possible scenario has, in fact, already happened.  

___________________________________________________________

Published in the 11/29/2019 edition of the Uinta County Herald,

"Alito's dissent is not hypothetical, it's happening"

___________________________________________________________

Final Unanswered Email

From: Jonathan Lange

Sent: Wednesday, September 18, 2019 5:42 PM
To: Mann, Michael
Subject: Re: Your paper has published a false and defamatory commentary about me

Dear Dr. Mann,

Greetings from Evanston, WY.

After nearly a week of email exchanges, I realized that we are unfairly using Mr. Brian Martin as mediator. This is never the best way to address an issue and it is needlessly costing Mr. Martin time and energy.  On one prior occasion when I committed a factual error in an article, I was contacted directly by the aggrieved person and immediately took numerous steps to correct my error. If I have similarly published something wrong about you, I am eager to make any clarifications or corrections necessary to bring my article in line with the truth.

Toward this end, I am seeking clarification from you so that I can understand more exactly the points that you would like me to correct.

As I understand it, your first communication to Publisher Mark Tessoro and Editor Glathar found two faults with my article:

1. “The claims made in the piece that our data are not available [are provably false]”
2. “that we did not provide materials requested by the court are provably false.”

In support of your first point, you linked them to an FTP site of data that apparently has been available for 15 years. In addition, you supplied an article from the journal “Climatic Change” meant to impeach my assertions. I did not, however, see any material supplied in support of the second statement.

So, let me address the first complaint.

I fully acknowledge that you released a substantial amount of information both at the first publishing of the “hockey stick graph” (the graph, by definition contained many data points.) I, further, accept that you released additional data that has been available for more than 6 years prior to your lawsuit with Dr. Ball.

While my article did, indeed, contain the sentence “Mann still has not released his data to the public.” I did not mean to imply that you have released no data whatsoever. I believe that a fair reading of the article makes it clear from the immediate context and the repeated use of the phrases “the data” and “this data” that I was referring to some very specific intellectual property above and beyond what you have already released.

I even republished your statement that “I have made available all of the research data that I am required to under United States policy as set by the National Science Foundation…. I maintain the right to decline to release any computer codes, which are my intellectual property…” I had hoped that this would stipulate that you have released enough data to satisfy the NSF. However, if you think otherwise, I am willing to clarify the article. Perhaps you would be satisfied by amending the sentence to read, “Mann still has not released enough data to satisfy the skeptics.”

The second piece of evidence that you offer is a journal article that supports the robustness of your claims. My article does not challenge this point. I certainly do not claim to be a climate scientist. While it is easily demonstrated that climate scientists have differing views on the relative robustness of your work, I am a parish pastor and do not claim the ability to enter into that conversation.

The second complaint seems to say that it is provably false that you “did not provide materials requested by the court.” This would, indeed, be significant. Are you asserting that there is absolutely no material that the court requested of you which you did not supply?

Dr. Ball has publicly claimed (and reasserted by personal contact) that “Michael Mann moved for an adjournment of the trial scheduled for February 20, 2017. We had little choice because Canadian courts always grant adjournments before a trial in their belief that an out of court settlement is preferable. We agreed to an adjournment with conditions. The major one was that he [Mann] produce all documents including computer codes by February 20th, 2017. He failed to meet the deadline.” This is the central fact of my article. If this assertion is wrong, I will publicly and humbly retract the entire piece.

I went to press based on my judgement that Dr. Ball would be foolish to publish such a statement if it where false. Additionally, your public rejoinder did not contradict this specific claim.

Because this is so central to the article, I suggested to Mr. Martin that he ask you directly whether you dispute Dr. Ball’s claim. In your response to him, you chose not to directly answer. Instead, you responded “His [Lange’s] claims are demonstrably false and defamatory and I have no interest in providing him any further opportunities to promote them.” But the fundamental question is not about my claims but about Dr. Ball’s claim. So, please clarify for me your answer to Dr. Ball’s statement quoted above.

If there is something false and defamatory in my article, I am not happy to let things stand as they are. I would rather either retract or clarify my article than to allow false information to stand uncorrected.

In sum, I am willing to clarify the extent to which you have already released data. And, if Dr. Ball’s statement is untrue, I stand ready to correct or retract the article. I am even willing to issue an apology for the public record. I have nothing against you, Dr. Mann, and nothing to gain by clinging to even one erroneous statement.

