One of the fundamental issues that I have with today’s Republican Party is that we allow ourselves to be defined by liberals and the liberal press rather than defining ourselves. As a former county party chairman, I had to live with county and state by-laws that forbade party officials from endorsing candidates in the primaries. It never happened in my county, but the fact that I might have one day been forced to officially support a liberal candidate always festered in the back of my mind.

The problem is that the National Republican Party, together with state and local parties, spend more time, money and effort trying to include everyone in the “big tent” than they do standing by the core conservative values that should be guiding them. I can understand how easy it is to fall into the trap of believing the goal is to elect people with R’s at the end of their names. Obviously, without enough R’s the party loses majority control of government, but this ignores the reality that control by Republicans isn’t the real goal. The real goal is holding our nation true to the conservative principles by which it was created.

Talk Radio personality Andrew Wilkow likes to say, “Individual Patriot first. Conservative second. Republican third.” What he means is that it is our first duty to be individuals who support our country, that we can do that best by living and promoting our conservative principles, and that the Republican Party is the currently the best tool that we have to do it with. If the Republican Party ceases to be the best tool for that job, then we are left with a couple choices. We can throw out the tool and get a new one, or we can refurbish our current tool and make it work how it’s supposed to.

Throwing out the tool would mean abandoning the Republican Party altogether and forming or joining a third party. This is a difficult course to follow, but it isn’t unheard of. There have been several ruling political parties throughout our history including Democrat-Republicans (one party, not the same as todays), Federalists, Whigs, Democrats, Republicans and dozens of smaller parties that exist in smaller numbers around the nation. It might be rare in our national history for a new party to come out of obscurity and take power at the federal level, and it is a difficult proposition, but it’s not impossible.

Refurbishing the current tool is the more likely scenario and would mean bringing the Republican Party back into line with its historical conservative principles. In order to forward those principles, we need to elect conservative Republicans. Not liberal Republicans. Not moderate Republicans. Conservative Republicans. Conservatives must retake control of the Party at all levels — from local precincts, to the statewide parties, to the National Republican Party. To succeed, we will have to make a stand against mediocrity, and so called moderates, and refuse to vote for or fund candidates that don’t truly represent us, regardless of whether or not they registered as Republicans. The first battle we face is to get conservative candidates nominated in the primaries, and only then can we carry those candidates through to victory in the general elections. We have to make our voices be heard loud and clear, and not allow the biased liberal press agencies decide which candidates are going to win our support.

I think that conservatives will benefit most by using third parties to force change in the Republican Party. By selectively abandoning the Republican Party, conservatives can bring about enough pressure on party leaders to force them to rethink which candidates they will endorse and support in the future. By supporting independent and third party candidates that more accurately represent our conservative values and principles, as the people of New York’s 23rd Congressional district have done, we can send the GOP a message about what kind of candidates we will accept. Give us a real conservative candidate to support, and we will. Send us a wishy-washy liberal like Dede Scozzafava? We’re gone. If we do it consistently, each and every time, the Republican Party will figure out that they should only send us candidates that share our values. Anything else will be a waste of our time, their money, and an erosion of their power base.

By regaining control of our party, and only supporting candidates that we want to support, we can define the Republican Party ourselves instead of letting the liberals and the liberal press define it for us. If the Republican Party continues to allow the likes of Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe to carry our endorsement, then there is no reason for us to continue to be Republicans. We can throw our support behind a third party like New York’s State Conservative Party, or start a new one. If the Republican Party can retool, however, and show us that they can send us honest-to-goodness, conservative candidates, then we can continue to be part of the Grand Old Party. If we lose a few races in order to cement that position, then so be it. I would rather have a Democrat in office that we can challenge straight up in the next election than a sponge like Arlen Specter who sucks the party coffers dry, while voting with the Democrats anyway, and keeping the party from endorsing a real conservative candidate.

Conservatives are going to regain control of this country’s future and hold our country true to its conservative roots, regardless of the tools we use. The Republican Party just needs to decide whether it’s going to be the best tool for that job, or just a tool.

The purpose of the ESA is to protect species that are identified as threatened or endangered and the ecosystems that they depend on. There are some examples of success among the plants and animals listed as threatened or endangered in the United States. The most notable is the American Bald Eagle, whose population of just 417 pairs in 1963 increased to an extraordinary 11,040 pairs when is was delisted in 2007. Another is the Ursus arctos horribilis, also known as the good old Grizzly Bear, whose population in the Yellowstone area more than doubled from a measely 271 bears in 1975 to more than 580 in 2005. He was also delisted in 2007. In fact, there have been 19 success stories in the nearly three decades of protection given by the ESA to 1,891 species of plants and animals around the world. Yes, you read that correctly. There have been only 19 species removed from the endangered species list because their populations have recovered. That is a success rate of about 1%. For all of the taxpayer money that has been spent on 589 distinct recovery plans, and for all of the private property owners and businesses that have been bankrupted in the name of habitat protection and restoration, there have been only 19 success stories to come out of the Endangered Species Act. It is one of the most wildly unsuccessful government programs in history.

