Tag archive

Ray Hunkins

Ray Hunkins: In Biden Administration, Ideology Trumps Common Sense

in Column/Ray Hunkins

***For All Things Wyoming, Sign-Up For Our Daily Newsletter***

By Ray Hunkins, guest columnist

Over the 18 months of the Biden Administration, I have often wondered why obvious remedies for failed policies were not implemented to limit the political damage they were causing. 

With the President’s poll numbers plunging to precipitous levels, it seems to me to be common sense to put an end to the “bleeding” and correct the highly visible policy errors.

However, the Administration has stubbornly refused to do anything except dispute a problem exists in the first place, or assert that if a problem does exist, it’s because of the “mess” left by the prior Administration, or the result of a “crisis” not of the Administration’s making.

Nowhere is this more evident than in the open Border and climate change policies that have proven so counter-productive and so unpopular with the American people. The effects of these failed policies have rippled through our Nation, its economy, politics and culture.

The stubborn refusal to change course and correct the obvious negative effects of open Border and climate change policies, have resulted in serious adverse political consequences. These consequences include a degradation of the political fortunes of the Democrat Party (see special congressional race in South Texas last month), and the prospect of a good old fashioned, “whopping” in November.

So why not change these ineffectual policies and stop the bleeding? Many have claimed its because of incompetence, arrogance or declining mental status of the President. While each of those may have something to do with the refusal to correct obvious problems brought on by the Administration’s policy choices, I believe the real reason is rooted in ideology.

While common sense and our eyes tell us that the “war on fossil fuels” and “open borders” are leading to catastrophic problems for our Nation, to the ideologues in and around the Biden Administration, the “true believers”, they are not problems at all. Rather, they are part of the prescription for “fundamentally changing America”, the announced goal of progressive ideologues, since at least the Obama-Biden era.

Though many treat it that way, “Ideology” is not a pejorative. The definition, “a system of ideas and ideals, especially relating to politics and governance”, seems like normal equipment for most of us.  To be sure, there are both good and bad ideologies, but show me a person without an ideology and I’ll show you a person devoid of principles that govern action.

“Ideologue”, on the other hand is deservedly a pejorative. It is defined as a person having an “uncompromising and dogmatic adherence to an ideology””. Some synonyms are, “fanatic”, “militant” and “zealot”.

A way of looking at these words is this: having an ideology is a good thing, but being an ideologue is not.

 When ideologues design and promote bad policies based on an unwelcome ideology, there will be resistance and push-back. That pretty well describes where we are in this Country, especially when it comes to policy prescriptions implemented by the Administration in two areas: the crisis at the Southwest Border and the alleged crisis resulting from “climate change”.

 Rahm Emanual, Chief of Staff in the Obama-Biden White House, once famously proclaimed, channeling Saul Alinsky, “you never let a serious crises go to waste. And what I mean by that is it’s an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before.”

With regard to both Border security and climate change, true to Emanual’s advice, the ideologues in and about the Administration have seized opportunities to do things that have never been done before and could not be done but for the real and alleged “crises”.

The Southwest Border Crisis

There is no question that the Biden-Harris policy on illegal immigration is the product, at least in part, of the ideology of George Soros and the labyrinth of Open Society Foundations which were funded by a Soros gift of 18 billion dollars in 2017.

The Open Society Foundation and its multitude of sister organizations have funded many millions of dollars in programs that encourage illegal immigration and support illegal immigrants. In 2018 the Open Society Foundation spent 63.3 million dollars on migration issues.

The immigration ideology of the Open Society Foundations can best be summarized in the words of the Foundations’ founder, George Soros, an ideologue if ever there was one: “The crucial issue of our time is how to overcome the obstacles posed by national sovereignty in pursuit of the common interest” In other words, sovereign borders should not be an obstacle to immigration.

In Biden’s America, they are not.

 Since Biden-Harris took office, U.S. law enforcement has encountered over 2.6 million migrants from across the Globe (150 nations) trying to enter the United States illegally. Just in April of this year the most encounters ever in a month, 234,088, were recorded by Customs and Border Protection (“CPB”), an agency within the U.S. Department of Homeland Security.

In the latest month available, June, 2022, 207,416 apprehensions were reported by CBP. 68% of these were single adults. 15,271 were unaccompanied children (752 per day).

Many of these illegals have learned that if they claim asylum, they will be “welcomed” by the Department of Homeland Security, given food and shelter, “processed” and then transported to the interior of the United States, all at taxpayer expense, most never to be seen again by immigration authorities.

The numbers exclude the multitudes who have purposely evaded apprehension by law enforcement. These are the infamous “gotaways” that the Border Patrol and other law enforcement along the Southwest Border worry about. They are the individuals and groups, single males mostly, that are detected by drones and remote cameras, many in camouflage utility uniforms, who are attempting to evade detection and who most certainly are entering our country for nefarious purposes.  

Fox News reports, that according to DHS sources, an average of 55,000 “gotaways” are illegally entering the United States each and every month.  The number of “gotaways” who have entered the U.S. since the beginning of FY21, again according to DHS sources, is 900,000.

 Normally, the Border Patrol would be making every effort to interdict the “gotaways” for obvious reasons. These (mostly) men represent likely danger to the people of the United States. Not by accident, Border Patrol agents are kept busy “processing” those illegals who want to be apprehended so they can claim asylum and be released to await their court dates, years from now (most are “no-shows”). Meanwhile, the cartels, aware that DHS priorities for CBP personnel are “processing” illegals who are apprehended, are guiding the “gotaways” across the desert and to pick-up points away from the Border.

So far, this fiscal year, apprehensions of non-citizen criminals at the Southwest Border have totaled 12,314 and so far, CBP have detained 56 people on the Terrorist Watch List.

In a Minority Report of the U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Relations issued in June of this year, it was stated: “Worsening an already bad situation, transnational criminal organizations have identified and capitalized on weak U. S. enforcement, these criminal groups rely on lax enforcemet.” The report goes on to say that the activities of these criminal organizations, “have a detrimental impact on the safety and security of the United States.

The thin and thinning green line of the Border Patrol agree. In a statement issued in March of this year, the National Border Patrol Council warned: “9-11 was twenty-one years ago and it is obvious the Administration has forgotten. Thanks to the Administration placing immigration at the top of his priorities and border security at the bottom, the President has successfully made this country a safe haven for terrorists again.”

Lack of effective enforcement caused by tasking Border Patrol agents with “processing”, “chauffeuring” and “babysitting” has opened the Border to drug smuggling.     Drug seizures by CBP in June 2022 were up 25% (by weight) compared to May.

 In FY 2022 to date, Illegal drugs seized include cocaine (50,000 lbs.), heroin 1,400 lbs.), methamphetamine (133,000 lbs.), Fentanyl (8,400 lbs.) marijuana (112,000 lbs.) and other substances. It should be emphasized, that these numbers represent the drugs seized, not the drugs smuggled into the U.S.

The most dangerous of these drugs, Fentanyl, originates in Communist China and is smuggled by the cartels into the U.S. across the Southwest Border, sometimes as an added substance in pills manufactured in Mexico. The U.S. Center for Disease Control reports that Fentanyl is now the number one cause of death for adults between the ages of 18 and 45.

So far this year, 100,000 deaths have been attributed to “drug overdoses”. Two-thirds of those overdoses involve Fentanyl and almost all of it is smuggled across our Southwest Border. The deaths caused by Fentanyl may be thought of as “collateral damage” resulting from the Administration’s open border policy.

The Southwest Border is in chaos and every state is affected. What is the Biden-Harris Administration doing about it? Working on optics and public relations and transporting illegals away from the Border, but not much else.

 The Administration did nominate the woke Chris Magnus to be Commissioner of Customs and Border Protection. He was confirmed by the Senate on a vote of 50 to 47 with 49 Democrats and 1 Republican (Susan Collins of Maine) voting “Aye”. Morale in the Border Patrol under Magnus’ leadership is at an all time low.

The good men and women of the Border Patrol want to protect our borders. The ideology of this Administration will not allow them to do so. The cartels control the Border. We are all more at risk because ideologues are in charge of the Southwest Border.

The Alleged Crisis of Climate Change

“Climate change” is an ideology, almost a religion, and its dogma justifies many bad policies that have brought our economy to its knees, drained the public treasury and re-focused attention away from more pressing problems.

 Rahm Emanual’s advice has not been forgotten by the climate fanatics that once worked for Obama-Biden and now work for Biden-Harris. Every heat wave, cold wave, flood, drought, hurricane, or other significant weather event is the result of climate change crisis, according to the current climate czar, John Kerry, and the climate czar emeritus, Al Gore.

I should clarify the I’m a firm believer in climate change. “Climate” simply means the weather over an extended period of time. “Weather” changes daily, weekly, monthly, annually, and over geologic time.

