In 2022, let’s keep our oaths.

Photo by Tim Mossholder on unsplash.

As Old Man 2021 finishes the race and a baby New Year comes out of the gate, let’s make some New Year’s resolutions that will count for generations. Rather than hollow promises to shed a few pounds, it is time that we make an oath to keep all previous oaths.

Like a resolution, an oath is a solemn declaration to fulfill a pledge. Unlike a resolution, oaths call on God as a witness. Oath makers recognize that even the highest human power—possessing overwhelming resources, sophisticated surveillance, and the most powerful weapons in the world—remains dwarfed by the almighty and all-seeing God who transcends all human judgment and power.

Sadly, oath keepers have been lately tarred and feathered in a guilt-by-association campaign aided by an incurious press. Ray Epps, president of the Arizona chapter of the “Oath Keepers” has been caught on numerous video clips encouraging thousands of people to enter restricted zones on January 6. His boss, Stewart Rhodes, is likewise implicated through intercepted communications.

Ray Epps inciting illegality on January 5, 2021

Despite this apparently illegal activity, neither of these men has been arrested or charged with crimes. Rather, the FBI has scandalously let their behavior skate even while treating association with their suspect organization as suspicious. While the discredited Southern Poverty Law Center has labelled the group “antigovernment,” the FBI is more cautious in its wording.

Most recently, an anonymous “whistleblower” has made unsubstantiated claims that over 200 Wyomingites including several high-profile conservatives were once involved with the organization. Whether the purported involvement was in recent history, or amounted to more than winding up on someone’s email list, it didn’t say. Regardless, such membership would be protected by the first amendment. There is no criminal activity here unless the “whistleblower” turns out to be a government employee.

Rather than smearing oath keepers, we should encourage them. We can begin by considering why people willingly take oaths in the first place. While cynics take oaths to lure people into their confidence, honest oath-makers take oaths because they want the transcendent God to help them keep their oaths. They do so to undertake public duties that require personal integrity.

Such public duties include marriage, parenthood, government (from the president to public school teachers), military and law-enforcement to name a few.  These people wield such power over others that there is a grave danger of abuse. Neither legislation, nor its enforcement can possibly ensure perfect integrity in public officials. Oaths require self-policing and humble submission to a power higher than law enforcement can reach.

Oath keepers recognize that duty will sometimes conflict with their personal desires for wealth, happiness, or even life. With sound mind and free will, they take oaths to bind themselves to self-sacrifice when the mind and will object to the call of duty.

Love leads couples to the altar. But the oaths taken there keep them together in rough times. Adventure and patriotism lead some to volunteer for military service, but the military oath binds them to act honorably when bullets are flying. Ambition may induce politicians to seek higher office, but their oath of office requires them to abandon ambition when it conflicts with the public trust.

We need more oath keepers, not fewer. Children need parents who keep marriage vows even when feelings flag. Townsfolk need peace officers who will protect and defend without abusing the awesome powers entrusted to them. A free republic requires elected officials who will “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States” even when nobody is watching (U.S. Constitution Article II, Section 1, Clause 8).

On December 28, the Fourth Day of Christmas, Christians throughout the world solemnly remember the slaughter of the Holy Innocents. According to St. Matthew, King Herod sent out his soldiers with orders to kill all the baby boys in the region of Bethlehem (Mt. 2:16). 

What kind of soldier would obey such an order? Were they, themselves, acting under threat of death? For the parents who helplessly watched sharp steel cut into tender flesh, the motivation of the soldiers offered no consolation. The manifest injustice screamed to heaven and to the One who sees all.

Having seen and considered the great evil that comes from officers bound to kings rather than to God, we have our officers breathe an oath to the heavens. They consciously call themselves to account before the judge of all.

Every mother and father, every teacher and board member, every councilman and congress member, has made a similar oath. Sadly, American jurisprudence has grown weak, fickle, and sometimes outrightly partisan in its failure to enforce these oaths. That should deepen the resolve of every oath maker to be an oath keeper.

Oaths don’t have an expiration date. They don’t have conditions attached. Thank God for every individual who lives up to an oath. And let us resolve to fulfill our own oaths to family, church, and country in 2022 and beyond.

Also published in the Wyoming Tribune Eagle on December 31, 2021; and in the Cowboy State Daily on January 5, 2022.

For this reason I was born: Why Christmas is on December 25

Tomorrow begins a 12-day celebration, throughout the world, of the birth of Jesus Christ. December 25th is the “First Day of Christmas.” After the 12th Day of Christmas, on January 5th, we reach Epiphany (known as Theophany to our Eastern Orthodox neighbors). 