Species can be added to the list as threatened or endangered in one of two ways under the ESA. First, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) or the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), can directly list species through their candidate assessment programs. The second is by petition. Any individual or organization can petition the USFWS or the NOAA to list a species. Both processes are long, drawn out, and nearly impossible to accomplish. Did I say that there were only two ways? I forgot one didn’t I? The ESA only lists two, but our liberal federal courts have created another, and as a result, the new and preferred way to get a species listed is to file a lawsuit. The federal courts are clogged with lawsuits against the federal government, demanding that they list one species or another.

The listing process, however, is not nearly as long and drawn out as the process of delisting, and so far, only 45 species have ever been delisted. Presently, there are only six reasons that a species can be delisted. The first is extinction. Obviously, once an animal is extinct they don’t need federal protection anymore. Thankfully, only two species are known to have gone extinct while they were listed (7 went extinct before they were listed). The second way is when new populations are discovered that increase known population levels to a number that warrants delisting. That has happened five times. The third is taxonomic reclassification, which has happened ten times (I’m not even going to try to explain what that means, because I have no idea). The fourth is because of a listing rule violation, which has happened once and the fifth is by an act of Congress, which has happened once. The last is as a result of recovery, which has happened only 19 times in the history of the ESA (as we discussed earlier).

I have to admit though, that the number 19 is probably not really indicative of the number of species that have actually recovered. Realistically many more species probably should be delisted, but lawsuits have also become the new preferred way of making sure that no species ever gets taken off the list. It doesn’t matter if the species meets the population goals set by the biologists charged with their recovery, and it doesn’t matter if their habitat size expands to reach the goals set by their recovery plans. Either way, the conservation and the environmental groups that feed off the broken legislation file lawsuit upon lawsuit, blocking the delisting of even species that have recovered beyond even the most liberal benchmarks. The constant meddling by the courts in these matters have made the ESA almost completely unmanageable, and utterly useless as a tool protect endangered wildlife.

Ultimately though, the biggest problem with the Endangered Species Act is that it has no Constitutional foundation. The United States Constitution gives the federal government very specific powers, and nowhere among their number is the power to manage wildlife. The power to raise armies and declare war? Check. The power to mint coins and print money? Check. The power to protect interstate commerce? Check. The power to bankrupt a farmer and take the private land that his family has cultivated for six generations in order to create a viable habitat for the Southeastern Dismal Swamp Shrew and force its host state to spend millions of dollars on politically motivated, non-scientifically contrived, court ordered and unattainable recovery plans? Hold the check! Since the Tenth Amendment guarantees to the States any powers not specifically granted to the federal government, the individual States are Constitutionally empowered to manage their own wildlife without interference from Washington!

The reintroduction of wolves into the greater Yellowstone area by the USFWS, and the subsequent lawsuits that have prevented their delisting in Wyoming but allowing their delisting in Idaho and Montana, on completely political instead of scientific reasons, has presented fertile ground for a challenge by the States of this unsuccessful and unmanageable legislation. This is an opportunity for the individual States to reclaim control of their own jurisdictions, and put the out of control U.S. Congressional and Executive Branches back in their places. The Governors and Legislatures of each State should direct their Attorney Generals to immediately file suit against the federal government and to challenge the constitutionality of the Endangered Species Act on the grounds that it violates the Tenth Amendment and infringes on the sovereignty of the individual States. This is a battle that should be taken all the way to the Supreme Court, if necessary.

It’s time to take off the leash that the federal government has put on our States, and retake control of our lands, our wildlife, and our rights. The Endangered Species Act, as it currently exists, needs to be made extinct. Individual States, who are much more qualified to manage their own wildlife populations, must retake the command they once held over their own jurisdictions, kick the Washington bureaucrats out of our forests, our swamps,  our deserts, our rivers and our lakes, and send them scurrying back to D.C. where they belong.

First, as we all know, the members of the House of Representatives are considered to be the closest representatives to the people. This is evidenced by both the fact that they are subject to election every two years, and the fact that they typically represent more specific groups of people (districts). They are meant to be close and well known to those they represent.  As much as Nancy Pelosi makes me cringe, she is sadly quite illustrative of the people she represents in her home district (San Francisco, CA). I am more concerned that Democrats representing all the other districts in the nation would see fit to elect her their leader and put her in line for Presidential ascension. Term limits won’t protect us from that kind of stupidity, especially since her power has more to do with her success at getting supporters elected to key seats around the nation — thereby taking majority control of the House, and majority control of the House Democratic Caucus at the same time — than any power that comes from longtime entrenchment. As a result of this direct representation, I stand by my position against term limits on members of the House.

