Lawfare’s triple-threat against free speech

A smiling grandfather south of the Colorado line is about to mark the ninth anniversary of incessant lawfare against his tiny bakery. Jack Phillips’ only ambition had been to combine his talents in the culinary and visual arts into a business that serves the Master. His logo makes this plain. An artist’s pallet with both brush and whisk in the thumbhole sports the words “Masterpiece Cakeshop.”

But on July 19, 2012, a couple, who would unleash nine solid years of lawfare, walked into his store. Colorado did not allow same sex “marriage” at the time. But it had recently inserted the language of “sexual orientation” into its 1957 civil rights law. Armed with a marriage certificate from Massachusetts, they would soon see how powerful a weapon this bias-crime law had become.

The first salvo was launched in September of that year and was argued all the way up to the U.S. Supreme Court where Masterpiece Cakeshop prevailed on June 4, 2018. Immediately, Autumn (formerly Adam) Scardina launched the second salvo. This was dismissed “with prejudice” by the Colorado Commission on Civil Rights in 2019. Within weeks Scardina, an activist lawyer, brought a new lawsuit. Last week, this resulted in a $500 fine from a Colorado judge. Phillips’ defense will file an appeal, and the lawfare will continue.

The question is simple: once an artist puts his art on the market, does that give customers the right to compel him to use those talents to convey any and every message? Can a consumer compel a Muslim artist to paint a mural that blasphemes Allah? Can an atheist be forced to create lyrics that glorify God?

The legal precedents that prevent one person from forcing another to speak anything against his or her will are long established and unassailable. So, those prosecuting the lawfare must resort to legal contortions that twist the issue into something else. These contortions are three-fold.

First, they need to divide and conquer. So, they single out conservative evangelicals as the targets of choice. Ignoring Muslim bakers who share Masterpiece’s stance, and atheist bakers who have refused to bake Bible cakes, they have repeatedly targeted one of the very smallest of roughly twelve dozen bakeries in Colorado. They make a mockery of equal treatment under law.

This classic Marxist maneuver is meant to minimize opposition by isolating the target from the support of those who share a common interest. Lutheran pastor, Martin Niemoeller, famously recounted how this was done in Nazi Germany: “First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a socialist. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a trade unionist. Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Jew. Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.”

Before allowing fellow-citizens to swing in the breeze, atheists, agnostics and non-evangelicals of all stripes should consider the cost of silence. Even if the baker were to win on the narrow grounds of “sincerely held religious belief,” the underlying right of every citizen to speak his or her mind is obliterated. 

What if you simply think that some politically correct idea is absurd? Should you be prohibited from speaking your mind and defending your position simply because you lack a “religious” motive? If the First Amendment’s right to “free speech” is only valid when it is an “exercise of religion,” constitutional protections are denied to the non-religious. That should trouble everyone.

Not only has the grievance machine swallowed up free speech into the category of religious exercise, its second move is to narrow the question further still. Invoking the constitutionally problematic Employment Division v. Smith (1990), they assert that governments have carte blanche to infringe on the free exercise of religion so long as the infringement has “general applicability.” Smith created such a furor that congress responded with the near-unanimous passage of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. Today’s enemies of free speech despise RFRA and circumvent it whenever activist judges allow. 

When Masterpiece won its case before the Supreme Court three years ago, it left Colorado’s “Anti-Discrimination” Act (CADA) in force and only objected that the Colorado Civil Right Commissioners insulted Phillips' evangelicalism in their proceedings. If the commission had been more disciplined and kept their bigoted opinions to themselves, SCOTUS might have upheld their religious infringements.

Colorado Civil Rights Commission, May 30, 2014

In like fashion, Chief Justice John Roberts recently penned a majority opinion that upheld the religious freedoms of Catholic Social Services in Philadelphia, but not because the city forced religious institutions to act contrary to their core doctrines. Rather, Fulton v. City of Philadelphia hinged on a clause in the city’s policy that might allow for other religions to be exempted. Apparently, if the city had only trampled religious freedom, with no exemptions possible, it would be constitutional. 

The third way that free speech protections are skirted is to reframe speech as an “action.” Wyoming first saw this contortion in the case of Judge Neely from Pinedale. The Wyoming Supreme Court acknowledged that speech is constitutionally protected both in Wyoming and in America. But the 3-2 majority nevertheless punished her speech under the bizarre notion that, in her case, speech was action.

A similar twist was employed against Masterpiece Cakeshop. The bakery demonstrably serves all customers without discrimination. It stated plainly, and under oath, that the sole reason for denying one specific request was because the artist would not be exploited to express an idea alien to his understanding.

The judge in last week’s ruling even acknowledged the Defendants’ argument “that they did not decline Ms. Scardina’s request because of her transgender identity, but rather because of the cake’s message.” Nevertheless, through tortured logic, he decreed that he knew better than the Defendants what they themselves were thinking.

