Everyone should stand up for local control

Photo credit: Anna Samoylova on Unsplash

Tuesday will mark a troubling anniversary for Wyoming parents. It was on August 2, 2021, that the Vice Chair of LCSD1, Marguerite Herman, shut down a board meeting leaving the voices of concerned citizens unheard. Rather than ask security to usher out the solitary unruly speaker, she asked security to usher out the peaceful public.

Bewildered parents were left to wonder why the democratic process was halted based on the misbehavior of one individual. Suspicions that the abrupt adjournment was a pretense to throttle the voice of parents, were further stirred when the Biden White House secretly solicited a letter from the National School Board Association (NSBA) and pre-approved its language. The now-infamous letter called parental objections “the equivalent to a form of domestic terrorism.”

Rather than publicly condemning the letter, Wyoming School Board Association Executive Director, Brian Farmer, distanced his organization from the letter and claimed to have privately expressed his objections to the NSBA. Meanwhile, he doubled down by asserting, without evidence, “We have seen instances of some of these things in Wyoming.” 

The letter has since been scrubbed from the NSBA website, and its board has apologized for the actions of its executives. But it has never asked the Department of Justice to disregard the letter and to rescind the DOJ memo that was released as a preplanned response to the letter. To this day, concerned parents remain in the crosshairs of the DOJ.

What are these parents concerned about? They are concerned about Critical Theory’s influence on Wyoming educators. They are concerned about how mask mandates threaten both the mental and physical health of their children. They are concerned about pornographic literature circulated in school libraries. They are concerned about radical gender ideologies that compromise the safety of sex-segregated spaces, and the fairness of women’s sports.

More than anything, parents are concerned that their parental authority to direct the education of their minor children is being disrespected, discounted, and denied. But parents have an ally in the State Superintendent of Public Schools. In early July, he penned a nine-page memo to the legislators of Wyoming that outlines a way forward for the children and parents of Wyoming.

Brian Schroeder

Fundamental to his vision is that schools must “be irrevocably protected by local control.” Schools should reflect the communities in which they operate. They should not be beholden to outside “stakeholders,” whether private billionaires, like Bill Gates, or public agencies, like the USDA. 

Outside “stakeholders” do not operate through properly elected and properly accountable authority structures. Instead, they leverage money and privilege to advance elitist agendas. A good example of the threat to local control is the way the Biden Administration recently leveraged the federal student lunch program to intimidate school districts into adopting its radical agenda.

The Goshen County School District very nearly fell prey to this strong-arm tactic. At its June 14 meeting, board chairman, Zachary Miller, introduced numerous updates to its discrimination policy. The claim that they were required by the USDA resulted in unanimous approval. When concerned parents learned of the dangerous resolution, they worked with well-meaning board members to expose the USDA overreach and rejected it resoundingly at the July 12 meeting.

More recently another “stakeholder,” the Wyoming Education Association, began offering “no-cost training to Wyoming educators.” Such an offering sounds like a great deal to school districts strapped for cash that, nevertheless, require teacher in-service training. But, upon closer inspection, the “Safe & Just Schools Cadre” is designed to indoctrinate teachers with Critical Theory. The raised and clenched fist in its logo makes that clear.

“Beware of Greeks bearing gifts.” That’s the lesson of the Trojan Horse. It still applies today. Parents across Wyoming should educate themselves on the content of every single teacher in-service that is brought to their school. They should give special scrutiny to those that are offered for free. Just as the USDA reminded us that there is no free school lunch. So, the WEA demonstrates that free indoctrination sessions can be extremely costly.

Brian Schroeder understands this. He is actively looking for ways to resist a thousand behind-the-scenes ways that would strip parents of local control. He needs your help. He needs parents, grandparents, aunts, and uncles to run for school boards across the state. Don’t think that you need to be a parent to run. Bill Gates is not a parent to any Wyoming children, but he has an outsized, outsider voice in Wyoming education.

Beginning August 8, you can file to run in your local school board election. Now is the time to identify well-informed citizens who will stand for local control—even when it means declining free money. Encourage them to run. Run yourself. Don’t think someone else will do it. Local control is up to everyone.

