It’s been over two months now since I warned the people of Sweetwater County of the impending resignation of then Sweetwater County Commissioner Paula Wonnacott and the plan by ousted Commissioners Debby Delai-Boese and Randy Walker to immediately vote to replace her without any public involvement¹. I had hoped without much hope that my warning would spur some latent sense of responsibility on the part of Paula Wonnacott to buck up and serve out the term that she had committed to when she asked the voters of Sweetwater County to elect her two years before. It didn’t work.

Instead, as shown in a short movie that I published², Wonnacott did resign, as expected, in the last minutes of the last meeting of the outgoing commission. From the moment that the reading of her resignation letter was completed, until her replacement was nominated, voted on, and seated, without public notice, and without public comment, only six minutes and fifteen seconds had passed. During those short minutes, Commissioners Delai-Boese and Walker disregarded the very basis of our democratic republic and encumbered us with a government not of our choosing.

That they chose someone without public comment was bad enough. As I explained in the first article on the subject, the law allows it as the result of a loophole in the statutory language. What’s worse was that they allegedly made the decision before the meeting, with a nominee chosen and agreed upon before the advertised public meeting even began. That would be a violation of Wyoming law.

W.S. §16-4-403 states:

“All meetings of the governing body of an agency are public meetings, open to the public at all times, except as otherwise provided. No action of a governing body of an agency shall be taken except during a public meeting following notice of the meeting in accordance with this act. Actions taken at a meeting not in conformity with this act is null and void and not merely voidable.”

If, as I suspected, the decision was made before it was affirmed in the public sham of a meeting that was held on December 30, then Commissioners Delai-Boese and Walker would be guilty of violating the act…a misdemeanor. The problem was, how would a person go about proving it? To the observant cynic that I am, it seemed really obvious. It felt like everyone knew it was coming, and the rumors were being kicked around the courthouse like hacky sacks. When it did happen, it happened so fast. It looked practiced and perfect, like they knew what they were doing. On the surface, though, there seemed little evidence that anything illegal had happened. There was no smoking gun that blew away the haze of uncertaintly and shot glaring holes in the perfectly orchestrated act that they claimed was a public meeting.

There were, however, a few clues that, when all added up, gave us a tiny idea of the behind the scenes nature of their decision. There was the timely break in the final meeting that gave Commissioner Wonnacott the unscheduled opportunity to give her letter of resignation to Delai-Boese and Walker, and to sneak quietly out of the building while no one was looking. Why was an unscheduled break taken in the first place? The only thing left on the agenda was commissioner statements. That would have taken ten minutes at the most. The only reasonable explanation that I can think of is that Commissioner Delai-Boese knew what Wonnacott’s plans were ahead of time.

Then there was the fact that Delai-Boese just so happened to have researched the process for replacement and had those particular notes on hand, right on top of her desk. There was the fact that Delai-Boese had a nominee ready at hand, and notes to read from as she nominated him and asked for a motion. There’s the fact that Walker was ready with a motion to appoint Delai-Boese’s nominee, a motion that he read from a piece of paper on his desk. Walker also read, from notes that just happened to be readily available on his desk, a pretty concise biography of the nominee.

The nominee, Mr. Donald VanMatre, just so happened to be sitting right in front of them in the audience. That in itself isn’t so telling, except when you factor in that Mr. VanMatre had only attended one other meeting in the preceding months. He had no scheduled business before the board, and had never made it a habit to sit in on meetings where he didn’t have official business on the agenda. He was, apparently, invited by e-mail to attend with the other department heads, but even that raises more questions. VanMatre wasn’t a department head. He was, in fact, the director of a component unit. As far as I’ve been able to determine, he was the only director of a component unit that was invited.

The next clues came after the sudden appointment. In Delai-Boese’s prepared farewell statement, she read directly from the paper in front of her a paragraph that referred to the moments old appointment:

“I believe this Commission has made an excellent choice to fill the vacancy held by former Commissioner Wonnacott.  Commissioner Walker and I know he is a man of great integrity and is well acquainted with government processes.”

If this appointment wasn’t predetermined, why would those two sentences have already been in her statement? Then, when interviewed by the press, newly appointed Commissioner Donald VanMatre commented that the decision to accept the appointment had been “dropped on me overnight.” It could have been a figure of speech, but combined with everything else…

Altogether, these events coalesced into a huge question in my mind about the nature of the appointment. Enough of a question that I felt it was important to join together with other Sweetwater County Residents and file a legal challenge³ seeking to overturn it.

The results of the legal challenge have so far been staggering. Former Commissioners Debby Delai-Boese, Randy Walker, and Paula Wonnacott, along with County Clerk Dale Davis, Deputy County Clerk Vickie Eastin, Former Commission Administrative Assistant Belinda Bridewell, current Commissioner Gary Bailiff, challenged appointee Don VanMatre, journalists David Martin, Katie Glennemeyer, and Tim Boulware, and finally Sweetwater County Attorney Brett Johnson have all given sworn testimony in the case.

Of course all of the former commissioners were adamant that they had followed the law and hadn’t done anything wrong at all. Too bad for them that their testimony wasn’t all that was heard.

Delai-Boese testified that she did not make a decision about the appointment until after Wonnacott’s official resignation, and that she hadn’t discussed the possible appointment with either Walker or VanMatre before the meeting on December 30, and that she had not participated in any illegal meetings with her fellow commissioners. Her testimony was challenged by witnesses who said otherwise.