While different Christian traditions have celebrated in different ways and have emphasized different days of this season, all Christians have marked December 25th as the birthday of Jesus going back at least to its first explicit mention in 354 A.D.

No serious scholar—Christian or otherwise—doubts that Jesus was born two millennia ago. But neither the Bible nor any other historical record names the season, month or day of his birth. Lacking such a record, scholars in recent centuries have challenged the December 25 date. 

The most popular challenge arose from the “History of Religions School” which assumes that all religions are man-made. Looking for a man-made “reason for the season,” these scholars theorized that a festival for the pagan sun god, Sol Invictus, was co-opted by the Christian Church in a deliberate attempt to oppress pagan rivals.

They seized on the fact that Sol Invictus was associated with December 25. But they neglected to notice that Sol Invictus was not a Roman holiday until Emperor Aurelian invented it in 274. By then, the date of Christmas had already been calculated by Tertullian in 200 A.D. William J. Tighe wrote a very good synopsis of this history in Touchstone Magazine (December 2003) called, “Calculating Christmas.”

Tertullian’s calculations are not necessarily correct, but he shows two things. First, Christmas was not determined by the Sol Invictus. If anything, the Sol Invictus was determined by Christmas. Second, and more importantly, Christmas relates directly to the cross of Jesus. The date of Christmas is a by-product of Latin Christianity’s attempts to calculate the exact date of Jesus’ crucifixion. 

Today, nearly the entire world uses the calendar of the Roman Empire based on the sun. But the Jews of the Bible marked time by the moon. As anybody knows, who pays attention to the cycle of the moon, these two calendars do not match up. Twelve “moonths” do not add up to 365 ¼ days. So, periodically, an extra month must be added to the lunar calendar in order to keep in sync with the sun.

The Old Testament Jews managed this by an occasional decree of the ruling Council. But when the Romans wiped out the Jewish nation in 70 A.D., nobody was left to make the needed adjustments. Later generations could only guess at what they would have done, but nobody in the Christian world had any contact with its actual doing.

That’s why Christian scholars had to make a series of calculations and guesses that can never be perfected. To make a long story short, Tertullian calculated that Jesus was crucified on March 25 in AD 29. We need not concern ourselves overly much about whether this date is correct. But what Tertullian and his contemporaries concluded next is most interesting.

Tertullian wrote, “Jesus died on the cross on March 25, the same day of the year as that on which He was conceived.” It would seem that he was not the only one who thought this. Even Hippolytus of Rome (+235) accepted this date. It seems that the entire Church, for 154 years before the first mention of Christmas celebrations, considered the day of Jesus’ crucifixion also to be the day of his conception in the womb of the Virgin Mary.

That is the basis for Christmas Day. Human birth regularly occurs nine months after conception. That would mean that Jesus’ birthday is on December 25. Again, nobody in the world has enough historical data to prove either that Jesus was born on December 25, or that He wasn’t. Regardless, the most important fact of Christmas Day is that Christians have tied the birth of Jesus to His crucifixion for more than 1,800 years.

Our Eastern Orthodox neighbors center their celebrations on January 6, the Theophany of Jesus, but they nevertheless acknowledge December 25 as His birthday. Western Christians tend to put the accent on December 25 and treat January 6, the Epiphany, as a lesser holiday. But both together—either knowingly, or unknowingly—anchor the season of Jesus’ birth in the purpose for that holy birth.

On the day that Jesus died, He stood before Pontius Pilate who asked, “Are You a king, then?” Jesus answered, “You say that I am a king. To this end I was born, and for this cause I came into the world” (John 19:37). As we sit down to Christmas dinners and attend Christmas services, this truth is shouted out by the very calendar itself.

Also published in the Wyoming Tribune Eagle on December 24, 2021; and in the Cowboy State Daily on December 23, 2021.

Encourage Wyoming’s “Lesser Magistrates” to stand firm.

Photo by John Bakator on Unsplash

The genius of the United States Constitution is its separation of powers. This concept, in turn, derives from a centuries-old line of reasoning sometimes known as “the doctrine of the lesser magistrates,” later developed as “subsidiarity.” It is needed now, more than ever.

After October’s special session failed to pass legislation to protect Wyoming citizens from federal overreach, a November 10 Press Release from the governor announced a “three-pronged approach” to challenge “unconstitutional federal vaccine mandates.” Wyoming joined three separate lawsuits “against the Biden administration for imposing [] vaccine mandate[s]” on federal employees and contractors, on private businesses with more than 100 employees, and on all healthcare workers.

On December 7, 2021 a federal judge issued a nationwide injunction against the federal employee mandate. Combined with numerous injunctions issued in November the “three-pronged approach” has temporarily halted all three mandates and has a good chance of becoming permanent. 