Humanity rebuilds what inhumanity has destroyed

Every year since 1973 Gallup has been polling American citizens about their confidence in institutions. It asks, “Please tell me how much confidence you, yourself, have in [blank].” This year’s results found that trust in all 16 institutions polled was down for the second year in a row. For 10, confidence is at its lowest point since the survey began. 

At the very bottom of the list, Congress has the trust of only one in 14 Americans. Instead of doing its job of building consensus and passing reasonable laws, congress is usurping judicial and executive powers by its illegal J-6 committee. This star chamber seems designed to quash any investigation into congressional wrongdoing while running roughshod over the constitutional rights of anybody it wants to bring down. Shamefully, Representative Cheney is its chief enabler. 

According to the survey, neither television news (11%), nor newspapers (16%) can convince even one in five Americans that they are doing the job of truth-telling. The criminal justice system is in the same boat. Its job is to prosecute criminals with stringently equal justice under law. But only one in seven trusts it to do so.

The presidency (23%) and the Supreme Court (25%) garner the trust of only one in four citizens. Thus, all three branches of the federal government—legislative, executive and judicial—have lost the confidence of more than three-quarters of American citizens.

In a constitutional republic, the cure should happen at the ballot box. But that is plagued by a similar lack of confidence. In January, an ABC/Ipsos poll found that only one in five Americans was “very confident” in the integrity of our election system. That, too, is down from the previous year. A whopping 59 percent of Republicans answered that they are “not so confident” or “not confident at all.” By extrapolation, fewer than 18% of Wyomingites are “very confident” in national elections. 

With confidence in government institutions at an all-time low, and confidence in our corrective mechanism equally low, there is wide-spread concern about the future of the republic. What are concerned citizens to do?

The first thing to be said is: Don’t panic. Panic never helps anything. Rather, it usually makes matters worse. Panic acts hastily without either a clear understanding of the problem or a realistic strategy to make headway. Lashing out in the fog of war too often leads to “friendly fire.” That damages good people and further diminishes our ability to address the real problem. 

Undeniably, it is emotionally satisfying to lash out at bogeymen. That’s why it is so tempting. The injustice of our justice system, the suppression of truth in media, the unconstitutional actions of Congress and the executive branch, are all the panicked reactions of people caught up in the moment. Our response must rise above that.

“If you can keep your head when all about you are losing theirs and blaming it on you…” wrote Rudyard Kipling, “Yours is the Earth and everything that’s in it.”

The second thing to say is: Don’t give up. Satan is the master of discouragement and deceit. The two are related. His power lies in lies. Even more formidable than his overwhelming power is his ability to convince you that you can never win—and so never to start the fight.

Always remember that the challenges we face have been faced down by countless thousands before our generation. Consider the dauntless hearts of America’s Founders who took up arms against the world's most powerful navy. Learn about the riots, lynchings, and societal convulsions leading up to the Civil War. And yet civilization prevailed. Consider the knife-edge uncertainty of American G.I.s who loaded onto landing craft in preparation for D-Day.

Each generation must face its own call to arms. God alone gives the victory. But those yet unborn will judge whether and how you answered the call. To channel saints Ignatius and Augustine, work like it all depends on you; but pray because it all depends on God.

Finally, be human. Recognize that the collapse of institutional confidence is not an inevitable result of their humanity, it is a result of their inhumanity. Inhumanity allows the ends to justify any means necessary. It dispenses with principles in a mad scramble to get its way. In the long run, this never works. Such short-sightedness trashes the institution in the near run and fails to achieve the ultimate goal.

Speak the truth even if it causes you to lose the argument. Insist on justice even when you are in the wrong. Remain respectful no matter how vehemently you disagree. Have the courage to speak up even when you know it will bring pain. 

These are the things that make us human. These are the things that will rebuild our world.

Full access to election records benefits everyone

Numerous voters, including this author, have sent a letter to the Uinta County clerk requesting to inspect ballots and other relevant materials from the 2020 election.

The letter emphasizes, up front, that the signers are making no accusations against any elected officials. It stipulates that they appear to have “faithfully performed their duties as election officials.” And it continues: “Nor do we seek to challenge any prior official results.”

