In June of 2025, I warned you about the straw villain. The made-up monster. The political boogeyman.
Not real threats. Not real problems. Just figments of our imagination conjured up so someone can promise to save you from them.
Like the thing under your bed when you were a kid. They were terrifying, until you turned on the light.
Well, the prediction came true. Now, it’s time to turn on the light.
Turn on the TV. Scroll social media. It’s everywhere. Politicians breathlessly warning that someone is coming for your parental rights, your guns, your vote, your freedom.
The villains are endless. And almost entirely fictional.
In a 750-word column, we can’t slay them all. But let’s take a swing at a couple.
They always start with a name that sounds like apple pie and the American flag.
Representative X voted against the “Protection of Parental Rights – Cause of Action.”
Who would vote against that?
Answer: anyone who reads it.
Wyoming law already strongly protects parental rights. It requires the government to prove a compelling interest and use the least restrictive means before interfering. That’s a high bar.
This bill didn’t strengthen that protection. It weaponized it.
A better title would be: “Make Lawyers and Disgruntled Parents Rich Act.”
Here’s what it actually did: it opened the door to lawsuits against the state for almost any perceived interference with parental rights, sidestepped the Governmental Claims Act, and handed out attorney’s fees as a bonus prize.
That’s not protection. That’s a blank check.
And guess who pays?
You do.
Insurance premiums for government entities skyrocket. Budgets strain. Taxes follow. The government doesn’t run at a loss. The government just sends you the bill.
Worse, damages aren’t set by elected officials. They’re set by juries.
Unpredictable. Unlimited. Expensive.
And the real-world consequences? Chilling.
Agencies hesitate to act in abuse cases because removing a child could trigger a lawsuit. Schools hesitate to discipline because someone might claim it interferes with parenting.
You don’t get stronger families. You get paralysis.
All wrapped in a nice-sounding title.
Next: the “Second Amendment Protection Act.”
Again, who votes against that in Wyoming? Answer: anyone who reads it.
Start with this: every sheriff in the state opposed it.
That should get your attention.
Why? Because the bill doesn’t protect the Second Amendment. It turns law enforcement into legal targets.
Buried in the legal fog is this: if an officer, agency, or subdivision violates the act, they can be hit with unlimited damages—plus a $50,000 civil penalty per violation. Per violation.
Now ask the obvious question: what counts as a violation?
The bill prohibits enforcement of any federal action deemed “unconstitutional” as it relates to firearms. Sounds simple. It isn’t.
Because determining what is “unconstitutional” isn’t something a patrol officer can do on the side of the road. That’s a job for courts after years of litigation.
So what happens in real life?
No more joint task forces. No more cooperation with ICE. No cooperation with ATF in bombing investigations.
A team shows up to a volatile situation. Guns are involved. One person claims self-defense.
The officer gives a lawful command: drop the weapon.
But under this law, what if that command is later argued to interfere with someone’s Second Amendment rights?
Congratulations. The officer, the agency and the state are now exposed to massive liability.
So what’s the officer supposed to do?
Wait? Guess? Consult a constitutional law treatise mid-crisis?
The options aren’t good.
Hesitate and risk lives. Act and risk bankruptcy. That’s not law enforcement. That’s legal roulette.
And again, it’s all wrapped in a name designed to make opposition sound unpatriotic.
Here’s the pattern.
Create a villain. Name a bill after the cure. Hide the consequences in the fine print.
Then campaign on the title.
It’s not governance. It’s marketing.
Things aren’t as simple as they used to be. Maybe they never were. But the slogans are getting slicker, and the details are getting more dangerous.
So here’s the rule: read past the tag line.
If it sounds too outrageous to be true, it probably is.
And if it sounds too good to question, that’s exactly when you should start asking them.
