School boards should listen to concerned parents, not attack them

Photo by Nick Quan on Unsplash

Exactly one month ago, the National School Board Association sent a formal letter to the White House claiming that “America’s public schools and its education leaders are under immediate threat.” It claims to speak for “state associations and 90,000 school board members.”

The letter asked the “U.S. Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Secret Service, and its National Threat Assessment Center” to “investigate, intercept, and prevent the current threats and acts of violence against our public school officials through existing statutes, executive authority, interagency and intergovernmental task forces, and other extraordinary measures.” 

In addition, it wanted “the U.S. Postal Inspection Service to intervene against threatening letters and cyberbullying attacks.” This calls not only for tracking personal letters, but also using the secretive “Internet Covert Operations Program” (iCOP) to monitor the social media posts of parents! This is the stuff of dystopian nightmares. 

Six days later, the Department of Justice pounced. It directed “the Federal Bureau of Investigation, working with each United States Attorney, to convene meetings with federal, state, local, Tribal, and territorial leaders in each federal judicial district within 30 days of the issuance of this memorandum.” The stunning swiftness of this response is alarming.

America First Legal Foundation, wrote a formal letter asking DOJ Inspector General Horowitz to investigate. It forwarded evidence of behind-the-scenes collusion among the White House, the DOJ, and the NSBA. Already, FOIA requests have unearthed internal NSBA emails that admit to “talks over the last several weeks [prior to September 29] with White House staff.” 

Meanwhile, it was revealed that only two days after NSBA President, Viola M. Garcia and CEO, Chip Slaven sent the letter, the Biden administration awarded Garcia a plum appointment to the National Assessment Governing Board. 

Merrick Garland

By October 22, the NSBA Board of Directors apologized for the letter but the President and CEO did not retract it. They seem to want it both ways. Thus the characterization of some parental dissent as “equivalent to a form of domestic terrorism” still stands, and Attorney General, Merrick Garland, refuses to rescind his threatening memo.

The letter specifically names Wyoming as a state in which “school boards have been confronted by angry mobs and forced to end meetings abruptly.” The letter footnotes an article by Margaret Austin in the Wyoming Tribune Eagle which reports on an August 2, 2021 meeting of the Laramie County School District #1 (LCSD1).

The article, however, tells of one man, acting alone, who objected to the three-minute limitation on comments and refused to stop speaking after his allotted time. Vice Chair, Marguerite Herman, responded by recessing the entire meeting. Thus, she silenced everyone who was patiently waiting to speak. Was it fair to silence dozens of concerned parents rather than simply call security to usher out the rulebreaker? 

Marguerite Herman

Further, is it right to characterize the speech of a single man as “an angry mob”? When Wyoming is used as a reason to unleash federal law enforcement on parents, it is the duty of the LCSD1 board to answer these questions. Their monthlong silence sounds like agreement.

The Wyoming School Board Association added more fuel to the fire when Parents Defending Education asked whether it approved of the NSBA letter. Executive Director, Brian Farmer, replied, that the WSBA “had no role in drafting or disseminating the letter from the National School Boards Association to President Biden.” Like 21 other states, they were not consulted. 

Farmer went on to say: “Any criminal behavior, including but not limited to violence, threats, harassment, or intimidation, should not be tolerated.” So far, so good. But he immediately followed this with a troubling claim: “We have seen instances of some of these things in Wyoming." Really? What, exactly, is he talking about? 

Brian Farmer

Does the WSBA believe the actions in Cheyenne were “criminal . . . violence, threats, harassment, or intimidation”? Does it know of other Wyoming school board meetings where criminal actions took place? Where? When? Wyoming parents and students deserve answers. When asked for clarification more than two weeks ago, Mr. Farmer gave no reply.

Contrary to Terry McAuliffe's assertion of state power, parents are the primary educators of their own children. When they become upset enough to address a school board, educators should drop everything and listen. They should be eager to hear from parents who can provide direct input about the effects of the policies that they adopt. 

School boards and their associations that sic the overwhelming force of the federal government on upset parents have become a large part of the problem. By ongoing silence in the face of national allegations, the LCSD1 board, and the Wyoming School Board Association are sending the wrong message to the DOJ and to Wyoming parents. These, together with every educator, should defend parents loudly and unequivocally.