Most recently, Governor Gordon, and four other governors, sent a letter to the Secretary of Defense asserting their rights as Commander in Chief of the state’s National Guard. He wrote, “Under Title 32 duty status, the Wyoming National Guard is under my command and control." Thus, the vaccine mandates on Wyoming Guard members “are an overreach of the federal government’s authority.”

Beyond the immediate subject of vaccine mandates, these actions uphold the broader principle of the separation of powers. This, in turn, is built on the Bible. It is the practical outworking of the Bible’s teaching most concisely articulated in Romans 13:1, “Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God.”

Photo by Aaron Burden on Unsplash

These words teach Christians that governments should be respected as divine authorities. But that is not all. They also teach that all government officials—from school board members to presidents—wield authority from God. They are not mere functionaries of the king but have duties and responsibilities in their own right. 

Further, since all authority is from God, all authority is ultimately answerable to God. Kings that use their authority to do objective evil—like murder, theft and homewrecking—act illegitimately and outside their governing authority. 

When higher authorities usurp the power of other God-appointed authorities (i.e. “lesser magistrates,”) they are taking over what God has given to another. And when they do this in open defiance of justice, the “lesser magistrates” have a duty to protect their constituency from the unjust higher authority. 

Wyoming’s July 29th filing of an amicus brief with 23 other states to oppose the unjust and unconstitutional rulings of Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey provides another example of this principle at work. 

Protecting Wyoming citizens from unlawful medical mandates and unjust hindrances in the protection of women and children is a welcome development. Both indicate that the governor’s office understands its duty to oppose federal authority when doing so is necessary for the protection of its citizens.

However, a new development, called Corporatism or Fascism, is harming Wyoming citizens in another way. Fascism, thus defined, is not a cartoonish word-weapon used meaninglessly to smear political opponents. It has a precise meaning. It is the collusion of government and business in the implementation of undemocratic policy. It deliberately breaks down the line between government and private enterprise and weaponizes corporations to enhance the power of the state. 

Here’s how it works. Governments threaten to enact rules that will hurt an industry’s bottom line. Then, they induce it to enact a policy that the government is constitutionally forbidden to enact. Businesses comply to receive favorable government treatment and, thus, become an arm of the state disguised as private enterprise. The circle is closed when the state fails to prosecute any laws that the business breaks in the process.

This alarming trend has seen financial institutions collude against the firearms industry as in “Operation Choke Point.” It has seen government collude with social media giants to encourage censorship. And it was used in the infamous “war on coal.”

Now, Wyoming is beginning to push back against such Fascism. After reports that the Biden administration is “pressuring U.S. banks and financial institutions to limit, encumber, or outright refuse financing for traditional energy production companies,” State Treasurer, Curt Meier, signed a letter from 15 energy-producing states. These states promised to yank $600 billion from financial institutions that kowtow to the administration’s pressure.

This is good news for Wyoming’s energy-producing families. Better still, it is a sign that Wyoming’s “lesser magistrates” are seeing the clear and present dangers of federal overreach combined with corporate collusion. It will take firm resolve and cooperation with other states to build walls of defense. But so doing will yield high dividends of peace and freedom.

Let us encourage all of Wyoming’s elected officials in this work. By grounding the constitutional separation of powers in the biblical foundation of Romans 13, we can provide both clarity and moral backbone to Wyoming’s government. Good government is not only judged by its practical results, but by its moral rectitude.

Also published in the Wyoming Tribune Eagle on December 17, 2021; and in the Cowboy State Daily on December 16, 2021.

Elections are not games; they serve the people, not politicians.

Photo by Felix Mittlemeier on Unsplash

The first rule of government in a representative democracy is that those representing the people be democratically elected. That’s what the words mean. So, it was highly disappointing that the Interim Committee on Corporations, Elections & Political Subdivisions recently killed two election bills proposed by Representative Chip Neiman (R-Hulett).

Current Wyoming laws prevent political parties from holding head-to-head primaries to find out which candidate has majority support of that party. When three candidates split the vote with no one getting a majority, Neiman’s bills would put the top two head-to-head and let the voters determine which one has the support of the majority. 

Why the state of Wyoming has any authority to prevent parties from doing this in the first place, is a question for another day. But, until that day, Wyoming legislators can improve the situation by allowing parties to hold runoff elections and amending the state Constitution to allow adequate time for the process.

“Runoff elections-constitutional amendment” LSO 22-0092.3 was a simple bill to insert the needed time into the Wyoming Constitution. A “yes” vote would have put it before the state’s legislature in January. If both senate and house passed it with a two-thirds majority, it would be put on the ballot for Wyoming citizens to decide in November of 2022.