Deputy County Clerk Vickie Eastin testified that she received an electronic copy of Delai-Boese’s farewell statement (the one that contained language about the appointment) before the part of the meeting where Wonnacott actually resigned. County Clerk Dale Davis testified that he had been told to bring an Oath of Office to the meeting because there was going to be an appointment. Journalist David Martin testified that when he interviewed Delai-Boese immediately after the meeting, she told him she had contacted VanMatre about the appointment the night before. Gary Bailiff testified that he had walked in on what he perceived to be an illegal meeting being held in the first weeks of December which was attended by Commissioners Delai-Boese, Walker, and Wonnacott.

VanMatre testified that he had no discussions with any of the commissioners concerning his possible appointment prior to the December 30 meeting, and had no idea that it was coming. His testimony was also challenged by other witnesses.

Journalist David Martin testified that when interviewing VanMatre he said that the appointment had been “dropped on me overnight.” That testimony was supported by that of journalist Tim Boulware, who also heard the exchange. Martin also testified that, when discussing VanMatre’s relationship with Paula Wonnacott, he said that he “felt honored she would trust him with her remaining term.”

Walker also testified that he did not make a decision about the appointment until after Wonnacott’s official resignation, and that he hadn’t discussed the possible appointment with Delai-Boese before the meeting on December 30, and that he had not participated in any illegal meetings with his fellow commissioners. Walker said that he wrote a statement concerning VanMatre’s appointment the night before the meeting in preparation for the possibility of Wonnacott’s resignation. He also testified that he had spoke by telephone with County Attorney Brett Johnson on the night of December 29, and that in that conversation he had not mentioned the possibility of appointing VanMatre to the commission, and that he told Johnson that no decision about the possible appointment had been made. Walker’s testimony was also cast in doubt by the testimony of other witnesses.

Brett Johnson, Sweetwater County Attorney, testified that during his December 29 conversation with Walker, he asked Walker if Ms. Wonnacott was going to resign, and that Walker said he was 99% sure that she would resign the next day and that “They were going to put Don VanMatre on the commission.” When Johnson asked Walker how that was not a violation of the open meetings act, Walker replied that “They hadn’t discussed it extensively, they hadn’t voted on it, and they weren’t positive she would resign.” Journalist Katie Glennemeyer testified about an interview she conducted with Randy Walker on January 10 concerning the statements that he made about the appointment during the December 30 meeting. In the interview, Walker claimed that he hadn’t written anything in advance, and that he wrote a list of VanMatre’s qualifications while Wonnacott’s letter of resignation was being read. Digital video of the meeting shows Walker reading along silently while Commissioner Delai-Boese read aloud, and even taking over and finishing reading it aloud when Delai-Boese’s emotions no longer allowed her to continue. It does not show him writing anything while the letter was being read. And, again, Bailiff testified about an alleged illegal meeting that Walker attended.

All in all, the evidence against the former Sweetwater County Commissioners is damning. They worked hard to cover their tracks, but they made mistakes. They couldn’t keep their mouths shut, and they told people their plans. They mixed up their stories and they left electronic paper trails that interfered with their fabricated versions of the events. I think that it is clear by the testimony, and the series of events, that Walker and Delai-Boese had reached an agreement prior to the December 30 meeting that if Wonnacott resigned that day, they were going to appoint Don VanMatre to take her place on the board.

The Wyoming Legislature has already seen how wrong the actions of the Commission were that day and have unanimously amended state law to guarantee that this could never happen again. Next time, there won’t be a loophole in the statutes for them to try to hide behind.

What about this time, though? Did we meet the legal hurdles to determine that a violation of the Wyoming Open Meeting Act was violated? Did we provide enough evidence to allow Judge Keith Kautz to declare the appointment of Don VanMatre to board of Sweetwater County Commissioners “null and void and not merely voidable?” I don’t know. None of us will know until the judge renders his decision. We might not even really know then, since this case is likely to go to the Wyoming Supreme Court, regardless of how he decides. Sadly, this could drag out for a long time.

What we do know now though, is the truth. We know for a fact that former Sweetwater County Commissioners Debby Delai-Boese and Randy Walker hijacked the appointment process and robbed the People of Sweetwater County of our say in who is allowed to govern us. As the founders wrote in the Declaration of Independence, “governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.” Former Commissioner Paula Wonnacott was equally complicit in their plot. She spat in the face of the people who elected her to represent them for a four year term when she walked away, without notice, and left us in this mess. They treated us with arrogance and disdain, and they stole from us our opportunity to participate in the democratic process.

I, for one, have no intention of forgetting what Debby Delai-Boese, Paula Wonnacott and Randy Walker did to us and to our county on December 30, 2010, and if any of them are ever foolish enough to run for public office again, I won’t let them forget it either.

There are a total of five candidates running for the single two year Sweetwater County Commission seat in the primary election to be held on August 17. On the Republican side, there is former Commissioner Wally Johnson and political newcomer Don Kauppi. On the Democratic side there is current Commissioner Randy Walker, along with Brand Seppie and Teresa Weyer. CAUTION. I’m not pulling punches here. I’m not running negative campaign ads, but I’m telling the truth as I see it.

