It’s time for Laramie County voters to get justice in the Manlove case

Leigh Anne Manlove, Laramie County DA

The people of Laramie County should be incensed by the utter contempt that the Wyoming State Bar has shown them. In November 2018, citizens voted by a 67 percent majority to make Leigh Anne Manlove their district attorney. It was a mandate to clean house. Since that day Wyoming’s deep state has used every underhanded tactic in the book to deny them her services.

Months before she took office, the effectual sabotage of her work was already underway. In Washington, the Sussman trial is exposing how the deep state obstructed and sabotaged President Donald Trump’s transition team after the 2016 election. Washington has nothing on Wyoming. 

Recent court filings document how outgoing district attorney, Jeremiah Sandburg, denied AG-Elect Manlove customary access to case files needed to prepare for a smooth transition. It also alleges that on January 7, 2019, Sandburg handed her the keys to an DA Office that was in utter disarray—with five unfilled attorney positions and unfiled paperwork littering the office.

Jeremiah Sandburg

One might think that such unprofessional conduct would merit attention from the Wyoming Bar. It got none. Instead, it unleased more than two years of sustained lawfare against the woman who spent her first year in office cleaning up the backlog and fully staffing her office.

Since the fall of 2020, Manlove has essentially worked two full-time jobs. In addition to her duties as elected district attorney, she has been forced to spend countless off-duty hours, and thousands of dollars out of her own pocket, responding to a barrage of legal filings, paperwork requirements, and spurious charges from Wyoming’s own deep state.

Supreme Court Justice, Robert Jackson (1892-1954) wrote: “While the prosecutor at his best is one of the most beneficent forces in our society, when he acts from malice or other base motives, he is one of the worst.” He has the power to “strike at citizens, not with mere individual strength, but with all the force of government itself.”

Such is certainly the case here. First, actors in the Wyoming Bar obviously colluded with multiple district judges to elicit a letter of complaint. The day after the letter was sent, they filed a dozen documents with the Wyoming Supreme Court (WSC) calling for the immediate suspension of Manlove’s license.

After the Court decisively rejected this petition, they immediately commenced secretive in-house proceedings that gobbled up Manlove’s time, money, and energy for two more years—retrying virtually the same charges in their own kangaroo court. In the justice system, that would be double jeopardy. But this is not the justice system.

Little America, Cheyenne

Manlove finally got a public hearing in February of this year—and was promptly billed $91,000 dollars for the privilege. Maoist China was infamous for executing political opponents and then sending their grieving families a bill for the bullet. Making Manlove pay for the meals and lodging of her persecutors gives away the game. The process is the punishment.  

You wouldn’t know much of this from the headlines. In the Tribune Eagle, practically every press release from the Wyoming Bar has been reported as established fact, while meticulous court filings from the Manlove side are given such slight reporting that readers have never heard her defense. The Cowboy State Daily is no better.

I have never met or spoken with Manlove. I do not reside in her jurisdiction. I have no skin in the game. It is purely by reading the documents filed before Wyoming’s Supreme Court that my sense of justice is offended. It is an injustice against a woman and her solitary attorney. And it is an injustice against the people of Laramie County who elected her to do the job. 

Residents of Laramie County who want to see for themselves how their vote is treated with contempt, need only go onto the Wyoming Supreme Court website and look up docket number D-20-0009. It speaks for itself. They will read, for instance, how Manlove is charged with wrongdoing for actions she took in consultation with the Natrona County DA. While he took the very same actions and even co-signed a letter with her explaining them, she is prosecuted, but he is not (May 9, Response, pp. 15-16). 

Now the good justices of the Wyoming Supreme Court are being asked—for a second time—to act as tools of the Bar. Wyoming can hope that they are not bamboozled by clout and bluster, but see the facts for what they are. While the Bar has damaged its own credibility by allowing the unhinged Manlove prosecution, the Wyoming Supreme Court can still preserve its own dignity.

One might even venture to hope that the Court will rule in such a way that it discourages future lawfare intended to thwart the will of voters. Justice requires no less.