Sdg

Jonathan Lange

________________________

(This was the second time is sent this identical email. The first time was on September 15, 2019 at 3:52 PM. That one had the subject line: "Clarification." The offer still stands.)

WTE: The Manhattan Declaration after ten years

Millions of men, women and children have been robbed by state and federal governments. I am not referring either to taxes or inflation. I am referring to the government’s dereliction of one of its most basic duties: to enforce marriage contracts.

When a woman enters motherhood, (Latin: “matrimony,” French: “marriage”), the physical, psychological and emotional demands of pregnancy and child rearing impact every area of her life. Marriage serves as a legal contract to guarantee her the support of the child’s father both during these affected years and beyond.

When a man enters fatherhood, his life changes as well. Paternity creates a legal and social obligation that is enforceable by law, whether he is married to the mother or not. Marriage seals his obligations to the mother while promising her cooperation in raising the child.

These mutual obligations benefit children most of all. When mother and father are cooperating on a child’s behalf, that child’s “right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” is protected. The greater the cooperation, the more the children benefit. Conversely, uncooperative parents rob children of their birthright.

Families have the right to expect that government will enforce marriage contracts. But so-called “no-fault divorce” laws renege on this basic duty.

Libertarians and libertines urged these laws by claiming that people who want to get a divorce should be free to do so. But almost always, one party doesn’t want the divorce. No-fault divorce laws do not make the government neutral. They put it on the side of whoever values the marriage least.

This is unjust for couples who shouldered the burdens of child-rearing believing their marriage would last for life. Breaking the marriage vow defrauds both the faithful spouse and the children in the home. The government becomes party to fraud when it fails to enforce the contract.

Divorce courts that should support the faithful spouse typically rubber stamp the breakup instead. This leaves the welfare state clumsily to micromanage the broken home. It throws money at the children as if this could compensate for the loss of a parent.

Ten years ago, the late Chuck Colson and others connected the dots between government’s abdication of its duties toward marriage and its parallel abdication of its duty to protect the youngest and most vulnerable people—children, the unborn, and frozen embryos. They also recognized that the more government abandoned families, the more it attacked religious liberty.

Colson decided to do something bold. He asked Drs. Robert George and Timothy George (unrelated) to draft a document that encouraged Christians to defend the vulnerable. Called the Manhattan Declaration, it was released on November 20, 2009. Since then, over a half-million others have signed it. I am one of them.

It is an appeal, to everyone who considers himself a Christian, to recognize that the sacred nature of marriage is no reason to be silent about its secular benefits. Rather, precisely because Christians understand the value of marriage, they have a duty of love to defend all who have been defrauded by a government derelict in its duties.

“Because the sanctity of human life, the dignity of marriage as a union of husband and wife, and the freedom of conscience and religion are foundational principles of justice and the common good,” says the Declaration, “we are compelled by our Christian faith to speak and act in their defense… We pledge to each other, and to our fellow believers, that no power on earth, be it cultural or political, will intimidate us into silence or acquiescence.”

Attempts to intimidate Christians into silence have only increased since these words were written. Radical new laws strip infants of legal defense both before and after birth. A never-ending parade of government-sanctioned indoctrination seems calculated to destroy marriage for generations to come.

To shield these policies from criticism, anti-family forces routinely bludgeon good people with labels meant to intimidate and silence. Anyone who dares to stand for marriage, life and religious freedom is attacked personally, economically and even legally. Since the Manhattan Declaration was released, the ever-increasing shrillness of its detractors testifies to its truth.

Frederica Matthewes-Green wrote in her essay commemorating the Declaration’s release: “[E]very generation faces an issue that draws a line between those who will stand up for what is right, and those who just go along. It’s only the bravest who take a stand, and continue to bear witness even when others mock them and misrepresent them; only the bravest keep standing when, from a worldly perspective, the cause looks lost.”

The challenge of our generation is to defend our neighbors’ lives and marriages in the face of slander, verbal abuse and economic pressure. The Manhattan Declaration invites you to rise to that challenge. It is as relevant today as ten years ago.

Also published in the Wyoming Tribune Eagle on November 22, 2019.

The Federalist: 10 Years Later, The Manhattan Declaration’s Defense Of Marriage Is Even More Needed

 

The most fundamental duty of government toward marriage is to recognize its reality and enforce the legal contract at its heart. This is what the Manhattan Declaration called for 10 years ago.

