Reigniting Liberty's Torch

By Bradley Harrington

“I believe that any man who takes the liberty of another into his keeping is bound to become a tyrant, and that any man who yields up his liberty, in however slight the measure, is bound to become a slave.” — H.L. Mencken, “The Chicago Tribune,” 1927 —

Americans, by virtue of their mostly benevolent natures, tend to assume the best about people — so, when they hear a group speaking of “compassion,” they generally take them at face value.

Like Councilman Richard Johnson, for instance:

 “Two weeks after announcing plans to revive a Compassionate Cheyenne resolution, he [Richard Johnson] says he already knows he won’t get a majority — and he doesn’t care … ‘This entire thing is about being nice,’ he said. ‘So your no vote on this says, ‘Hey, I’m on the record for being an a–hole.’’” (“Councilman Johnson to push for Compassionate Cheyenne vote,” WTE, Aug. 29.)

While the chances are high that the locals involved in “Compassionate Cheyenne” are just as benevolent as Mr. Johnson, however, none of that applies to the parent international organization, the “Charter for Compassion” — which, upon an examination of THEIR statements, can only be described as evil incarnate.

After all, Mr. Johnson, what does “being nice” have to do with United Nations schemes to wipe out the final vestiges of liberty and individualism in these United States?

By their own admission, NOT my accusations, as discussed just last week, this “Charter” is out to establish a one-world totalitarian state in charge of mandating standards of “sustainable, inclusive and equitable economic growth” (fascism) and “reducing inequalities” (socialism). What part of that Charter’s declaration do you not understand?

So, let’s take a deeper look:

■ In Goal 17 of the Charter’s “17 Sustainable Goals” we find that “developed countries” need to “implement fully their official development assistance commitments” … “Commitments” that comprise “0.7 percent of GNI to developing countries” and “0.15 to 0.20 percent to least developed countries.”

Well, Mr. Johnson, our GDP this year is projected at $18.767 trillion, so let’s do the arithmetic: 0.7 percent of that is $131 billion; 0.15 percent is $28 billion; and 0.20 percent is $37 billion. The United States, therefore, is being ordered to spend anywhere from $159-$168 billion, nearly a quarter of a trillion dollars, YEARLY, on … WHAT? International “welfare,” pure and simple. To which I would ask: By what right? By what standard? And to be paid for by whom?

■ And if that’s not enough “welfare” for you, Sir, Goal 17 also declares that we should be “fostering debt financing, debt relief and debt restructuring” in the undeveloped countries as well, not to mention addressing their “external debt” in order to “reduce debt distress.” Really? While WE, with thanks to just those kinds of schemes here at home, are now  $135 trillion in the hole?

■ And, in the U.N.’s “Transforming Our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development” — the source from which those 17 goals spring — we find plenty of other totalitarian provisos as well, such as:

Point 28: “We commit to making fundamental changes in the way our societies produce and consume goods and services.” Really? The “fundamental way” OUR society “produces and consumes,” Mr. Johnson, is through capitalism and the free market — the little bit we have left, that is. Clearly, the one-world bureaucrats are “distressed” with the speed with which we’re dismantling that system ourselves, and are out to hammer the final nails in that coffin for us. Or do you think these international hoodlums are just teasing?

Well, Mr. Johnson, there’s plenty more collectivistic slavery where that came from, covering everything from “climate change” nonsense to the alleged evils of fossil fuels to “free” systems of indoctrination. Stuff I could easily write about for weeks. I’ve read the entire mess, and all of it tells you exactly what these thugs intend for us. Why is it, Mr. Johnson, that you want us to take YOUR local group at face value — but can’t seem to take the “Daddy of ‘Em All” at THEIRS?

This “Charter” seeks to occupy a high moral plane — while it holds a gun as its final argument. It decries “wealth” — while it passionately begs for money. It ridicules “selfishness” — while the very survival of the planet depends upon its social and economic results, the greatest engine of prosperity and production ever invented in man’s history.

This “Charter” clamors, in other words, for both the unearned and the unreal. So, Mr. Johnson, please pardon me for being enough of an “a–hole” to bring it to your attention.

Bradley Harrington is a computer technician and a writer who lives in Cheyenne. Email:  bradhgt1776@gmail.com.

NOTE: This column was originally published in the Wyoming Tribune Eagle on September 2, 2018. Here is this column’s original downloadable PDF file.

Back to top of column
Back to top of blog

By Bradley Harrington

“Individualism upholds the supremacy of individual rights, the principle that a human being is an end in him or her self — and that the proper goal of life is self-realization.”  — Nathaniel Branden, “Capitalism, the Libertarian Vision,” 2014 —

Once in a while, like a reflection in a mirror, a chain of concrete events perfectly echoes and illustrates the abstract idea from which it springs. Not often — so, when it does, it serves as a vivid reminder that thoughts have consequences.

Take, for instance, the “Compassion Cheyenne” idea, and City Councilman Richard Johnson’s recent resurrection of it.