Our officials should not be falsely accused of wrongdoing. Unfounded accusations dishonor public servants and threaten to create an “us vs. them” environment where election officials resist, rather than assist citizen involvement in the vote-counting process. This degrades, rather than strengthens election integrity.

Transparency in legislative and rule-making processes deters unethical behavior while simultaneously bolstering citizen confidence in governance. Conversely, wherever government actions are opaque, citizens begin to imagine all sorts of things—some of which are real. This is the reason for open meeting laws and laws giving citizens access to public records. The same standards should apply to the election process and its public records.

Sadly, transparency has been slow in coming. On April 5, citizens in Park County presented a plan to the county commissioners for a citizen-audit of the upcoming 2022 county primary. They waited over 40 days only to be told that their request was denied. They were denied, in part, because of the federal statute requiring that ballots be kept for 22 months. But that statute requires only retention and preservation of ballots and election records. It does not forbid public access.

Park County Commissioners
Mangold, Tilden, Overfield, Livingston, Thiel

Nevertheless, rather than contest this dubious ruling, they simply asked to inspect the ballots from the 2020 primary after the 22 months expired on June 18, 2022. That request was almost 60 days ago, and still they have received no response. There is no justification for this.

If Park County cannot cite explicit laws that forbid the inspection of these public records, it should gladly assist any citizens who have the time and the motivation to perform a citizen audit. Citizen scrutiny of election records is a worthwhile endeavor that has no legal downside. It can only help to detect weaknesses and to suggest improvements. 

Wyoming signed a contract with Election Systems and Software (ES&S) in March 2020. At that time, State Election Director, Kai Schon, told the told the Buckrail in Jackson Hole, “Each ballot will be printed on paper—always creating an audit trail that can be used to confirm the accuracy of every single vote.” Now, over two years later, nobody yet has been allowed to audit the printed ballots. What good is an audit trail that is shielded from audit--whether by elected officials or citizens?

Kai Schon, Wyoming Election Director
2016 - present

The Public Record Request enclosed in the letter addressed to the Uinta County clerk identifies 13 specific categories of records pertaining to the 2020 election. The cover letter enumerates nine points explaining why there is no legal reason that inspection and copying should be denied.

The first two points outline how computerized voting is unacceptably opaque. As I explained in my June 24 column, “It’s time to rethink computer voting,” it is impossible for the average citizen to see inside the machines or to understand the code that processes their vote. Worse, even Wyoming’s elected officials are forbidden to perform these vital tasks! Instead, they are supposed to be performed by nameless technicians in a distant Voting System Test Laboratory selected and paid by ES&S.

The rest of the letter provides legal support for the Public Records Request. It looks at the state and federal laws in play and shows how they are consistent with citizen access. In sum, it argues, “Election records are public records like any other official records and are not privileged or confidential and the disclosure of election records will not cause injury to the public interest.” It continues, “Citizen inspection of all aspects of our voting system must be a routine matter,” for the same reason that independent, certified audits are standard practice in businesses both small and large.

The transfer of governmental power to individuals selected by the sovereign people is the very most sensitive operation of a democratic republic. Any possibility that it could be done without the consent of the governed must be ruled out absolutely. The guarantee of pure elections should not rest of the trustworthiness of election officials, but on the transparency of the process. Wyoming’s Constitution (Art. 6, Sec. 13) “Purity of elections” requires no less.

Secretary of State, Ed Buchanan, has been crisscrossing Wyoming to assure its voters that elections are secure and accurate. We hope that he will see the voters of Uinta County as allies in his quest. By assisting our access to the records requested, he can enlist an army of public-minded citizens to provide the hands-on verification of his assurances. Together, we can strengthen the purity of Wyoming’s election system while simultaneously boosting voter confidence.

All eyes are on Governor Gordon

Photo credit: Isaac Quesada on Unsplash.com

Dobbs v. Jackson is, hands-down, the most important decision of the Supreme Court in more than five decades. Front and center (p. 1) are the thunderous words, “Roe and Casey are overruled.” Page 8 explains, “Roe and Casey arrogated that authority [for each state to regulate or prohibit abortion]. The Court overrules those decisions and returns that authority to the people and their elected representatives.”