The Manhattan Declaration, released ten years ago today, is an appeal to everyone who considers himself a Christian to recognize that the sacred nature of marriage is no reason to be silent about its public benefits. Rather, precisely because Christians know both the sacred and the secular value of marriage, they owe it to their secular neighbors to defend it. In so doing, they are not merely defending principles, they are defending millions of people who have been defrauded by government institutions.

Continue reading on the Federalist.

The Manhattan Declaration after ten years

For nearly fifty years millions of men, women and children have been robbed by state and federal governments. I am not referring either to taxes or to federally planned inflation. I am referring to the government’s dereliction of one of its most basic duties—to enforce marriage contracts.


Marriage, of course, is far more than a contract. It is a sacred covenant. But it is a covenant with an economic impact. The Christian Church recognizes that marriage signifies the holy bond between Jesus and His Church. Unbelievers recognize that it bestows tangible goods on husband, wife and any children that are conceived in the conjugal union.


Tax privileges and social standing are not the tangible goods of marriage. Rather, marriage’s unique ability to raise upstanding citizens causes governments to incentivize it and societies to honor it. Most fundamentally, governments the world over honor marriage by recognizing and enforcing the legal contract at its heart.


When a woman enters motherhood, (Latin: “matrimony,” French “marriage”), her energies are refocused in fundamental ways. The physical, psychological and emotional demands of pregnancy and child rearing impact every area of her life. Marriage serves as a legal contract to guarantee her the support of the child’s father both during these affected years and beyond.


When a man enters fatherhood (patrimony), his life changes as well. His chromosomal connection to the child creates a legal and social obligation that is enforceable by law, whether he is married to the mother or not. Marriage not only seals his obligations to the mother it also obliges the mother to cooperate with him in the raising of the child.


Children are the greatest beneficiaries of these mutual obligations. When mother and father are cooperating on the child’s behalf, the child’s “right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness,” is protected. Greater cooperation means greater benefits, and lack of parental cooperation robs the child of its birthright.

When a couple files for a marriage certificate, they have every expectation that the government issuing the certificate will enforce the contract. But so-called “no-fault divorce” laws changed that. The first such law was passed in 1970. Soon, every state was reneging on its promise to enforce marriage contracts. Libertarians and libertines said, ‘keep the government out of people’s lives. If they want to get a divorce, they should be free to get a divorce.’


The problem is that married couples practically never want a divorce. Rather, one party to the marriage wants a divorce while the other does not. “No-fault divorce” laws do not make the government neutral. They put it on the side of whoever values the marriage least.


A woman or a man who accepted the economic disadvantages of child-rearing based on a promise for the future is defrauded when those promises are not kept. A government that fails to hold people to their promises becomes party to that fraud. Even worse, the children who ought to be protected from the loss of life, emotional support, education and inheritance, are completely disregarded.

Divorce courts should admonish divorce-minded parents to work it out for the sake of their children. Instead, they usually rubber-stamp the breakup. All that remains is for the welfare state clumsily to micromanage the broken home and throw money at the child, as though that could substitute for losing a parent.


Tomorrow (November 20) marks ten years since 152 Christian leaders released the Manhattan Declaration. Since then, over a half-million others have signed it. I am one of them.


The Declaration was the brainchild of the late Chuck Colson. He asked Drs. Robert George and Timothy George (unrelated) to draft a document that recognized both the public and the churchly nature of marriage. He recognized that anti-Christian religious forces often use the religious nature of marriage to delegitimize and silence Christians who speak about public marriage policy.


The Manhattan Declaration is an appeal to everyone who considers himself a Christian to recognize that the sacred nature of marriage is no reason to be silent about its public benefits. Rather, precisely because Christians know both the sacred and the secular value of marriage, they owe it to their secular neighbors to defend their marriage even when the government will not.

Since marriage so deeply impacts the welfare of children, the Manhattan Declaration also calls upon every Christian to speak in defense of the life of every child conceived—whether in the marriage bed or in a laboratory. Christian scriptures teach that the sanctity of human life and the sanctity of marriage are two sides of the same coin. And it recognizes that the calling to defend the lives and marriages of Americans who do not know this teaching is a duty of love for all people.


The Declaration states: “Because the sanctity of human life, the dignity of marriage as a union of husband and wife, and the freedom of conscience and religion are foundational principles of justice and the common good, we are compelled by our Christian faith to speak and act in their defense... We pledge to each other, and to our fellow believers, that no power on earth, be it cultural or political, will intimidate us into silence or acquiescence.”