I’ll start here with the Democratic candidates, but before I do I want to add this one disclaimer. I’m a Republican, and will be voting as a Republican in the primary. In the primary election I don’t have a say about which Democrat will earn their party’s nomination to be the single candidate to represent them in the general election for this office. I’m offering my opinion here merely because giving my opinions is what I like to do, so take it or leave it and do with it what you will.

Brandi Seppie is an absolute newcomer to the world of politics and that in and of itself isn’t a bad thing. A political newcomer can bring great new ideas to the table, and a fresh perspective in dealing with old problems. However, for a newcomer to be effective they have to come to the table with new ideas and a fresh perspective. Or at least an idea about what’s going on in the first place. Brandi didn’t do that during this forum. All she was able to do here was show her unpreparedness, and her lack of understanding of the job she has applied for. When asked a question about what she would do to support veterans in Sweetwater County, the only answer she was able to give was that there are a lot of veterans in her family. Admittedly, this question was nothing more than an attempt at grandstanding by an agenda driven, one issue, four year commission candidate, but she should have been a little more prepared to answer it. When she touched on the discussion about the proposed diversion of water from the Flaming Gorge to Colorado, all she was able to do was attempt to mirror the opinion of the candidate that answered before her. When she discussed how she would balance the needs of the incorporated and the rural populations of the county, her great idea was to “bring people together,” and to support the “joint powers board” that is already working on it. The joint powers board? Which one? The Joint Powers Water Board? The Joint Powers Telecommunications Board? The Joint Travel and Tourism Board? The Airport Board? The proposed Juvenile Justice Board? In fact, that seemed to be the resounding message behind her entire platform. Bring people together. Every time she started talking all I could hear was Captain & Tennille singing the old Sedaka & Greenfield song: “Love….love will keep us together…” If everyone got along so well, we wouldn’t need government. Yeah, sounds cynical. Sue me.

Teresa Weyer is another relative newcomer to the political world, but she appeared to have entered the race with a little more knowledge of what a County Commissioner does. Well, maybe. Her professional background is in nursing, and she pointed out that her experience as a nurse gives her a unique ability to bring people together. Oh, God! Please make that song stop playing in my head! Now Captain and Tennille are being joined by Bob Marley! “Let’s get together and we’ll feel alright…” The most memorable moment in Teresa’s forum participation came when an audience member posed a question about whether she would keep the County CEO and the County CFO that were hired by the sitting administration, yes or no? Her answer? “I can’t answer that yes or no because the people will decide the answer by who they vote for.” Really? Really. Her answer to probably the most contentious topic in this election is that she is going to wait and see who else gets elected and then they can tell her what her opinion will be. Way to make a stand there, Teresa.

Randy Walker enters this race with the advantage of being a sitting County Commissioner who knows the issues and has dealt with them on a first hand basis over the last two years. He also draws on the experience of being a former member of the Green River City Council. Of the three Democratic candidates, he was obviously the most knowledgeable and the most prepared for the forum. From the start, Randy was on the defense about his decision as part of the sitting commission to hire a County CEO and CFO to manage the day to day operations of the county, saying that the people of Sweetwater County deserved “professional administration,” and not the micromanagement and cronyism that had come before, and that the current system represented “best practices.” Okay, I can understand the need for “best practices,” but calling something “best practices” doesn’t make it “best practices.” “Best practices” isn’t contracting for a County CEO that has no investment in the community, and no vested interest in seeing our county succeed, other than the pay check that he takes home to Colorado at the end of every week. “Best practices” isn’t ignoring the advice of the “professional administration” – that of the County CEO that they hired, and especially that of the real professional administrators who have been heading their individual departments for years. Randy’s most memorable moment came when he was asked about what sixth cent projects he would support. “I support the application of a rubric to choose the best projects.” A rubric? Yeah. This is what happens when teachers become politicians. They bring the tools that they have used so effectively to turn our children into mindless sheep to the table for the rest of us. How about a Rubik’s cube? Or a magic 8-ball? Or, how about we elect people who can take responsibility for their own decisions, and not pass them off on decision making trees and contract help. Yeah, I stole the line about the Rubik’s cube and the magic 8-ball. Sue me again. At least I didn’t hear any bad songs playing in my head while he spoke.

Obviously, I wasn’t overly impressed with any of the Democratic candidates. If I was a Democrat and had to support one in the primary, well, I couldn’t. I’d write someone in. I know they are Democrats, and I know they are all about bringing people together, but I’m looking for leadership and representation, not a Beatles anthem.

I’ll move on now to the Republican candidates. No disclaimers on this one. I’ll likely be casting a vote for one of these two on August 17, and I want to give you an idea of who I’ll be choosing between.

Don Kauppi is yet another relative newcomer to the political landscape, but unlike the other newcomers, he brings some real world executive experience to the table. Don is self employed and runs his own oilfield company, giving him the perspective in this race of someone who deals with employees, budgets, and hard decisions on a daily basis. He comes across as someone who believes in simple straightforward answers to every issue, which is a refreshing stance, if not a little naive, and a bit unrefined. I almost cringed when he said, “I know how to run people.” Great, I guess, unless you are one of the people. Don will have to learn as he expands his political experience that sometimes how you deliver a message is as important as the message itself. I want commissioners who know where they stand, and who will tell me about it without hiding behind nonsense like bringing people together and rubric’s cubes. I also want commissioners who realize that very few of the issues that they deal with have simple answers. Don probably meets both of those criteria, but he doesn’t convey it very well. Don’s most memorable moment was when he entered the discussion on the water diversion plan. “Why are even talking about this?! No! You can’t have our water!” I agree with his sentiment, but I only wish it were that simple.