The phrase, “climate change” constitutes a redundancy (two words that are unnecessary in a phrase because they mean the same thing).  Indeed, I believe the climate has been changing since the beginning of time and I believe it will continue to do so. How much of the changing climate is attributable to man’s activities, is open to debate and man’s ability to meaningfully alter weather or climate is highly questionable.

But, in the name of “climate change” as the Biden Administration defines the term, twenty-first century Luddites, the climate change warriors, have declared a war on fossil fuels. It is a popular war among the Progressive Left and therefor within the Biden Administration.

The war started against coal under the Obama-Biden Administration. Remember Obama’s statement that power plants could continue to use coal, but they would be bankrupted for doing so? Under Obama-Biden, coal began its long decent. “Enlightened thinking” among the Climate Change Ideologues, no longer accepts coal as a cheap source of reliable energy. “Enlightened thinking” has also brought the nation brown-outs and black-outs.

During the Trump Administration, a counter-offensive was launched against those seeking to eliminate fossil fuels and, as a result, the United States became energy independent. We no longer relied on unstable areas of the World or despotic regimes to supply us with energy. That changed when Biden-Harris took office.

Under Biden, a plethora of executive orders, burdensome regulations and other means have been employed to drive a stake through the heart of the oil and gas, coal and associated industries. Refineries, pipelines, power plants and the entire fossil fuel infrastructure built over the last century at enormous cost, are now disfavored by the climate change zealots.

New projects for traditional sources of energy are not being permitted by the Administration’s regulatory agencies. Neither are permits being issued for oil and gas drilling. New leases are not being issued on public lands and in some cases, existing leases are being cancelled. The result, inflation, has been nothing short of devastating for our economy and the American consumer. Inflation has skyrocketed to just under 10% and rising. Gasoline and diesel costs have soared. Our economy has officially entered a recession. This too is viewed as, “collateral damage”, a means to an enlightened end, to Utopia: “0” carbon emission by 2050.

Moreover, the energy sources that were supposedly going to replace fossil fuels, solar and wind, though heavily subsidized by U.S. taxpayers, are incapable of replacing fossil fuels and have proven unreliable. Large segments of wind and solar infrastructure are manufactured in China.

Currently, wind and solar provide only 3% of U.S. energy. Despite this, the target date for getting off fossil fuels, is 2035

A consequence of the war on fossil fuels is a resulting war on agriculture, a heavy user of diesel and fertilizer, products derived from oil and gas. At a time of impending global food shortage, the American producer is less productive because of the rising input costs caused by the Administration’s anti- fossil fuel policies, implemented in the name of, an illusory “climate change” crisis.

Fossil fueled power plants are being decommissioned in favor of heavily subsidized, unreliable solar farms and wind turbines. What could possibly go wrong? Ask Texas Governor Abbott. Reliance on windmills for electric power caused wide-spread power outages when a storm iced up the wind turbines last February.

 What does the Biden Administration propose as a remedy for the rising price of oil and gas? Electric vehicles. Recently Biden’s Secretary of Transportation explained that the more pain felt by average Americans at the gas pump, the more benefit for the lucky ones who can afford a new electric car. Secretary Pete Buttigieg, in testimony before a House Committee recently, stated: “The more pain we are all experiencing from the high price of gas, the more benefit there is for those who can access electric vehicles”. The words of an out of touch, arrogant ideologue.

 A “fundamental transformation” of the American energy economy is underway, at unbelievable cost, whether you like it or not. That’s what ideologues who have power do: Force change that is not wanted in the pursuit of their utopian ideology.

The ideologues are in charge in the Biden-Harris Administration. It makes little difference to them what the people they govern desire. The ideology is more important than the welfare, safety and prosperity of the American people.

 If the ideologues who inhabit the halls of the bureaucracy think about it at all, they must have a sense of impending doom and a sense of urgency to get as much of their ideological agenda in place as possible. That is why our Southwest Border will continue to be dangerous and subject to the atrocities of the Mexican cartels. It is also why inflation will continue to ravage our economy and our standard of living will decline.  Its “collateral damage” resulting from the war on fossil fuels.

Have we learned a lesson? Time will tell.

Ray Hunkins is a retired attorney and rancher and was the Republican nominee for Governor of Wyoming in 2006.

***For All Things Wyoming, Sign-Up For Our Daily Newsletter***

Ray Hunkins: Biden Shouldn’t Take Any Risks In Ukraine

in Column/Ray Hunkins

***For All Things Wyoming, Sign-Up For Our Daily Newsletter***

By Ray Hunkins, columnist

“The policy and practice of the Russian Government has always been to push forward its encroachments as fast and as far as the apathy or want of firmness of other Governments would allow it to go, but always to stop and retire when it met with decided resistance and then to wait for the next favorable opportunity.” – Lord Palmerston (1784-1865), former Prime Minister of the United Kingdom*

Lord Palmerston (“Pam” to his friends and admirers) was prescient.

“What’s past is prologue,” William Shakespeare wrote in his play “The Tempest.” If our nation’s educators only appreciated that history sets the context for the future, perhaps we would have leaders who discerned the mistakes of the past and avoided repeating them. 

Sadly, Obama and now Biden have repeated past mistakes with regard to Russia. What mistakes? The ones Pam warned about. Apathy in the face of Russian aggression and failing to be firm when confronting Russian threats and atrocities.

The recent Russian invasion of Ukraine and the horrible images it has evoked are on our minds and TV screens. Pam suggested that an expansive and belligerent Russia is a fact of history, a truism not recognized by the Obama and now, Biden administrations.

Ukraine has often been in the Russian crosshairs. It seems, as Pam warned, that the aggressive Russian bear hibernates, only to emerge from its lair to feast on its neighbors. It has taken bites out of Ukraine almost at will.

From the Crimean War (1853-1856) to the invasion and annexation of Crimea in 2014 (then a part of Ukraine), Western powers have faced the Bear in Eastern Europe. Famously, Alfred Lord Tennyson wrote his poem, Charge of the Light Brigade, about a failed British military action against the Russians during the Crimean War.

From 1917 until 1920, Russian Bolsheviks under Lenin sought to exert sovereignty over Ukraine by military force. One and one-half million Ukrainians died and hundreds of thousands were left homeless.

In the 1930s, Stalin’s Russia committed genocide on the Ukrainian people by a purposeful policy of starvation resulting in what is known as “The Great Famine.”

More recently, in 2014, Russia invaded and then annexed the Crimean Peninsula from Ukraine while simultaneously fomenting conflict as a precursor to taking control in Ukraine’s Donbas region. In reaction to this Russian aggression, there were condemnations, resolutions and sanctions, far and wide, none of which changed Russian behavior nor anything on the ground.

Russia’s 2014 aggression was the commencement of the present conflict. With its uncontested success in Crimea, Russia had proven that it could take Ukrainian territory by force without serious repercussions. After 2014, The Bear more or less hibernated until it launched its effort to devour Ukraine in the winter of 2022.

Thankfully, the Ukrainians have been taught their history. The lessons learned have led to an innate and justified distrust of Russia, and for good reason.

Former KGB Colonel and now Russian President Vladimir Putin is a ruthless dictator, known to murder opponents and operate outside even the rules of war. He may be pathologic but he is not mad. His actions in the invasion of Ukraine are immoral but rational, based on his knowledge of his antagonists, recent history and his calculation of likely reaction to his aggression.

Putin calculated that his chief antagonist, the United States, under the leadership of President Biden, was risk averse and likely not to be an impediment on his design for Ukrainian domination. 

In this, he was guided by recent experience in the invasion and annexation of Crimea in 2014. That experience was that President Obama and his Vice President, Joe Biden, would huff and puff, threaten sanctions and condemnation, but in the end would not risk conflict with Russia by kinetically opposing Russia’s objectives.

With regard to the invasion of Ukraine in 2022, Putin likely surmised that the U.S. under Biden might even draw a “red line,” but he knew that a red line had been ignored before (in Syria, regarding the use of chemical weapons) and likely would be again if Biden even mustered the effort to draw one.

Putin calculated that Ukraine would be no match for his superior (he thought) combined arms and that the U.S. and NATO would dither while his overwhelming legions forced capitulation in a matter of days, presenting the United States and NATO with a fait accompli. He calculated that Ukrainian leadership would be forced to surrender in the face of the onslaught. These were serious, perhaps fatal, miscalculations. Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, General Milley joined Putin and made the same miscalculation.

Despite Ukrainian pleas, U.S. officials chose to delay serious armament of Ukraine and serious sanctions against Russia until after the invasion had begun. The stated position of the U.S. was that it didn’t want to “provoke” an invasion by imposing sanctions.

Putin’s expectation of his antagonist’s reaction was entirely accurate.

But, instead of capitulation, Putin has experienced fierce and skilled resistance by Ukrainian defense forces and inspired, almost Churchillian, leadership by an improbable hero, 5-foot, 7-inch, 44-year-old former comedian President Volodymyr Zelensky. The Ukrainian President, busy rallying his people and the world, seems to be everything our president is not: young, vigorous, calming, wise and above all, courageous.