Those trying to intimidate Christians into silence have only grown louder in the decade since these words were written. They have passed laws that strip infants of legal defense both before and after birth. They continue to press a radical agenda that allows embryonic children to be bought and sold on the open market—and do precious little to halt the trafficking of older children. All the while, there is a never-ending parade of government-sanctioned indoctrination aimed at destroying the marriages of generations to come.


To shield these anti-child and anti-marriage policies from criticism, they carelessly bludgeon fellow citizens with labels meant to intimidate and silence. They press for so-called “hate crime” laws that use the power of government to silence their opponents. Laramie and Jackson have already passed such laws that reach into the sanctuary of churches to prohibit sermons and ceremonies that they deem offensive. These laws have yet to be enforced. They are too valuable as intimidation to risk their being overturned in a court of law.


Measured by its impact on public policy, the Manhattan Declaration doesn’t seem to have done much after ten years. But public policy was not its chief aim. The Declaration was and remains a personal pledge. Signers promise to continue speaking and acting in defense of their neighbors no matter what the cultural or political costs. By that measure, its effectiveness can only be measured by you.

Frederica Matthewes-Green, a Greek Orthodox scholar, captured this thought in her own reflections on the Declaration, “[E]very generation faces an issue that draws a line between those who will stand up for what is right, and those who just go along. It’s only the bravest who take a stand, and continue to bear witness even when others mock them and misrepresent them; only the bravest keep standing when, from a worldly perspective, the cause looks lost. Only the most dedicated people are willing to keep working for change, when the struggle is all uphill and they reap nothing but rejection.”


The Wyoming Pastors Network was formed to encourage and equip anyone who answers this call. Marriage, life and religious freedom are worth defending because people are worth defending. Read the Declaration and take a stand.

WTE: You just can’t see him from the road

“He’s still out there ridin’ fences / Still makes his livin’ with his rope / As long as there’s a sunset, he’ll keep ridin’ for the brand / You just can’t see him from the road.” – Chris LeDoux

The MW Cattle Company near Newcastle is more than a business. It is a way of life. Despite our fast-paced world, the Hunt family still saddles up to go to work. This is not driven by nostalgia. It is driven by on-the-ground practicalities.

The Hunts are the kind of folk who make Wyoming what it is. They are rooted in a family and community that is invested in the land. Their ranch spans the border between Wyoming and South Dakota.

Recently, the Hunts joined the Ranchers Cattlemen Action Legal Fund United Stockgrowers of America (R-CALF USA) and a similarly situated rancher in South Dakota to file a lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). It concerned a new “Factsheet” that was published on the Department’s website in April.

Just six years ago the USDA completed a tedious process of negotiation, legal review, public comment, revision and publication of “2013 Final Rule.” This rule governs branding and tagging requirements for livestock that are moved across state lines.

This rule is particularly tough on the Hunts because their operation spans the border. But it also impacts virtually every ranch in Wyoming. Since Wyoming has no meat-packing plants within her borders, most cattle grown in Wyoming will need to cross state lines at some point.

The “Factsheet” unilaterally changed the most important agreements reached in the 2013 Final Rule. Most notably, it requires many Wyoming ranchers to transition from brands, tattoos and ear tags to the new and untested technology of radio frequency identification (RFID). This technology had been discussed at length before the 2013 Final Rule and attempts to mandate its use were rejected.

If you are unable to understand why this rule has such an adverse effect on ranchers, don’t feel bad. You and I are in the same boat. In fact, so are most of the bureaucrats that work in Washington, D.C. at the USDA. That’s why the “public comment” process is so important.

Governmental regulations that are tone deaf to realities on the ground are more than a nuisance. They can force a family off the land. The lawsuit, filed by Harriet Hageman, a 2018 gubernatorial candidate, on October 3, 2019 alleges that the Factsheet violates the 2013 Final Plan and four other specific federal laws.

According to the filing, the USDA was told by expert witnesses that mandating RFID would cost producers “$1.2 Billion to $1.9 Billion.” Nevertheless, when it formed Advisory Committees to help write the Factsheet, it failed to include anyone representing ranchers that opposed mandating RFID. They did, however, include the manufacturers of the RFID tags.

Five days after the suit was filed, President Donald Trump issued two executive orders aimed at preventing such abuses. Government agencies are not allowed to impose legally binding regulations without following the legal, rule-making process.