Also published in the Wyoming Tribune Eagle, October 29, 2021, and the Cowboy State Daily, November 4, 2021,

Post Script: 

On October 26, 2021, after a meeting of its Board of Directors, the Wyoming School Board Association issued a letter to its members. This reasserted the same substantial claims about criminality in Wyoming school board meetings as addressed above. It also restated its non-involvement with the NSBA letter. What it added was the apology from the NSBA school board as well as the WSBA's decision not to leave the NSBA immediately. The WSBA paid $27,382 in member dues so far in 2021. It stated that it will make a decision about continued membership in the NSBA at a future date.

The Federalist: What To Do About Your Local Library Putting Porn On Kids’ Shelves

Requests to move sexually inappropriate content from children’s sections of libraries are being stonewalled and misleadingly called ‘censorship,’ leaving kids at risk at your local library.

Read on at The Federalist, October 26, 2021.

Also published at Cowboy State Daily, October 17, 2021.

Moral groundwork for the special session

Wyoming state capitol, Daylight Dome

Next week (October 25, 2021), Wyoming’s legislature will be gathering in Cheyenne for its second special session in as many years. While last year’s special session was called to distribute federal largess, this year’s session has been called to defend Wyoming’s citizens from federal power.

On September 9, 2021, President Biden announced that his administration would use the power of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), the military, and other agencies to force 100 million Americans to receive the COVID shot. 

Now, 40 days later, there still is neither a constitutionally passed law, nor an executive order, nor even the merest clarification of this announcement. Nevertheless, by the sheer force of words, executive agencies, military commanders, and numberless corporations have scrambled to impose inconveniences and punishments designed to force Wyoming’s soldiers, citizens, and students to ingest a medicine that they would, otherwise, refuse.

In “The Essence of Conservatism,” Russel Kirk wrote, “Men and nations are governed by moral laws; and those laws have their origin in a wisdom that is more than human—in divine justice. At heart, political problems are moral and religious problems.” As our legislators gather to address the legalities, let us consider the heart of the problem.

A statement from nearly threescore health care academies, colleges, associations, and societies is an excellent place to start. Published about two weeks before Biden’s press conference, this “Joint Statement in Support of COVID-19 Vaccine Mandates for All Workers in Health and Long-Term Care,” can be read as the moral groundwork for the administration’s approach.

It advocates “that all health care and long-term-care employers require their workers to receive the COVID-19 vaccine.” And it justifies this posture by asserting: “This is the logical fulfillment of the ethical commitment of all health care workers...” The word, “ethical” jumps off the page. 

Ethical behavior is that which conforms “to accepted standards of conduct.” In a day when practically every standard of conduct is being challenged and rejected, it is more than fascinating that the Joint Statement appeals to this notion. This is both refreshing and puzzling.

It is refreshing because dozens of medical organizations openly appeal to an unwritten—and yet, commonly accessible—standard of conduct. This hearkens back to a day when common sense was common. It offers hope that we may, again, be able to talk about ethics in polite society.

It is puzzling because the bulk of these organizations have, long ago, jettisoned the ethics of the “Hippocratic Oath.” So, it raises a question: What standard of conduct are they talking about?

Standards are objective. They do not exist in each person’s opinion. Rather, they are principles written into the very fabric of nature and universally discoverable by every human being. The Declaration of Independence calls them, “The Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God.” Ethics are an inherently religious category. 

The second thing to notice about ethics is that they do not only make demands on a person because of how they might affect that person individually. Ethics are public, not private. When private actions affect the lives of others, ethical conduct demands adherence to objective standards. 

The third thing to notice about ethical behavior is that it centers on human health. Vaccine mandates limit themselves to temporal life and health. By contrast, traditional ethics takes a much longer—eternal—view. As Kirk observed, these are profoundly religious questions. 

Christians order their lives according to the Ten Commandments, not only because these are personal convictions, but because every divergence from them negatively impacts others as well. Christians recognize that an unhealthy spiritual life will infect others in the community. So, they seek spiritual cleansing not only for themselves, but also in service to others. 

For Christians, this spiritual cleansing is accomplished by gathering together in face-to-face fellowship with fellow believers, by listening to Jesus who is “the Way, the Truth and the Life,” and by taking into their bodies sacramental elements that St. Ignatius of Antioch called, “the Medicine of Immortality.” They understand these and other Christian activities, as treatment for the deadly disease of sin. They create and build systemic faith that gives a person immunity from eternal death. All of this, together, is done for personal health, for the health of the community, and for the world at large.

Parallels between spiritual health measures and physical health measures should be obvious. With so much at stake, it is a wonder that Christians do not use economic and bodily force to compel all people to receive these cures. But they have learned from bitter experience that religious mandates only bring misery. They never have the desired effect.