This is why so-called “bias-crime” and “hate-crime” legislation is so dangerous. It appoints non-elected judges, bureaucrats, and activist lawyers to read minds. With sole discretionary power to decide what a person is thinking, they can manufacture thought crimes out of whole cloth. Such legal bazookas are worthy of Lavrentiy Beria, Stalin’s chief of the NKVD, who boasted: “Show me the man, and I will show you the crime.”

Legislators must protect Wyoming from the far-reaching power of such bias-crime legislation. What has unfolded a mere two hours south of the Capitol Dome should be a cautionary tale. Colorado’s caustic legislation has enabled nine years of lawfare against an inconsequential baker. Like acid, it dissolves every constitutional protection it encounters—not only the free exercise enjoyed by religious people, but free speech for all.

That makes last week’s Joint Judiciary Committee actions especially troubling. While Colorado’s legislators may have had the excuse of ignorance when they passed CADA in 2008, Wyoming’s legislators have had a front-row seat to observe its speech-destroying effects. Given such forewarning, they can no longer pretend ignorance of the unjust outcomes enabled by bias-crime legislation. It has been proven by a decade of jurisprudence that such laws have only one intent: to mute constitutionally protected free speech.

Also published in the Wyoming Tribune Eagle, June 25, 2021.

Re-grounding the Second Amendment in natural law

It has been thirteen years since the Supreme Court last looked at the Second Amendment. In that case, District of Columbia v. Heller, it finally admitted that “the right to keep and bear arms” is an “individual” right to home defense, and not merely a right for states to maintain “a well-regulated militia.” In April of this year, the Court agreed to hear New York Rifle and Pistol Organization v. Corlett. This will address whether that right of individuals to “bear arms” gives constitutional protection for those who want to carry a firearm across town, or if one is only allowed to carry it from the bedroom to the kitchen.

Meanwhile, there has been a spate of activity in California’s Ninth Circuit. Three separate cases from the lower courts have nullified different aspects of California’s virtual ban on the popular AR-15 (Armalite Rifle). Duncan v. Becerra overturned California’s ban on the standard 30-round magazine. Rupp v. Becerra and, more recently, Miller v. Bonta challenge California’s AR-15 ban as violating SCOTUS’ “common use” standard.

If all this seems barely relevant except to preppers, this column is for you. My purpose today is not to get into the weeds of all these cases and reconcile the Court’s strange and contradictory pronouncements. Rather, I will simply outline a few basic concepts to help the non-gun-enthusiast appreciate what is at stake.

We begin by observing that the most ardent defenders of the Constitution were opposed to the original Bill of Rights. They did not oppose the rights delineated in the first ten amendments. Rather, they opposed the very idea of delineating rights. The problem, as they saw it, is the difference between “natural law” and “positive law.”

The U.S. Constitution is an outgrowth of the “natural law” that produced the Declaration of Independence. The law that “all men are created equal” existed before governments and legislators said so. “Positive law,” on the other hand, creates law as a “social contract.” According to it, humans have no rights whatsoever until those in power say that they do. “Positive law” theory attacks the very foundations of our constitutional republic. 

By making a list of specific rights, the Bill of Rights presented two dangers. First, just rights unintentionally omitted from the list might not be protected. Second, the Bill of Rights itself might inadvertently teach that rights come from the federal government, and are not transcendent and above all human institutions.

Especially when it comes to the Second Amendment, those original critics of the Bill of Rights have been vindicated. Gun rights—even more than the rights of free speech, free assembly, free press, and the free exercise of religion—are too often treated as special privileges that can be alternately doled out or rescinded at the whim of lawmakers. To the contrary, the Constitution’s framers considered “the right to keep and bear arms” as a natural right inherent in the very fact of your humanity. It does not arise from government, but from God.

Obviously, this view of the Second Amendment does not depend on current technology. Whether a person has the right to carry a rock, a knife or a pistol is not for the government to decide. What is inherent in the very reality of humanity created in the image of God is the responsibility to love one’s neighbor with heart, soul, strength and mind.

When loving one’s neighbor requires defending him or her from bodily harm, human beings have the corresponding right not only to make use of physical strength, but also to use the mind. We think up tools that can assist us to defend our families and our neighbors from harm. This creativity comes from God and is a gift that the animals do not possess. No government has the right to infringe on it.

This right exists independently of the Second Amendment because your responsibility to protect your neighbor is not an assignment from the government, but an assignment from God. As technology advances and your neighbor is threatened by more sophisticated tools, your right to match this sophistication by possessing tools for defense is inherent.