On October 23, the “Factsheet” suddenly disappeared from the USDA website. The USDA made no announcement withdrawing the RFID mandate. It just disappeared. The lawsuit remains on file because the Factsheet could just as easily reappear.

Only a month ago, I told the story of how a similar bureaucratic bird’s nest threatened to bankrupt Andy Johnson’s family in Mountain View. This story from the opposite corner of the state drives home the point that care for our neighbors requires us all to be vigilant against government overreach.

The way of life that makes Wyoming what it is did not happen by accident. It was built by our forebears who worked hard to build a community. They left us not only infrastructure, but a legal structure where families can thrive. That legal structure is designed to keep policy-making local. Our ancestors knew that only those with boots on the ground know the land well enough to govern it.

Wyoming has an awful lot of land that you cannot see from the road. The coal miners, roughnecks and cowboys who work it may be out of sight, but they dare not be out of mind. We owe them a debt of gratitude for lighting our homes, fueling our cars and feeding our families. Not only that, we also owe them our support and help when they are threatened by out-of-touch bureaucrats.

We should instinctively trust and support our nearest neighbors and not defer to distant bureaucracies. The way of life that we love was handed us by people on the land, and we need them to help us pass it on to our grandchildren. Hats off to the Hunts, Harriet Hageman, and every unsung hero who is vigilant to preserve Wyoming’s families and communities.

Also published in the Wyoming Tribune Eagle on November 15, 2019.

You just can’t see him from the road

He’s still out there ridin’ fences

Still makes his livin’ with his rope

As long as there’s a sunset,

he’ll keep ridin’ for the brand

You just can’t see him from the road.

– Chris LeDoux

Tracy and Donna Hunt operate the MW Cattle Company near Newcastle. More than a business, it is a way of life. Donna’s family has been pushing cows for three generations. Her grandfather first purchased land there in 1926.

The Hunts are the kind of folks who make Wyoming what it is. They are rooted in a family and community that is invested in the land. Involvement in state and local governance is not “politics.” It is simply an extension of raising their family and caring for their community.

Tracy has served in numerous elected positions. He has also served 20 years as Weston County Commissioner. Donna was the first female commissioner in Weston county. Their son, Hans, has been serving in the state House of Representatives for nearly a decade.

Despite many changes in technology, the Hunts still saddle up to go to work. For them, the expression, “ride for the brand,” is literal. For nearly a century, they have worked cattle like their grandfathers. This is not driven by nostalgia. It is driven by on-the-ground practicalities.

Their ranch encompasses mile-long pastures and sprawling vistas from Wyoming to South Dakota. When it’s time for market, they typically go to the sale barn at Torrington. There, buyers from Nebraska, South Dakota and surrounding states come together to listen to the chatter of auctioneers where beef on the hoof is converted to cash.

Recently, the Hunts were forced to join in a lawsuit against the federal government. Represented by Harriet Hageman, a 2018 gubernatorial candidate, they joined the Ranchers Cattlemen Action Legal Fund United Stockgrowers of America (R-CALF USA) and Kenny and Roxy Fox of Belvidere, South Dakota to take the USDA to court.



Harriet Hageman

It was a hassle that should never have happened. All parties to the suit had only recently completed a years-long process of updating the rules governing “Traceability of Livestock Moving Interstate” (2013 Final Rule). This rule, in compliance with multiple federal laws, had gone through a tedious process of negotiation, legal review, public comment, revision and final publication before it went into effect on March 11, 2013.

As the name implies, these federal rules are particularly impactive on cattle operations that span state lines. That’s why the Foxes and the Hunts had a special interest. But the rules also impact virtually every ranch in Wyoming for the simple reason that Wyoming has no meat-packing plants within her borders. As a result, a large percentage of cattle grown in Wyoming will need to cross state lines at some point on the way to market.

When the same herd of cattle winters in Wyoming and spends the summer in the sprawling pastures of South Dakota, a small change in federal rules can make a huge difference in the bottom line. Just as important, federal rules on the transport of cattle across state lines can put a gigantic governmental thumb on the scale that favors operators whose cattle never need to cross state lines over those that do.

If you are unable to understand how such arcane rules adversely impact cattle growers, don’t feel bad. You and I are in the same boat. In fact, so are most of the bureaucrats that work in Washington, D.C. at the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS). That’s why the “public comment” process is so important.

Governmental regulations that are tone deaf to realities on the ground are more than a nuisance. They can force a family off the land. That’s why the document posted on the USDA website this April was so troubling. Without public input APHIS published a “Fact Sheet” entitled, “Advanced Disease Traceability: A Plan to Achieve Electronic Identification of Cattle and Bison” (2019 RFID Plan).