For those who might recall, “Compassion Cheyenne” ran into a few obstacles when it petitioned the Council last year for a “resolution designating Cheyenne as a Compassionate Community,” to wit:

“Mayor Marian Orr worried the Charter for Compassion, which speaks in broad terms about ‘absolute justice, equity and respect’ and ‘a positive appreciation of cultural and religious diversity,’ meant ignoring federal immigration laws. Councilman Dicky Shanor expressed concern about the international movement’s sustainability goals, which include reducing carbon emissions.” (“Councilman looks to revive Compassionate Cheyenne resolution,” WTE, Aug. 20.)

That was last October; then, two weeks later, “organizers led by Ed Boenisch … pulled out. They had no interest in political mudslinging.”

“Mudslinging,” gentlemen? Really? Well, it’s certainly true that the local chapter follows the lead of the parent organization, for you tell us so:

 “In June 2015 … community members gathered to broadly ask what they want for Cheyenne. Their exploration of that question led them to the International Charter for Compassion.” (“Compassionate Cheyenne forum seeks input on making city a better place,” WTE, Oct. 29, 2017.)

And it’s also certainly true that the Charter for Compassion has a huge political agenda as well, nor does it hesitate to declare what it’s after:  

“We believe that all human beings are born with the capacity for compassion, and that it must be cultivated for human beings to survive and thrive,” the organization’s home page (www.charterforcompassion.org) trumpets. Then the kicker kicks in:

“To that end we support and work to achieve the seventeen sustainable goals of the United Nations … See how each of our sectors works to bring about transformative change.”

And, to get a flavor of where THOSE goals will be taking you, get a load of this, the lead-in to their “17 Sustainable Goals” — and it’s as political as you can get:

“Eradicating poverty … is an indispensable requirement for sustainable development … There must be promotion of sustainable, inclusive and equitable economic growth, creating greater opportunities for all, reducing inequalities, raising basic standards of living, fostering equitable social development and inclusion, and promoting integrated and sustainable management of natural resources and ecosystems.”

Well, that all sounds real nice — but how is it determined what “equitable” economic growth consists of, and who gets to determine it? And, just what kind of “inequalities” are we being asked to “reduce”? INCOME inequalities, obviously, as Goal 10 proves:  “While income inequality between countries may have been reduced, inequality within countries has risen.”

And, again — who gets to determine what constitutes “equitable social development,” and along what political-philosophical lines? And who is in charge of the “sustainable management of natural resources and ecosystems”?

Clearly, all of this “managed equalization” will need both guns and bureaucrats — LOTS of each — and a very large pile of money, too. That source, however, is also clear enough: The individuals at the top of the “inequality” spectrum in the “developed” countries will be paying for it, through the use of force, as their wealth is coercively handed over to those who didn’t earn it … With the whole setup taking place within the framework of a highly-powerful, all-encompassing government, just exactly the kind of totalitarian state that will be required to wield those kinds of powers.

And such moral and political slavery, Dear Readers, is being preached in the name of “compassion.” Sorry, but it will never work — as compassion cannot be “cultivated” at the point of a gun.

So, instead of considering and passing such hot-air “resolutions,” Mr. Johnson, maybe you and the rest of your Council should just stick to protecting our individual rights instead — and leave each of us, as individuals, free to pursue our own peaceful goals and means as we see fit. After all, that’s how we “reduced” poverty the first time.

And the best thing for Mr. Boenisch and Compassionate Cheyenne? Drop the U.N.’s half-socialist, half-fascist “one-world” agenda and get back to the private-sector involvements that real compassion has always depended on. Do that and you’ll no longer NEED a proclamation.

Bradley Harrington is a computer technician and a writer who lives in Cheyenne. Email:  bradhgt1776@gmail.com.

NOTE: This column was originally published in the Wyoming Tribune Eagle on August 26, 2018. Here is this column’s original downloadable PDF file.

Back to top of column
Back to top of blog

By Bradley Harrington

“Liberty is always freedom from the government. It is the restriction of the government’s interference.” — Ludwig von Mises, “Liberty and Property,” 1958 —

The Greater Cheyenne Chamber of Commerce, it appears, is now in the business of telling us which political candidates are “pro-business.” In a recent news release, here’s what the Chamber had to say on that topic:

“Reverse endorsements provide the business community the best way to identify business friendly candidates for office … The reverse endorsement process includes a survey of candidates … If a candidate’s response does not align with the business communities [sic] view, the candidate simply does not receive the Chamber’s reverse endorsement.” (“The Business of Politics,” Cheyenne Chamber,  www.cheyennechamber.org/blog, Aug. 8.)

“The process,” the release continues, “identifies potential elected officials who clearly support a robust community, vital economic development principles and who believe in a strong business community … To qualify for a reverse endorsement respondents are required to answer the questions with a 90 percent alignment with the Greater Cheyenne Chamber of Commerce’s mission for endorsement.”