Contrary to SCOTUS’ “common use” doctrine, there is nothing in the Constitution, or in natural law, that requires a tool to be commonly available before you have a right to keep and carry it. Whether a tool be so obsolete that it is no longer in common use, or so cutting-edge that few yet own it, governments have no right to disadvantage some while arming others. Rather, they should limit themselves to prohibiting only those tools that have no use in defending individual persons—or which are impossible to use without harming innocent bystanders. 

As we stock up on fireworks to celebrate the firearms that won our independence, now would be a good time to think about the modern tools that we need to have on hand to protect the life and liberty of our neighbors in the 21st century.

Also published in the Wyoming Tribune Eagle on June 18, 2021, and in the Cowboy State Daily on June 28, 2021.

Personal engagement can restore confidence in the truth

A Freedom of Information Act request recently published cascades of emails that expose months-long coverups about mask-effectiveness, gain-of-function research, and possible laboratory origins of COVID-19. The scandal has also enveloped some of the biggest names in media as being either complicit or incompetent. 

This is only the most recent scandal to diminish the American people’s trust in media. Already in January, a survey found that 58 percent of Americans agree that “most news organizations are more concerned with supporting an ideology or political position than with informing the public.” Most, (56 percent) believe the press is “purposely trying to mislead people by saying things they know are false or gross exaggerations.”

We are in a truth crisis that is polarizing the American public. But the situation is not hopeless. We are not helplessly at the mercy of a few media moguls. There are a few simple principles that can equip good citizens to reclaim the noble task of seeking the truth. Below are six of them.

First, slow down! Take a deep breath. Misinformation thrives on breathless haste. Time is your ally. Use it. Social media and cable news are designed to manipulate your emotions and make you feel like you are "missing out" if you are not the first to “know.” Resist their manipulation by suspending judgment. 

The truth will out. Every lie has a shelf life. Eventually, it will expire and be exposed. So, take every precaution to avoid ruining your own reputation by repeating it to your friends.

Second: Never trust an anonymous source--ever. In a world where our eyes and ears cannot be everywhere, we rely heavily on the reportage of others. This requires a high amount of trust in persons to be fair, objective, comprehensive and accurate. That is a tall order. 

When you must rely on others, the good name of the source is everything. If that source has no name, you have nothing. Anonymity makes it cost free to reveal difficult truths. It also makes it cost free to lie. Truth is a serious and costly enterprise. Any source unwilling to pay that cost is not yet a serious source.

Third: Reputation matters. It takes years to build a reputation as a truth teller. (See point one, above.) One single lie can undo a reputation built on a hundred truths. Serious sources will take that into account every time they open their mouths. And, if they ever make a mistake, they will be the first to tell you—not the last. They will openly repent and not try to cover up their lie.

What is true of individual people is also true of institutions. Truthfulness and honesty must be perfect. A 99-percent accuracy rate does not make us suspect a lie in only one percent of statements. It raises doubt in everything that news outlet prints—and it should! Past lies and inaccuracies should not be rewarded by continued trust.

Any news source that publishes false information--no matter what its motivation and no matter how long it has been trusted--should be forever distrusted. The only way to regain a lost reputation is by early, self-humiliating, and public retraction of the falsehood. Small print on page seven, months after the false story, should not rehabilitate your trust in a newspaper.

Fourth: Trust your own eyes. God gave you eyes, ears and reason specifically for discovery of the truth. Use them. The only time you need sources at all is when you are physically unable to be there. If you have firsthand knowledge, never let anyone gaslight you into thinking you didn’t see what you saw or hear what you heard.

Fifth: Do your own research. “Authorities” can be helpful--once you have established their bona fides (good faith). But putting unquestioned trust in anyone other than God is simply wrong. We may give provisional trust to authorities because they both have training and have promised to operate ethically. But if any authority violates ethical standards—even once—he has discredited himself and should be ignored. This is not a harsh and uncharitable judgment. This is simply the truth.

Sixth: Care more about the truth than about defending your position. Winning the argument is not the goal. Knowing the truth is. When defending your own opinion, rid yourself of emotional attachments to it. And don’t treat people with opposing opinions as enemies. They are, rather, friends who can work together with us to follow the evidence and discover the truth.

These few, simple steps can help us find our way out of a labyrinth of lies. No longer isolated in a thousand darkened tunnels, we can gather together in the light of truth and get back to the task of living.

Also published in the Wyoming Tribune Eagle on June 11, 2021.

This Memorial Day, build freedom’s foundation

Civil War Memorial, Peoria, Illinois

Most of us grew up reading about Tom Sawyer and his adventures on the Mississippi. John Bremer lived them. The 18-year-old immigrant wasn’t an orphan, like Tom. But his parents were a world away. Like many in his generation, he left his home in Schleswig-Holstein (northern Germany) for the New World.