The United States is supplying arms to Ukraine, but more and better arms are needed according to Ukrainian officials. There was an unseemly public debate about supplying Ukraine with Polish MIG-29 aircraft. 

The U.S. said no, it would be provocative, then said maybe, then, after Poland delivered the planes to a U.S. base in Germany for delivery to Ukrainian pilots, said no again. The Administration’s stated reason: it would be “escalatory,” but in any event Ukraine didn’t need them and could put other armaments to better use. Reportedly, the final decision, “NO,” was made by President Biden.

The MIG–29s should be delivered to the Ukrainians…. yesterday. If there must be a debate, it should be in private. The decision about what is needed should be made by those shedding the blood.

Former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld famously stated, “You go to war with the Army you have, not the Army you might want or wish you had at a later time.” 

You also go to war with the leadership and national security apparatus you have – with the president, the secretary of defense, the chairman of the joint chiefs, the national security advisor and the cabinet. In 2022, that’s a problem.

There has been no shuffling of the deck with the national security team. It is the same group that mismanaged the withdrawal from Afghanistan last August; the same group that blundered strategically and tactically in abandoning Bagram Air Base, that abandoned billions of dollars in military equipment now in the hands of the Taliban and likely, our adversaries, including the Russians.

This group includes Gen. Milley, the woke chairman of the joint chiefs, who a few weeks ago estimated the Russians would take the Ukrainian capitol within 72 hours of a full-scale Russian invasion.

It is this group that decided to discharge military service members who did not want to be vaccinated against COVID-19 but insists that our military be subjected to mandatory training for diversity, equity and inclusion. Meanwhile, Russia threatens nuclear war.

It is this group that supervises the military academies where five cadets at the U.S. Military Academy overdosed on fentanyl-laced cocaine while on “spring break” in Florida last week and cadets from the U.S. Air Force Academy are picked up early each Sunday morning by a van to be transported to worship service in Denver at a witch’s coven.

I could go on, but you get the idea: by any reasonable standard of measurement, this group is incompetent.

Sadly, one must conclude, metaphorically, that this ain’t the army to go to war with. More accurately, this isn’t the group of leaders with which we should go to war. 

Regardless of how strongly we feel about the barbaric rape of Ukraine we are witnessing, about the war crimes and the atrocities, the refugees, the carnage, Congress and opinion leaders should not be clamoring for choosing any course of action that needs skill and wisdom to achieve. 

Don’t make this group take risks or attempt complex maneuvers, military or diplomatic. This group of leaders is mistake-prone and ideologically driven.

We should insist on more and better arms for the brave Ukrainian defenders. Expedite the shipments and take care of the refugees. Put the KISS (Keep It Simple, Stupid) principle into effect. Give Ukraine what it thinks it needs, hope for the best and pray for an acceptable outcome. That’s all we can safely do. Is it enough? Time will tell.

If all of that is done well, it is worthy, can be accomplished and, given the skill and bravery of the Ukrainian armed forces, may be decisive. Hopefully it is within the skill set of the national security team we have.

But under no circumstances should the loyal opposition or anyone else insist that this group take action that involves more than nominal risk. The president doesn’t want to take any significant risk and in recognizing his limitations, he may just be rising to the occasion and exhibiting a degree of wisdom.

I’m confident that if we get through this, better days are ahead.

*Many thanks to my high school friend, Boyd Ratchye of St. Paul, Minnesota, who brought his hero, “Pam” to my attention.

***For All Things Wyoming, Sign-Up For Our Daily Newsletter***

Ray Hunkins is a retired attorney and rancher, U.S. Marine, and the Republican nominee for governor of Wyoming in 2006

Ray Hunkins: Jack Finnerty, Mayor Of Slater, Wyoming Legend And An Irishman

in Column/Ray Hunkins

***For All Things Wyoming, Sign-Up For Our Daily Newsletter***

By Ray Hunkins, columnist

It was a hot Fourth of July in 1968 at the rodeo in St. Onge, S.D. Hadley Barrett, “the voice of rodeo,” announced the next cowboy up in the bulldogging event. As friends and family remember the story, the announcer’s tease went something like this:

“We are honored to have as our next contestant, the mayor of Slater, that great metropolis in wonderful Wyoming. If you don’t know where Slater is, it’s just a stone’s throw north of another big Wyoming city, Chugwater [laughter]. You can get here from there, but you can’t get there from here [more laughter]. Slater is a little smaller than Chugwater. It has a population of four [louder laughter]. That would be Jack, his wife, Louise, and their two boys, Matt and Dean [the most laughter]. Ladies and gentlemen, give a big round of applause for the mayor of Slater, Wyoming, the Honorable Jack Finnerty!”

From that day on, Jack Finnerty would be known as “the mayor of Slater.”

Jack has been my friend for more than 50 years. For 35 of those, we were partners in the livestock world, doing business as Split Rock Land and Cattle Company. Split Rock owned some country next to my Thunderhead Ranch. For a time, Split Rock also partnered with farmer-feeder Bob Shepherd and his son, Brooks, doing business as the Ashley Creek Cattle Company.

During those years, through thick and thin, whether we were branding, moving cattle, working cows, trailing down the mountain in the cold and wind of late fall, or even counting profits and losses at the end of the year, not a harsh word was exchanged between us. That’s not to say that on appropriate occasions harsh words, even some good old-fashioned cursing and cussing, weren’t uttered, even hollered, at the top of our lungs (especially Jack’s). After all, “Finnerty” is Irish, and with that come certain fabled predilections.

Though Jack may be a “son of Wyoming,” he is also a grandson of Ireland. His grandfather, Patrick Finnerty, was born in County Galway. He immigrated to the United States, ending up at a trading post in New Mexico and eventually Cheyenne. James Finnerty, Jack’s father, was born in Cheyenne and worked for the Union Pacific Railroad. James purchased a ranch, then known as the M Bar, in Slater in 1943.

Jack’s mother (maiden name O’Leary) insisted that the family keep a house in Cheyenne so Jack and his eight brothers and sisters could attend St. Mary’s Catholic School. Jack excelled in athletics there, especially football. He was a star running back.

During one game, according to his brother Dan, Jack suffered a compound fracture. The bone was visible to the coach, but Jack was silent about the pain. The coach said something prophetic that would be repeated many times in the years to come. “Jack, you’re one tough cowboy.”

To say that Jack has an affinity for Irishmen would be an understatement. In late summer 1987, two young men from the East Coast came knocking. Jack’s wife, Louise, opened the door and asked what they wanted. One explained that he had inquired in Chugwater about where they might fill their antelope permits and had been told they should try the Finnerty ranch. Louise responded that it was ranch policy not to allow hunting.

About then Jack came from the back of the house and asked the men for their names. One responded: “I’m Pat O’Toole from New Jersey and this is my cousin, Tim O’Mara. He’s from Massachusetts.” Jack broke into a big grin and told Louise: “These lads are Irish. They get to hunt.” That was the start of a friendship between Jack, rancher and Wyoming Cowboy Hall of Fame inductee, and Pat O’Toole, Marine, Vietnam combat vet and Carnegie Hero Award recipient, a friendship that has endured the test of time.

Though Jack attended school and lived in Cheyenne, he spent all his spare time at the ranch in Platte County. In the early years he was too small to help with the fences, so he was given the job of cowboying on horseback. That’s what he loved, working with cattle and horses. As a youngster he even jockeyed at some of the quarter horse races around the region.

The Finnerty ranch, adjacent to the CB&Q main line, summered yearling cattle for Butter Spur Cattle Feeders of Imperial Valley, Calif. The cattle were moved in and out by rail.

Jack was not interested in his dad’s sheep or in anything mechanical. As he grew older and eventually acceded to ownership of the ranch, his interests and preferences did not change. Under Jack’s management the Finnerty ranch raised Hereford cattle (later switching to Angus-cross) and quarter horses, but he never lost his love of competition or his natural athletic ability. That combination assured that he would find success on the rodeo circuit, and he did.

Jack started his rodeo career as a youngster at Cheyenne Frontier Days, riding calves and earning a silver dollar for every successful ride. As he grew into manhood, he competed at rodeos across the West in multiple events—calf roping, bareback bronc riding, bull riding, team roping and steer wrestling.

In 1969, Jack was named Professional Rodeo Cowboy Association’s (PRCA) Wyoming All-Around Cowboy. As he got older, he kept right on competing. In 1986 he won the bulldogging event in Amarillo, Texas, in the finals of the National Old-Timers Rodeo Association, predecessor to the National Senior Pro Rodeo Association. At age 54 he entered the bull riding at the Grant County Fair and Rodeo in Hyannis in the Nebraska Sandhills. Jack was still “one tough cowboy.”

He led the National Senior Pro Rodeo Association as president in 1985-1986 and was inducted into its Hall of Fame in 1997. In 2019, at age 80, he was inducted into the Wyoming Cowboy Hall of Fame.