UW’s Inclusion Council should be more inclusive.

Photo credit: Caleb Holden on Unsplash

Wyoming’s first-ever female Senator came home from D.C. with something to say. When Cynthia Lummis addressed the families, friends, and faculty of the University of Wyoming’s class of 2022, it wasn’t with mindless bromides. She brought three important points.

First, she quoted her friend and fellow Cowboy, Haley Micheli Davis, who observed: “It’s hard work to teach children to work hard.” Under this heading, Lummis exhorted today’s graduates and tomorrow’s parents to take their vocation seriously. Parenting requires that we put down the phone and be present to others. This not only blesses them; it blesses us. “By giving your attention to others, with intention,” Lummis said, “you give yourself a gift.”

The second point came from, Jody Levine, a woman named Outstanding University of Wyoming Alumna in 2018. “If you think you are the smartest person in the room,” she said, “you are in the wrong room.” 

Lummis observed: “[A]t no time since the 16th century has the world been in as disruptive, transformative times as you are now entering.” The Industrial Age is over, she said. “To excel in this Information Age, you will need to constantly learn, constantly grow, constantly challenge yourself.”

The “transformations and disruptions” of our era are challenging the very freedoms that make learning and growing possible. Lummis warned, “There are those in government who believe not that the Creator endowed us with inalienable rights …but that government created those rights, and that government should redefine those rights—including our rights to freedom of speech, religion, property, assembly, and to keep and bear arms.”

First in her list of examples, she said, “Even fundamental scientific truths, such as the existence of two sexes, male and female, are subject to challenge these days.” After a brief interruption, she completed her list: “I personally question how, under our Constitution, we could forbid in-person worship services during a time of pandemic, while labeling liquor stores essential, and keeping them open. And how the creation of a government disinformation board is not an affront to free speech.”

Senator Cynthia Lummis

It’s not every speaker who can lead her audience spontaneously to prove her point. But Lummis did. No sooner had she asserted that “the existence of two sexes, male and female, are subject to challenge these days,” some in the audience challenged her statement. Quod erat demonstrandum.

It is no secret that some—even on the UW campus—go so far as to challenge the existence of two sexes. What is fascinating about this incident is that UW’s taxpayer-supported Inclusion Council immediately denounced Senator Lummis’ words as having a “harmful impact,” and being “marginalizing.” 

To date, the University’s Zoology & Physiology Department has not weighed in on the controversy. Scientists are, of course, aware that the intersex phenomenon happens in the animal kingdom as it happens in human biology. But they are inclusive enough to acknowledge the existence of such animals without denying the fundamental fact that there remain two sexes. Perhaps the Inclusion Council would benefit from attending some of the department’s classes to learn how this is done.

Does UW’s Inclusion Council recognize that its own press release marginalizes a large portion of the student body and countless alumni, like Lummis? One would hope that advocates for diversity would aggressively defend a diverse array of perspectives. They should consider the ENTIRE university community before issuing a public statement that marginalizes those who agree with Wyoming’s first female senator.

This incident would be comical if it were not such a serious affront to basic human rights. Just exactly as Lummis warned, “There are those in government who believe not that the Creator endowed us with inalienable rights …but that government created those rights, and that government should redefine those rights—including our rights to freedom of speech...”

The Inclusion Council, which is a governmental entity, introduced the topic of free speech with these ominous words: “While, as a public institution, we respect the rights of free expression…” Note the qualification. It does not categorically and unreservedly respect the right of free expression but only “as a public institution.” 

If UW’s Inclusion Council were not frustrated by its status as a government entity, it might use its power to throttle Lummis and all who agree with her. Considering the climate of censorship on Twitter and Facebook, such a muted endorsement of free expression is more than concerning. It brings a special urgency to Lummis’ third, and final point. 

Citing best-selling author, Eric Metaxas, she reminded us: “We are, ourselves, in this moment, the keepers of the flame of liberty.” When government entities, like UW’s Inclusion Council, fail to protect human rights, it becomes the duty of everyone. Lummis said, “The Constitution’s charter of self-governance requires the civic engagement of all who call themselves ‘Americans.’” Q.E.D.