Wally Johnson is, without a doubt, the most experienced of the candidates, and brings both real world, practical, and applicable experience to the table. Wally was a Sweetwater County Commissioner for four years, but lost his spot in a previous election. He hit on several points during his time at the mike that were pretty important, and applicable to the current environment. Wally was clear about is stand against the sitting commissioners hiring a County CEO. He was also clear that in order for a commission to do its job effectively, its members need to have a seat at many tables, whether it be the National Forest Service or lobbying the State Legislature. “The current commission isn’t doing that.” He’s right, by not taking our seat at those tables, we’ve effectively lost our say in a lot of matters that directly affect our lives here is Sweetwater County. Wally was also the first to make a clear stand on water diversion. “If they have a right to the water, fine, but they need to take it from somewhere below the Flaming Gorge.” Finally, Wally took a stand against the wholesale creation of wind farms in Sweetwater County. “Wind energy is not a solution to our problems,” and in dealing with the location of the wind farms, “We need to look very carefully at what effect these wind farms have on our view shed.” Wally was the leader of the pack when it came to where he stood on all of these issues, and the other four on the panel were forced to follow or defend. Wally doesn’t, however, come to this election without baggage. He’s been a commissioner in the past, and his performance then didn’t come without controversy. It seems that there are some people in the county that are unhappy with his record, but I have yet to have someone explain to me what happened during his tenure that spurred the current vitriol.

Ultimately, I’m not 100% sure about who I will support in the primary, but I’m confident that either Wally or Don could do a good job. At this point though, I’m leaning toward Wally. His stands are clear and pretty well aligned with my own. If someone tells me some truly valid reason why they don’t like him that I find I agree with, or if Don refines his message a little more and shows me that he really does understands the intricacies of the job he is applying for, I’m open to changing my mind.

So there it is. My biased opinion. Take it, leave it, or tell me to go to hell. Just get your ass to the polls on August 17 and vote. But please, please, please, no more 60′s or 70′s songs.

“Shoot me! Shoot me! Shoot me!

“Here come old flattop. He come grooving up slowly
He got ju-ju eyeballs. He’s one holy roller
He got hair down to his knee
Got to be a joker he just do what he please

“Shoot me! Shoot me! Shoot me!

“He wear no shoeshine he’s got toe-jam football
He got monkey finger he shoot Coca-Cola
He say “I know you, you know me”
One thing I can tell you is you got to be free
Come together right now over me.

“Shoot me! Shoot me! Shoot me!

“He buy production he got walrus scumble
He’s got Ono sideboard he’s got spinal cracker
He’s got feet down below his knee
Hold you in his arms till you can feel his disease
Come together right now over me.

“He’s roller-coaster he’s got early warning
He’s got muddy water he’s got mojo filter
He say “One and one and one is three”
Got to be good looking ’cause he’s so hard to see
Come together right now over me.

“Shoot me! Shoot me! Shoot me!

“Ow!

“Come together! Come together! Come together!”

-The Beatles, 1969

A mentor once told me, speaking of the Republican Party, “This isn’t a religion for me. I’m a Republican because it’s the party that I believe is best suited to promote my values and my vision. If it stops being that party, I’ll find another one.” The abandonment of Dede Scozzafava by the conservative voters in her district is that threat put into action. If the Republican Party has moved so far away from its conservative base that it has turned to promoting liberals like Scozzafava over real conservatives, simply because they think they have a better chance of winning an election, then it is time for a change.

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.

I was having a cordial political discussion with some people today and, as is often the case, someone made the comment that there will be new elections in 2010, and we will be able to take back America. This is a democracy after all. But is it? Is what we live in really a democracy? Sure, we all get to vote, but how are we casting our votes? For who? And why?

A democracy is a system of government in which power is vested in the people, who rule either directly or through freely elected representatives, and as such, it is the common people who are considered as the primary source of political power. A democracy also assumes the existence and practice of the principles of social equality and respect for the individual within a community.

Does that accurately describe the country we live in now? Have you ever looked at the people around you at work — who are complaining about overtime and wondering if the boss will figure out that they weren’t really sick on Friday — and told yourself, “These people, together with myself, rule this country,” without laughing at yourself afterword? Have you ever spent a moment at the local saloon — where the “common people” are hanging out, drinking, laughing, groping each other and spilling beer on their shoes — and thought solemnly, “Right here, in this room, is where the primary source of political power in our nation grows from,” and kept a straight face? Have you ever just looked in the mirror and said, “This is my country. I am a respected individual, and this nation recognizes my social equality,” and didn’t fall over on the floor laughing uncontrollably? I didn’t think so.

So, what happened? If the founding fathers were so careful to set up a government that would always represent “We the people,” how did it all go so wrong? Simple. We sold the farm.

Picture this:

Farmer George Augere has been tilling his fields for 50 years. The Augere Farm usually made enough money to support his immediate family, and he also provided jobs for many of his extended family members. On the day of his retirement, the farm supported George, his wife, three of their five children, six of their eleven grandchildren, two siblings, two cousins, three nephews, an uncle, and Mr. Davis, who had worked for George since he was young.