Intensely curious as to the questions being asked of the candidates, I contacted the Chamber, and Director of Partner Relations Tonya Dove was gracious enough to send me a copy — the lists of which, she told me, were tailored for the particular races being run for.

The list I received was the question template for the Cheyenne City Council (13 questions); Laramie County Commission (14); State Legislature (10); Governor (12); and U.S. Congress (9) races. And, after review, I can say this much for sure: You won’t be finding any hard-core conservatives or libertarian-leaning candidates in the Chamber’s endorsements.

After all, with only nine to 14 questions being asked, and a “success” rate of 90 percent required, all it takes is one or two “wrong” answers to flunk … And, to get a flavor of the thrust of the questions, just consider a few examples:

On the city/county side: “Will you support utilizing [city/county] resources for a Minimum Revenue Guarantee for air service advancement?” And: “Will you champion use of [city/county] resources to advance community amenities?”

And, on the state/governor side: “Do you support continued funding for Air Service Enhancement in Wyoming?” And: “Do you support state funded business development programs?”

Well, any conservative/libertarian worth his or her salt would answer ALL of those questions in the negative, as they would consider neither “air service,” “community amenities” nor “business development programs” as functions of government, so … Bzzzzt! Thanks for playing!

But then comes the kicker question, asked of the congressional candidates: “Do you commit that you will not let ideology or party affiliation stand in the way of doing what’s right for Wyoming?”

How, just out of curiosity, does one determine what’s “right for Wyoming” without reference to either ethics or ideas? After all, isn’t that what an “ideological” process consists of?

And, in the absence of making connections between abstract principles and concrete practices, by what standard will we be guiding our choices and actions?

No standard at all, apparently — since any REAL standard, by definition, would be “ideological” in its nature. And how well, I can’t help but wonder, would such an “anti-ideological” approach ever work in the real world, where such connections have to be made by all of us hundreds of times a day?

But observe that the Chamber’s “anti-ideologists” don’t really expect you to function in the absence of ideological principles, they just want you to function according to theirs: That is, according to their vision of what THEY consider to be “vital economic development principles.” And their questions make it perfectly clear what such “principles” consist of: The theft of your private wealth through government taxation and the subsidization of what they — NOT consumers or the market — consider to be the proper dispensation of those looted funds.

Challenge that model, Dear Readers, and you’re in trouble at the Chamber. Indeed, it’s difficult to come to any other conclusion but that their questions were designed to root out any consistent advocates of liberty, capitalism and private property rights. To root them out and then cast them into the political abyss.

The final joke, however, is actually on the Chamber — since it’s only the advocates of liberty and property who can truly be considered as “pro-business.” After all, they’re the only ones who are serious about keeping their hands out of your pockets and off of your free-market choices, are they not?

Perhaps the “anti-ideologists” at the Chamber should remember, after all, what it is that “commerce” represents: Peaceful and VOLUNTARY market exchange.

Bradley Harrington is a computer technician and a writer who lives in Cheyenne. Email:  bradhgt1776@gmail.com.

NOTE: This column was originally published in the Wyoming Tribune Eagle on August 19, 2018. Here is this column’s original downloadable PDF file.

Back to top of column
Back to top of blog

By Bradley Harrington

“This whole  thing has been an attack by the Cheyenne swamp; it seems as though Wyoming has its own Deep State out to perpetuate itself.” — Taylor Haynes, “Personal Interview,” Aug. 7, 2018 —

If there’s been an issue in Wyoming gubernatorial politics that’s roiled the waters more than the Taylor Haynes residency controversy, I sure can’t think of it.

But first, let me make full disclosure: I support Haynes’ run for governor and it is my sincere desire that he be our next governor.

That position, however, does not blind me to the facts — and, for those who’ve been on Mars for the last several months, let’s review the timeline:

■ On June 25, “An anonymous email — signed by ‘Anonymous Citizens of the State of Wyoming’ — was sent to the Laramie Boomerang … from a protonmail.com address, an encrypted email service. The email said Haynes ‘has misrepresented his residency in order to meet the qualifications for elected office.” (“Haynes: Residency accusation a pack of lies,” www.laramieboomerang.com, July 10.) Subsequent information makes it clear that this email was sent to all major Wyoming news outlets.

■ On July 5, Wyofile breaks the following news story:

“A complaint has been filed against gubernatorial candidate Dr. Taylor Haynes … Records suggest the complaint could involve the legitimacy of Haynes’ claim of Wyoming residency in his filing for his current campaign for governor.” (“Gubernatorial candidate Taylor Haynes’ residency questioned,” www.wyofile.com.) The core of the complaint is that Haynes’ ranch — the Thunderbasin Land, Livestock and Investment Company — straddles the border of Wyoming and Colorado, with the actual residence buildings on the Colorado side.

■ Two days later, in a video posted to his website, Haynes calls the accusations “a pack of lies” and states that “he has lived, worked and paid taxes in Wyoming for nearly 35 years with no residence in any other state.” On July 9 Ed Buchanan, the appointed Wyoming Secretary of State who quit gubernatorial candidate Harriet Hageman’s campaign to accept that job back in May, makes it known that both his and Wyoming Attorney General Peter Michael’s offices are reviewing the matter.