The majority opinion goes on to repeat those words after twice declaring: “Roe and Casey must be overruled.” Justice Clarence Thomas, concurring, writes, “the Court rightly overrules Roe and Casey.” Justice Brett Kavanaugh repeats four times, “Roe should be overruled.” 

Even the dissenting opinion of Justices Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan acknowledges four times, “The majority has overruled Roe and Casey.” And Chief Justice, John Roberts, disagreed with the majority while twice acknowledging “the Court’s decision to overrule Roe and Casey.” Thus, while the decision to do so was split 5-4, there was no disagreement about what SCOTUS actually did. No fewer than 15 times do the nine justices make explicit that Wyoming’s “trigger” has been pulled.

Moreover, despite the continued false claims of various pundits, politicians, and press outlets, all nine justices agreed that there is no constitutional basis for Roe. The dissent openly admits that “there was no nationwide right to end a pregnancy, and no thought that the Fourteenth Amendment provided one” (Dissent, p. 13). 

The majority underscores this, and more. “The dissent is very candid that it cannot show that a constitutional right to abortion has any foundation, let alone a ‘deeply rooted’ one, ‘in this Nation’s history and tradition.’ …The dissent does not identify any pre-Roe authority that supports such a right—no state constitutional provision or statute, no federal or state judicial precedent, not even a scholarly treatise” (p. 35 citations omitted, emphasis original).

Note especially the words, “no state constitutional provision.” On Monday after SCOTUS dropped the Dobbs decision, lawsuits were filed in Louisianna, Utah, Kentucky, and Idaho. More are sure to follow. All these lawsuits claim that “trigger laws” in those states violate that state’s constitution. 

Regarding one such claim, Bill Duncan, a research fellow at the Sutherland Institute admits, “I think that’s going to be a really hard thing to establish for them. I don’t think that the Utah Constitution has ever been read to require that, and I don’t think the history or tradition of the state’s constitution supports that idea.”

As of this writing, no lawsuits have been filed against Wyoming’s trigger law. Any such suit would face “an uphill battle” for at least two reasons. 

First, at the center of Dobbs is the judgment, “The Constitution makes no reference to abortion, and no such right is implicitly protected by any constitutional provision, including …the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.” This judgment ought to hold for Wyoming’s Constitution which contains the language of the Fourteenth Amendment verbatim: “No person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law” (Art. 1, Sec. 6). 

Even more fundamentally, Wyoming’s constitutional provision of “Equality of all” explicitly states, “In their inherent right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, all members of the human race are equal” (Art. 1, Sec. 2). Prior to Wyoming’s statehood, a theory that denies “personhood” to certain human beings caused a great Civil War. This discredited religio-philosophical theory had been used by the Taney Court to deny Dred Scott his constitutional rights. It was decisively overruled by the Thirteenth and Fourteenth amendments. Against that sad history, Wyoming grounded equality not on “personhood,” but purely on one’s membership in “the human race.”

Almost a year ago, (July 2021), Wyoming's attorney general, Bridget Hill, signed an amicus brief at the direction of Governor Mark Gordon. Wyoming joined 23 other states in arguing, “The Court’s abortion precedent is erroneous, inconsistent, uneven, and unreliable. Traditional stare decisis principles cannot save it. Roe and Casey should be overruled.” Last Friday, when the Court agreed and granted their petition, Governor Gordon tweeted, “This is a decisive win for those who have fought for the rights of the unborn for the past 50 years. I signed Wyoming’s prohibition on abortion bill because I believe that the decision to regulate abortions should be left to the states.” 

Governor Mark Gordon

The eyes of Wyoming are now on the Governor’s office. Wyoming law gives Attorney General, Bridget Hill, thirty days from last Friday to review Dobbs and report “to the joint judiciary interim committee and the governor.” Her review is to advise “that the supreme court (sic) of the United States has overruled Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973) in a manner that would authorize the enforcement of [the Abortion prohibition law].”

Upon receipt of this review, Governor Gordon can certify those results to the Secretary of State. Five days later, Wyoming’s statutes will be updated to reflect the people’s desire to give equal protection in law to “all members of the human race,” as our Constitution demands. 