Rep. Chip Neiman

Seven members of the committee voted against even bringing the constitutional amendment before the full legislature. The committee then went on to kill its companion bill, “Runoff elections” LSO-0093.4, which would have responded to the will of the voters by creating a runoff process in Wyoming law.

So, why did a slim majority of the committee deny Wyoming voters from letting their majority be heard? Interested readers can watch the discussion and learn for themselves. The first thing they will learn is that these proposals are entirely doable. 

A lawyer from the Legislative Services Office, the state election director, and the president of the Clerks’ Association testified that the bills were both legal and workable. While the Clerks had opposed an earlier version of the bill, they worked with Representative Neiman to address its concerns and no longer resist it.

A lobbyist and a legislator or two raised objections that a runoff election for statewide office would cost about a million dollars. But if that is too much money to find out the will of the people, why have elections at all? Imagine the cost savings if we skipped elections altogether! But the very point of an election is to determine which candidate has the consent of the governed. Anything less than that is a sham—no matter what the cost. 

Already, the general election is designed to give citizens a head-to-head vote. That’s because everybody knows it would be unfair to allow a dozen candidates on the ballot and give the office to someone who could only get ten percent of the vote. So, why should any party be kept from doing what we already agree is the best practice for general elections?

Why, indeed? This is where the comments got interesting. Representative Sweeney (R-Casper) was most candid. He opined: “the majority party is pushing this… to stack the deck against folks they don’t like, myself being one.” His argument hinged on the assumption that a runoff election would lower his chances of reelection. 

Rep. Pat Sweeney

Whether Sweeney would lose a runoff or not, I don’t know. But I do know that, if he lost, it would be the voice of the people. And if he won, it would be the voice of the people. A civic-minded public servant would be horrified to win an election that did not accurately reflect the voice of the people.

Elections are for the people and not for the politicians. Elections are not a game of thrones to be won by hook or by crook. They should be designed to clarify and amplify the voice of the people. America needs principled public servants who understand this. They should care about a fair vote, not for a favorable vote. Elections are fair when they determine which representative has the support of a clear majority. 

In a perfect world, where the will of the people was perfectly known, we would not need elections at all. Rather, politicians would gladly resign as soon as they knew they had lost the support of the majority. They would nobly defer to anyone who better represented the constituency. But since we don’t live in such a perfect world, civic-minded legislators should work diligently to make elections as responsive to the will of the people as possible. 

For this reason, let us hope that Representative Neiman brings his bill back before the full legislature. Despite the slim majority of the Corporations Committee, the majority of the people should be heard. True representative democracy requires nothing less.

Also published in the Wyoming Tribune Eagle on December 10, 2021.

Wyoming weighs in on Dobbs v. Jackson

The 2021 Supreme Court

Monday, December 13, will mark the 50th anniversary of oral arguments in the case of Roe v. Wade. Thirteen months later the Supreme Court handed down arguably the most destructive decision in SCOTUS history. It has resulted in the legalized extermination of 63.7 million Americans. In addition to the staggering human costs, Roe v. Wade, together with Planned Parenthood v. Casey, have inflicted additional injuries upon the body politic. 

On Wednesday, December 1, 2021, council for the state of Mississippi stood before the Supreme Court and said, “Roe versus Wade and Planned Parenthood versus Casey haunt our country. They have no basis in the Constitution. They have no home in our history or traditions. They've damaged the democratic process. They've poisoned the law. They've choked off compromise. For 50 years, they've kept this Court at the center of a political battle that it can never resolve. And 50 years on, they stand alone. Nowhere else does this Court recognize a right to end a human life.”

Mississippi AG, Lynn Fitch

These were the opening lines of oral argument in defense of Mississippi’s Gestational Age Act. They echoed Mississippi Attorney General, Lynn Fitch, who wrote, “Roe and Casey are unprincipled decisions that have damaged the democratic process, poisoned our national discourse, plagued the law—and, in doing so, harmed this Court.” 

Mississippi’s Gestational Age Act was carefully crafted by an extensive legislative process to balance multiple interests. It allows abortions after the 15th week of gestation, but only under circumstances designed to protect women, the medical community, and babies according to the constitutional duties of the state. Nevertheless, lower courts have blocked its enforcement based on the arbitrary “viability test” imposed by Roe and Casey.

This case, Dobbs v. Jackson, has garnered national attention because it is the first case in nearly 30 years that directly calls for Roe to be overruled. More than 80 Amicus Briefs were filed in support of the state of Mississippi (30 more than those opposing the state’s rights).