The Ministry of Truth

In a recent speech at Stanford, former president Barak Obama advocated for a radical reimagining of the First Amendment in response to recent advances in technology. It was an interesting mix of sharp insight and partisan misinformation. But there is one statement that cuts to the heart of his argument and merits careful thought.

Obama said, “it’s not necessary for people to believe this information in order to weaken democratic institutions. You just have to flood a country’s public square with enough raw sewage. You just have to raise enough questions, spread enough dirt, plant enough conspiracy theorizing that citizens no longer know what to believe. Once they lose trust in their leaders, in mainstream media, in political institutions, in each other, in the possibility of truth, the game’s won.”

Three points jump out of this passage. First, it ignores that our democratic institutions, themselves, have destroyed their own credibility through egregious misconduct. Second, it assumes that citizens can be rendered totally unable to know the truth. Third, it implies that unquestioning trust in political leaders, mainstream media and political institutions will bring infallible truth.

While there are countless examples of institutional misconduct that have weakened democratic institutions, let’s name only one. The Department of Justice allowed the Russian collusion theory to fester for years while possessing reams of evidence that it was a hoax cooked up by the failing Clinton Campaign. The DOJ is not discredited by “raw sewage,” but by its own criminal misconduct. 

Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me. Until the American public sees that the miscreants behind this massive fraud are held to account, that public would be foolhardy to trust the DOJ as an objective and truth-seeking institution. The same can be said of every news outlet that eagerly allowed itself to be the stooge of fraudulent sources.

Christopher Wray

That brings us to the second claim. Obama is right to observe that many citizens no longer know whom to believe. Outrageous falsehoods peddled by legacy media and three-letter agencies have disorientated millions who once afforded them great trust. But, he is wrong to say that they cannot know what to believe.

The world has always been filled with truth and lies in equal measure. But blessed by rational thought that sorts one from the other, Western civilization has not succumbed to nihilistic claims that truth is impossible to know. That is the entire point of classical education. From Plato, Socrates and Aristotle to Bacon, Newton and Einstein, philosophy, science and religion equip all men, women and children to ferret out the truth for themselves.

On Easter morning two millennia ago, there was not only one narrative, but two. The women who arrived at Jesus’ tomb reported that Jesus had risen from the dead. But, the soldiers guarding the tomb spread a different narrative. The chief priests and elders convinced them to “Tell people, ‘His disciples came by night and stole Him away while we were asleep” (Matt. 28:13 ESV). One of these stories was true. The other was a lie. 

From then until now, each person must weigh the evidence and decide for himself. On one side, we have the eye-witness testimony of Peter, all twelve apostles, five hundred well-known individuals, James, and St. Paul (1 Corinthians 15:5-8). These people were public figures, available for decades of cross-examination and careful observation. By contrast, nobody even remembers the names of the soldiers who told their competing story. And, unlike their counterparts, they were never pressured to change their story by torture and death.

Nina Jankowicz

Will Alejandro Majorkas’ “Disinformation Governance Board,” weigh in on this debate? Will Nina Jankowicz, who obscenely mocks Christmas, tell us whether to believe the soldiers or the apostles? Without a doubt, there are some reading this column who want just that. Certainly, totalitarian regimes from the ancient Romans to the Chinese Communists have done it for millennia.

Every civilization throughout history has seen its most powerful institutions—not the least—wage war on the truth. From the chief priests and elders, to the Bolsheviks and Maoists, regimes propped up by lies demand to be regarded as the sole source of truth. By contrast, small minorities armed with the truth always prevail, sooner or later. Sooner is better.

Obama’s call for “trust in their leaders, in mainstream media, in political institutions,” is the siren song of those who control these institutions. In reality, no human being or human institution is worthy of unquestioning trust. Any leader who claims to be the final arbiter of truth discredits himself. Any news source that claims infallibility has proved itself fallible. Any institution that demands to be trusted without transparency has disqualified itself from any trust whatsoever.