As Wyoming’s legislators gather to consider another religious mandate, let us pray God’s blessing on their deliberations. May He grant them both wisdom and humility. 

Also published in the Wyoming Tribune Eagle, October 22, 2021.

Catch-22, the true censorship at your local library

Photo credit: Johnny McClung on unsplash

It was a book that introduced the term “catch-22” into America’s modern vocabulary. The 1961 novel by Joseph Heller satirized a bureaucratic loop that prevented a military man from requesting a psychological evaluation because, according to the “catch-22” rule, the very act of asking proved he didn’t need one. Merriam-Webster defines it as “a problematic situation for which the only solution is denied by a circumstance inherent in the problem.”

Heller’s novel is touted by the American Library Association (ALA) among famous “banned books.” However, the ALA admits that it was only temporarily banned in one Strongsville, Ohio library from 1971-1974. There are 116,866 U.S. libraries where it was never banned. The real irony is that a “catch-22” is precisely what prevents an open and honest discussion of civic responsibility in both county and school district libraries. 

Banned Books Week gives a platform for libraries to treat parental concerns with contempt. Here’s how it works. 

Step 1: Woke school administrators—not parents—remove classics like John Steinbeck’s “Of Mice and Men,” and Harper Lee’s “To Kill a Mockingbird” from a high school English curriculum. This enables the ALA to call the books “censored.” 

Step 2: The ALA uses the dubious claim to include them on their “Top 10 #BannedBooksList.” 

Step 3: The same ALA then puts eight other books on the list that truly are objectionable but made to look on a par with American classics. 

Despite its official-sounding name, the ALA’s list has zero science behind it. Rather, it is a fake ranking ginned up by activists who solicit complaints from “librarians and teachers” while ignoring the concerns of parents. To make matters worse, the most pornographic books that libraries regularly display in the children’s section are omitted from the list altogether.

Anyone unable to see why parents should object to the open display of “Doing It,” “The V-Word,” and “This Book is Gay,” in the children’s section of a library has no business being around our children. Despite what progressive ideologues will tell you, this has nothing to do with “sexual identity” and everything to do with exposing children of both sexes to inappropriate sexual content. 

Lincoln County Public Library
children's display, April 10, 2019

Unless you read the above-named titles for yourself, you will likely not believe what unsuspecting children can encounter in your local library. These titles would be perfectly at home in the seediest “Adult Shop.” But they are foisted on children.

That brings us to the real catch-22: The pornographic language and pictures found in the children’s section of Wyoming’s libraries is so over-the-top that examples cannot be printed in any respectable newspaper. This is the very definition of catch-22. The public needs to know the extent of the problem. But a full disclosure is “denied by a circumstance inherent in the problem.”

Thus, parental concerns are censored from the public by sheer decorum and decency. But that same decency is not restraining librarians from exposing even the youngest children to abusive content. They regularly encourage children to read what your local newspaper editor is ashamed to print. 

So, what’s a citizen to do? First, educate yourself. Under the radar, virtually every county and school district library in Wyoming indecently exposes children to explicit content. Concerned citizens should search the card catalogue for books of a sexual or otherwise objectionable nature. Work with other people in the community to share the workload.

Second, go to administrators and discuss your findings. Seek a solution that protects the community’s children above all. Sexually objectionable books should, at the very least, not be exhibited on the direct eye-level of kids wandering past book displays. Better yet, move them into the adult part of the library. Parents that actually want their children to read them can find them there.

Third, learn the library’s policies and whether they are being followed. If not, file a complaint. If the policy itself is inadequate, bring up the matter before the appropriate oversight board—either the school board or the library board. Schools and counties are not answerable to the American Library Association. They are answerable to the voters. Sadly, the ALA has abused the public trust and squandered the credibility it once enjoyed.

Finally, remember that not only parents have a duty to make public libraries safe for children. The entire community shares the duty to create safe spaces. Parents, grandparents and those with no other connection to the community’s children than a desire to see them thrive—all have a legitimate concern. Don’t be censored because you don’t have a child in the school system or spend time in the library. Children need and deserve the protection of every member of the public. That’s why libraries exist in the first place. 

Also published in the Wyoming Tribune Eagle, October 15, 2021, the Cowboy State Daily, October 17, 2021, Digital Business Books, and Wintermann Library.

The marriage penalty unjustly penalizes children

Photo by Foto Pettine on Unsplash.com

Wyoming’s senatorial delegation has joined 31 other senators in sending a letter delivered to Senate Majority Leader, Schumer (D-NY) and Senate Finance Committee Chairman, Wyden (D-OR). It protested inequitable tax hikes designed to punish married people. 