Wyoming, along with 23 other states, filed a brief arguing that both “Roe and Casey should be overruled” because they have severely distorted the most foundational legal doctrines. By them, states are denied their Constitutional right to protect their own citizens by publicly debated and carefully balanced laws.

Another brief, signed by 396 state legislators from 41 different states included signatures from Senators Biteman, Hutchings, and Steinmetz of Wyoming, along with former Representative Winters. It argues that the “viability prerequisite to abortion regulations prevents state legislatures from” keeping their “oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States and the constitution of the particular state in which he or she serves.”

Wyoming’s entire Washington delegation (Barrasso, Lummis and Cheney) joined a brief filed by 228 Members of Congress saying: “It is long overdue for this Court to return lawmaking to legislators.” 

All three of these amici highlight a constitutional problem at the heart of Roe and Casey. The Tenth Amendment guarantees: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” Yet the Supreme Court has robbed the right of states to regulate the practice of medicine within their borders. This is nowhere granted by the Constitution. 

Roe forced 46 states, including Wyoming, to rewrite laws, not based on science and the rational consensus of its citizens, but in order to satisfy seven unelected men in Black robes. In so doing, it froze in place outdated science and prevented America from keeping up with modern medical advances. 

The 1973 Supreme Court

In 1971 ultrasounds were not yet invented, and “viability” translated to 28 weeks of gestation. Today ultrasounds can see beating hearts at eight weeks gestation, and fingers by the tenth week. As for “viability,” an Alabama boy born at 21 weeks recently celebrated his first birthday.

For nearly a half-century, America’s medical practice has been hobbled by Roe. While the rest of the world was modernizing its laws to protect mothers and children after the 12th week of gestation, Roe and Casey have weighed us down like a millstone. Embarrassingly, America is one of only six nations on the planet allowing unrestricted abortion through all nine months of pregnancy.*

During Wednesday’s oral arguments, Justices Barrett and Kavanaugh, the critical swing votes on the Court, signaled their willingness to overturn Roe and Casey. If that happens, it will not change abortion law overnight. Rather, it will take a huge thumb off the scales of justice.

Five decades after the Supreme Court unconstitutionally demanded that Wyoming change her laws, legislative debates are still short-circuited by the non-scientific and non-democratic question: What will the Supreme Court say? It’s high time that the high court ask, instead: What do the people of Wyoming say? 

* Note: an earlier version of this article errantly included Singapore in this list, bringing the total to seven. While every other country bans abortion after 20 weeks, Singapore's limit is 24 weeks.

Also published in the Cowboy State Daily, December 1, 2021 and the Wyoming Tribune Eagle, December 3, 2021.

Thankfulness in hindsight gives hope in foresight.

Lovingly baked turkeys and hams, all over Wyoming, have become chaotic pots of leftover meat. Formal dinner rolls have been repurposed as sandwich buns. A bevy of side dishes now languish in refrigerators vainly hoping to be chosen before they spoil.

Black Friday shoppers have been up since the crack of dawn to snatch up deals to put under the Christmas tree. Thanksgiving Day 2021 is in the books.

For the past five years, this author has stoically accepted the fact that any Friday column that attempts to chime in on Thanksgiving will be embarrassingly late to the party. This year, however, I want to buck convention. After Thanksgiving celebrations that focused on present blessings, let’s use this day after Thanksgiving to be thankful for the blessings of the past.

I am thankful, first, that my parents had me. They didn’t have to. They were wed in the same year that the Pill was released on the world. After having two children, already, I was not needed to complete their perfect suburban family. By a mere daily dose of the new miracle drug, I would be a cipher.

It is impossible to imagine what non-existence would be like. Gone would be all the happy memories of childhood, achievements of adolescence, and satisfaction of raising a family under Wyoming skies. More than that, the kids and grandkids that laugh and fight around my table would be deleted from the universe, and the world would be less joyful, absent their love.

I am thankful that my grandfather attended youth group at St. John Lutheran Church in Ord, Nebraska. He might have frequented the bar, instead. As with most young men of his age, it is quite likely that he was Luke-warm to the meetings. Perhaps he had a few arguments with his parents over driving all the way into town for a mediocre Bible study and corny games. But despite any youthful resistance, he met my grandmother through it.

Over a century ago, there is no way on God’s green earth that a farm-boy from Ord, Nebraska should meet a girl who lived 70 miles away. But, facilitated by the Walther League, two Lutheran families intertwined. Rather than falling into the chaos of the roaring 20s, two kids built a nest of stability, warmth and value that still nurtures and protects generations of family scattered from Seattle to Sarasota. 