Technology has not rendered the First Amendment more dangerous, but more necessary than ever.

Your life matters. Don’t let anyone tell you otherwise.

Photo credit: Joonyeop Baek on Unsplash

Your life matters. It matters to me. It matters to God. It matters to your family. It matters because your individual, unique life gives joy and meaning to countless others. This is the most basic fact of life. Always remember it. 

In bouts of depression and despair, remembering that you are wanted by others will always bring you through. Not only is this a source of abiding joy, it’s the best suicide prevention there is. Those, especially, who feel unwanted and purposeless need to know that they are loved. Tell them that their life matters to you. Tell them why it matters. Remind them that it matters to others as well. 

Photo credit: Dan Meyers on Unsplash

When you remind people that their lives matter, you are not speaking empty words only to make them feel better. You are expressing the truth in its deepest and most universal sense. We know it instinctively. We know it by reason. And we know it by God’s revelation. It is one of the last abiding and unifying truths that we can all agree on.

For this reason, those who care about suicide prevention must recoil at the claim that life is meaningless. We should oppose this false idea wherever we encounter it. It’s not enough to whisper it in private conversations. It should also be embedded in medicine, taught in the academy, and framed in our laws. This is nothing less than our duty of love.

Every word or act that says otherwise—that some lives do not matter—is not only a lie, it is an evil word that deprives people of hope and drives them toward suicide. The cheapening of one human life cheapens every human life. It screams meaninglessness to the very people who are most in need of hearing that they matter. 

Against this backdrop of suicide prevention, I was chilled to learn that a new corporation, dedicated to aborting Wyoming children, has adopted the same name as Wyoming’s suicide prevention charity. Wyoming Circle of Hope is a chapter of the American Foundation for Suicide Prevention. It exists to encourage people with the message that their lives matter. 

But if you Google that name in Wyoming, one of the first sites to pop up is an abortion corporation that exists for the express purpose of bringing surgical abortion to the Cowboy State. Scroll to the bottom of the page and it provides a corporate address: Circle of Hope, 712 H Street NE, Suite 1825, Washington, D.C. That piqued my curiosity. Who in Washington is so interested in aborting Wyoming children? Who wants to say that some lives don’t matter?

Circle of Hope corporate headquarters

The address does not help answer that question. Rather, it is only a run-down, non-descript storefront that serves as an anonymous mail-collection service. It has no office and no staff. But the website does list three “founding members,” who are “highly skilled in abortion delivery services.” 

Julie Burkhart is listed as the Founder. Her sister, Christie Burkhart, and Molly Oakley, are listed as “Founding Board Members.” None of these people is a doctor, none a nurse. Nor do they appear to have any medical or mental health training. Their main qualification is abortion activism. They have worked together for years to bring abortion to towns that were not asking for it.

Sisters Christie and Julie Burkhart

Julie Burkhart boasts of working for seven years with Dr. George Tiller, the notorious late-term abortionist from Kansas. He hired her, first, as a spokeswoman and, later, to run his pro-abortion political action committee. After his 2009 murder, she reopened his abortuary under a new name. Since then, she has opened two others, in Oklahoma City and Seattle. 

If none of the founders has medical qualifications, who will be doing the abortions? There’s no clear answer to that question. But, according to a 2019 article in the Guardian, Burkhart’s Kansas and Oklahoma enterprises have been unable to hire any local doctors. So, doctors are flown in from other states. Chances appear to be good that this pattern will be repeated in Casper.

Out-of-state abortion activists setting up an abortion mill, where out-of-state, anonymous doctors perform assembly-line abortions, do not do much to convey the warmth and meaningfulness of community. Presumably, that’s why Burkhart announced the existence of a 15-member “community advisory board.”

The leader of Casper’s Unitarian Universalists, Leslie Kee, has identified herself as one board member. But the names of the other 14 could not be found. Here, again, like the anonymous mailbox in Washington and the unnamed flying doctor, anonymity is the order of the day.