Certainly, opportunity beckoned. But he was also driven by strife in his homeland. Prussia and Denmark were vying for control. The First Schleswig War (1852) ended in a stalemate before he could be conscripted. Now, a second war was brewing. In 1864 it would subject his Lutheran homeland to the same religious oppression that drove waves of German emigrees to America in the previous decades.

Before that could happen, in 1857, John boarded a steamer to America. He landed in New Orleans and took a Mississippi riverboat to Davenport, Iowa. There, he found work as a barrel-maker, sending his earnings to his mother in Germany. 

After several years, she wrote that she didn’t want the money, she wanted to see her son. Obediently, he began retracing his steps back home. But along the way everything changed. His first time through New Orleans the horrors of the slave-trade did not oppress him as they now did. With America on the brink of Civil War, his senses of justice and decency were assaulted by what he saw. Men, women and children were being bought and sold in the open market. A strong young man, of comparable age to John, brought $1,100 at auction. 

He could no longer continue his journey. Nor could he return to his life in Davenport. The people whom he saw at the slave market filled him with an inescapable sense of duty. He returned north to Peoria, Illinois where, in August of 1862, he joined the 86th Regiment of the Illinois volunteers. The young man who earlier had fled war, now willingly sought it out. 

He did not fight for loyalty to the Yanks, nor for land, nor for glory. It was duty for his fellow man that drove him to put his life on the line. For two years and nine months he fought. His first battle was at Perryville, Kentucky—one of the bloodiest of the Civil War. The following year he saw the carnage of Chickamauga and soldiered on to victory at Lookout Mountain. By the war’s end, he marched with General Sherman to the sea.

On April 9, 1865 Robert E. Lee surrendered at Appomattox Courthouse. Five days later President Abraham Lincoln was assassinated. That summer, John was discharged from the volunteers and made his way back to Davenport. There he courted and married Miss Bertha Prien and began to raise a family. 

John G. Bremer discharge, June 6, 1865

God had spared his life in numerous battles and given him the opportunity to continue building the American legacy, not with a rifle, but with a plow. In time he saved enough money to buy a farm in central Nebraska where his daughter became my great-grandmother. 

It would be nice if I could claim John Bremer’s honor for myself. But I cannot. Nor can anyone. The descendants of abolitionists have no more claim to righteousness than the descendants of slave owners deserve condemnation. Every man stands before God in his own generation to be judged by his own actions. None of us receives either the honor or dishonor of father or mother. But we do receive their legacy.

We are the beneficiaries of the world that they built. Hundreds of thousands of men like John fought, bled, and died to build a world where all men might be free. They fought “that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom—and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.” 

John G. Bremer

John was inspired to join the fight when he saw his brother sold for $1,100. They probably never saw one another again. I wonder, however, if any of the great, great grandchildren of John Bremer have ever met the great, great grandchildren of the man who stood on that auction block. We can only imagine. 

If divine providence should bring me to meet a descendant of the slave that inspired John to volunteer, I would probably never know it. But any chance encounter might be exactly that. Will we treat each other with the gratitude and respect befitting such equals? That is the question of our day. It is the only question that matters. 

It’s not only a question of honoring the past. That interaction also has the potential either to build community or to destroy it. This weekend as we gather to honor those who fought and died to give freedom to our generation, let us honor their memory by building a future for our own great grandchildren.

Also published in the Wyoming Tribune Eagle, May 28, 2021.

How emerging technology can right a wrong

Fetal lamb in artificial womb, 2017

In his watery parlor, baby #032533 was awakened by the violence of his own hiccups. He drew his knees closer to his chest and balled his hands into fists. Above the imperceptible hum of electric motors, he could hear his own tiny heartbeat, but not a second, adult heartbeat that other babies experience. Six weeks earlier he had begun hearing muffled sounds from the outside world. But his ability to flex his fingers was an interesting new development. 

According to Gonzales v. Carhart, a Supreme Court decision from 2007, baby #032533 had officially taken on “the human form.” He was 12 weeks old and had lived his entire life in a lab. There were humans around, interacting with the machinery that powered his artificial womb. But none ever talked to him. None caressed him or loved him. The year is 2033 and he lives in an artificial womb, separated from a mother he had never known.

This baby is imaginary. But the scenario is not. The idea of an artificial womb is decades old, but its first success was achieved in Philadelphia in 2017. Researchers kept a fetal lamb alive for nearly a month. More recently, Israeli scientists announced that they kept 250 embryonic mice alive in artificial wombs--some halfway into their second trimester. Soon, these breakthroughs could be applied to humans.

Artificial womb technology represents a quantum leap in neonatal care. Like all technology, it offers both moral advancement and hideous, dehumanizing misapplications. Fifty years ago, the average age of viability for premature babies was barely 30 weeks. By 1987 James Gill set a new record--surviving a premature birth at 21 weeks. But this astounding rollback of the age of viability has essentially stalled there.