■ On July 21, the Wyoming SecState and AG’s offices declare that “Haynes is not eligible to run for governor,” that the “Republican candidate’s ranch home lies in Colorado,” and that they are seeking a court ruling “ordering Dr. Taylor Haynes to withdraw from the race or otherwise cease his campaign.” (“Wyoming officials: Haynes ‘not eligible’ to be governor,” WTE, July 22.) A hearing is set for Aug. 1 and a trial date for Aug. 7.

■ On Aug. 3, Laramie County District Court Judge Thomas Campbell throws out the entire ball of wax, declaring that “it is impractical and unfair to the Defendant to bypass the Wyoming Rules of Civil Procedure entirely and compress the litigation process into less than a three-week period” — as Plaintiff Buchanan had been demanding. Campbell also notes that “at this juncture, the affidavits and the parties’ assertions might be sufficient for the court to doubt the likelihood that the Plaintiff will prevail on the merits.” (Docket No. 190-183.)

So, Dear Readers, just exactly what is going on here? An “anonymous” source, completely devoid of the guts to stand up and make these accusations in public, argues that Haynes’ ranch buildings are on the Colorado side of the border — and that this fact should invalidate Haynes’ gubernatorial campaign.

And yet, as Haynes has stated repeatedly, his ranch, addressed at 795 Bull Mountain Rd., Laramie, WY, 82070, has ALWAYS been considered as a Wyoming address.

To verify this, I contacted Ruth Rowe, the individual who sold Haynes the ranch and who lived at that property for about 20 years prior to that sale. When asked that question directly, she said: “My address has always been 795 Bull Mountain Road in Laramie, Wyoming. It was printed on my vehicle registrations, my driver’s license, my tax forms, you name it.”

So the question then naturally arises: Since 795 Bull Mountain Road has ALWAYS been considered by both Colorado and Wyoming as a Laramie address, what would motivate everyone to start thinking differently about it now? The fact that it’s now owned by Taylor Haynes?

Powerful political forces and people, obviously, are out to ensure that Haynes does not become Wyoming’s next governor. And, when considering the fundamental planks of Haynes’ campaign — promoting our individual liberties coupled with a greatly-reduced federal involvement in our state — it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out why: Haynes poses a threat to the “powers-that-be” that they find intolerable.

Bradley Harrington is a computer technician and a writer who lives in Cheyenne. Email:  bradhgt1776@gmail.com.

NOTE: This column was originally published in the Wyoming Tribune Eagle on August 12, 2018. Here is this column’s original downloadable PDF file.

Back to top of column
Back to top of blog

By Bradley Harrington

“Specie is the most perfect medium because it will preserve its own level, because, having intrinsic and universal value, it can never die in our hands …” — Thomas Jefferson, “Letter to John Wayles Eppes,” 1813 —

For those who don’t follow Wyoming legislative or financial issues very closely, it was easy to miss the July 1 enactment of a recently-passed law, the “Wyoming Legal Tender Act” of 2018.

It won’t be so easy to miss that law’s implications, however; but, first, in order to set the table properly, a few short digressions into history are necessary:

■ Back in 1791 — with thanks mainly to the masterly, if completely misguided, maneuvering of Treasury Secretary Alexander Hamilton, who sought to place the finances of the new U.S. government onto a solidly national, government-controlled platform — Congress passed, and Washington signed, a bill authorizing the “First Bank of the United States.”

The reasons why Hamilton favored such an establishment are worth noting: To “establish financial order,” to “establish credit” and to “resolve the issue of the fiat currency.”

Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson, however, violently opposed its implementation, on the basis of its monopolization of federal financial power as well as its conflict with the soon-to-be-adopted Tenth Amendment to the Bill of Rights. These arguments did little to convince either Congress or the President at the time — but, by 1811, with the Bank’s charter up for a 20-year renewal, such thinking was in a much greater ascendancy and the Bank’s charter was nullified.

■ The second time the United States starting fooling around with national banks was in 1816, with the establishment of the “Second Bank of the United States,” and this time it took Andrew Jackson and his “Bank War” to get rid of it completely (by removing all its deposits in 1833).

Mercifully, the economy of the increasingly-industrialized United States was spared such a national disaster for decades to come — but, by 1913, a powerful bloc of federally-inclined political forces and interests was in the ascendancy instead, and we ended up with:

■ The “Federal Reserve Act” of 1913, which established a de-facto “third” bank of the United States, brought in the new “Federal Reserve Note” and removed all restrictions on “fractional” banking (set down to 10 percent, in this case).

■ And, finally, with the abandonment of the gold standard nationally with the “Gold Reserve Act” of 1934, the foundation was laid for an inflationary spiral to take place in the decades to come (a power President Roosevelt acted on immediately, devaluing the now-unchained “fiat” dollar from $20.67 to $35 for a troy ounce of gold, a loss of over 40 percent).