It is disturbing that a largely anonymous corporation is undermining Wyoming’s suicide prevention efforts by acting as if some lives don’t matter. For the record: you should know without a doubt that your life does in fact matter—now, and even before you were born.

What is Truth?

Ecco Homo by Antonio Ciseri

The world is facing a crisis of confidence. Whenever a once-trusted institution is caught in a lie, two things happen. First, those betrayed begin to look elsewhere for reliability and truth. Second, the level of proof that they demand becomes higher than before.

That higher level of scrutiny can, in turn, expose other lies. The exposure of these lies shakes confidence in still more institutions and raises the level of scrutiny even higher. Before long, the spiral of increased scrutiny applied to ever more institutions becomes an uncontrollable chain reaction.

Like the chain reaction at Chernobyl, the exponential release of destructive energy will lead to a smoking hole in the ground. That is what we are experiencing on a global scale. Legacy media, the intelligence community, globalist corporations, and international NGOs are nearing a meltdown as more and more information becomes available about their blatant and complicit lies. 

Fukushima nuclear meltdown

Unless they quickly restore confidence by public repentance for past lies and absolute transparency, they will sink into irretrievable irrelevance. They may still speak just as loudly as before, but their betrayed constituents increasingly tune them out as part of the background noise. 

Soon they are viewed as the anti-truth. People listen to them only to learn what NOT to believe. There has always been a fringe who viewed legacy media and government officials in this way. But today, that group may well be a majority. And, polls indicate that it is growing larger by the day.

From the perspective of news consumers, this meltdown is disorienting—even tragic. But it doesn’t have to be. It can also be a catharsis, a cleaning out of the cobwebs. It gives us an opportunity to ask a more fundamental question, namely, what makes any source reliable or unreliable?

That question is at the heart of epistemology—the study of why we believe what we believe. “What is truth?” That’s the question Pontius Pilate asked Jesus on the day of His crucifixion. On this Good Friday it still hangs in the air.

“What is truth?” The very question presupposes that truth exists. That is the very first truth. Modern philosophies that deny truth’s existence contradict themselves by claiming that the statement “there is no truth,” is itself true. In so doing, they discredit themselves and the entire system they have built.

This is good news for many who have been led falsely into the desert of nihilism. This dead-end philosophy destroys lives with a fundamental lie. It strips life of meaning and purpose and leaves behind a wake of despair, suicide, and murder. The lie of nihilism is the world’s most deadly weapon.

This leads to the second rule of epistemology: Once any source is caught in a single lie, the entire source becomes unreliable. It may still speak some truth from time to time, but it must always be judged by something outside of itself. We experience this whenever we are lied to. We are no longer able to trust that source. This is not a choice, it’s a consequence.

When we recognize this reality, it is immensely helpful. It narrows the field of competing truth sources—drastically. What human being has never told you a falsehood? Which of you has never deceived yourself? Honest answers to these two questions turn our eyes away from every human teacher. As the Psalmist says, “all men are liars” (Psalm 116:11).

Stripped of any confidence in humanity, but armed with the knowledge that truth nevertheless exists, we must conclude that truth transcends humanity. This observation discredits Humanism and Secularism as lying philosophies. Both falsely claim that human beings can find—or create—truth for themselves. 

It is no coincidence that those philosophies that deny the transcendence of truth are the same ones that now deny plain biology, math, and logic. This is simply the logical outcome of denying plain truth. 

Truth is an integrated whole. It is impossible to deny one aspect of the truth without distorting all of it. This explains why Jesus told Pontius Pilate, “Everyone who is of the truth listens to My voice” (John 18:37). 

It was not very long ago that we all knew this. Universities openly acknowledged theology as “the queen of the sciences.” Bacon, Newton, and all scientists knew that denial of Jesus would lead down a rabbit hole of nonsense and madness. Like it, or not, current events have proved them right.

But our situation is not hopeless. While madness is contagious, there is an inoculation against it. Jesus has promised, “If you abide in my word, you are truly my disciples, and you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free” (John 8:31-32). This, of course, refers to freedom from hell in eternity. But its blessed side benefit is freedom from today’s madness.