No doubt these public servants are facing significant pressure from special-interest groups to find some avenue to deny certification of the trigger law. Wyomingites can help them by praying for them, encouraging them, and defending them in the performance of their duties. Together the people can reclaim the right to enact Wyoming’s Constitution after five decades of unjust interference from the federal judiciary.

It's time to rethink computer voting

Wyofile’s Maggie Mullen recently reported that, “all four candidates [for secretary of state] have made election integrity their No. 1 priority.” That is welcome news to Wyoming voters. One does not need reckless allegations of wrongdoing to have legitimate concerns about Wyoming’s voting law.

The 2000 presidential election traumatized American voters by opening the possibility that the highest office in the land might be decided by judges rather than voters. The danger to the American republic was obvious enough that congress overwhelmingly passed legislation called the “Help America Vote Act.” This act ushered in the age of computerized elections.

At the time, it seemed like a reasonable response. The world was enamored with the speed and accuracy of computer technology. Harnessing all that power to assist in the voting process seemed like a no-brainer. But that was two decades ago. The internet was barely a decade old, and smart phones not yet invented. 

Election activities that used to take seconds and could be observed with the naked eye now happen at the speed of light, in the unobservable recesses of a metal box. Meaningful observation is impossible. Security that could once be insured by locking a door or sealing a box now requires highly specialized knowledge of machine language and wireless technology. The years have seen an exponential rise in the sophistication of hacking. Even the thumb drives used to update software and transfer votes are capable of infecting a machine with hidden and malicious code.

County clerks and secretaries of state cannot be expected to be experts in cybersecurity. Therefore, to assist them, the Election Assistance Commission (EAC) outsourced the creation of Voluntary Voting System Guidelines (VVSGs) to the Technical Guidelines Development Committee (TGDC), chaired by the director of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST).

This dizzying array of acronyms produce an evolving set of guidelines that require highly-skilled technicians. Elected officials are unable to examine the hardware and software of our computerized election machines, not only due to lack of expertise but because every contract between voting machine manufacturers and the states that lease them forbids state officials from personally performing the inspection (Wyoming Contract, Section 13.B, pp. 7-8).

Instead, the EAC has certified two Voter System Test Laboratories (VSTLs) to do the inspection. These VSTLs are selected and paid by the machine manufacturers to tell the states whether or not the hardware and software meet VVSG standards. You read that right. Wyoming voters are absolutely dependent on the expertise and integrity of third-party technicians paid by Election Systems & Software (ES&S) to certify its machines.

Wyoming signed a contract with ES&S in March 2020 which included three attachments. “Attachment B-Statement of Work,” which presumably details the “who, when, and where” of the VSTL certification, is deemed “confidential” and withheld from a public records request. 

Thus, Wyoming voters are required to trust that the certification contract between ES&S and an anonymous VSTL is on the up-and-up (Section 8, p. 5). Not only so, but the details of that contract are considered “trade secrets and confidential commercial data.” This lack of transparency requires an inordinate amount of trust from Wyoming’s voters.

Wyoming’s contract with ES&S also stipulates (Section 13.E, pp. 8-9) that it retains full rights to update the machine software—apparently even after the VSTL certification. However this updating is done, it calls for a recertification of the machines; but this is not provided for. As the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) recently admitted, a thumb drive infected with malicious software can change the machine code merely by being plugged into the machine.

The confidence of Wyoming voters in the integrity of our voting machines depends upon the faithful performance of duty of a great many persons unknown and unaccountable to them. This is a far cry from the simplicity of the method mandated by our Constitution (Art. 1, Sec. 27, and Art. 6, Sec. 11). This is not illegal. But neither is it right. It is high time to reconsider our unwarranted faith in the supposedly neutral and efficient computer. 

None of this is an indictment of Wyoming’s election officials. They are doing their best to implement laws that were hastily written in the aftermath of the 2000 election. The passage of time has revealed that the laws, themselves, are flawed. 

If election law permitted a stack of ballots to be left unguarded on the side of the road, voters would rightly be upset. County clerks and secretaries of state would be the first to call for a law to tighten security. And the legislature would pass such bills unanimously. Nobody would require prior proof that the sloppy practice actually changed vote totals.