■ So, now, fast-forward to 2018, 84 years later, where gold is now $1,233 an ounce and goods routinely cost 10 or more times now what they did then (gas in 1934, 19 cents; in 2018, $2.49; a carton of Camel cigarettes in 1934, $1.20; in 2018, $52.46.)

■ We are now left with the wreckage of the “Third Bank of the United States” and its multi-decades long impact on our economy: A hijacked financial system now controlled by political and economically-“elite” interests; a worthless paper dollar, no longer backed by any kind of commodity, that threatens to descend into a hyperinflationary mode at any time; and credit bubbles, both personally and governmentally, whose deficits can only be counted in the tens — HUNDREDS — of trillions of dollars.

All of the problems, in other words, that these “national banks” were supposed to solve. In this case, I’d say the “cure” has been much worse than the disease.

Well, that mess isn’t going to get cleaned up overnight, if at all — complete financial insolvency on all of those levels is much more likely — but, as a small step in that direction, Wyoming’s new Legal Tender Act reverses two of those maladies:

■ “Specie,” i.e., “coin having gold or silver content,” as well as “refined gold or silver bullion,” is now considered as “legal tender,” which means: Gold and silver now qualify as “money” again, not just a commodity (9-4-1302).

■ And, being actual money, therefore, “the purchase, sale or exchange of any type or form of specie legal tender” shall no longer “give rise to any tax liability of any kind” (9-4-1304).

The way has now been paved, in other words, for REAL money to compete with the phony Federal Reserve Notes within state boundaries. And that, Dear Readers, is a significantly necessary first step toward ending the Fed’s money monopoly forever that we’ve been needing for a long, long time.

Bradley Harrington is a computer technician and a writer who lives in Cheyenne. Email:  bradhgt1776@gmail.com.

NOTE: This column was originally published in the Wyoming Tribune Eagle on August 5, 2018. Here is this column’s original downloadable PDF file.

Back to top of column
Back to top of blog

By Bradley Harrington

“When we raise our right arm and promise to protect and defend the Constitution, does that oath mean only as far as my supervisor or the Supreme Court allows me to? Or does the oath essentially bestow a responsibility on ME to know it, study it, cherish it and ultimately defend it even against a well-meaning but misdirected supervisor or judge?” — Former Graham County Sheriff Richard Mack, “The Proper Role of Law Enforcement,” 1999 —

Most people do not realize it, but in the Supreme Court’s 1997 case, Printz v. United States, brought against the federal government’s 1993 Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act by Sheriffs Mack and Jay Printz (Ravalli County, Montana), a very important court declaration was enunciated:

“The Constitution’s structure reveals a principle that controls these cases: The system of ‘dual sovereignty.’ See, e. g., Gregory v. Ashcroft, 501 U. S. 452, 457. Although the States surrendered many of their powers to the new Federal Government, they retained a residuary and inviolable sovereignty that is reflected throughout the Constitution’s text. See, e. g., Lane County v. Oregon, 7 Wall. 71, 76. The Framers rejected the concept of a central government that would act upon and through the States, and instead designed a system in which the State and Federal Governments would exercise concurrent authority over the people. The Federal Government’s power would be augmented immeasurably and impermissibly if it were able to impress into its service — and at no cost to itself — the police officers of the 50 States. Pp. 918-922.”

The Supreme Court’s ruling, in essence, held that “the Brady Act’s interim provision commanding CLEOs to conduct background checks, § 922(s)(2), is unconstitutional.”

Translation: The “CLEOs” for the “local jurisdictions” — i.e., the County Sheriffs — retained their roles as both the supreme CLEOs for their counties as well as the primary protector of their elector/citizens’ constitutional rights, and could not be impressed into federal service.

You’d never get a glimmer of that fact, however, looking at the Laramie County Sheriff’s Dept. — as current Sheriff Danny Glick routinely allows, abets and advocates gross infringements on citizens’ Constitutional (4th and 5th Amendment) rights through the practice of “civil asset forfeiture”:

“Laramie County Sheriff Danny Glick supports Governor Matt Mead’s decision to veto a legislative bill that would have tightened the requirements for the seizure of property under asset forfeiture laws.” (“Sheriff defends asset forfeiture law,” KGAB 650 AM website, www.kgab.com, Mar. 17, 2015.)

“Glick says there is no reason to change the current law in Wyoming because it isn’t being abused,” the interview states. “We’re not breaking the law,” Glick said.

Remember, Dear Readers, just what it is that “civil asset forfeiture” means: It is the seizure of property, without “due process of law,” simply because police THINK it might be involved in illegal drug trading. No proof required, just a SUSPICION.

Since the Constitution is still supposedly the law of this land, however — and since you, Sheriff Glick, swore an oath to protect and defend it — I guess you’re “breaking the law” after all. Worse still, YOU are the man who’s supposed to be protecting that law.