Park County can lead the way to restoring voter confidence

The commissioners of Park County are considering a proposal to boost voter confidence while satisfying every legal requirement. The plan was presented at an April 5, 2022, meeting of the commission, which is posted on YouTube. (It begins at the 4:07 mark).

Park County resident, Dave McMillan, explained: “This is not a partisan issue.” Americans across the political spectrum lack confidence in our ability to conduct an honest election. An ABC/Ipsos poll conducted in late December reveals that only 20 percent of the public is “very confident” about election integrity. That is a 46 percent drop from only one year ago. 

A major cause for the precipitous decline in confidence is the advent of the computerized polling machine (A.K.A. e-voting). These entered Wyoming elections in 2006, but their history goes back to the contested presidential election of 2000. 

Two years after the infamous “hanging chad” shenanigans in Florida, President Bush signed into law the “Help America Vote Act” (HAVA). This sweeping federal legislation established the “Election Assistance Commission” (EAC) consisting of four unelected appointees. The EAC was empowered to rewrite election standards and to establish a bureaucracy to enforce them.

Formally, the EAC is prohibited from imposing “any requirement on any state” (Part 2, section 209). Nevertheless, through multi-million-dollar grants it entices states to follow its “recommendations,” and through threats of investigation by the Department of Justice, it bullies the reluctant. 

Responding to the carrot and the stick, Wyoming eventually abandoned hand counting in favor of the newly emerging technology of e-voting.

Immediately, the new technology was called into question. A year after the EAC began pushing e-voting, the New York Times published an exposé on its inherent security vulnerabilities: “How to Hack an Election.” Likewise, CNN detailed “The trouble with e-Voting” in August 2004. Since then, there have been over 100 other such articles that document the numerous ways election hardware and software can be hacked. 

Malignant algorithms can be hidden in the software or hardware of machines at the factory. They can also be introduced through removable memory, or they can be uploaded to machines that are plugged into a network. 

But even if you disable the removeable memory ports, and unplug the network cable, a simple 120v power cord can be made to upload data. Embedded modems, sometimes invisible to the naked eye, make the machine accessible, even if it is hermetically sealed in a box and running on batteries. For proof of this, simply place your cell phone in a locked safe and send it a text. 

In 2020, Wyoming bought DS200 tabulators from Election Systems and Software. But only two months earlier ES&S admitted to NBC News that “14,000 of their DS200 tabulators with online modems are currently in use around the country.” That’s why tamper-proof security tape and “look, no cables” demonstrations may impress the impressionable, but only heighten the concerns of cyber-security experts. 

Voters concerned about hacking do not have the burden of proof. Election officials do. No law or constitutional principle requires citizens to trust elections. Rather, election officials are required by law to earn the trust of the electorate. And every county clerk already knows how to earn that trust. 

Wyoming Statute 22-10-108 spells out exactly how to match up the numbers on the tabulator with an actual hand-count of ballots. That simple act verifies the electronic count and satisfies even the most Luddite witness. What it cannot do, given the wonders of technology, is to prove that the program remains unchanged for the next count. That’s why the Park County Commissioners are considering a simple proposal to extend the rigors of the pre-election test to a post-election test as well. 

The EAC has assured Wyoming that ES&S’s software (EVS 6.0.4.0) is certified. But that dodges the question. The question is whether the certified software on any given machine has been altered; and that is not so easily dismissed. First, it is logically impossible to prove a negative. But on top of that, three recent filings testify that it can be hacked.

First, the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) blocked release of a forensic report on Georgia’s e-voting arguing that the report can expose the already-existing vulnerabilities. Second, President Biden’s nominee for the Federal Election Commission has stated under oath that Georgia machines switched votes in the 2018 election. Third, Wisconsin’s Office of Special Counsel reported: “The OSC learned that all machines in Green Bay were ESS machines and were connected to a secret, hidden Wi-Fi access point” (p. 14).