Though the mayor of Slater is best known for his rodeo prowess, he isn’t one dimensional. Jack always actively sought ways to serve others. He has mentored and coached young cowboys, and for many years he’s served on the board of the Wyoming High School Rodeo Association.

In 1979 Jack was elected to the Wheatland REA board of directors and still serves in that capacity. A fellow board member, Bob Brockman, is quoted as saying this about Jack’s service: “Jack always displays his love and passion for the members of our cooperative, his fellow board members, the employees of our co-op, and the principles of the cooperative. His wisdom and guidance are cherished by all those he serves.”

For his work on behalf of the Wyoming REA, Jack was recognized in 2018 with the Sen. Craig Thomas Cooperative Service Award. In 1988, Jack was elected to the board of directors of Tri-State Generation & Transmission Association, a group of 45 not-for-profit electric cooperatives and public power districts in four states: Wyoming, Nebraska, Colorado and New Mexico. Today, Jack is Tri-State’s longest serving board member.

Jack’s penchant for service hasn’t been limited to boards. He has always gone out of his way to help people, whether coaching and mentoring aspiring rodeo competitors or helping neighbors and elderly friends. His son Matt says, “Dad never turns down a chance to help” and adds that his father would often have the boys join him, loading and hauling their horses to neighbors who needed extra hands. “We spent many evenings and weekends gathering cattle for people because it was the right thing to do.”

Jack took a course at Colorado State University’s vet school to learn how to perform C-sections on cows. He felt it was necessary in a pinch to be able to perform that procedure. But his CSU education was not a secret and Matt remembers, “During calving season there were some late nights in bad weather going to neighbors to do C-sections.”

Jack has always had a special place in his heart for folks who are “a little long in the tooth.” Here are two examples: Not far from our Thunderhead Ranch, on the south side of Lee Mountain, an old-timer named Skeeter had a cabin. It was less than a quarter mile from our shipping corrals to his cabin. Skeeter’s wife and daughter cooked for our crew working cows in the fall. One year, Skeeter got to worrying about the state of his cabin’s roof as winter approached. He casually mentioned his concern to Jack. Without telling Skeeter or mentioning it to me, Jack took his sons up to Skeeter’s cabin and installed a completely new roof.

The late Earl Blevins of Wheatland, Wyo., invented and manufactured the famous Blevins stirrup buckle. Before he did, all stirrup leather was fastened with leather laces. Earl was a famous cowboy in rodeo circles and was inducted into the Hall of Fame at Oklahoma City’s National Cowboy and Western Heritage Museum. In his later years in Wheatland, Earl was pretty much disabled and housebound. Jack brightened Earl’s declining years by packing him up and driv­ing him to Las Vegas for the PRCA National Finals Rodeo.

Random acts of kindness have been a staple in Jack’s life. His friend John Ware says, “I have never seen Jack too busy or too tired to help a friend.”

Matt adds, “Dad taught me there’s nothing more important than good friends and family.” A few years ago, Matt wrote this poem for his dad:

            My cowboy days are almost done,

            The life was great but not always fun.

            Snow-covered hills, wide blue sky,

            A lot of beauty has graced these eyes.

            Arena dust or pasture rain,

            The life I lived was worth the pain.

            The work was tough I’ll tell you, Pard

            It’s kept my mind sharp and body hard.

            I thank the Lord for what I’ve had,

            Slater’s been my home since I was a lad.

            So, lift your glass and give a cheer, ’cause

            Someone once said, “You can’t get there from here.”

At 82, Jack and I have now graduated to old-timers status. Through it all, we have remained good friends. It is an honor to write about someone I have come to admire, a son of the Cowboy State who has achieved “legendary” status in Wyoming and beyond. What a privilege to have ridden part of life’s trail with Jack Finnerty.  ###

This article first appeared in the Winter 2021-2022 edition of RANGE “The Cowboy Spirit On America’s Outback” magazine and is reprinted here with permission.

***For All Things Wyoming, Sign-Up For Our Daily Newsletter***

Ray Hunkins: Loyalty And The “Transfer Portal”

in Column/Ray Hunkins

***For All Things Wyoming, Sign-Up For Our Daily Newsletter***

Ray Hunkins

According to the website, “SB Nation”, there have been 107 outgoing Mountain West Conference scholarship football players who have entered the “Transfer Portal” as of December 28th. They range from a high of 18 players at CSU, which had a coaching change, to a low of 3 at San Jose State. Wyoming had 10 players enter the portal as of December 28th, including the two biggest stars of the Famous Idaho Potato Bowl, quarterback Levi Williams and wide receiver Isaiah Neyor.

At the same time, there were only 25 incoming players transferring to Mountain West Conference schools, and 10 of these were incoming to CSU. There were no transfers incoming to Wyoming.

Award winning sports writer Tracy Ringolsby reports in a Tweet that so far in 2021 there have been a total of 1,074 student athletes who entered the transfer portal, but only 28% of them (299) have received scholarships. 72% have not. They remain in the portal.

What’s going on?

On April 28, 2021 the NCAA Division One Board of Directors approved the transfer rule allowing athletes to transfer and compete, without sitting out a year, which was the previous rule for transfers. In doing so, the Board in its infinite wisdom created something akin to the NFL “Free Agency Rule” – with one big difference: In order to be a free agent in the NFL, the professional player has to complete the term of his contractual obligation.

Under the NCAA transfer rule, the student athlete is under no such obligation. He can commit to a four-year scholarship at a university one day, and enter the transfer portal six months later if he thinks practices are too tough or he misses his girlfriend back home too much.

What are we teaching these kids? Certainly, not to persevere. Certainly, not the virtues of loyalty and fidelity. Nor are we teaching them to keep their word and honor their commitments. Are there circumstances which might justify a transfer and application of the rule? Most certainly. But those circumstances are few and far between. “Acceptable circumstances” would exclude whimsical and capricious reasons so typical of 18-year-old, 19-year-old or even 20-year-old kids. 

There are no guardrails for the new NCAA rule; there is no procedure for examining the circumstances and applying a rule to the facts of a particular situation. The NCAA has said, in effect, there are no rules, every man for himself. No need to keep commitments. Breaching a contract is OK if you are a player. If you don’t like practices or don’t like the coach or don’t get along with the first stringer, or are interested in a girl on another campus, get an agent and go for it!

 Nice work, NCAA!

When the NCAA adopted the ill-advised rules making it “legal” for young athletes to transfer (including for reasons of self-aggrandizement), to hire agents, and to receive payment for name, image and likeness, it not only fundamentally changed college athletics, it opened the door to skullduggery.

The effect of the transfer rule is to discourage loyalty and unity in team sports and encourage, or at least allow, victimization and abuse of young athletes by the unscrupulous. Importantly and thankfully, the new rules are antithetical to Wyoming’s ethos and Code.

The NCAA rule, its effect and its application are not compatible with Wyoming standards. Wyoming and its University are different from most states and most state universities, in that our state has adopted explicit ethical standards designed to discourage disloyalty and breach of commitment.

Those standards can be found in the official Wyoming Code, adopted by the Wyoming Legislature, signed into law by the governor and appearing as a statute in Title 8 of the Wyoming Statutes (8-3-123). Its derivation is interesting.

After a 35-year successful career on Wall Street, Jim Owen wrote a book in 2004, Cowboy Ethics – What Wall Street Can Learn from the Code of the West. The book was a great success, so much so that the Wyoming Legislature in 2010 passed the bill mentioned above, declaring that The Code of The West was the official, “Wyoming Code”. The act was signed into law by Governor Dave Freudenthal on March 3, 2010. The Code is summarized by the following 10 principles set forth in the statute:

  1. Live each day with courage.
  2. Take pride in your work.
  3. Always finish what you start.
  4. Do what has to be done.
  5. Be tough, but fair.
  6. When you make a promise keep it.
  7. Ride for the brand.
  8. Talk less and say more.
  9. Remember that some things are not for sale.
  10. Know where to draw the line.

The Code addresses many of what we think of as “virtues”. Courage, self-discipline, responsibility, perseverance, honesty, and fidelity and loyalty, are all covered.

The oath of office specified by the Wyoming Constitution for all state officials, requires the official to swear or affirm that the discharge of duties will be, “with fidelity”. Fidelity means loyalty and faithfulness. The oath is consistent and congruent with the Code

As reported by the Casper Star Tribune recently, former Montana Governor, Marc Racicot, speaking of a provision in the Montana Constitution similar to Wyoming’s, defined fidelity: “Racicot, 73, said fidelity is faithfulness to a person, cause, belief, or country. He said it is demonstrated by loyalty and support without self-aggrandizement….” In the rural West, another way of expressing the concepts of fidelity and loyalty is, “ride for the brand”.

Fidelity was thought to be so important to teamwork in achieving the mission of the U.S. Marine Corps that it adopted Semper Fidelis, “always faithful”, as its motto in 1883. Fidelity of players to their team and the institution they represent is an important ingredient of team success.