This decree unilaterally required some, but not all, cattle growers to transition from brands, tattoos and ear tags to the new and untested technology of radio frequency identification (RFID). This technology had been discussed at length during the process that formulated the 2013 Final Rule. It was adopted as one of the legal alternatives for identifying livestock but attempts to mandate its use were rejected.

So, when the 2019 Fact Sheet claimed that it was now mandatory, it was in direct violation of the 2013 Final Rule. The lawsuit filed on October 3, 2019, alleges that the 2019 Fact Sheet violates the 2013 Final Plan and four other specific federal laws.

Both the USDA and APHIS heard expert testimony that mandating RFID would cost producers “$1.2 Billion to $1.9 Billion,” according to the lawsuit. The brief also noted that Advisory Committees formed to write the 2019 Factsheet did not include representatives from R-CALF USA or any groups that opposed mandating RFID. Rather, they took advice only from parties lobbying for RFID – including the corporation that manufactures the RFID tags.

Five days after R-CALF USA filed the suit, President Donald Trump issued two executive orders that were aimed at preventing executive agencies from imposing legally binding regulations outside of the legal rule-making process. Then, just two weeks later, the 2019 Fact Sheet suddenly disappearedfrom the USDA website.

Absent the Fact Sheet, cattle growers have gained a temporary relief from the RFID mandate. However, it may come back at any time. The lawsuit remains on file. Hopefully, it will bring about a permanent return to the 2013 Plan that was developed through the legal process.

Only weeks ago, I told the story of Andy Johnson in Mountain View and how a similar bureaucratic bird’s nest threatened to bankrupt his young family. Now, another story from the opposite corner of the state drives home the point that care for our neighbors requires us all to be vigilant against government over-reach.

The way of life that makes Wyoming what it is did not happen by accident. It was cultivated by parents, grandparents, and great grandparents that worked hard to build a community where families could thrive. They did this not only by working the land. They also paid attention to the law. They handed us a constitution designed to keep policy-making local because they knew that only those with boots on the ground know the land well enough to govern it.

Wyoming has an awful lot of land that you cannot see from the road. The coal miners, roughnecks and cowboys who work it may be out of sight, but they dare not be out of mind. We owe them a debt of gratitude for lighting our homes, fueling our cars and feeding our families.

Not only that, we also owe them our support and help when they are threatened by out-of-touch bureaucrats. The way of life that we love was handed us by their ancestors, and they are an integral part of passing it on to our grandchildren. Thanks to Harriet Hageman, R-CALF USA and every unsung hero who fights obscure injustices to preserve our families and communities.

WTE: A big Wyoming welcome to the West family

Kanye and Kim West recently joined the small community with long streets that we call Wyoming. Their purchase of Monster Lake Ranch also coincided with very public activity in the Christian community.

On September 22, 2019 Kanye gave a Sunday Service to the community of Cody. Two weeks later his equally famous wife took the children to Armenia. There the three youngest were baptized into the Armenian Apostolic Church, the faith of her late father, Robert Kardashian.

The worship services that Kanye hosted in Cody and those attended by his family in Armenia could hardly be more different. But their faith is unified in that both worship a first-century Jew. Since worship is reserved for God, alone, the worship of Jesus names Him Creator of all matter and every force in the universe.

Jesus holds legitimate authority over the universe and has the power to back it up. Both worldly and demonic forces hate Jesus for this reason. They have declared war on Christ and Christianity since the rulers of Jerusalem first found Him guilty of being “King of the Jews.”

But for those who embrace Jesus as King, there comes an overwhelming desire to serve Him, a desire driven by an unshakable conviction of His goodness. Love for Jesus radiates to every person and thing in all creation. All of it is from God and for God.

This world view permeates Kanye’s newest album titled, “Jesus Is King.” I admit that until yesterday I had never listened to any of his music. Still, I was drawn to give it a listen. I hoped to understand his heart through his own words and music. I was not disappointed.

From the opening chord of “Every Hour” to the abrupt end of “Jesus is Lord,” West’s album is a monument to a new King. For Kanye, Jesus is not some insipid metaphor for worldly love. “Jesus is King” proclaims One who fearsomely rules political power and demonic forces alike. To fear Him is to find wisdom (Psalm 111:10).