Paper ballots are the actual instruments of democracy. They, and not the machines, settle elections. Why not adopt the simple solution offered in Park County? Is there any better way to prove an accurate count? Wyoming’s secretary of state could lead the nation in restoring voter confidence.

A blueprint for grassroots rebuilding

Every day I meet people who are concerned by current events. They see schools, municipalities, states, and federal alphabet-soup agencies pushing globalist agendas and opposing the people they are supposed to serve. But people only speak of their grave concerns in hushed tones, if at all. And most of them, lacking clear direction, are paralyzed into inactivity.

Last week I used this space to lay the cornerstone of an effective response. It begins with in-person gatherings at the local community level. Today, I want to extend that foundation and show how one community is coming together. Perhaps it will inspire others to do the same.

Evil wins by isolating individuals and discouraging them from acting. That’s why the First Amendment to the Bill of Rights specifically protects “the right of the people peaceably to assemble.” There is power in personal connection. Our founders knew it, and so does every tyrant.

But it’s not only state power that can prevent peaceful assembly. We also see psychological manipulation used to isolate us. Media companies employ swarms of behavioral psychologists whose task is to keep us glued to the screen. By mass hypnosis, they have isolated more people and crushed more communities than any tyrant in history.

Thankfully, the spell of social media is not irresistible. As rational creatures, we can choose a better way. When we break the grip of social media and get people together, we are empowered. Assemblies of people are force multipliers. Like the dying embers of a campfire, physical proximity rekindles the flame.

Once gathered we are positioned to fight the next dragon, discouragement. In war, psychological operations are designed to undermine the enemy’s will to act. They do this by exaggerating the power of the enemy and belittling the power of any resistance. People who feel powerless lack the courage to act. But the propaganda that makes you feel powerless is a lie. 

The truth is that even the smallest resistance is infinitely powerful. You can resist the power of lies by refusing to adopt their language. You can resist the destruction of families by keeping your own family together. You can push back against the forces of secularization simply by going to church. These—and a thousand other acts—are more powerful than you know.

And courage is contagious. By acting you encourage others to act. If you are looking for a list of meaningful actions to give you a starting place, you will benefit from an article written by Joy Pullman titled, “85 Things You Can Do To Help The United States Shake Wide Awake.”

Joy Pullman, Executive Editor, The Federalist

Pullman compiled assorted ideas from The Federalist staff. Suggestions range from the simple act of playing a board game or reading with your kids to writing a book or running for office. The fourth suggestion on the list is, “Start a neighborhood group — present yourself under an umbrella that welcomes all other responsible members of your community who are sick and tired of being sick and tired, and who are willing to stand up.”

Inspired by Pullman’s article, several people from Evanston, Wyoming did just that. We called a meeting on a cold January morning. A baker’s dozen showed up. Many had never met one another. But soon friendships were forming. We decided that the answer to global and impersonal problems is to focus on local and personal solutions.

Our second meeting doubled in size and brainstormed a list of key decision-makers in Evanston. Since nobody can attend to everything, tasks were divvied up. Some volunteered to cover the school board, while others went to the legislative session, local party meetings, or the city council. We share what we learn with each other and recommend action when needed.

We are unabashedly Evanston-first. We are not careless about other communities, but confident that Evanston’s success will benefit them, as well. By the third meeting, we adopted a motto: “We gather to build, not to tear down. We focus on local solutions, to distant problems. We work to support neighbors for a better community.” 

Evanston is defined by geographical boundary lines. We have had enough of the false language of “neighbors” in Timbuktu, and “communities” that will never occupy the same real estate. Our commitment is to real flesh and blood community. Real-world encounters expose the fraud of divisive ideologies.

That makes us non-partisan. We invite participation from everyone. No political, ideological, or religious requirements are needed, only a desire to share ideas and work for the mutual benefit of our friends and neighbors. 

Try this in your community. Don’t wait until you have figured all the angles. Just get people together and get out of the way. The Bill of Rights protects assemblies because they have amazing power to build.