I am grateful to God for the freedom that enabled my great great grandfather, John, to travel the streets of Chicago in horse-drawn wagon and distribute bottles of fresh milk. Decades before anybody had refrigerators, there were a thousand ways for milk to spoil and sicken his many customers. But the relationship of conscientiousness and trust built between John and his customers enabled them to receive safe and nutritious milk without stifling government regulation.

For John, this freedom provided a stable home to share with his wife, Anna, and their seven children. It enabled them both to teach their children ethics of hard work, trustworthiness, sexual virtues, and faithfulness to God. Generations later, these lessons would still echo in the hearts of their descendants.

Words fail to describe the multitude of blessings that have fallen to me from their self-denial and hard work. Yet they are merely random examples—cherry-picked from dozens of generations known, and hundreds of generations unknown—who lived lives of extraordinary ordinariness. I don’t deserve to have their gifts. But I do.

Not just me, but all of us are infinitely richer because of the heroic lives they led. Yet, they did not consider their own lives “heroic.” As they trudged the dusty streets and cultivated the sunbaked ground, they were incapable of seeing over the horizon of time to the particular ways that they were storing up treasures for me.

Daily, they rolled out of bed, put on their shoes, and put their hand to the plow. Daily, they encountered pain, disappointment, and loss. Daily, they fought temptation to choose the easy way over the right way. But with each triumph over temptation, they were storing up a cornucopia of fruit for today’s bounty.

We live in a culture of individualistic, immediate self-fulfillment. We are saturated by preachers who tell us to scratch every itch and gratify every lust. We know, intuitively, that these are false preachers. Yet, in the middle of the struggles their message is tantalizing. 

That is why I am grateful not only for the benefits previous generations accrued for me. Even more, I am thankful for the example they left me. It is a light at one end of the tunnel. Looking back and seeing that light we are encouraged and assured that there is light at the other end, as well.

Also published in the Wyoming Tribune Eagle, November 26, 2021, and the Cowboy State Daily, November 28, 2021.

Families are a force of nature.

Photo credit: Jessica Rockowitz on Unsplash

A human family is the most basic unit of human society. Its bonds of love are a force of nature. No human being since Adam and Eve ever came into existence without exactly one father and one mother. At the very moment of conception, the bond of love between a husband and a wife creates two similar—and yet distinct—bonds of love between the father and the child, and between the mother and the child.

These velvet chains of love make individuals responsible to care for one another. When they prevail, all three people thrive in tangible ways. The husband and wife receive economic, social, and health benefits. The child receives an entire set of specific and unique benefits from his or her father. And that same child receives another set of specific and unique benefits from his or her mother. Thus, a family is the most effective welfare program in the universe.

Bonds of love are not interchangeable. Human families are not Tinkertoys that can be disassembled and rearranged without harming the persons in them. Bonds of love, once formed, cannot be broken without damaging people. That is why husbands and wives make life-long promises before governments and God. That is why every child has the right to the love of both natural parents.

These bonds make the family pre-political. Families exist before the city (polis) exists; and, cities are built by families. A city is neither a mere collection of buildings nor a commune of individuals. It is a community of families. That is the most basic of all political truths. It is the one thing that Democrats, Republicans, and every other party can agree on.

Just governments recognize and protect family rights. They treat marriage contracts at least as seriously as they treat business contracts. Just governments protect the natural rights that every child has to the love of both parents. Governments cannot create families. But they are obligated to support them.

Totalitarians of every stripe deny that governments are for families. Evil governments always set about to dissolve the bonds of family and control individuals directly. They intentionally interfere in families and set themselves up as a better big brother. Universally, totalitarians fail to recognize that the dissolution of family bonds is destructive to the state.

When family structure is broken, not only are the individual persons harmed, but neighborhoods devolve into ghettos and nations fail. Governments that protect family rights simultaneously help individuals to thrive and preserve the state. 

That is why it is the direct responsibility of governments to encourage family bonds, protect them from destructive forces, and shield them from outside interference. And that is why citizens have an absolute right to this kind of government. 

We should insist that our government takes marriage vows seriously. We should insist that our elected officials enact policies designed to keep parents with their own children. We should be outraged when politicians run roughshod over parental rights and insert themselves between children and their parents.

Instinctively families across America are pushing back. They are showing up at school board meetings to object to the teaching of junk science and divisive social theories. They are showing up at libraries to assert their first amendment rights to protect children from inappropriate sexualization. They are taking schools and employers to court against meddling in family medical decisions.

While families are acting on instinct, totalitarians know what is at stake. Former governor, Terry McAuliffe, spoke for them all, “I’m not going to let parents come into schools and actually take books out and make their own decisions. I don’t think parents should be telling schools what they should teach.” He could not have drawn the battle lines more clearly.

Every school board, every library, every government official from the governor to the local health nurse should stand with families. Those who don’t are standing against a force of nature and the very foundation of society.