The marriage penalty is buried in the $3.5 trillion budget bill that was recently rammed through the House and is now the subject of feverish backroom negotiations with senators Manchin (D-VA) and Sinema (D-AZ). 

“As you know,” the letter details, “current marriage penalties occur when a household’s overall tax bill increases due to a couple marrying and filing taxes jointly. A number of other federal programs, such as Medicaid, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, and Section 8 housing assistance, also create marriage penalties by eliminating or reducing benefits for couples who marry.”

Astoundingly, these marriage penalties are already written into current law. That’s bad enough. What is worse, the current budget that was rolled out under the so-called American Families Plan “takes an existing marriage penalty in the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) and makes it significantly worse.” 

How much worse? The new plan could increase the marriage penalty by 72 percent. In 2019, a couple with a combined income of $42,000 and two children would save $1,578 per year by divorcing and filing taxes separately. Under the new plan, that same couple’s marriage penalty would rise to $2,713. For this family, earning only $300 per week above the federal poverty level, over $52 per week is taken by federal income tax.

Is this what Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez means by “Tax the Rich?” This is more than an inequity. It is a crime against children. When couples with children decide against marriage, the children suffer in concrete ways. 

A masked servant adjusts
the congresswoman's new dress.

In 1990, the United Nations published the work of its Convention on the Rights of the Child. The Preamble states, “Convinced that the family, as the fundamental group of society and the natural environment for the growth and well-being of all its members and particularly children, should be afforded the necessary protection and assistance so that it can fully assume its responsibilities within the community . . .  the child, by reason of his physical and mental immaturity, needs special safeguards and care, including appropriate legal protection, before as well as after birth.”

Based on this foundation, Article 7 simply states, “The child shall [have] the right to know and be cared for by his or her parents.” All children have this right because all children have this need. 

According to ThemBeforeUs.com, an international movement for the rights of the child, “Children are wired for daily, ongoing connectivity with their mother and father and they are most likely to receive it when their parents are married.  Marriage offers the most stability in a child’s home and the best chance that both parents will be permanently involved in their lives.”

Katy Faust, Founder of Them Before Us

Sarah McClanahan and Isabel Sawhill published research titled, “Marriage and Child Wellbeing Revisited.” They concluded that children who experience parental breakup are affected in their “cognitive and social emotional development in ways that constrain their life chances.”

This is why the International Convention on the Rights of the Child pressed state actors to shape every policy—from direct marriage laws, to divorce laws, to tax policy—toward the singular purpose of encouraging the biological parents of every child to create a stable and loving home for that child through marriage.

This is why 33 senators wrote, “We believe marriage is a vital social good. It is misguided and unfair for the government to build bigger barriers for couples to marry.” Rather, they admonished, “Federal policy should be designed to foster strong marriages, which are the foundation of strong families and strong communities.”

Marriage is the greatest social program ever devised. For the entirety of human history, societies that successfully upheld the institution of marriage, prospered; and those that did not collapsed. For too long, we have seen debates about marriage and sexuality that focused on the desires of adults. Children were not allowed to have a say. It is time that we reversed this trend.

Wyoming should be proud that our senatorial delegation is both unified and far-sighted to speak boldly in support of marriage. In doing so, senators Barrasso and Lummis are standing for the rights of children everywhere. 

As the 2022 legislative season approaches, let us hope that our state senators and representatives will follow suit. Whether discussing budgets, schools, taxation or social welfare, the rights and needs of children, not the desires of adults, should drive every law and policy. It is time to put children’s rights above adult desires.

Also published in the Wyoming Tribune Eagle and the Cowboy State Daily, October 8, 2021.

Defend the conscience rights of those on the front lines.

Photo by Brady Rogers on Unsplash

Desmond Doss believed that it was against God’s law to kill another human being. He applied as a conscientious objector in World War II. Exempted from carrying a rifle, he was made an army medic, and became the first man in American History to receive the Medal of Honor without firing a shot. The movie, Hacksaw Ridge, tells his story.

He is not the only one. Thomas Bennett served as an army medic in Vietnam. Killed in action, he became the second conscientious objector to receive the Medal of Honor. That same year (1969) Joseph LaPointe Jr. also posthumously became the third such hero.

These three held doctrinal positions that are not representative of all Christians. But, when recognizing the right of conscientious objectors, civilized societies do not evaluate the rightness or wrongness of the belief. Rather, they uphold the right of every man to be guided by his own conscience and not another’s. 