Tiny, undeveloped lungs are damaged by the air-pressure needed to help them breathe. Artificial womb technology could allow the child’s lungs to continue developing outside the mother without the damage of premature inflation. This has the potential to roll back fetal viability into the first trimester of pregnancy. It also has the potential to dramatically change American jurisprudence.

Last Monday (May 17, 2021), the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) announced that it would hear the case titled Dobbs v. Jackson. The case involves a Mississippi women’s health law enacted in 2018. To protect women from the extreme risks of late term abortions and to exercise the state’s interest in protecting the lives of its youngest citizens, Mississippi legislators passed the Gestational Age Act which banned most abortions after 15 weeks. 

This was a gutsy move. They all knew that the law would be challenged in court. Years ago, SCOTUS decided that it would not uphold the state’s interest in protecting life prior to the age of viability. That is why Wyoming statute prohibits abortions after viability, but no sooner. Two bills last January sought to change that law. But both were denied a floor vote.

The Mississippi legislature, however, did not shrink from the fight. It passed the bill, fully intending to defend it in court. Sure enough, a federal judge enjoined its enforcement within 24 hours of the governor’s signature, and that judgment was upheld in the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.

Now SCOTUS has accepted the case but narrowed the question significantly. Of three questions presented by Mississippi Attorney General, Lynn Fitch, the justices agreed to take up only one: “Whether all pre-viability prohibitions on elective abortions are unconstitutional.”

Ever since Roe, the Court has treated “viability” as the earliest stage when a state can exercise its interest in protecting citizens. But “viability” has always been a fuzzy and subjective boundary. It is a moving target that depends, not on fundamental human rights, but on ever-changing technology. As science has advanced during the past five decades, the court’s wisdom has not kept up.

2021 Supreme Court

SCOTUS’ tone deafness to scientific advances has held America back from keeping up with the moral advances of the civilized world. When it comes to abortion policy, America ranks in the bottom five percent. A 2014 study of 198 nations found that the “clear norm among countries that permit elective abortion is to limit abortion to before 20 weeks gestation, and elective abortion is more commonly limited to 12 weeks (the first trimester).” By contrast, America finds herself in the barbaric company of China, North Korea and Viet Nam, where abortion remains unrestricted until the moment of birth.

It is unjust for SCOTUS to keep any state from protecting its citizens based on bad science. Future generations will want to know how the court could deny human rights simply because of technological ignorance. They will not receive a satisfactory answer. Dobbs v. Jackson is an opportunity to acknowledge their right to an answer, and to join the civilized world.

Open Letter from Retired Generals and Admirals

Flag Officers for America, click flag to see original

Our Nation is in deep peril. We are in a fight for our survival as a Constitutional Republic like no other time since our founding in 1776. The conflict is between supporters of Socialism and Marxism vs. supporters of Constitutional freedom and liberty. 

During the 2020 election an “Open Letter from Senior Military Leaders” was signed by 317 retired Generals and Admirals and, it said the 2020 election could be the most important election since our country was founded. “With the Democrat Party welcoming Socialists and Marxists, our historic way of life is at stake.” Unfortunately, that statement’s truth was quickly revealed, beginning with the election process itself. 

Without fair and honest elections that accurately reflect the “will of the people” our Constitutional Republic is lost. Election integrity demands insuring there is one legal vote cast and counted per citizen. Legal votes are identified by State Legislature’s approved controls using government IDs, verified signatures, etc. Today, many are calling such common sense controls “racist” in an attempt to avoid having fair and honest elections. Using racial terms to suppress proof of eligibility is itself a tyrannical intimidation tactic. Additionally, the “Rule of Law” must be enforced in our election processes to ensure integrity. The FBI and Supreme Court must act swiftly when election irregularities are surfaced and not ignore them as was done in 2020. Finally, H.R.1 & S.1, (if passed), would destroy election fairness and allow Democrats to forever remain in power violating our Constitution and ending our Representative Republic. 

Aside from the election, the Current Administration has launched a full-blown assault on our Constitutional rights in a dictatorial manner, by passing the Congress, with more than 50 Executive Orders quickly signed, many reversing the previous Administration’s effective policies and regulations. Moreover, population control actions such as excessive lockdowns, school and business closures, and most alarming, censorship of written and verbal expression are all direct assaults on our fundamental Rights. We must support and hold accountable politicians who will act to counter Socialism, Marxism and Progressivism, support our Constitutional Republic, and insist on fiscally responsible governing while focusing on all Americans, especially the middle class, not special interest or extremist groups which are used to divide us into warring factions.