The Code is aspirational to be sure, but it can also be said to be part of the ethos of Wyoming – the very spirit of our State and its people.

A few years ago, the University of Wyoming came up with a marketing slogan: “The World Needs More Cowboys”. It appears everywhere in the University’s promotional literature. Principle seven of Cowboy Ethics that became “The Code” later became the slogan for the UW Athletic Department. “Ride for the Brand” can be seen everywhere Wyoming Athletics are promoted.

 That is why the revelation that ten members of the football team quit Wyoming and were seeking another school, was such a gut punch to all who love the University and support its sports teams.

 It seemed on some level, that these young men, only partially but certainly purposely, enticed by “The World Needs More Cowboys” and “Ride for the Brand”, had violated Wyoming’s ethical code.

We should remember that these ten are only a fraction of the Cowboy football team, the vast majority of whom, “ride for the brand”. We should also remember that there may have been individual circumstances that justified a transfer from the University of Wyoming. We will never know because the NCAA rule does not require a student to justify his action in abandoning his commitment to attend and play football at UW.

That the ten had not adopted the Code as their own, that they had not finished what they had started, that they had broken a promise, that they violated the exhortation, “ride for the brand”, seems probable. That they were seeking to sell themselves to the highest bidder in an unseemly rush to the “transfer portal” also seems probable. The admonitions in the Code, “when you make a promise keep it” and, “some things are not for sale”, were ignored.

In The Book of Virtues, Bill Bennett writes, “…. Real loyalty endures inconvenience, withstands temptation, and does not cringe under assault.”

The ten who searched for greener pastures, violated the principles of loyalty and fidelity. I doubt they thought much about the Code or its sixth, seventh and ninth principles. They may not even have known there was a code, any code, and they may not have known “Ride for the Brand” is more than a slogan, it is an important principle for living a good life. They could have been exposed to those ideas.

An explanation of the Code and its importance to Wyoming, perhaps in an orientation, would be helpful to all students new to our state and most certainly to student athletes. It would be beneficial to teach the Code and why it is an important part of representing Wyoming on the fields of competition.

The NCAA Transfer Portal Rule makes it “legal” for young men to break their word and renege on their commitments. But as Stan Lynde, creator of the syndicated comic strip Rick O’Shay reminded us many years ago, “legal ain’t always right.”

Ray Hunkins is a retired country lawyer and rancher. He is a “Distinguished Alumnus” of the University of Wyoming.

***For All Things Wyoming, Sign-Up For Our Daily Newsletter***

Ray Hunkins: Winsome Sears In Wyoming

in Column/Ray Hunkins

***For All Things Wyoming, Sign-Up For Our Daily Newsletter***

By Ray Hunkins, guest columnist

On November 2nd, Republican Winsome Sears was elected Lt. Governor of Virginia in a major electoral upset, and in doing so became the first black female to win a state wide office in the Old Dominion state. She garnered a total of 1,658,746 votes, besting her Democrat opponent by 50,000.

Ms. Sears has become an overnight sensation in Republican circles. She has a connection to Wyoming from long ago.

It was the beginning of what promised to be a long day on the Thunderhead Ranch. I arose at 0400 and was making coffee and breakfast in the kitchen of our ranch home and (mostly) listening to Brian Lamb on C-Span’s Washington Journal, my favorite morning TV show in those days.

It wasn’t far into my routine before I forgot breakfast and sat down to listen and watch Lamb’s fascinating interview with a newly elected representative to the Virginia House of Delegates, a young, articulate and conservative black lady from Norfolk, Virginia.

I learned that Ms. Sears was elected to a majority Black legislative district in 2001, defeating a 20-year Democrat incumbent and becoming the first Black Republican elected to the Virginia legislature since 1865.

I also learned that she was a Marine Corps veteran, married to a Marine, was a naturalized citizen who came with her impoverished family from Jamaica and that she was the mother of three daughters. Before entering politics, she had run a homeless shelter.

The interview revealed that this young lady was courageous, community oriented and displayed obvious strength of character.

Those were characteristics with which I was familiar as chairman of a Wyoming foundation which had the mission of identifying and honoring those, who through their actions and accomplishments, exemplified such character traits – the character traits of Louisa Swain, the World’s first woman voter, who cast her ballot in1870 in Laramie.

Several days later, after the cattle were gathered and as soon as I could get to a phone, I called the executive director and founder of the Louisa Swain Foundation, Weldon Tuck, and told him what I had seen and heard on C-Span and suggested the foundation should reach out to Ms. Sears and see if she would be interested in getting involved in the work of our foundation. Weldon did so and Winsome agreed.

Winsome Sears was elected to the foundation’s board and did yeoman’s service in that capacity for several years. During her term, she traveled to Wyoming and visited the Wyoming Legislature where she made remarks and was introduced by state treasurer and fellow Louisa Swain Board member, Cynthia Lummis, and Speaker of the Wyoming House Fred Parady. Ms. Sears was well received.

She attended and was introduced at a reception for April Brimmer Kunz, then President of the Wyoming Senate, at the Plains Hotel, visiting with the many Wyoming legislators present.

Ms. Sears is expected to be inaugurated as Virginia’s 42nd lieutenant governor on January 15, 2022. Like Louisa Swain, Winsome Sears will be a “first” in history. In Ms. Sears case, the first black woman to hold a state wide office in the Commonwealth of Virginia. Like Louisa Swain, a devout Quaker, and also from Norfolk, politics is secondary to Winsome Sears’ work in her community. Ms. Sears says she is “most proud of my community work leading a men’s prison ministry and as director of a women’s homeless shelter for the Salvation Army.”

In remembering Ms. Sear’s visit to the Wyoming Legislature, Former Speaker of the House Fred Parady stated, “I will remember Delegate Sears’ evident pride in her role as a member of Virginia’s House, the oldest continuously operating legislative chamber – since 1619!”

Former State Treasurer and now Senator, Cynthia Lummis, offered: “I remember Winsome Sears’ visit to Wyoming well. She personified everything that the Louisa Swain Foundation was trying to honor and recognize within the mission of the Foundation’s Women’s History House and the Louisa Swain Award program.  I am very proud that the voters of the Commonwealth of Virginia recognized the same qualities in Winsome Sears as did the Louisa Swain Foundation so many years ago. She represents the epitome of integrity, service, values and patriotism that we all hope will guide our elected officials.”

Winsome Sears may have been elected to high public office in Virginia, but she has friends and admirers in Wyoming who remember her good work in the Equality State.

***For All Things Wyoming, Sign-Up For Our Daily Newsletter***

Ray Hunkins is a retired attorney and rancher and was the Republican nominee for Governor of Wyoming in 2006

Ray Hunkins: Close And Seal The Border…. Now!

in Column/Ray Hunkins

***For All Things Wyoming, Sign-Up For Our Daily Newsletter***

The Afghanistan Catastrophe is Linked With the Border Crisis

By Ray Hunkins, columnist

   The latest reporting on Border crossings reveals that well over 200,000 “encounters” occurred in the month of July. That’s the headline. “Encounters” are contacts between Border Patrol and illegal border crossers.

   Even more disturbing and potentially dangerous, is the estimate of “got- a-ways.” They are those illegal crossers that did not want to turn themselves over to the Biden Administration’s equivalent of what has functionally become the “Welcome Wagon” – The U.S. Border Patrol. Why not join the thousand who are coming across, being processed and then given a ticket to somewhere in the interior of our Nation? There is only one reason.

   The “got-a-ways do not want contact with law enforcement, even law enforcement that has been, by reason of the administration’s policy, emasculated. Why? Because these are folks up to no good. They could be drug runners, gang members, or human traffickers. Or, they could be terrorists. Several illegal crossers apprehended already this year have been on the Terrorist Watch List. The nationality of illegal crossers has not been limited to Mexico and those countries in Central America. They have been identified from every continent, including Africa and the Middle East.

   Sunday, Kabul fell to the Taliban, former hosts of Osama Bin Laden and his merry band of 9-11 plotters. The jails in Kabul were emptied. CNN reported that the detention facility at our recently surrendered Bagram Air Base, filled with Al Qaida and a few ISIS, was breached and the prisoners released.

The Taliban now control Afghanistan and dedicated, America hating terrorists are free to plan and plot attacks against the Homeland. Our enemies, most notably, Iran, China and Russia, have been given a gift – expendable fighters willing to bring their talents to our borders.

   The images and concerns about rescuing Americans and allies from Taliban retribution, are distracting from the ongoing Border crises. But, the two are linked.

   We now have what can only be described as an “open Border.” In fact, all of our borders are “open” because Border Patrol agents from the Border with Canada and those patrolling both coasts, have been posted to the Southern Border to help process the overwhelming number of border crossers, estimated to exceed over one million to date this fiscal year – and, the number is growing every month.

   The catastrophe that is our Border with Mexico is no secret. Thanks to satellite television, the whole world knows about the open U.S. Border, certainly including those who would do us harm.