The Senate started a little differently. They began as appointed representatives of the states, chosen by each state’s legislature, and not by popular vote. It wasn’t until the 17th amendment was ratified in 1917 that Senators were elected by popular vote of the people, and became a body directly representative of the people. I won’t into detail about the corruption that spurred the change (just think of Governor Blagojevich and his attempt to sell Illinois’ open Senate seat multiplied by 96), but the 17th amendment clarifies their role as direct representatives of the people of their respective states. Their six year terms are meant to give them a little more insulation from mob rule, and create a little bit of stability in the government, even when the tides of populist opinion shift quickly. Since Senators are also direct representatives of the people, I stand by my position against term limits on their elections, also.

The President, however, is a different animal. The Constitution specifically creates a process of election for the President that removes him from a position of being a direct representative of the people. The Constitution clearly defines his role as that of The President of the United States. As much as we often like to think of him as such, he is not The President of the People of the United States. It might seem inconsequential, but it is an important distinction. Like Senators had been until 1917, the President is not elected by the people, but by representatives of the individual states, as determined by their respective legislatures. Until Franklin Delano Roosevelt, U.S. Presidents had always abided by George Washington’s unwritten rule that no President should serve more than two terms. FDR’s successful bid for four terms was enough to spur the adoption of the 22nd amendment, which limited future Presidents to just two terms. There were many underlying reasons for the amendment, but primary among them was to protect the nation from the future possibility that one man could hold the Presidency for so long that his individual power would grow to supersede that of the balanced government as a whole. Examples of the dangers of such power building at the executive level are abundant throughout the world. Since the President, as dictated by the Constitution, is not a direct representative of the people, and since the danger of allowing one man to stay in a such a unique position of power for too long is all to real, I support the term limits placed on the office by the 22nd amendment.

The framers of the Constitution weren’t perfect and they obviously didn’t think of everything. This is evidenced by the fact that we have 17 amendments beyond the Bill of Rights. But they outlined rules in the Constitution that allowed the members of each house to set rules for their members and punish the members who break those rules. There are systems in place to prevent corruption among our directly elected representatives. They are subject to both the rules of membership of their respective houses, and the laws of the land that are enforced by the executive branch and under the jurisdiction of the courts. It is not a perfect system but, when used correctly, it is an effective system.  The voters and citizens of the United States are best served by making sure that our elected representatives follow the rules already set forth, and most of all by making sure that the most qualified representatives are sent to Washington every two and six years. Term limits for those representatives would merely hobble the voters ability to make those decisions.

The other thing term limits won’t do is protect the rest of the nation from representatives from districts like San Francisco, and states like Nevada. Pelosi and Reid are quite illustrative of the people they represent. If they were forced out by term limits, the voters from those districts would send someone with another face, with another name, but with the same radical ideologies to serve in their place.

We don’t have a right to be protected from the will of an individual district or state, except as already outlined by the Constitution, and we don’t have the right to tell the people of other districts and states who they can and can’t have as their elected representatives. It is much more important, if you ask me, that we find a way to protect the rights of individual states from the will of the federal government. That is where the real battle is.

It would be easy to blame just the teachers, or just the school board, but that wouldn’t give justice to the extent of the injuries that our school system suffers from. No, these injuries radiate to every limb of the school system body, and no small little bit of blame is going to pay the medical bill. With that said, let’s get into details. And before you “educators” start screaming “hearsay”, let me throw in this disclaimer — all incidents hereby and herein referred to in the following series of writings were experienced in whole or in part by me personally, or were related to me directly by those involved. No rumors, story making, or make believe, just the cold hard fractures, er — facts.

This insight into the inner non-workings of the education system is going to be brought to you, in the interest of media friendliness, in installments. If you’re a member of one of the groups that I’m targeting in one of the following installments, please don’t feel like I’m singling you out. I’m not. In fact, I intend to target every fracture, er — faction of the education system. Also, if your group isn’t mentioned, don’t feel left out. You’re not. I probably just haven’t gotten to you yet.

In the first forthcoming installment, I will be exposing the problems in the transportation department. Yes, that means school buses and their drivers. After that, I will be addressing the food service program, the teachers, principals, administrators, and school boards, the State Legislature, the Governor, and the Wyoming State Supreme Court and yes, the parents. No one is safe, so you might as well duck for cover now.

Just as a reminder, I don’t think every person that works for the district is a bad seed. Actually, in my years both as a student and a parent in this school system, I have come across many wonderfully talented, highly qualified individuals who made those years almost tolerable. You know who you are, because I’ve told you how much you are or were appreciated. You’ll also know who you are, because when you’re done reading, you’ll be just as ticked off at the system as I am. This miniseries isn’t directed at you. This one is directed at those of you in the system who either can’t, or don’t care enough to, do the job you were hired to do, and do it right. You’ll know who you are, because when you’re done reading, you’re going to be ticked off at me.