Additional National Security Issues and Actions:

• Open borders jeopardize national security by increasing human trafficking, drug cartels, terrorists entry, health/CV19 dangers, and humanitarian crises. Illegals are flooding our Country bringing high economic costs, crime, lowering wages, and illegal voting in some states. We must reestablish border controls and continue building the wall while supporting our dedicated border control personnel. Sovereign nations must have controlled borders.

• China is the greatest external threat to America. Establishing cooperative relations with the Chinese Communist Party emboldens them to continue progress toward world domination, militarily, economically, politically and technologically. We must impose more sanctions and restrictions to impede their world domination goal and protect America’s interests.

• The free flow of information is critical to the security of our Republic, as illustrated by freedom of speech and the press being in the 1st Amendment of our Constitution. Censoring speech and expression, distorting speech, spreading disinformation by government officials, private entities, and the media is a method to suppress the free flow of information, a tyrannical technique used in closed societies. We must counter this on all fronts beginning with removing Section 230 protection from big tech.

• Re-engaging in the flawed Iran Nuclear Deal would result in Iran acquiring nuclear weapons along with the means to deliver them, thereby upsetting Mideast peace initiatives and aiding a terrorist nation whose slogans and goals include “death to America” and “death to Israel” . We must resist the new China/Iran agreement and not support the Iran Nuclear Deal. In addition, continue with the Mideast peace initiatives, the “Abraham Accords,” and support for Israel.

• Stopping the Keystone Pipeline eliminates our recently established energy independence and causes us to be energy dependent on nations not friendly to us, while eliminating valuable US jobs. We must open the Keystone Pipeline and regain our energy independence for national security and economic reasons.

• Using the U.S. military as political pawns with thousands of troops deployed around the U.S. Capitol Building, patrolling fences guarding against a non-existent threat, along with forcing Politically Correct policies like the divisive critical race theory into the military at the expense of the War Fighting Mission, seriously degrades readiness to fight and win our Nation’s wars, creating a major national security issue. We must support our Military and Vets; focus on war fighting, eliminate the corrosive infusion of Political Correctness into our military which damages morale and war fighting cohesion.

• The “Rule of Law” is fundamental to our Republic and security. Anarchy as seen in certain cities cannot be tolerated. We must support our law enforcement personnel and insist that DAs, our courts, and the DOJ enforce the law equally, fairly, and consistently toward all.

• The mental and physical condition of the Commander in Chief cannot be ignored. He must be able to quickly make accurate national security decisions involving life and limb anywhere, day or night. Recent Democrat leadership’s inquiries about nuclear code procedures sends a dangerous national security signal to nuclear armed adversaries, raising the question about who is in charge. We must always have an unquestionable chain of command.

Under a Democrat Congress and the Current Administration, our Country has taken a hard left turn toward Socialism and a Marxist form of tyrannical government which must be countered now by electing congressional and presidential candidates who will always act to defend our Constitutional Republic. The survival of our Nation and its cherished freedoms, liberty, and historic values are at stake.

We urge all citizens to get involved now at the local, state and/or national level to elect political representatives who will act to Save America, our Constitutional Republic, and hold those currently in office accountable. The “will of the people” must be heard and followed. 

Signed by:

1.RADM Ernest B. Acklin, USCG, ret.
2.MG Joseph T. Anderson, USMC, ret.
3.RADM Philip Anselmo, USN, ret.
4.MG Joseph Arbuckle, USA, ret.
5.BG John Arick, USMC, ret.
6.RADM Jon W. Bayless, Jr. USN, ret.
7.RDML James Best, USN, ret.
8.BG Charles Bishop, USAF, ret.
9.BG William A. Bloomer, USMC, ret.
10.BG Donald Bolduc, USA, ret.
11.LTG William G. Boykin, USA, ret.
12.MG Edward R. Bracken, USAF, ret.
13.MG Patrick H. Brady, MOH, USA, ret.
14.VADM Edward S. Briggs, USN, ret.
15.LTG Richard “Tex’ Brown III USAF, ret.
16.BG Frank Bruno, USAF, ret.
17.VADM Toney M. Bucchi, USN, ret.
18.RADM John T. Byrd, USN, ret.
19.BG Jimmy Cash, USAF, ret.
20.LTG Dennis D. Cavin, USA, ret.
21.LTG James E. Chambers, USAF, ret.
22.MG Carroll D. Childers, USA, ret.
23.BG Clifton C. “Tip” Clark, USAF, ret.
24.VADM Ed Clexton, USN, ret.
25.MG Jay Closner, USAF, ret
26.MG Tommy F. Crawford, USAF, ret.
27.MG Robert E. Dempsey, USAF, ret.
28.BG Phillip Drew, USAF, ret.
29.MG Neil L. Eddins, USAF, ret.
30.RADM Ernest Elliot, USN, ret.
31.BG Jerome V. Foust, USA, ret.
32.BG Jimmy E. Fowler, USA, ret.
33.RADMU J. Cameron Fraser, USN, ret.
34.MG John T. Furlow, USA, ret.
35.MG Timothy F. Ghormley, USMC, ret.
36.MG Francis C. Gideon, USAF, ret.
37.MG Lee V. Greer, USAF, ret.
38.RDML Michael R. Groothousen, Sr., USN, ret.
39.BG John Grueser, USAF, ret.
40.MG Ken Hagemann, USAF, ret.
41.BG Norman Ham, USAF, ret.
42.VADM William Hancock, USN, ret.
43.LTG Henry J. Hatch, USA, ret.
44.BG James M. Hesson, USA, ret.
45.MG Bill Hobgood, USA, ret.
46.BG Stanislaus J. Hoey, USA, ret.
47.MG Bob Hollingsworth, USMC, ret.
48.MG Jerry D. Holmes, USAF, ret.
49.MG Clinton V. Horn, USAF, ret.
50.LTG Joseph E. Hurd, USAF, ret.
51.VADM Paul Ilg, USN, ret.
52.MG T. Irby, USA, ret.
53.LTG Ronald Iverson, USAF, ret.
54.RADM (L) Grady L. Jackson
55.MG William K. James, USAF, ret.
56.LTG James H. Johnson, Jr. USA, ret.
57.ADM. Jerome L. Johnson, USN, ret.
58.BG Charles Jones, USAF, ret.
59.BG Robert R. Jordan, USA, ret.
60.BG Jack H. Kotter, USA, ret.
61.MG Anthony R. Kropp, USA, ret.
62.RADM Chuck Kubic, USN, ret.
63.BG Jerry L. Laws, USA, ret.
64.BG Douglas E. Lee, USA, ret.
65.MG Vernon B. Lewis, USA, ret.
66.MG Thomas G. Lightner, USA, ret.
67.MG James E. Livingston, USMC, ret. MOH
68.MG John D. Logeman, USAF, ret.
69.MG Jarvis Lynch, USMC, ret.
70.LTG Fred McCorkle, USMC, ret.
71.MG Don McGregor, USAF, ret.
72.LTG Thomas McInerney, USAF, ret.
73.RADM John H. McKinley, USN, ret.
74.BG Michael P. McRaney, USAF, ret.
75.BG Ronald S. Mangum, USA, ret.
76.BG James M. Mead, USMC, ret.
77.BG Joe Mensching, USAF, ret.
78.RADM W. F. Merlin, USCG, ret.
79.RADM (L) Mark Milliken, USN, ret.
80.MG John F. Miller, USAF, ret.
81.RADM Ralph M. Mitchell, Jr. USN, ret.
82.MG Paul Mock, USA. ret.
83.BG Daniel I. Montgomery, USA, ret.,
84.RADM John A. Moriarty, USN, ret.,
85.RADM David R. Morris, USN, ret.
86.RADM Bill Newman, USN, ret.
87.BG Joe Oder, USA, ret.
88.MG O’Mara, USAF, ret.
89.MG Joe S. Owens, USA, ret.
90.VADM Jimmy Pappas, USN, ret.
91.LTG Garry L. Parks, USMC, ret.
92.RADM Russ Penniman, RADM, USN, ret.
93.RADM Leonard F. Picotte, ret.
94.VADM John Poindexter, USN, ret.
95.RADM Ronald Polant, USCG, ret.
96.MG Greg Power, USAF, ret.
97.RDM Brian Prindle, USN, ret.
98.RADM J.J. Quinn, USN, ret.
99.LTG Clifford H. Rees, Jr. USAF, ret.
100.RADM Norman T. Saunders, USCG, ret.
101.MG Richard V. Secord, USAF, ret.
102.RADM William R. Schmidt, USN, ret.
103.LTG Hubert Smith, USA, ret.
104.MG James N. Stewart, USAF, ret.
105.RADM Thomas Stone, USN., ret.
106.BG Joseph S. Stringham, USA, ret.
107.MG Michael Sullivan, USMC, ret.
108.RADM (U) Jeremy Taylor, USN, ret.
109.LTG David Teal, USAF, ret.
110.VADM Howard B. Thorsen, USCG, ret.
111.RADM Robert P. Tiernan, USN, ret.
112.LTG Garry Trexler, USAF, ret.
113.BG James T. Turlington, M.D., USAF, ret.
114.BG Richard J. Valente, USA ret.
115.MG Paul Vallely, USA, ret.
116.MG Russell L. Violett, USAF, ret.
117.BG George H. Walker, Jr. USAR Corp of Engineers,ret.
118.MG Kenneth Weir, USMCR, ret.
119.BG William O. Welch, USAF, ret.
120.MG John M. White, USAF, ret.
121.MG Geoffrey P. Wiedeman, JR. USAF, ret.
122.MG Richard O. Wightman, Jr., USA, ret.
123.RADM Denny Wisely, USN, ret.
124.LTG John Woodward, USAF, ret.