Sure, there had been rough times. The three years of drought back in the late nineties almost bankrupted them, but they survived. Then, when Aunt Irma got sick a few years back, they couldn’t afford a nursing home, but everyone chipped in and made her as comfortable as possible during her last months. Yes, George had been forced to borrow money sometimes to keep the farm going, but when he did he worked tirelessly to pay off the loans.

The days were long, and the work was hard, but like the generations of farmers before him, George was proud of the fact that he has been able to provide a future for his children and grandchildren, and given them the opportunity to build upon his success. He hoped that they would have the same chances to excel in their lives that his father and grandfather had given him.

When George decided to retire, he left it up to the family to decide who would inherit the reins of the Augere Farm. He left each family member an equal share of the farm with the only caveat being that every year a new election would be held to determine who would run the farm for the next 12 months. George’s nephew Barry was a great guy, and everyone liked him. He always knew just what to say, and he always knew just the right time to flash his pearly smile. He had the ability to make almost everyone in the family follow his lead, no matter where he thought to lead them, and it was no surprise when they voted to make him the new leader of the farm.

Right away he went to work making changes. He convinced them that they needed to trade in that old John Deere — it may have been twenty years old, but it had still run just fine — for a brand new Jinma tractor. Yes, it was $30,000 for a smaller tractor, but the new one was better for the environment, and of course Barry was good friends with the sales representative. He talked them into laying off Mr. Davis, who had worked for them for over thirty years, and replaced him with a couple of illegal immigrants, who worked for less money. Later, he switched to a hybrid seed stock. Sure, it was much more expensive, but Barry explained to the family that these new plants were better for the environment, and used less natural resources to grow.

Barry made all kinds of promises to his family as he led the farm into new directions. “We won’t have to work as hard for what we want,” he said. “Everyone who works on the farm should be equal,” he beamed. “Every family member and employee who works for this farm will make as much as he needs to live, but will only have to work as hard they are able,” he boomed!  Over the next few years, he promised and gave them more and more, and every year they re-elected him. Under Barry’s leadership, most of the family got new cars, and built new houses, and were able to go on vacations that they had only dreamed of before. He even convinced them to let the two illegal immigrants participate in future elections and gave them enough money to build new houses and buy new cars of their own. When Uncle Charlie, who was nearly 90 now, fell ill, Barry convinced the family to fund his stay in the best nursing home money could buy. Nothing was too good for a member of the farm. Barry’s family cheered him and told him that they wanted him to be in charge of the farm forever.

Barry’s cousin John, however, wasn’t as enamored with Barry as the rest of the family. John wasn’t as good as Barry at rallying the family behind him as Barry was, but he understood simple math. He eyed the family’s finances warily, and wondered how the family could afford such extravagance with the modest income of the Augere Farm. He asked, “Where is all this money coming from, Barry?”

“Everyone knows that you have to spend money to make money,” Barry answered.

“But where is it all coming from,” John persisted.

“Well, I took out a mortgage on the farm,” Barry told him, “but don’t worry, we won’t have to pay it off for decades.”

John asked fearfully, “How are we going to make payments on it?”

“Easy,” Barry answered, “Uncle Bill, and Cousin Warren both work extra jobs and have a lot more money than the rest of the family. They are just going to have to chip in a little extra to pay the interest on the loan.”

John was beside himself. He went to the rest of the family and explained to them that Barry’s plan would bankrupt the Augere Farm. His protests fell on deaf ears however, and the rest of the family thought John was just a troublemaker. Even Bill and Warren thought that Barry was doing a great job, and wouldn’t hear of replacing him in the next election. “He’s so smart, and so caring,” they said, “we don’t mind paying a little extra.”

After a while though, as Barry spent more and more money keeping his family happy, and now the families of his immigrant workers, the size of the mortgage against the farm grew. Soon, Bill and Warren were told that they would have to work a little harder at their second jobs and contribute a little bit more to the family’s finances. Cousin Brad and Nephew Mike were also told that they would have to start working a little harder and contributing more. “From each according to their ability, guys,” Barry told them. “You have a responsibility to take care of your family.” Over time, more members of the family were asked to contribute a little bit more the benefit of the others. Brad and Mike were asked to contribute even more, and Bill and Warren were asked to give up almost all of their income from their second jobs to support the farm.

Later that year, hardly anyone noticed when when Uncle Bill stopped showing up for work at the farm. Barry noticed when Bill’s check didn’t get deposited in the bank that month, though, and went looking for him. He found Bill’s house empty and his car gone. After a little investigation he learned that Bill had quit his second job and moved out of the state where he had started his own farm with Mr. Davis as a partner. Then Warren lost his second job due to budget cuts and was no longer able to contribute extra money to the farm every month. Brad broke his leg in an accident and could no longer work at all. Mike was told that he would have to work even harder.

Over time, one by one, several more of the hardest working members of the family resigned and moved away. The Augere Farm began to suffer, and its income began to shrink.

“I told you,” John cried. “You can’t keep spending money like this and expect the farm to survive.”

“Nonsense,” Barry answered, “I’ll just borrow a little more money. We’ll get through this.”

And that’s what he did. He took out another mortgage on the farm, and took out loans against the homes his family had built during the last several years. “Don’t worry,” he told them, “we won’t have to pay these loans off for years to come.”