Wyoming families also know something else about forces of nature: They should be respected. It is unwise and extremely dangerous to get between a she-bear and her cubs. She does not care if the interloper has good intentions or bad. She only knows that he should not be there. Her reaction is instinctive and furious.

Politicians from every party should take note. Parents don’t care whether you have good intentions, or bad. They don’t care whether you are a Republican, a Democrat—or a Whig. Those who insert themselves between parents and children, are messing with a force of nature.

It took years for America’s parents to notice people and institutions encroaching upon the relationship between parents and their children. But now that the threat has been spotted, it can never be un-seen. A force of nature has been unleashed. Disrespect it at your peril.

Also published in the Wyoming Tribune Eagle, November 19, 2021. 

The Wyoming Bar should be accountable to voters

Photo by Hunters Race on Unsplash

The Wyoming Bar Association seems obsessed with overruling Cheyenne voters. Special Counsel, W. W. Reeves, not only filed highly disputed charges against the elected Laramie County DA, Leigh Anne Manlove, he continues to hinder her from mounting a proper defense. 

Most recently, Jim Angell reported that the Bar’s “Board of Professional Responsibility” (BPR) imposed an October 22 deadline for her to complete the discovery portion of her defense. But that same Bar has stalled and limited her ability to interview the seven judges who sent a letter to the Bar last December.

Stephen Melchior, Manlove’s attorney, explained that the deadline “is prejudicial to (Manlove) and does not provide her the time necessary to complete discovery in this case, and is further prejudicial in limiting her to the taking of 10 depositions, especially since 7 of the depositions are of the judges who waged the initial complaint in this matter, and since it is apparent on its face that both present and former employees of the DA’s office, and others, have information that is relevant to the allegations made in the formal charge.”

Leigh Anne G. Manlove

Reeves retorted that Manlove should have been preparing her defense since she “saw the seven judges’ letter in December of 2020.” This is a revealing claim. There is nothing on the December 21, 2020, letter to indicate that Manlove even got a copy. Why should she be expected to retain counsel and prepare a defense to a letter?

This mystery is partially solved in that, on the very next day, Wyoming Bar Counsel, Mark Gifford, filed a 48-page “Petition for immediate suspension” of Manlove’s license to practice law. You read that right. Seven judges conspired to submit an “unprecedented letter” against her on Monday, and immediately the Wyoming Bar filed an apparently pre-written petition to disbar her. 

While this explains how Manlove learned of the letter, it also raises many questions about how the seven judges and the Wyoming Bar were colluding behind the scenes. Who drafted the letter? Who reviewed, edited, promoted it, and solicited the signatures? Who, at the Wyoming Bar, was communicating with the judges, and what private information was being exchanged? These and many other questions should be answered under oath. 

Barely a month after the Bar’s petition was filed, the Wyoming Supreme Court rejected its bid to suspend Manlove’s license. Let me say that again. The Wyoming Bar has already had the chance to argue its case before the Court. On January 26, 2021, less than a week after Manlove presented her defense, the Court vindicated her. It wasn’t even close.

So, again, why should she spend any resources defending herself after the Supreme Court tossed out the charges? On June 11, 2021, we learned that only days after losing its case before the Supreme Court, the Wyoming Bar assigned Special Counsel Reeves to drag her before the BPR on many of the same charges. And those charges were not made public until months later when Reeves filed the Formal Charge.

That sure sounds like double jeopardy to me. But if the case is to be tried again, Gifford and all seven judges are material witnesses to the facts. When Manlove asked the Bar for permission to depose these witnesses, the Bar denied her request, gave her only restricted access, and did not leave her enough time to act before the October 22 deadline, at any rate.

You might wonder how the Wyoming Bar has the power to restrict witnesses in a case where it is, itself, the plaintiff. Those are the rules of the Wyoming State Bar. They do not have to follow the same rules as state courts. They are a private club that does its work behind closed doors.

Private clubs are entitled to do as they please, but this private club is trying to overturn a public election. On November 6, 2018, 21,083 voters in Laramie County elected Manlove to be their District Attorney. And yet, within months of beginning her tenure, the Bar began working behind the scenes to take her out. Next, it tried to suspend her law license. Now, it is re-trying her case “in-house.” 

Manlove’s thorough response, filed on July 20, shed much-needed light on the Wyoming Bar’s relentless attack on the voters of Laramie County. It is available at LA4DA.com. The Wyoming County and Prosecuting Attorney’s Association and the Wyoming Attorney General have registered their own objections to the Bar’s actions, as well.