But, for county voters who rebel against such repugnant unconstitutional practices as Sheriff Glick runs for re-election this year, there’s an alternative candidate available to vote for: Greg Taylor.

Taylor, an investigator and law enforcement officer himself, adheres to a much different view of the nature and responsibilities of the Sheriff’s office:

“As the only directly elected law enforcement officer in America, the Sheriff must exercise great care while upholding the Constitution of the United States and the State of Wyoming while applying all laws fairly and equitably.” (From Taylor’s “Greg Taylor for Laramie County Sheriff” Facebook page, 2018.)

Nor does Taylor mince any words when it comes to his motivations:

“There are many reasons I am running for Sheriff. First among them is to uphold the Constitutions of the United States and the State of Wyoming and apply all laws fairly and equally. Second is to create a better work environment for the dedicated and loyal employees of the Sheriff’s office who have endured long enough. Third is to be a working Sheriff, present and available, to the citizens of Laramie County and not off at conferences or running for national association offices that return no direct benefit to Laramie County.”

And that is certainly something Laramie County citizens have needed and deserved for years, but failed to receive from the current occupant of that honorable office. So, it looks like it’s high time we got ourselves “a new sheriff in town.”

Bradley Harrington is a computer technician and a writer who lives in Cheyenne. Email:  bradhgt1776@gmail.com.

NOTE: This column was originally published in the Wyoming Tribune Eagle on July 29, 2018. Here is this column’s original downloadable PDF file.

Back to top of column
Back to top of blog

By Bradley Harrington

This Cheyenne City Council meeting rant is a few years old now — the meeting in which I made these comments was actually held on Sept. 10, 2012. Several of my friends, however, who are aware of it, have asked me to post this particular sequence — where I discuss the City of Cheyenne’s dependency upon county, state and federal dollars, and compare some of those figures to a “scaled-down” federal budget as interpreted from a “personal budget” point of view — onto my blog.

So, here it is … And NO, I am certainly not the most photogenic guy on the planet. I’ve always believed, though, that TRUTH matters more than appearances, so … Let ‘er roll!!

Back to top of column
Back to top of blog

By Bradley Harrington

“The only good bureaucrat is one with a pistol at his head. Put it in his hand and it’s goodbye to the Bill of Rights.” — H.L. Mencken, “On Politics: A Carnival of Buncombe,” 1936 —

If ever there was a group of collectivist meddlers that warranted a serious spanking from the constituents they allegedly represent — and then got exactly what they had coming to them — it would be difficult to find a more deserving band of busybodies than Casper’s City Council.

The whole issue began with a proposed ordinance, the “2018 International Property Maintenance Code” (IPMC), submitted by the council for its first reading during its June 19 meeting.

And the problem? The codes call for a bevy of regulations governing everything you could ever hope to regulate regarding building structures. For a bit of flavor for the IPMC’s approach, consider a portion of Chapter 3, Section 304.2 (“Protective treatment”):

“Exterior surfaces, including but not limited to, doors, door and window frames, cornices, porches, trim, balconies, decks and fences, shall be maintained in good condition. Exterior wood surfaces, other than decay-resistant woods, shall be protected from the elements and decay by painting or other protective covering or treatment. Peeling, painting and chipped paint shall be eliminated and surfaces repainted.”

Non-compliance, by the way, results in repair costs imposed on property owners, as well as fines and misdemeanor charges.

But that’s just the beginning — for, under Chapter 1, Section 104.3 (“Right of entry”), “ … the code official is authorized to enter the structure or premises at reasonable times to inspect or perform the duties imposed by this code …” … And that “if entry is refused, the code official shall have recourse to the remedies provided by law to secure entry.”

Translation: The police will show up and FORCE you to let the “code official” enter your dwelling. For “inspection.” WITHOUT a warrant. Whether you believe in your constitutional right to  “be secure” in your “houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures” (4th Amendment) or not.

Well, Casper’s council snoops passed that first reading by a 5-4 vote — with the second reading scheduled for July 3.

Except that in between, a lot of Casper residents decided to show up to voice their opinions, and several dozen of them attended in order to tell the council what they thought of its creeping collectivism.

Opinions including, but not limited to:

Lisa Engebretsen: “I wasn’t aware that the city of Casper was in the HOA business — and this is what this is, it’s just a glorified HOA. I intentionally chose a home that is not in an HOA because I don’t want to be told what to do.”

Brian Windham: “I do not like the way governments pass laws that affect our homes and our children. I fought in the battles for this country; I served in our military. And I am humiliated and ashamed for it — because we lose more rights to people sitting in government seats than we’ve ever lost to a foreign enemy.”

Michelle Sabrosky: “Councilman Huber said that ‘we just want to keep our people safe’ … It’s not your job to keep me safe from myself, I’m sorry  … When it comes to safety and security, Benjamin Franklin said that ‘those that give up essential liberty for temporary security deserve neither’ … My concern, when I read through these things, was not window screens and checking for mold … My concern is, once these people are in my house, what are they going to be looking for? … There was a man who ruled Germany, and he had people that went into other people’s houses looking for things. And I will be damned if I’m going to let somebody come into MY house and look for my guns and my ammunition, and start keeping tabs, so later down the road, somebody can come in and take it from me! And that is something that nobody ever considered when they decided to play Nancy Pelosi and vote on something they never read!”