In that new-found wisdom, Kanye also finds the all-merciful God. The album exudes the joy of one who deserves nothing from Jesus but has it all by pure gift. “That’s on God,” as he puts it in the fifth track. “Selah” refuses to treat this mercy as one flavor of religion among others. He says, “Ain’t no wantin’, no, we need it.”

Unlike many celebrity conversions that hardly affect their public life at all, Kanye’s new-found faith simply cannot be sequestered from his art. For him it is personal.

But it is not private. More than a celebrity conversion, it was a family conversion. That Kim and the girls were baptized in Armenia does not mean that they were off doing their own thing. The names of the youngest two children, Psalm and Saint, make one wonder if the conversion has been in the works for several years.

Speculation aside, his fourth track, “Closed on Sundays,” puts family at the center of the Christian life. “Get your family, y’all hold hands and pray / When you got daughters, always keep ‘em safe.” “Raise your sons, train ‘em in the faith / Through temptations, make sure they’re wide awake.”

The refrain, “you’re my Chick-fil-A,” invokes the restaurant chain that has been vilified by the anti-family cultural forces since CEO, Dan Cathy, talked about “the audacity to redefine what marriage is all about.” Against that culture, West says, “Watch out for vipers, don’t let them indoctrinate… Follow Jesus, listen and obey / No more livin’ for the culture, we nobody’s slave.”

In “Hands on,” West addresses Christians. “Said I’m gonna do a gospel album / What have you been hearin’ from the Christians? / They’ll be the first to judge me… If they only see the wrongs, never listen to the songs.”

Well, Mr. West, this Christian writer knows about your wrongs. Still, I listened to your songs. What you have learned of Christ is true. His crucifixion is for you. (Please don’t judge me for my lame attempt at hip hop.)

Speaking as one Christian to another, I certainly don’t judge you. Your Christianity is not measured by anything but Jesus’ redemption of your life. Neither your strength of faith nor your weakness, neither your understanding nor your spiritual achievements can make you a Christian. God does—and, apparently, God has. That’s on Him! The new life and righteousness that Jesus freely gives will never be denied anyone who renounces the old and seeks Jesus. Never.

Forgive me if hip hop doesn’t replace Chris LeDoux on my “favorites” list. But, musical tastes aside, I know I speak for countless good-hearted citizens in extending a big, Wyoming welcome to you and to your entire family.

A big Wyoming welcome to the West family

Monster Lake Ranch Photo: Courtesy J.P. King Auction Co.

There is nothing unusual about seeing the glitterati walking the boardwalks of Jackson. For decades it has been known as a playground for California multimillionaires. Many, like Harrison Ford, even own property there and make it their home.

But when Kanye and Kim West bought the Monster Lake Ranch in early September, it was something altogether different. The Wind River Range lies between their Cody ranch and Jackson’s chic boutiques. What looks like an hour’s drive to flat-landers takes around five hours in the real world (depending on tourists and weather).

It’s not just the location of the West’s sprawling ranch that raises eyebrows. Its purchase was accompanied by Kanye’s very public announcement of his conversion to Christianity. Within weeks the Wests hosted a Sunday religious service at an outdoor venue in Cody. An eighty-voice choir was flown in to back up Kanye’s songs and testimonials.

Two weeks later Kanye’s equally famous wife, Kim, released pictures of herself with their three youngest children: Chicago, Saint and Psalm. They were brought to the headquarters of the Armenian Apostolic Church to be baptized at the Mother See of Holy Etchmiadzin in Vagharshapat, Armenia. (The eldest, North, was baptized in Jerusalem in 2015).

Scholars count this as the oldest cathedral in the world. It was built in 303 A.D. on top of an ancient pagan shrine. King Tiridates III deliberately wanted to show that paganism was no longer the national religion of Armenia. Nearly a decade before Constantine legalized Christianity in the Roman empire, Armenia became the first kingdom in the world to adopt Christianity.

By their baptism in Armenia, Kim signaled not only an alignment with ancient Christianity, but also a personal solidarity with the faith of her late father, Robert Kardashian.

Kardashian sisters and children on baptismal day

The worship services that Kanye hosted in Cody and those attended by Kim and the girls in Armenia could hardly be more different. But the faith professed by each has far more similarities than differences. These similarities start with the worship of a first-century Jewish rabbi named Jesus.