The next few years were a little tougher. More of the hardest working family members gave up and moved away, and with each one that left the farm produced less and less. The family who remained, though, demanded more and more from Barry. He sold off the harvester to pay the interest on the loans, and then borrowed a little more to buy a new car for his daughter. During the following fall harvest he had to rent a harvester, and sold the tractor in order to pay for it. It became a never ending downward spiral. Realizing that he was in trouble, Barry started looking for a solution.

He found that solution in Mr. Yen, who agreed to take on some of the Augere Farm’s debt in exchange for the land. “You can stay there and work the land,” he told Barry, “nothing will change, other than how the land is titled. Instead of paying all that interest on the loans, you’ll just have to pay rent. Besides, I’ll pay you a little under the table so you’ll have some money in your pocket when all is said and done.”

“But what about my family?” Barry asked.

“I can’t give you enough to pay off all of their debts,” Mr. Yen told him, “and I can’t employ them all. I run a tight ship. But you’ll be taken care of, my friend.”

“Okay,” Barry relented, “let’s do it.”

And just like that, Barry sold the farm.

What happened to George’s farm is exactly what is happening to our country. The votes of our electorate are being bought with promises of extravagant benefits to the “common people.” The problem is of course, that all of these benefits have to be paid for someday, by someone. The crime wasn’t Barry selling the farm to Mr. Yen, the crime was committed when the family sold the farm to Barry for a few material promises and a pretty smile. The crime was selling out the future for a little extra stuff today.

The Obama administration is telling us that only the rich will have to pay more so everyone else can have free health care. Only the rich corporations will have to fund the new environmental revolution. He tells us that all of the common people deserve economic justice and equality. In short, the government is buying the votes of the American people, and it has destroyed our democracy. Our president, our congress, and our supreme court have all thrown their hats into the bidding circle, looking to buy the farm, and then sell it down the river.

These are lies that they tell us for one purpose, and one purpose only. To stay in power. And in order to keep that power, they are willing to buy our votes with our very own souls. In the end, all it will cost us is our freedom.

2010? Maybe we can take back our country, but I’m not optimistic. We still have too much wealth in this country for Obama and his lackeys to buy votes with. They’ll bankrupt us eventually, though. Even Vice President Biden said so. When that happens, maybe real democracy can make a comeback.

Until then, welcome to augereocracy, where control of the government goes to the highest bidder.

augereocracy

au·ger·e·oc·ra·cy [aw-jeer-ee-ok-ruh-see]
-noun, plural -cies.

1. a puppet republic where the members of the supposedly democratically elected government received the majority of the votes by promising the most benefits (ie. kickbacks, bribes) to the voters
2. a government that provides increasingly greater benefits to its electorate in order keep power.
3. a state or society characterized by a formal relinquishing of rights in exchange for perceived financial benefits.
4. political or social inequality resulting from class warfare and wealth redistribution.
5. majority rule, where such majority is purchased through the promise of personal benefit.
6. a system of government in which the power, which used to be vested in the people, who ruled either directly or through free elected representatives, is now solidly controlled by a select few who have purchased that power from the people by promising ever increasing benefits from the treasury.
   

Origin:
2009; [root: augere (Latin, present infinitive) - 1. increase, augment; 2. enlarge, spread; 3. lengthen; 4. exaggerate; 5. honor, enrich; 6. (figuratively) exalt, praise. - rel. auction]

Related words or phrases for : augereocracy
socialism, communism, progressivism, voter auction, bribery, influence peddling

example: “The people in this country have forsaken their democracy and sold their votes and control of our government to the highest bidder in exchange for free healthcare and rent controlled housing. We are now an augereocracy.”

We’ve all seen it. In our schools, our children’s schools, public meetings, television shows, leadership seminars, political speeches, and even in legislation supported by the President, the message is clear: we should all be doing community service. The fact is that the call to service is greater now than at any time in our country’s past, and the pressure to provide it even greater.

The pressure to conform to the growing demand to volunteer your self, in body and bankbook, can be daunting. When confronted with a group of peers, all telling you how much you are needed, it can be difficult to resist. When your child’s teacher tells you how important it is that you volunteer for the school bake sale, how can you say no? When your Mayor asks you to volunteer your time for the citywide cleanup, how can you refuse? And when the girl scout who lives next door asks you to buy cookies, or the soccer player who lives down the street asks you to buy raffle tickets, how can you not open your wallet and hand them the money?

Simple. Say “no.” Unless, that is, you want to do it, and can.

First of all, it’s not so much “community service” that I have a problem with. Serving your community has plenty of merit, and everyone should do it, provided of course that you are willing, and just as important, able. The problem arises when you are expected to give your time and your money to a cause that you don’t want to support. And more problems arise when you are expected to give your time and your money to a cause when you can’t afford it.

None of that matters to the people who are asking for you services, though. It doesn’t matter to them that your boss has cut back on your overtime and money is scarce, and it doesn’t matter to them that you took a second job to cover the bills, making your time even more scarce. What matters to them is their cause. You see, to the people who are promoting them, causes are just like children. Everyone thinks theirs is the most important, and anyone who thinks differently be damned. It doesn’t matter how much time or money you’ve given to any cause, even theirs, in the past, if you don’t see how important their baby is today, you’re dirt. Even if you can’t afford it, they expect your support, and they expect it now.