(All statements from the council’s YouTube video.)

Well, after a barrage like that, it didn’t take long for the council to make up its mind: The 2018 IPMC was ingloriously blown out of the sky, 8-0. And good riddance.

“We’re not communists or Nazis,” Councilman Dallas Laird had said at the beginning of the meeting. Maybe so Mr. Laird; but a few of your fellow councilors certainly gave those ideas a try — and, had it not been for the courageous people who called you all out on it, they would have gotten away with it.

Bradley Harrington is a computer technician and a writer who lives in Cheyenne. Email:  bradhgt1776@gmail.com.

NOTE: This column was originally published in the Wyoming Tribune Eagle on July 22, 2018. Here is this column’s original downloadable PDF file.

Back to top of column
Back to top of blog

By Bradley Harrington

“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.” — James Madison, “The Tenth Amendment of the Bill of Rights,” 1791 —

I evaluate political candidates according to one simple standard: Their commitment to the principles of individual liberty. And, when it comes to the Wyoming Governor’s race, there’s only one candidate worth talking about in that regard: Taylor Haynes.

I’ve already discussed just a few of the problems with the other five candidates vying for the Republican gubernatorial nomination — positional inconsistencies, slopping at the public trough and inabilities to understand just what true constitutional government consists of, to name a few (“Most gubernatorial aspirers don’t clear the liberty hurdle,” WTE, July 8).

Haynes, however, suffers from none of those flaws — and, when he says he intends to “promote Wyoming’s sovereignty and the absolute need to establish a constitutional relationship with the federal government” (www.taylorhaynesforgovernor.com), he’s not kidding.

Moreover, as I’ve discussed before (“Fedzilla’s land grabs, Parts I and Parts II,” WTE, July 29 and Aug. 5, 2016), from the time of the 2nd Continental Congress’s Northwest Ordinance (ratified in 1787, and reaffirmed by the U.S. Congress in 1789), that means all new states were to be admitted to the Union on an “equal footing with the original States in all respects whatever.”

Which means: “Since the original states maintained control of their lands even after the founding (with the exceptions enumerated in the Enclave Clause), it therefore follows that any new states, once admitted to the Union, should have its previously federally managed territories turned over to it as well.” (“Part II.”)

Yet, this never happened, either here or in any other Western state — and, to this day, the federal government “manages” 48.4 percent of Wyoming.

This has been Wyoming’s biggest problem since the beginning — and, as Haynes puts it, this is an issue of “federal interference in our individual liberty, in our schools and in managing our natural resources … They control those resources and our mineral wealth.” (“Taylor Haynes interview,” July 9.)

And the implications? ““Let’s say I come into your business and take over half of it,” Haynes said. “I take half of your income and half of your wealth. And then I also restrict what you can do in your own yard. So, if I do that, how free are you?”

How free, indeed? Not very free at all … And yet, of all the candidates running, Haynes is the only one who recognizes these facts and seeks to correct them.

“I’m not against the federal government, per se,” Haynes stressed. “But they need to respect the bright line of jurisdiction that’s strong in the Constitution — and they need to act only on their enumerated powers.”

Regarding the rest of his Republican competitors, however, Haynes continued, “when it comes to the test of enforcing the Constitution, the other candidates back down. They back down on the 2nd Amendment at the University of Wyoming, and they all express that they will not take over management of the federal lands.”

“Hageman claims to differ in that respect,” I said.

“Well, she doesn’t,” Haynes replied. “She wants to ask for permission to manage a million acres. So, I’m running your company and I’ve taken over 48.4 percent of it. And then you come to me, hat in hand, to ask for permission to manage 1 percent of your own company? Really?”

And that, said Haynes, is what brought him to decide to run again for the seat he ran for back in both 2010 and 2014: “I feel like I’m trapped and I had to run one more time, because of that — because there’s nobody else in this race who’s truly constitutional whatsoever.”

And, it bears mentioning, Haynes had a quite respectable showing back in 2014: He earned 31,532 votes to Matt Mead’s 53,673 — and that was against an incumbent Governor, and a fairly popular one at that, even with contender Cindy Hill splitting the “hard” conservative vote (she cleared 12,464).

Well, it’s a safe bet that the people who voted for Haynes back then will vote for him again — and, with little more than statist political hacks standing in his way this time, Haynes is well-poised to clear the votes he needs to put Wyoming on the path to the sovereignty and prosperity she deserves.

And, Dear Readers, as I survey the mess the “establishment” has made of Wyoming over the years, it’s also something she NEEDS — and now more than ever.

Bradley Harrington is a computer technician and a writer who lives in Cheyenne. Email:  bradhgt1776@gmail.com.