   The open border and the chaos in Afghanistan, when linked with the perception that the leadership of the U.S. Government is weak and/or disabled, is an open invitation for adventuresome terrorists.

   The confluence of events demands that our Border with Mexico immediately be closed and sealed. Whatever resources and assets necessary to accomplish this should immediately be mustered. If the federal government continues to refuse to take the action necessary to enforce the law and keep America safe, the governors of the border states, with the material assistance of other states not on the Border, should do what is necessary to close and seal the Southern Border.

   Security at our Nation’s other borders should be enhanced.

   We are in perilous times

Ray Hunkins, a Marine and former law enforcement officer, lives on the Border part of the year and is retired.

***For All Things Wyoming, Sign-Up For Our Daily Newsletter***

Ray Hunkins: Joe Biden’s ‘Welcoming Centers’ For Asylum Seekers On Our Southern Border

in Column/Ray Hunkins

***For All Things Wyoming, Sign-Up For Our Daily Newsletter***

By Ray Hunkins, guest columnist

The catastrophe that is our Southern Border has not abated. Indeed, the crisis has gotten worse. 

In June there were 188,000 “encounters” by the Border Patrol with migrants coming across the Southern Border. “Encounters” with migrants in the current fiscal year have now surpassed one million. No one knows how many the government transported to the interior of the U.S., who were bearing the Corona Virus.

    In the geographic area I have an interest in, Arizona, (because I spend part of the year there), the Tucson and Yuma Sectors have seen year over year apprehension increases of 206% (138,767) and 808% (59,885), respectively.

    So far, this fiscal year Border wide, unaccompanied minors (93,512), family units (231,924), and single adults (750,806) have all increased greatly compared to last year.

   Asylum seekers, those claiming a “credible fear” of persecution in their home countries on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group or political opinion, are a discreet category under U.S. immigration law, but current statistics are not publicly available for that category.

   Recently, I interviewed a young lady, the daughter of a friend, who was the operations manager of a hotel in the Phoenix area. Her hotel was contracted by the firm, Endeavors out of San Antonio, Texas, to house asylum seekers coming across the Border in Arizona. Her description of the operation was fascinating and provides an inside view of a portion of the Biden Administration’s operation on the Southern Border. 

   The young lady whose interview appears below, asked that her name not be used. For purposes of the interview, she will be referred as, “Mgr.”



RH: Would you describe the hotel where you were working in May and June of 2021?

Mgr: We were an all-suite hotel.  Mostly 1-bedroom suites with a bedroom and a separate living/kitchen area.  For the asylum seeker guest’s safety, the stove tops and garbage disposals were disconnected in each room and the windows were secured to prevent any accidents with children and falls.  Great measures were taken to make sure the safety and security of these guests were provided.  Meals were delivered and guests did not cook in the rooms.  Guests had access to cable TV in air-conditioned rooms that were relatively well appointed.  These were not luxurious accommodations but they were not meager accommodations, either.  Guests did not have access to the pool or fitness center or business center.  Our hotel was not a jail for them…but it wasn’t a vacation either.  Endeavors employees manned each floor at all times in order to address any guests that had questions or needs, at their door.  Each floor had toiletries, hygiene items, snacks and bottled water to ensure basic needs were met.

RH: What was your understanding of who the “guests” were and why the government was providing housing for them?

Mgr: My understanding is that all guests were asylum seekers that had come to the U.S. – Mexico Border in Arizona and claimed they were entitled to asylum under U.S. law. My understanding is that these guests walked across the pedestrian bridges at our Mexican border and surrendered to border patrol asking for asylum.  All of the guests at our hotel were families with children.  These were not migrants sneaking in that were then caught.  These were not drug runners or gun runners.  These were not military-aged single men.  I have no idea what is happening with folks caught on our soil, having snuck in, but if people are able to be trafficked into Mexico to walk across and claim asylum…it does beg the question of what happens to the ones that are being trafficked in so they can sneak across because of their criminal history, repeated denials of entry, etc.

RH: What was your position in the hotel and when did the asylum seekers start arriving?

Mgr: Our hotel had a contract with Endeavors that began on May 23rd.  I was the Sales Manager/Operational Manager (I reported to the General Manager and was #2 on the property) at that time and through my last day of employ (July 3rd).  Guests did not arrive on property until May 29th and that week leading up to the 29th was spent readying the hotel for the new contract.  I worked a lot of shifts and hours during those 5 weeks and got to know many of the Endeavors people and the Security and ICE agents. It was a friendly and positive environment.

RH: What agencies and departments of the government had offices at your hotel? How many government agents were working out of the hotel? 

Mgr: ICE [Immigration and Customs Enforcement] had offices at our hotel.  ICE agents were a part of the operation and although I don’t know exact numbers…. I would guess about 4 agents a day were on our property.  “US Advisors” was a name given to another group of individuals that, I believe, acted as intermediaries between Endeavors and the federal government.  They had an office at the hotel, as well, and there were 1 or 2 individuals with that designation on the property each day.  Endeavors was the government contractor that had the contract with the hotel and that ran most aspects of the operation…most personnel on site were Endeavors employees.  Endeavor probably had about 30-40 people on site each day.  There was a security company on site, too, that monitored the building’s security and personnel coming and going and they had 4-7 employees on site a day.  Off duty Law Enforcement (“LEO”) was also hired to man the entrances to the hotel, at least during my time at the hotel…we did experience protests and incidents of trespassing from media, local residents and protestors that made the LEO presence necessary for the safety of those working at the hotel and the guests.  The LEO worked 3 to a 12-hour shift (about 5-6 a day).

RH: From what countries did the asylum seekers come? Can you guess as to the largest representation, next largest, and so on?

Mgr: I am aware of guests from Venezuela, India, Russia, Columbia, Romania, Haiti, Cuba AND Brazil.  The majority were South American and I am sure there were many countries that I was not specifically aware of.  Most spoke Spanish.  I was incredibly aware of the Brazilian guests as they spoke Portuguese and that stuck out.  I feel that the Brazilian numbers might have been the highest, at my property, during my time there.  

RH: What were the rules for those guests? How were they fed, medical needs taken care of, etc.? 

Mgr: The guests came into the hotel on a bus…usually pretty early in the day. They were happy (relived/surprised?) to be greeted with smiles and welcomes.  These were families with children and they were, for the most part, pretty quiet and respectful and they just appeared overwhelmed.  Humble is a word I would use for these guests…at least while they were at our hotel. They would come in and immediately be screened for COVID.  While waiting for their COVID screening they would be held in a secure area of the lobby.  Once they were cleared as COVID negative they would be issued photo ID for use while at our hotel (even children were given a photo ID) and those IDs would be surrendered right before they departed.  Each family went through an orientation at arrival before being taken to their rooms.  The arrival/orientation process would take an hour or two.  The families would also have meetings with ICE agents on both the day of arrival and I believe the next day, as well.  If the guests had medical emergencies or concerns…there was a medical office set up in one of our rooms to address those concerns as well (Endeavor had medical staff on the property around the clock).  The guests weren’t allowed to wander the hotel…they could leave their rooms if they had a purpose but were encouraged to stay in their rooms at other times.  Guests were escorted by Endeavors staff if they needed to meet with ICE or the medical team.  Meals were delivered to their rooms and the menu was set.  Breakfast lunch and dinner…but the Endeavors staff also had snacks and beverages they would hand out to the guests between meals.  Guests were also given a COVID test the night before their departure.  Any guests that tested positive for COVID was immediately transported, with their family, to a different facility where their medical needs could be addressed and where all the family members could be quarantined.  It is my understanding that these guests were served warrants with a court date before they departed the hotel…those warrants coming from ICE. I was unaware of any of the guests being given a vaccination shot.

RH: What was the length of stay? Do you believe the program was pre-planned or on the spur of the moment? What evidence supports your belief? 

Mgr: Guests arrived on day 1 and departed on day 3 in almost all cases.  A handful of guests may have departed on day 2 or day 4.  I believe the program was pre-planned.  Everything was incredibly organized, with regards to these guests’ paperwork, and this did not give off any “spur of the moment” feel.  I do not know if our current administration had this being organized prior to them taking office but a lot of thought and planning went into these operations.

RH:  How many rooms were in the hotel? What was the rate of occupancy during the period you were involved? 

Mgr: My hotel had 114 rooms.  Approximately 15 rooms were used as offices for the Endeavor and ICE teams.  We were bringing in about 17 families each day…and each day approximately 17 families were departing.  It did appear that they were gearing up for about twice the number of arrivals/departures each day but as of mid-month July they were still housing about that same amount.  The hotel is prepared to house up to 95 families each night but I do not know if they will ever reach that level of occupancy.

RH: What did the government pay for taking over the hotel? 

Mgr: Our contract was for the entire hotel.  The room rate was $89/room.  So roughly $10000/night of revenue for the hotel regardless of how many rooms were occupied.

RH: What happened to the guests when they left? Where were they going and what were they doing upon leaving the hotel?