In exactly the same way, Wyoming’s electronic voting system has insecurities that leave it vulnerable to outside interference. The legislature can address the vulnerabilities without waiting for proof that they have been exploited. Tens of thousands of Wyoming voters are eager for the secretary of state to lead the way.

Defend the rights of the poor and needy

America is holding her collective breath and waiting. Will the highest court in the land judge righteously? Will the Supreme Court of the United States defend the rights of the neediest and most vulnerable people in the land?

For nearly five decades has America thus been waiting. Year after year, all eyes look to see if nine black-robed judges might utter the magic words that would protect the lives of all. Year after year another million children have been lost, their parents wounded, their families hollowed out.

But why are we waiting? Is not God’s command clear and immediate? “Open your mouth, judge righteously, defend the rights of the poor and needy” (Proverbs 31:9). The imperatives are personal and singular. Nothing in these words requires others to act. Much less do they require you to wait for permission to act.

Imagine a nation where citizens are legally forbidden to stop a public lynching. Consider a country where it is illegal to defend some ethnic or religious class. 

Would such laws be valid? Should we obey them? Would the situation be improved if such outrages were performed in a clinic dedicated to the purpose? Would the perpetrator be justified if the legal guardian first signed a form granting consent?

These are not imaginary scenarios. Looking back, we are not hampered by moral uncertainty. We judge evil harshly—and rightly so. Corrie ten Boom, Oskar Schindler and Harriet Tubman are uncontested heroes. The Nuremberg defense abjectly failed to lessen the villainy of Rudolf Hess and Herman Göring who were “only following orders.” The cold, steady eye of posterity inevitably sees through even the densest fog of the cultural wars.

With this 20/20 vision, we assure ourselves that we would have been on the right side of history had we lived in those days. But we blind ourselves to what our own posterity will judge us to be. 

And what is it, exactly, that we praise in Schindler, ten Boom, and Tubman? The word is “interposition.” They interposed themselves between innocent victims and government actors who hunted them down. They saw injustice in real time and acted to protect the innocent. 

Interposition is neither insurrection nor complicity in evil. It is the full and free use of your own resources and position to do always, and only, the right thing. Ten Boom lied to the Nazis. Tubman defied the Fugitive Slave Act. Schindler bought slaves from the Nazis in order to save them. 

In every case, interposition involves both wisdom and personal risk. It recognizes that government authority has limits. “Under God,” means that the most powerful ruler remains subject to “Nature’s God.” It also means that even the lowliest official has a divine mandate to resist evil from above. 

In early May, an anonymous actor leaked a draft opinion on Dobbs v. Jackson, written by Justice Samuel Alito. The leak triggered pro-abortion activists into obnoxious and illegal contortions designed to keep the draft from becoming the official opinion of the Court. Will the five signatories hold the line, or won’t they? We will soon find out.

But Alito’s draft is far more than just one possible opinion. It changed the game by exposing both Roe and Casey for what they are. They are not constitutional, statutory, judicially sound, or moral. Even if the assassination attempt on Justice Kavanaugh, or the illegal protests at Justice Barrett’s home, or the current blockade of the Supreme Court were to succeed in cowing the Court and suppressing this opinion, Alito’s words cannot become unsaid.

Roe and Casey have forever lost the fig leaf of judicial legitimacy. They were nothing but naked power grabs from the start. Through this leaked draft, the world has been given the rare opportunity to know the judgment of posterity in real time. What will our children and grandchildren say about us? Read Alito’s opinion and you know. 

Nevertheless, the draft stops short of justice. It declines to protect every human life as legitimate governments are duty-bound to do. Rather, it merely takes the federal judiciary out of the game. 

One illegitimate claim to power has been deflated. But justice will still require wisdom and courage on the part of every office holder. If SCOTUS’ ultimate opinion follows Alito’s draft, the battleline will shift from the judicial branch to the legislative—where it properly belongs. But the duty of interposition will not have changed in the slightest. 