NOTE: This column was originally published in the Wyoming Tribune Eagle on July 15, 2018. Here is this column’s original downloadable PDF file.

Back to top of column
Back to top of blog

By Bradley Harrington

“If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen we must live through all time or die by suicide.” — Abraham Lincoln, “Lyceum Address,” 1838 —

As we all know, 2018 is an election year — and there’s not a single local race running, from a liberty standpoint, that’s more important than who’s going to run the State of Wyoming for the next four years.

So let’s take a look, from that liberty standpoint, at who we’ve got to pick from:

On the Democrat side, we have Kenneth Casner, Michael Green, Mary Throne and Rex Wilde; and, on the Republican side, we have Bill Dahlin, Foster Friess, Sam Galeotos, Mark Gordon, Harriet Hageman and Taylor Haynes.

Well, as I’ve discussed before, I NEVER recommend voting for a Democrat, under any circumstances, as their pro-government, anti-property-rights agendas are simply too highly destructive to our freedoms. So: Sorry, Mr. Castner, Mr. Green, Ms. Throne and Mr. Wilde, but you’re all off the Liberty List.

Now, then, let’s take a look at the Republicans, and find out whether or not any of them live up to THEIR names. Understand that these points are not to detract from any positive aspects to these individuals, and they all have more than a few.

From the standpoint of advocating a maximum of individual liberty and the absolutism of private property rights, however, I consider all the following points as complete killers:

Bill Dahlin: According to his website at www.dahlinforgovernor.com, Dahlin supports Medicare and Social Security, has no interest in freeing up federally-“owned” lands in Wyoming and also believes that government should “protect our energy and mineral sectors at times” — i.e., non-market protectionism and statist interventionism.

Foster Friess: Recently, Friess was interviewed by Glenn Woods on KGAB 650 AM, and I about dropped my teeth when I heard him say that the federal government should just “write a check to the Governor of Wyoming” for its Medicaid expansion — and that, worse still, this is a “10th Amendment” issue. (!!) (“Foster Friess, Candidate for Wyoming Governor,” KGAB 650AM radio, www.kgab.com).

Sorry, Mr. Friess, but that’s not what the 10th Amendment says at all … And, in case you haven’t noticed, the Feds are now $133 trillion in the hole. Next?

Sam Galeotos: Here we have an allegedly “conservative” businessman who’s flooding the media with his “business” credentials, but who spent nearly a year (July, 2017 – March, 2018) as  President of the Board of Directors of Cheyenne’s Downtown Development Authority, wasting both time and taxpayer money doing all the anti-business things the DDA is famous for — hardly anything I’d be bragging about, but that’s just me.

Nor does his work experience speak well of his “conservatism” either, as he’s currently the Executive Chairman of the Board of Directors of Greenhouse Data here in Cheyenne … And Greenhouse Data, through the Laramie County Commission, has been slurping at the public trough to the tune of: $413,131 (2011); $534,294 (2012); $552,565 (2013); $661,289 (2014); $838,711 (2015); and  $750,000 (2016). Galeotos has been on Greenhouse Data’s board since 2014 and was promoted to Chairman in 2016.

Mark Gordon: Favored considerably in this race, Gordon qualifies as the “Establishment” candidate, and is doing his best to convince Wyoming voters of his “conservative” credentials as well.

According to the FEC’s website, however, Gordon has donated to Democrat causes and elections: $1,000 to Democrat Kathy Karpan, $1,000 to the Sierra Club and $200 to the Democratic National Committee (DNC) (all 1996); $2,500 to the DNC, $1,000 to Democrat Ted Ladd and $2,000 to Democrat John Kerry (all 2004); and $1,000 to Democrat Gary Trauner (2006). Total: $8,700.

Not to mention that, according to the Environmental Working Group’s website at www.ewg.com, Gordon’s Merlin Ranch (in both its “Merlin Ranch” and “Merlin Ranch Ucross Land Division” iterations) has received a total of $464,349 in USDA farm subsidies ($259,360 for “Merlin Ranch,” 1995-2015, inclusive, and $204,989 for “Ucross Land Division,” 2000-2007, inclusive). More slopping at the public trough.

Harriet Hageman: Hageman probably comes closer than nearly all of the candidates to actually being an advocate of properly-limited government in several respects. Her solution to funding Wyoming’s infrastructure needs, however, by means of “federal block grants” (“Gubernatorial  candidates talk economic diversification,” WTE, June 12), wipes all of that out, and then some. Again, Ms. Hageman: The Feds are BROKE, and have been for decades.

So … Sorry, gang, but not a one of you managed to make it to the Liberty List.

Which leaves Taylor Haynes. And that man, Dear Readers, deserves a column all by himself. Which you can expect next week!

Bradley Harrington is a computer technician and a writer who lives in Cheyenne. Email:  bradhgt1776@gmail.com.

NOTE: This column was originally published in the Wyoming Tribune Eagle on July 8, 2018. Here is this column’s original downloadable PDF file.

Back to top of column
Back to top of blog