The important part of this is that giving your time and money to a cause when you can’t afford either hurts everyone in the long run. It hurts you, it hurts your family, and ultimately it even hurts the cause. If you give money that you can’t afford to support your local food bank, it impairs your ability to put food on your own table, and that of your family. If you sacrifice time you can’t spare, whether it’s time you could be working to pay your bills, or time you should have spent playing baseball with your son, to participate in the latest jail and bail fundraiser, you risk putting a strain on your budget, or on your family. Both situations threaten your future security, your attitude, and your willingness and ability to participate in community service in the future.

It is quite common these days to pressure our children to “give back” to their communities, provide volunteer service, and even sign pledges to provide even more service in the future. From their classrooms to their football practices to their leadership conferences, they are bombarded at every turn with the message that it is the responsibility of every able bodied youth to serve their communities. They are told that service will make them better people, and that their duty is to their fellow man. More disturbing, it has become a trend lately to begin making this expectation of service into a requirement.

President Obama’s official transitional website stated that “Obama will call on citizens of all ages to serve America, by developing a plan to require 50 hours of community service in middle school and high school and 100 hours of community service in college every year.”

Congress followed suit with HR 1388 that authorized a committee to study “Whether a workable, fair, and reasonable mandatory service requirement for all able young people could be developed, and how such a requirement could be implemented…” When the language was stripped out of the final version of that bill, it was resurrected again as the still living HR 1444. It seems that our federal government is determined to make “volunteers” out of all our children.

The problem with this, aside from the fact that the 13th amendment of the Constitution clearly prohibits “indentured servitude,” is that if you take our youth, in the prime of their life, and put them on a mandated course of community service, you rob the community of it’s greatest potential producers, both physical and mental.

Can you imagine how different the world would be right now if a young college student named Bill Gates had been cutting weeds in the Boston National Historic Park instead of exploring the operations of computers and developing a BASIC interpreter for MITS? Gates built a fortune after that initial foray, which he later used to enable him to funnel billions of dollars into charitable organizations. He has now retired from the corporate world and donates all of his time to community service. Would the world be a better place if he had been doing community service while he was in college instead? Would have 100 hours of service to his fellow man when he was 20 been a good trade for the tens of billions of dollars that he has been able to raise for charity in his post corporate life?

If two college students, Larry Page and Sergey Brin, had been serving dinners at the Palo Alto Opportunity Center instead of spending their evenings writing the code that would later power Google.com, they would have never had a billion dollars to fund the charitable wing of their company, Google.org, which works to fight global poverty, among other causes. Would the world have been better served by them providing community service while they were in school rather than later when they were successful entrepreneurs and wanted to make a difference in the world?

In reality, Americans are the most generous charitable givers in the world. In 2006, Americans donated a record $295 billion to charitable organizations, the vast majority of which came from individuals. That is in addition to the 61 million Americans who donated time and labor to charitable organizations during that same year.

By allowing and encouraging our budding youth to provide for themselves and their families first, and by empowering them to become responsible and productive members of society, we also put a down payment on their future ability to give back to society when they are more able, ready and willing to do so. Someone who is forced to “donate” their time or money to causes they may not support will likely become bitter and much less likely to support any cause in the future. Additionally, a person who gives willingly, and to causes or charities they believe in, will always give more. If our government moves forward with their plan to require mandatory service from every American, and dictates to what causes that service is given, they will likely guarantee that will be the only community service that person ever provides again.

The underlying motive here is that these people don’t want you to volunteer your time and your money, because that means you are in control. They want to decide how your time and money is used to benefit society as they see fit. They want to decide which charities are worthy of your time and they want to decide which charities are worthy of your money. They don’t care if you miss a day of work, or if you have a hard time paying your bills, and they don’t care that your kids could be spending their afternoons developing cold fusion in the basement lab instead of planting grass on a reclaimed garbage dump, because in the end all they want is control.

How do we fight back? How do we make sure that our time and money is dedicated to causes and charities that we believe in? How do we make sure that our families, and ourselves, don’t go without to provide for charities that we might not believe in? And how do we make sure that our children are given the opportunity to become successful in their own right before they are expected to “give back” to their “fellow man?”

The answer is still simple. Say “no.” Unless, that is, you want to do it, and can.

These are actual police mugshots. I bet the president is so proud of the people who support him! This is probably the kind of criminals that the One thinks is waiting in Gitmo for him to save. Can anyone remember ever seeing a mugshot of someone wearing a George W. Bush shirt? How about a Ronald Reagan shirt? Barry Goldwater? George H.W. Bush? Bob Dole?

Obama says he’s not coming after our guns? Give me a break! An article by Brian Darling by way of HumanEvents.com.

Legal Advisor Nominee Advocates Global Gun Control
by Brian Darling
05/04/2009

Last week, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee held a hearing on the nomination of Harold Koh, a former Dean of the Yale Law School, to be Legal Advisor to the State Department. One of the many concerns with Koh is his belief that international organizations should be empowered to regulate the Second Amendment right to own a firearm.

On April 2, 2002, Koh gave a speech to the Fordham University School of Law titled “A World Drowning in Guns” where he mapped out his vision of global gun control. Koh advocated an international “marking and tracing regime.” He complained that “the United States is now the major supplier of small arms in the world, yet the United States and its allies do not trace their newly manufactured weapons in any consistent way.” Koh advocated a U.N.-governed regime to force the U.S. “to submit information about their small arms production.”