Desmond Doss

Logic alone teaches that we, who have minds persuadable by words, must be so governed. Coercion to harm others knowingly violates human nature. This principle is also taught in the Christian Scriptures. St. Paul makes clear that, even if an activity is permissible in the eyes of God, no one should be made to participate in action that he believes to be sin. You can read his reasoning in 1 Corinthians 8:4-13.

As Doss, Bennett, LaPointe and thousands of other examples show, those who follow the dictates of their own conscience are superior citizens and braver soldiers than those who violate their own principles. This is why generals should resign their commissions rather than execute orders that violate their sense of justice. It is why just societies accommodate conscientious objectors. It is why healthcare workers must never be forced to fill prescriptions, perform procedures, or participate in treatments that they believe to be harmful to the patient. And it is why patients should never be forced to submit to a procedure without informed consent.

The principle behind conscientious-objector status has also produced laws like the Hyde Amendment and the Mexico City policy that protect taxpayers from supporting the abortion industry. One of the most important conscience laws is the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), passed almost unanimously in 1993. It requires that any American who has a sincerely held religious belief be protected from government coercion. 

If a citizen has religious qualms about following any governmental law, policy, or regulation, RFRA gives him his day in court. There the government—not the citizen—has the burden of proof. 

According to the Department of Justice, it must prove, first, that the policy at issue addresses a “compelling government interest.” If it can demonstrate this, it must further show that the policy accomplishes this interest in the way that is least burdensome to those whose conscience is violated. This usually involves some sort of accommodation for those who have religious objections to the “one-size-fits-all” policy of the government.

All these strong conscience protections are currently under assault. Last week the U.S. House of Representatives passed H.R. 3755. This bill, together with H.R. 5, passed by the House in February, would force doctors, nurses, pharmacists, and other entities to participate in harmful medical procedures without recourse to the courts. Specific language strips RFRA protections from anyone who might object to the destruction of healthy babies, the amputation of healthy organs and the prescribing of harmful drugs.

Also last week, whistleblowers leaked a memo from the Department of Defense that instructs chaplains to participate in the persecution of anyone who might seek a religious exemption from military “vaccine mandates.” This violates the First Amendment in two ways. 

Lloyd Austin, Sec. Def.

First, this memo violates the free-exercise clause by requiring the applicant to be grilled by a chaplain and a doctor with theological and medical argumentation. If a soldier even mentions some non-religious consideration in the process of explaining his sincerely held religious belief, the chaplain is required to document the slip and use it against him. Similarly, if a soldier ever once sinned against any sincerely held religious belief, the sincerity of all of his beliefs are to be treated as suspect. These false moral equivalencies make the theological orientation of the interrogator more important than the conscience of the soldier.

Second, the memo violates the First Amendment’s establishment clause by threatening chaplains with discipline and dishonorable discharge if they help conscientious objectors navigate this draconian process. Thus, they are required to be the preachers of a particular version of religion established by the government. Chaplains who follow the dictates of the memo are no longer ministers of the Word of God, but only of the word of the DOD.

These cascading attacks on religious freedom are, of course, harmful for conscientious soldiers, chaplains, and medical professionals. But it is not only they who are harmed by such policies. All of American society is weakened by these attacks. Conscientious service, whether in the military, medicine or in society is a force multiplier. It turns the eyes of soldiers and citizens to see their service as service to God Himself. The mundane becomes divine. And ordinary people become extraordinary heroes.

That is why we should welcome and encourage those who are standing up against the onslaught of attacks on conscience provisions. All Wyomingites should applaud the board of the Campbell County Health that publicly vowed to stand against the “gross federal overreach” of vaccine mandates that the U.S. Department of Labor is threatening against its 1,100 employees. Other hospitals should do the same.

Wyomingites should flood Senators Lummis and Barrasso with calls, letters and emails thanking them for standing against H.R. 5 and H.R. 3755, now under consideration in the U.S. Senate. Ask them, not only to vote against these draconian bills, but also to use whatever influence they have with fellow senators to oppose any bill that would undermine long-standing conscience protections.

TAG, Greg Porter

Finally, while the Department of Defense can only be reined in by the federal government, the Wyoming National Guard remains in the complete control of its Commander and Chief, Governor Gordon. Contacting him and Adjutant General, Greg Porter, can encourage them shield Wyoming’s soldiers and chaplains against many blatant violations of federal law. Together, we can defend the Republic that Doss, Bennett and LaPointe defended with the resolve and ferocity that earned them the Medal of Honor.

Also published in the Wyoming Tribune Eagle, October 1, 2021; and the Cowboy State Daily, October 6, 2021.