Mgr: Most guests left on day 3 and were taken to the airport.  I believe the families at my hotel had sponsors to assist them during their asylum processing and those sponsors assisted with the plane tickets to get them to their destinations.  It is also my understanding that for those who had sponsors, the US government did not pay for the plane tickets.  I do not know the destinations of the guests but I think a lot of them were going to the East Coast from the answers I received when I asked that same question.

RH: Are you aware of other hotels in the area that participated in the program?

Mgr: I know that there was one hotel just starting to operate at the beginning of July in Yuma, one in Ahwautukee that started operating in March or April and our hotel in the greater Phoenix area. There was also a facility that the COVID positive guests & families were taken to but I do not know any details on that location or their set up.

RH: Do you have any observations about the efficiency of this government program?

Mgr: Our hotel was not being fully utilized.  Perhaps that has already changed and the hotel is already hosting more individuals.  But about 100 rooms a night were paid for to be used as hotel rooms and only about 35 were being used each night (plus the 15 being paid for to be used as offices by the government and government contractors).  Rollaway beds were purchased to check off boxes for how many beds there were available…but those beds would likely not be used as each of our rooms had a pullout sofa, already, in addition to one or two beds in the bedrooms.  Each of the families (or maybe even each of the adults) was given a smart phone with service to be used during their time in the US…I think this was a way of keeping track of the guests while their asylum hearings were pending…but I imagine the cost for that was significant.  Most of the Endeavors employees were from out of state.  They were being housed at a nearby hotel, as well, and received per diem.  Clothing for the guests was on site if the guests were in need and at one point there were cases and cases of infant/toddler snowsuits hanging out in boxes on the property (in Phoenix…in June).  The guests were not eating elaborately and I think the food service was pretty modest in cost.  The staffing was adequate but I did not think excessive. 

RH:  Did you hear any relevant quotes about the program from government officials you worked with?  

Mgr: The idea behind the program, as it was explained to me, was that if these asylum seekers/immigrant families were treated with hospitality and a more welcoming experience coming in… they would be more likely to show up at their hearings and check in with the people that they were supposed to check in with while waiting for those asylum hearings (i.e.; they would willingly participate in the process).  The ICE agents, that I spoke with, all thought that these people would drop off the radar before their hearings (which would be 6-18 months down the line).  A lot of the ICE agents were former border patrol that had a former career full of apprehensions and interactions at the border.  The federal agents that I spoke with (and I’m a talker that likes to find things out and I did not have a single question go unanswered during my 6 weeks working during this program) just did not believe that anything we were doing would lead to any higher participation rate among these migrants as far as showing up for their hearings.  Most of the government agents looked at it as a waste of money and a way to set precedent for asylum seekers to be well taken care of before disappearing into our country.  Most believed that many asylum claims would prove unfounded.  None of these agents believed any of these immigrants would ever be returned to their country of origin…even if their asylum claim was proven unfounded.  These guests were here in America, they believed, and they would be staying in America, no matter what.

RH: Do you have a sense of what costs these asylum seekers incurred for their journey across the Border? 

Mgr:  I have no idea.  But I imagine it was a lot…if not everything they had.  Many of the guests came in with backpacks and looked destitute.  Some came in looking more affluent.  I imagine the trafficking of individuals to our southern border was making SOMEONE or SOME ENTITY a lot of money.  I was not under the impression that any of these individuals hailed from Mexico….or at least the vast majority of them were not from Mexico.  Romania to Mexico is not a short jump…ditto for India to Mexico….Brazil to Mexico, etc.  In a pandemic world where international travel is limited…these individuals had the connections/money to make this trip.  I doubt it was cheap.

RH: Do you have any final thoughts about your experience that you would like to share?

Mgr: I enjoyed my time working with this group.  I thought the Endeavors and ICE team members were great.  It was a professional operation and we were all there to do a job.  Our guests were individuals, families.  They were people like me or you.  They had been encouraged, by our current administration, to do what they did.  They were rewarded with an easy path in to claim asylum.  These individuals were taking legitimate advantage of a change in policy in an attempt to better their situations…. either to the betterment or detriment of themselves and/or the US.  Those of us working at the hotel during this time may not have agreed with the policy…but we treated the individuals with respect and kindness.  Honestly, the entire experience was fascinating and awesome.


   Asylum seekers are unique in the way they are treated under U.S. immigration law. However, it is well known that claims for asylum are often a pretext to gain entry into the United States. As the ICE agents told the Manager and she repeated in her interview, “most [ICE agents] believed that many asylum claims would prove unfounded”. It is also well known that a very small percentage of asylum seekers show up for their asylum hearings. Most simply disappear, never to be seen again by immigration officials.

   Several facts revealed by the interview were of concern but two of them deserve comment. First, it is clear that the program undertaken with respect to asylum seekers and for their benefit, is enormously expensive. For just the hotel that is the subject of the interview, the manager estimated somewhere between 44 and 59. employees, contractors, agents, intermediaries and law enforcement, directly in support of 35 families on a daily basis. And, those numbers don’t count transportation workers and off-site medical personnel for covid positive asylum seekers, just to name two. At some point the cost of the Administration’s programs at the Border will be known and it won’t be pretty.

   Second, it is also clear that there is a gap in the Covid 19 defense of the Biden Administration. That gap is the Border and the migrants crossing it, whether they be asylum seekers or others. While it appears that medical treatment for Covid positive asylum seekers was available and utilized, there is no indication that preventive measures such as vaccines have been made available. At a time when cases are spiking and officials are recommending vaccines, masks and social distancing once again, it’s as if a prophylactic vaccine is not applicable to migrants who have crossed the Southern Border.

   The elaborate plan and its execution for handling the influx of asylum seekers at the Southern Border, suggests the influx was anticipated and even expected. It is not clear that the plan was consistent with U.S. Immigration law but it isn’t clear that it wasn’t. The problem regarding pretextual asylum seeking may require a change in law. Be that as it may, asylum seekers are a very small part of the current Border crisis. Nevertheless, if the rule of law is to prevail, the law must be enforced. Ignoring the legal requirements for asylum, or any other immigration law, undermines the rule of law and breeds disrespect, even contempt, for the legal process and those who administer it.

Ray Hunkins is a retired lawyer and rancher who now spends part of the year in Arizona on the U.S. – Mexico Border.

***For All Things Wyoming, Sign-Up For Our Daily Newsletter***

Ray Hunkins: Your “Capacity” To Pay More Taxes

in Column/Ray Hunkins

***For All Things Wyoming, Sign-Up For Our Daily Newsletter***

By Ray Hunkins, guest columnist

It’s not often you learn that someone seriously argued a low tax burden is a bad thing. In effect, that’s what some legislators recently heard from a presenter, the Director of Laramie County Community College’s Center for Business and Economic Analysis (“LCCCBEA”) appearing at a hearing before the Wyoming Legislature’s Joint Revenue Committee.

Untethered from any discussion of revenue need, the presenter-witness-expert made a gross generalization in fallaciously asserting that Wyoming citizens have the “capacity” to pay more in state taxes. The stated justification being that a low tax burden, high per capita income and low cost of living provide “capacity” for raising taxes that aren’t, in the opinion of the presenter, high enough.

In an article by Nick Reynolds for WyoFile.com, it was reported the Joint Revenue Committee heard testimony from the LCCBEA and its director, Nick Colsch. “Wyoming residents can afford to pay more in taxes” the article stated, “citing the state’s already low tax burden and relatively inexpensive cost of living”. The clear inference being that because you can pay more in taxes, you must, or at least you should.

If ever there was a flimsy reason, and faulty logic to justify raising your taxes, it would be that, you have the “capacity” to pay more and the tax law and rates of a few other states prove it. How? Because these states raise more revenue.

The LCCBEA report, using statistics mostly from 2019, is stale and therefor irrelevant. You remember 2019: Trump was President and the coal, oil, and gas industries were favored. Inflation was something studied in history books. Thousands of Wyoming residents were employed in the well-paying extractive industries and their satellites. 2019 was pre-pandemic and the economy was roaring. Fuel prices for gasoline and diesel, were the lowest in many years.

Since 2019, we have had an economic catastrophe, a virtual shut-down of economic activity, a change in administrations resulting in increased regulatory burdens and a disfavored mineral industry. And, inflation is now eating away at the take-home pay of every Wyoming citizen.

Did the LCCCBEA account for rising fuel prices in a state dependent on the automobile for transportation across vast distances? No.

If you make your living in agriculture, did the LCCCBEA report account for a drouth that threatens your income? No.

   If you are a coal miner or roustabout in the oil patch, did the LCCCBEA report take into consideration that you are out of a job when pontificating about your “capacity” to pay more in taxes? No.

 If you work in the hospitality industry and have been suffering economically, did the LCCCBEA report take into consideration the effect of Covid 19 on your capacity to pay more in taxes? No.

 The point is that Colsch and the LCCCBEA arrive at a conclusion by use of generalized, outdated statistics that may have little application to the specific situation of individual Wyoming taxpayers in 2021 and beyond.