Koh supports the idea that the U.N. should be granted the power “to standardize national laws and procedures with member states of regional organizations.” Koh feels that U.S. should “establish a national firearms control system and a register of manufacturers, traders, importers and exporters” of guns to comply with international obligations. This regulatory regime would allow U.N. members such as Cuba, Venezuela, North Korea and Iran to have a say in what type of gun regulations are imposed on American citizens.

Taken to their logical conclusion, Koh’s ideas could lead to a national database of all firearm owners, as well as the use of international law to force the U.S. to pass laws to find out who owns guns. All who care about freedom should read his speech (pdf). Senators need to think long and hard about whether Koh’s extreme views on international gun control are appropriate for America. [Read More...]

A great article from Joan Swirsky. You can read the whole thing here. Thanks to @RyanJGill for the link.

The President Who Hates His Country

By Joan Swirsky Sunday, May 3, 2009

In the last century, the impassioned words and actions of patriots like Winston Churchill – along with America’s heroic help and sacrifice – saved Europe. The eloquence and actions of “I’ve been to the mountaintop” Martin Luther King Jr. brought America to an unprecedented level of social justice.The peerless oratory and tireless diplomacy of the man who would become Israel’s Foreign Minister, Abba Eban convinced the entire world that after the wanton murder of six-million Jews in the Holocaust its straggling survivors deserved their own state of Israel. The inspiring words and decisive actions of President Ronald Reagan ended the Cold War, tore down the Berlin Wall, and restored economic prosperity to America. The efforts of these towering figures resulted in a more highly-evolved world.

We have also seen the opposite in totalitarian leaders like Hitler, Mussolini, Fidel Castro, Pol Pot, Mao, and Saddam Hussein, among others, who exploited their masses, destroyed their economies, brought havoc, turbulence, grief and massive death within and outside of their countries, and made the world a more dangerous and threatening place.

The one thing all of these virtuous and evil men had in common was love for their respective countries, in fact a burning passion that superseded all else. The virtuous believed in freedom and democracy. The evil believed in subjugation of their peoples and lifetime tenures for themselves in order to actualize their goals of conquering their eternal enemies – Americans and Jews.

Today, we have a new crop of inveterate America- and Jew-haters, among them the Marxist leader of Venezuela Hugo Chavez, Nicaragua’s president Daniel Ortega, Iran’s “death-to-America-and-Israel” study-in-abnormal-psychology Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and the ever-sabotage-America and anti-Semitic “leaders” of the 22-Arab states that surround Israel.

I have either read about or observed firsthand all of these people. Yet in my decades of commenting on the political scene, I cannot recall a single leader of any country or regime who has ever spoken negatively of his country or tolerated others speaking ill of the land or the people he represented

Until now

[Read More...]

Matt Drudge over at the DRUDGEREPORT pointed out this speech today from Governor Rick Perry of Texas dressing down the federal governments blatant disregard for the Tenth Amendment of the Constitution, and reaffirming states’ rights and sovereignty. It is refreshing to see a governor stand up to the federal government and demand a return to the federalism envisioned by our forefathers.

I called for the governors of the several states to stand up for their sovereign rights in my post from last week, and it looks like at least some of them are thinking along the same lines. This kind of thinking could get the governor a special file in the DHS’s rightwing fanatic watchlist though!

Let’s all join him. The first file to 100 pages wins!

WAKE UP CALL: TEXAS GOV. BACKS RESOLUTION AFFIRMING SOVEREIGNTY
Tue Apr 14 2009 08:44:54 ET
AUSTIN – Gov. Rick Perry joined state Rep. Brandon Creighton and sponsors of House Concurrent Resolution (HCR) 50 in support of states’ rights under the 10th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

“I believe that our federal government has become oppressive in its size, its intrusion into the lives of our citizens, and its interference with the affairs of our state,” Gov. Perry said. “That is why I am here today to express my unwavering support for efforts all across our country to reaffirm the states’ rights affirmed by the Tenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. I believe that returning to the letter and spirit of the U.S. Constitution and its essential 10th Amendment will free our state from undue regulations, and ultimately strengthen our Union.”

Perry continued: “Millions of Texans are tired of Washington, DC trying to come down here to tell us how to run Texas.”

[VIDEO]

A number of recent federal proposals are not within the scope of the federal government’s constitutionally designated powers and impede the states’ right to govern themselves. HCR 50 affirms that Texas claims sovereignty under the 10th Amendment over all powers not otherwise granted to the federal government.

It also designates that all compulsory federal legislation that requires states to comply under threat of civil or criminal penalties, or that requires states to pass legislation or lose federal funding, be prohibited or repealed.

Developing…

Governor Perry might only think that he is speaking for millions of Texans that are feeling oppressed by the Federal Government, but he is speaking for tens of millions of Americans that are feeling the same way. Find out where your local Representatives stand on HCR 50, and let them know that you want them to support it!

In the 25+ years since the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA) was signed into law by President Nixon it has been used like a shock collar to keep individual States from wandering too far away from the herd. I’s initial purpose was noble, but in the quarter century since its inception the ESA has been corrupted to such an extent that it is completely unrecognizable as a successful, manageable, or even Constitutional piece of legislation. Instead of allowing the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, along with dozens of environmental groups, to continually erode each States individual sovereignty, the States need to stand up to Washington and challenge their authority to impose this failed policy.

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.