Stay tuned for the next chapter.

Wisdom

Consider this scenario. Officer Bill Blue is fishing today. Working an undercover sting operation, Officer Blue picks Joe Somebody out of the crowd on the street, pulls him to the side and says, “Hey man, I really need 10 bucks. Will you buy this joint off me?” This is the thirteenth person he’s tried this on today after 12 failures, but Officer Blue knows if he casts his lure enough times, someone will bite. This time Joe Somebody does. “Sure man, I’ll buy it,” Joe says as he starts digging in his pocket for $10 bill. A jerk on the pole and this fish is caught. Officer Blue reels him in and he’s charged with the illegal possession of a controlled substance, and the court date is set. Except this time, there’s a problem. The officer initiated the sale, not the “perpetrator”.

Any lawyer worth his salt would throw the word entrapment into the mix and Joe Somebody goes home a free man. Why? Because the prosecution cannot prove that he would have broken the law on his own accord without the officer encouraging him to do so. That is how our system should work. Our law enforcement officials are supposed to investigate people who are already breaking the law, using undercover officers, informants, and forensics to gather enough evidence on them for a conviction. They are not supposed to randomly select members of society and offer them a chance to break the law. That is why you never hear of the police running a sting of this kind to make a drug bust. It is simply the wrong way to get it done. The basis of our freedom relies on our legal system being a reactionary one that punishes criminals who are already criminals, not a proactive one that sifts through the population in lottery fashion tempting Joe Somebody’s with a chance to break the law.

The truth is, everyone breaks the law in some form or fashion at some point in their lives. Whether they crack the speed limit by a few miles, forget their seatbelt on a trip to the supermarket, or don’t get a building permit before they remodel their basement, there are very few Americans who haven’t pushed the envelope of the law in one way or another. Does that make it right? Of course not! But we can’t have our government putting radar detectors every 100 feet on the highway to catch speeders, sensors in every car to alert the police when you pull out of the driveway with your seatbelt not fastened and weekly inspections of every basement in town so you don’t put up a new wall without the proper permits either. If they did, I’m sure that fewer people would break the law, but it would also make this country a police state, rather than a free nation. That’s okay for “enlightened” European nations like Britain, Norway, and, Switzerland, but it is unacceptable for us. It simply would not be American. Once our law enforcement officials are given free reign to investigate people who want to obey the law, and encourage them to break it instead, the floodgates will be open, and every American will be open to become the target of entrapment.

Right now, as you read this, police officers are sending minors into grocery stores, convenience stores, gas stations and liquor stores, at the instruction of the Wyoming Legislature, to attempt to purchase tobacco and alcohol. The official purpose of these stings is to conduct “compliance checks”. They are done in the name of protecting our children from the harm of tobacco and alcohol use, but their real purpose is to write tickets out to otherwise law abiding citizens who make mistakes. The fact is, there isn’t a retailer or clerk anywhere in Wyoming who wants to sell these products to minors, and none of them would ever approach a minor and offer to sell them alcohol or tobacco, but Wyoming’s statutes have made these people suspects in the eyes of the law. Not only are the clerks in small businesses all over Wyoming now expected to parent and police the minors who are trying to buy alcohol and tobacco, they are now being treated as criminals, just like drug dealers, without the benefit of the doubt. They are being made the targets of criminal investigations on a daily basis without ever having been accused or suspected of any crime or wrongdoing.

These policies, handed down by the Legislature and carried out by law enforcement, strain the relationships between peace officers and the people they are hired to protect. Criminals should be wary of a police officer who crosses their path and they should hush to whispers and give wide berth when a deputy approaches. The average citizen should not. The average citizen should feel free to welcome law enforcement officials into their communities, their businesses, and even their homes without the underlying fear that the officer is there to catch them off guard and make a lawbreaker out of them. They shouldn’t have to wonder every time they smile and say “Howdy” to their neighborhood peace officer when that same officer is going to make them the target of his next investigation.

This new way of upholding the law just doesn’t work in America, and especially here in Wyoming. The government should always assume that the average citizen is attempting to obey the law, and our law enforcement policies should reflect that. If they want to stop minors from obtaining alcohol and tobacco, they should arrest minors who actually try to buy alcohol and tobacco, and when they find minors who already have those products in their possession, they should follow it to is source and take appropriate legal action.

So, to answer my original question, “When is it okay for a representative of a law enforcement agency to ask an otherwise law abiding citizen to break the law, knowingly or unknowingly, and then charge them with a crime?” Never! They should leave the clerks and other average law abiding citizens alone, giving them the benefit of the doubt until there is reasonable suspicion to do otherwise. Let’s keep the fishing trips focused on the real criminals and leave Joe Somebody out of it.

Wisdom