The voters of Laramie County elected Manlove by a supermajority (67%), but the Wyoming Bar does not care about the ballot box. After nearly three years of unrestricted lawfare against an elected official, perhaps it’s time they did. The unaccountable power that the Bar has over elected officials is unhealthy. It needs to change. 

Also published in the Wyoming Tribune Eagle, November 12, 2021, and the Cowboy State Daily, November 16, 2021.

Local athlete completes the Ironman challenge

Evanston resident, homeschooling mother of nine, and English professor at Western Wyoming Community College traveled to Waco, Texas with her family to compete in the first-ever Waco Ironman. April Lange joined nearly 800 fellow athletes on October 23, 2021, for the grueling 140.6-mile race.

It was the end of a long road. Lange’s rekindled passion for running (she had been a high-school standout in Texas) led to a first-place finish in a local 5k race after the birth of her youngest child. From there, she set her sights on ever-greater challenges. 

Her first triathlon was a modest, 32-mile Olympic distance. A triathlon is a race of three disciplines: swimming, biking, and running. Evanston’s “Thin Air Triathlon” was organized by the Proffit ranching family and held on the shores of Sulphur Creek Reservoir.

After conquering the distance—and her competitors—Lange went on to ever greater challenges. In July 2018 she ran her first marathon and qualified to run in Boston. Shortly after her return from the 124th running of the Boston Marathon, in 2019, she set her sights on the Ironman challenge.

The Ironman was first run in 1978 on the Hawaiian island of Oahu. It consists of a 2.4-mile swim, a 112-mile bicycle ride, and a 26.2-mile marathon. All must be accomplished in under 17 hours.

The level of conditioning required cannot be long maintained. Athletes must ramp up training with a goal of reaching peak conditioning in the weeks before the event. Lange mapped out her training schedule to prepare for a July 2020 race. Then, COVID-19 struck the world. 

Among the many disruptions caused by the evil virus and widely varied responses to it, athletic events were canceled around the globe. Early on, the cancellations seemed to make sense. Athletes were disappointed but understanding. 

But as time progressed, politicization wreaked havoc on athletes’ well-being. In one case, an Ironman was canceled only two weeks before the start because Harris County Texas used COVID-19 as an excuse to prevent the athletes from riding bicycles on a ten-mile stretch of freeway—although swimming, biking, and running were perfectly “safe” just across the county line.

Arbitrary rulings such as these affected thousands of athletes for more than a year and a half. It’s not just that races were canceled. More harmful was that guidance changed every two weeks, making future planning all but impossible. Repeatedly athletes came near to peak conditioning only to have their race canceled. In disappointment, they had to start the cycle all over again. 

Lange struggled through three cancellations before finally being allowed to compete in Waco, Texas. It was a sort of homecoming. During her high school career, she had lived on farm near Waco and still has numerous relatives in the area. 

Awaiting the start, 10/23/21

On race day, a queue of competitors stood in the predawn darkness while the iconic voice of Ironman’s, Mike Reilly, whipped up the crowd. At 7:25 A.M. contestants started plunging into the Brazos River at five-second intervals. After an hour and 25-minute swim, Lange emerged to shed her wetsuit and mount her bicycle. 

The hazards of this leg were not limited to physical exertion. Competitors began experiencing flat tires—a lot of them. Race planners had warned the competitors that in a race of this size about 25 flat tires should be expected. But on this day, there were many more. 

A malefactor had deliberately sabotaged the bicycle course with tacks. He even defeated the precautions of race organizers who use leaf blowers to clean the course before each race, by gluing the tacks to the road. It is sad to contemplate the darkness of a heart that would deliberately hurt hundreds of strangers who had trained for months just to be there.

Blessedly, Lange avoided any flats. After six hours and 48 minutes, she traded her bike for a pair of running shoes. A marathon later, she crossed the finish line to hear the voice of Mike Reilly say, “April Lange, you are an ironman.” It was the 304th time he had intoned those words in Waco. Completing the course just shy of 14 hours she was the 12th of 27 women in her age group to finish. Thirty-five had started that morning.

Just to finish an Ironman puts a person in an elite fraternity. Counting both official and unofficial races held around the globe, there are approximately 50,000 finishers annually. That’s only 1 in every 140,000 people. A map posted at the entrance of Ironman Village, showed at least one other competitor from Wyoming. I was unable to learn his or her name. If it was you, or someone you know, please email me at the address below. I would like to learn your story.

Wyoming should be proud of anyone with the stick-to-it-ness and discipline to complete this iconic challenge. 

Note: This author is the proud husband, and biggest fan, of his wife, April.

Also published in the Wyoming Tribune Eagle, November 5, 2021, and in the Kemmerer Gazette, November 16, 2021. 

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.