By the very act of worship, both Kim and Kanye profess that Jesus is not merely a man. Worship is reserved for God, alone. Christians profess that Jesus is the Creator of all things in the universe—from distant galaxies to your own individual body. They teach that God was born into the world as a real human being. He did this in order to rescue His own creation now fallen into sin.

The assertion that Jesus is King has drawn the wrath of cultural rulers since Jesus was crucified for it. But for those who embrace it, life changes in two fundamental ways. First, that person consciously submits himself to his Creator. Second, that person sees every other person and creature through the eyes of God.

On Friday, October 25, 2019, Kanye West released a new album titled, “Jesus Is King.” Like King Tiridates III, West has publicly built a Christian album on the site of what once was a monument to paganism. It is a remarkably coherent set of musical tracks that say, “as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord” (Joshua 24:15 AV).

I admit that until yesterday I had never listened to any of Mr. West’s music. While I can equally enjoy Chris LeDoux and J.S. Bach, hip hop has never made it on my playlist. Still, I was drawn to give it a listen. I hoped to understand his heart through his own words and music. I was not disappointed.

From the opening chord of “Every Hour” to the abrupt end of “Jesus is Lord,” West’s album offers commentary on his recent moves. There is not space here to discuss it all, but I want to make just a few observations.

The album title, alone, speaks volumes. The statement that “Jesus is King,” is the overriding theme of every song. For Kanye, Jesus is not some weak metaphor for kindness and love. He understands that Jesus is the Creator of the universe. He holds in His hand authority over every competitor—from political power to demonic forces.

“The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom” (Psalm 111:10). Every track seems to say that Kanye means this personally and seriously. But he goes further. Not only is Jesus all-powerful, He is also all-merciful. The music exudes the joy of one who deserves nothing from Jesus but has it all by pure gift. “That’s on God,” as he puts it in the fifth track.

For West, Jesus is not an optional accessory. In the second track, “Selah” he says, “Ain’t no wantin’, no, we need it.” That explains why he can’t keep his new-found faith sequestered from his art. Unlike many celebrity conversions that hardly affect their public life at all, Kanye’s has totally upended every aspect of his life.

For him it is personal. But it is not only personal. I do not consider the baptism of Kim and his girls as an independent, unrelated coincidence. Without prying into family conversations, it seems that his was more than a celebrity conversion. It was a family conversion. There might even be hints in the names of his children, Psalm and Saint, that these conversations have been going on for years.

Speculation aside, his fourth track, “Closed on Sundays,” makes it clear that his Christianity means an explicit and dedicated focus on the family. “Get your family, y’all hold hands and pray / When you got daughters, always keep ‘em safe.” He has a special word for boys, too: “Raise your sons, train ‘em in the faith / Through temptations, make sure they’re wide awake.”

The refrain, “you’re my Chick-fil-A,” makes a decisive break with the sexualized culture that Kanye and Kim have supported since 2014. Ever since CEO Dan Cathy said, “I pray God’s mercy on our generation that has such a prideful, arrogant attitude that thinks we have the audacity to redefine what marriage is all about,” it has been a watchword in the war on the family.

Now West sings, “Watch out for vipers, don’t let them indoctrinate… Follow Jesus, listen and obey / No more livin’ for the culture, we nobody’s slave.” Their conversion to Christ comes with a new recognition that the family, as God has defined it, reflects the image of God. To uphold it is freedom, not slavery.

In the third-last track, “Hands on,” West turns to address Christians. Will they accept him as a brother, or not? “Said I’m gonna do a gospel album / What have you been hearin’ from the Christians? / They’ll be the first to judge me.” He even lays out the reasons why Christians may reject him: “If they only see the wrongs, never listen to the songs.”

Well, Mr. West, this Christian writer knows about your wrongs. Still, I listened to your songs. What you have learned of Christ is true. His crucifixion is for you. (Please don’t judge me for my lame attempt at hip hop.)

Speaking one Christian to another, I certainly don’t judge you. Your Christianity is not measured by anything but Jesus’ redemption of your life. Neither your strength of faith or weakness, nor your understanding or spiritual achievements make you a Christian. God does—and, apparently, God has. That’s on Him! The new life and righteousness that Jesus freely gives will never be denied anyone who renounces the old and seeks Jesus. Never.


Speaking just for me, I will probably not replace my Chris LeDoux collection with hip hop. But speaking for countless good-hearted citizens, I want to extend you and your whole family a big, Wyoming welcome.

NOTE: This article has been updated. An earlier version erroneously referred to Psalm as a "daughter" and included Kim among the recently baptized.