Get involved for Wyoming’s children

Scene from "The Patriot," Mel Gibson

There is a war-of-words waging in Wyoming and across the nation. For decades, it was a cold war played out in the halls of academia. Last summer it went hot as riots erupted in the streets of major US cities. Most recently, an offensive from the U.S. Department of Education called, “Proposed Priorities-American History and Civics Education,” put every local school board in the crosshairs.

Wyoming’s Superintendent, Jillian Balow, fired back. On May 4, she released a Statement on Proposed U.S. Department of Education Rule Prioritizing Critical Race Theory Curriculum in K-12 Schools. It calls out the Proposed Priorities, among other things, for the “alarming move” to encourage “districts to use curriculum related to divisive author Ibram X. Kendi and the New York Times ‘1619 Project.’” This she said, “should be rebuked across party lines.”

Every Wyoming parent should be grateful for Balow’s vigilance and leadership. But we should not let her fight alone. A general can only be as successful as the troops that are marshaled behind her. Every Wyoming parent needs to get educated and engaged in the battle. Wyoming’s children are at stake.

Supt. Jillian Balow

One factor that keeps parents sidelined is sheer bewilderment. It is hard to join in the fray when the smoke and noise of battle conspire to obscure the truth. The Proposed Priorities are an incomprehensible word salad, designed to bewilder. It lobs flash-bang grenades like “antiracism” and “systemic racism.” Then it rolls out undefined terms like “linguistically responsive” and “equity” (not to be confused with equality). Like smoke bombs, these hide what’s really happening.

The confusion caused by such language is intentional. Constantly changing terminology and the invention of new words are meant to keep you out of the fray. But common sense can cut through the distractions to provide clarity. When you are unable to decipher what people are proposing, simply ask: what are they opposing? This cuts through the fog of war.

The Proposed Priorities implement Executive Order 13985, which was signed by Joseph Biden his very first afternoon in the Oval Office. It revokes EO 13950 Combatting Race and Sex Stereotyping, and commands agency directors to scuttle any changes that it accomplished. Next, it canceled EO 13958 Establishing the President’s Advisory 1776 Commission, and scrubbed its Report from the Whitehouse website. 

Joseph R. Biden, Oval Office, January 20, 2021

Clearly, the Proposed Priorities do not want to combat race and sex stereotyping. Also, they treat the 1776 Commission as hostile to the new federal priorities. In fact, the priorities are designed to award government educational contracts on the basis of racial and sex stereotyping, and to teach the New York Times’ discredited 1619 Project in opposition to the Report of the 1776 Commission. No wonder Superintendent Balow raised the alarm! 

To understand what is at stake, simply read the short 1776 Commission Report. “Above all else,” it concludes, America’s founding “principles recognize the worth, equality, potential, dignity, and glory of each and every man, woman, and child created in the image of God.” Why would anyone want to cancel that language?

Last January, Rep. Jeremy Haroldson (R-Wheatland) carried the flag of 1776 by sponsoring HB 177 Education-Understanding federal and state government. Balow weighed in to support the concept of Haroldson’s bill. Sadly, the Education Committee did not send it to the floor.

Part “(a)” called for every school district to provide “instruction that prepares students for informed, engaged citizenship,” and named 11 content areas. More importantly, part “(b)” required transparency. It would have allowed “any parent or guardian of a child enrolled in the school district” to inspect the curriculum and materials used to teach the child American history, government and civics. 

Jeremy Haroldson

The need for parental inspection of educational materials was highlighted just this week by a controversy in Cheyenne. The Laramie County School District #1 hired Western Education Equity Assistance Center (WEEAC), an out-of-state company aligned with the ‘1619 Project,’ to administer a survey to Cheyenne’s kids. It looked like a “push-poll” designed more to influence young minds than to gain useful knowledge.

When parents asked to inspect the survey before it was administered, they were told that that WEEAC considered its materials “proprietary,” and would not allow parents to preview them. Enough parents raised alarm that the school board postponed the survey at the last minute, promising to replace it with materials that parents could inspect ahead of time.

Like mold and mushrooms, poisonous ideas thrive in the dark. Healthy ideas, like green plants, enjoy the sunshine. You can help to let in the light. Support Superintendent Balow by supporting your local school board. Attend its meetings. Listen to what is going on. Talk to the board members. You might even run for a seat yourself! Wyoming’s children need your voice to keep them out of the crossfire.

Also published in the Wyoming Tribune Eagle, May 14, 2021.