The unborn will still need governors to protect them from federal injustice. State legislators will still need to craft laws that defend the innocent from congressional overreach. County commissions, city councils, fathers, mothers and grandparents can no longer wait for nine black-robed judges to do the right thing. Each one, every day, without exception must be both wise and bold to do always, and only, the right thing. “Open your mouth, judge righteously, defend the rights of the poor and needy.”

It’s time to disarm federal bullies

The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) recently released a statement threatening to withhold lunch money from any “state and local agencies, program operators and sponsors that receive funds from FNS [Food and Nutrition Service]” unless they “investigate allegations of discrimination based on gender identity or sexual orientation,” and “update their non-discrimination policies and signage.” 

Annually, Wyoming schools receive about $90 million from the FNS to provide lunches to Wyoming’s poorest children. Like a bully, the USDA is using Wyoming’s poor as leverage to force the Wyoming Department of Education, every school district in Wyoming, and sundry other public and private operators to adopt globalist policies.

These policies are not new. Wyoming’s legislature has debated and rejected them for more than a decade. Every time they come up, globalist stakeholders like the National Chamber of Commerce, Walmart, Microsoft, and a cabal of multinational corporations typically threaten to disrupt the economy unless they are adopted. Rank-and-file Wyomingites, on the other hand, view them as Orwellian Newspeak that does not combat discrimination, but creates it.

Spirited discussion on "discrimination policy"
Cheyenne, WY, December, 2018

No matter which side you support, you are a free person. Your freedom consists in hearing the arguments, weighing the facts, and supporting the policy that you believe is best. Nobody is holding a gun to your head and coercing your decision.

But the USDA just changed that. It just pointed a loaded $90 million gun at the Wyoming Department of Education, and every local school board. With a finger on the trigger, it now says, “you must accept the very policies that you have rejected in the past, or else.”

How should free people respond to such a threat? What is the best way to respond to a school lunch bully? Wyoming’s superintendent of education, Brian Schroeder, led the way. In a statement released last Friday, he said: “[it is] both disheartening and astounding that our federal government could become so cynical as to tie the school lunches of little kids to its ever-relentless agenda of social engineering.” “In any other world, this would be sized up for exactly what it is: extortion.”

Extortion is the proper word. Every single Wyomingite should be appalled and outraged. 

Even our friends who support the “non-discrimination policies” of the USDA should stand with one voice against the bullying tactics of the federal government aimed at states and school districts. They should recognize that the USDA’s resorting to extortion undermines their own good-faith arguments. For extortion, by its very nature, is an abandonment of reason and moral authority. It replaces right with might.

We should also take this moment to remember how we got into this situation. How did the USDA come into possession of this $90 million gun that is now aimed at Wyoming’s children? The sad answer is that we armed the federal government by accepting its largess. 

Money is power. Every lawmaker, every school board, every state agency that empowers federal agencies to tax Wyoming citizens, so they can give it back with strings attached, gives potential bullies a gun. This gun can be turned on us in an instant. Now, it has been.

Superintendent Schroeder’s statement was bold and clear. But it lacked any indication of how he could protect our kids from this armed assault. Instead, he appealed directly to Wyoming citizens. “I only hope that ‘We the People’ have the stomach to stand up to it, because it won’t stop until the people say ‘enough.’ If we don’t, we will be guilty of enabling an overbearing and oppressive federal government that is completely out of control.” So, what exactly can we do? 

First, we can say, “No.” School board members in every county, vocally supported by the Wyoming School Board Association, should absolutely refuse to vote on any policy whatsoever in response to the bullying of the USDA. They should send a clear message that the federal government cannot coerce their vote—whether they agree with the policy, or not.

Second, Governor Gordon should protect our children against this bullying by instructing the attorney general to coordinate with other states that are planning to sue the USDA. This will not only support schools, it is also good politics. Kristi Noem, governor of South Dakota, just won her primary challenge after she promised to hold the USDA accountable to US law.

Third, it is time that every Wyoming citizen implement federal “gun control.” Now that we have seen how federal agencies can turn the powerful gun of money against our children, we need to disarm them by electing representatives who will shut off their supply of money and keep us out of the position of dependence on federal handouts. With primaries only 10 weeks away, now is the time to act.