In the WyoFile article, Colsch was not only quoted as saying, “In our view there is capacity for Wyoming citizens to bear a higher tax burden.” He went on to say that, “the state’s earning potential [emphasis added] is significant.

By adopting South Dakota’s tax structure, Wyoming could generate approximately $1.1 billion in additional revenues per year. If it went ‘full socialist’ and adopted the maximum tax rate for property tax, sales tax, fuel tax and others, the state could generate even higher revenues.” Is raising taxes synonymous with “earning”? Not in my World and I bet not in yours.

 The WyoFile report did not state how Colsch defined the term “capacity” but the LCCCBEA report makes it clear the word was being used synonymously with “ability to pay”.  Colsch’s generalized conclusion was derived from three factors: the relative cost of living in Wyoming, relative per capita income, and the comparison of other states’ tax burden to Wyoming’s.

However, the cost of living in Wyoming varies from locale to locale. If you don’t believe it, just look at the “Cost of Living Adjustment”, in use for the school finance model. “Cost of living” depends also on the basket of goods and services used to make the calculation. For instance, if fuel is not in the basket there is a distortion, especially in rural states that have little public transportation, like Wyoming. Additionally, there is no correlation, much less causation, between what other state’s collect from their residents in taxes and what Wyoming residents can afford to pay.

And, what Wyoming residents can afford to pay varies from year to year. Has there been a blizzard affecting farmers’ and ranchers’ income? Has a power plant or coal mine shut down adversely affecting a local economy? Has a pandemic caused shut downs and unemployment in retail sales and the tourist industry? These are real life events that have occurred in the recent past, or are occurring now. There are many variables affecting “capacity” to pay taxes and they are constantly changing from family to family, region to region, location to location and year to year. Utilizing statistics from 2019 to justify raising taxes in 2022 is fallacious in and of itself.

Because Wyoming citizens, allegedly enjoy a low cost of living and low taxes, the argument goes, our state government should receive the benefit. To the contrary, the level of taxation should depend on the conservative revenue needs of the state as set forth in the state budget passed by the Legislature and approved by the Governor.

Noticeable by its absence was any mention of an amount needed for additional revenue to support a necessary government function, department or program. There apparently was no discussion of that at the committee meeting and there is none in the LCCBEA report. That’s understandable. After all, it is “The Joint Revenue Committee”. But, Colsch’s generalized conclusion based on stale statistics is of great comfort to the appropriators who, if they were listening, were told, “we can get the money, Wyoming citizens have the “capacity” to pay more in taxes”.

From the WyoFile reportage, it seems Colsch and the LCCCBEA took the position at the committee meeting that taxpayers don’t need their money as much as government needs the taxpayers’ money. The unstated corollary is that someone other than you gets to decide what you need and don’t need, i.e., what your “capacity” for more taxes and less of everything else is.

It may be disconcerting to some, this writer included, that the person making the above-mentioned argument, and the entity he leads, is associated with a program dependent on government funding. This suggests there might be bias in the almost giddy assertion of the cornucopia of revenue to be received by state government if Wyoming were to go, “full socialist”.

 Putting the “full socialist” comment and the fallacious and generalized conclusion based on irrelevant 2019 statistics aside, a further retort to Colsch’s “capacity” argument is, “who are you to decide what my capacity is; what I can afford; what I need and don’t need”?

The WyoFile article reported that there was pushback at the hearing from at least one legislator. State Senator Tom James (R-Sweetwater) was quoted as saying,” If we really wanted to look at raising revenue, would we not want to look to encourage private-sector business to come to Wyoming instead of raising taxes?”

 Later, in an interview with this writer, Senator James expanded on his statement at the committee hearing:

“I believe the government, legislators, lobbyists and bureaucrats, always turn to either new taxes, tax increases, new fees, or fee increases. Instead, we should be looking at new revenue sources like bringing in new jobs, and looking at the actual role of government to ensure the government is not competing with the private sector and not being the number one employer in the state.

  “We should also be looking at cutting spending because we have a spending problem, not a revenue problem.” 

Senator James’ common-sense observations make a lot more common-sense than does Colsch’s fallacious conclusion.

The proponents of the Colsch argument and LCCCBEA report err in another way. They assume (and want you to assume) that revenue lost from the collapsing mineral industry must be replaced. That assumption is not necessarily valid. This state’s economy has changed. The government that was erected to assist, regulate and oversee the extractive industries also needs to be nimble enough to change in response.

    Not only are there government missions and functions that may no longer be necessary given the changes in Wyoming’s economy, there are efficiencies waiting to be implemented for those missions and functions that are still important. A worthwhile task would be to differentiate between what is necessary and what is not and to identify and implement efficiencies that will save precious taxpayer resources. This task should be a condition precedent to any tax increase.

Wyoming is experiencing some tough times but no tougher than others we have lived through. Wyoming doesn’t need to go, “full socialist”. We may not even need to raise taxes if enough outdated or unnecessary government functions are discarded and enough operational efficiencies are identified and implemented.

When considering whether to raise taxes or not, my hope is that the decision will be made based on the conservative revenue needs of a stream-lined, efficient, and frugal state government, not the “capacity” of taxpayers to pay more.

Ray Hunkins is a retired attorney and rancher. He was the Republican nominee for Governor in 2006.

***For All Things Wyoming, Sign-Up For Our Daily Newsletter***

Ray Hunkins: First-Person Report To Wyoming From The Southern Border

in Column/Ray Hunkins

***For All Things Wyoming, Sign-Up For Our Daily Newsletter***

By Ray Hunkins, columnist
Ray Hunkins is a retired Wyoming lawyer and former law enforcement officer who spends part of the year on the Border.

   “Knock, knock . . . who’s there?”  Years ago, these words were the introduction to funny jokes. “Knock, knock . . . who’s here” is no joke.

An estimated 23,000 illegal aliens a month have escaped apprehension and made their way into the interior of our country. Some of them represent a danger to the communities in which they have imbedded.

   I write this from a location 27 miles north of the International Border with Mexico and 3 miles south of a permanent Border Patrol checkpoint on the Interstate. I don’t claim to be an expert in immigration issues, but I am interested, observant, curious, and have a background in law and law enforcement. Thus, I have been interested in the unprecedented “challenge” (according to the Homeland Security Secretary) now occurring on our Southern Border.

   I listen to Border Patrol agents and other law enforcement officers that work on and adjacent to, the Border.  I see them frequently. I ask a lot of questions. We routinely shop in a border community to our south and routinely travel north, through the Border Patrol checkpoint. I have done business with many Americans of Mexican decent in and around the community we live in during the winter and I have done business with Mexican Nationals in Sonora, Mexico. Great folks. Most are concerned with the chaos and lawlessness that is the Southwest Border today..

         The Biden Administration refuses to call it a “crisis” but I don’t know how else you could describe what is going on along the Border. They seem obsessed with the words that are used to describe what is happening and not very interested in fixing it. It is, in short, a catastrophe.

   On the entire length of the Border, from Brownsville, Texas to San Diego, California, during the month of March, the Border Patrol reported 172,331 “encounters” compared to 34,460 in March of last year. “Encounters” include apprehensions of illegals as well as contacts with those claiming asylum. Increases were seen in all demographics: single adults, family units and, at last count, 20,000 unaccompanied children. The Border Patrol’s apprehensions year to date are at a 20-year high.

    The situation is bad and getting worse. The numbers of illegal crossers are fewer here in the Border Patrol’s Tucson Sector than elsewhere, say in the Texas sectors adjacent to the Rio Grande. The Texas sectors are inundated with a great influx of unaccompanied juveniles and families from Central America.

Nevertheless, the Tucson Sector, which has 262 Border miles, has experienced 83,000 apprehensions year to date, compared to 35,500 this time last year.

   Human smuggling and its “progeny of evils”, sex trafficking and involuntary servitude, have become big business for the cartels and gangs that control illicit Border crossings. And, let there be no doubt, Mexican cartels control the Border.

   According to Art Del Cueto, a veteran Border Patrol Agent and president of the Tucson Chapter of the National Border Patrol Council, the average cost to be smuggled across the Border is about $4,000. Multiply that by the number of illegal crossings and it is easy to see why the cartels are increasingly turning to human smuggling as a preferred source of revenue.

   The apprehensions since the beginning of the fiscal year, October 1st,  and through March, include 136 identified gang members, including 37 members of the notorious MS-13 gang. According to the U.S. Department of Justice, some of the MS-13 members have been trained in guerilla warfare. “The gang is well-organized and is heavily involved in illegal enterprises, being notorious for its use of violence to achieve its objectives.” In addition to gang members, recent apprehensions have included two Yemini Nationals known or reasonably suspected of being engaged in terrorist activities and on the Terrorist Watch List.

   The seizure of drugs coming across the Border has skyrocketed. Since the beginning of the fiscal year and  through March, the Customs and Border Protection Agency has seized 347,755 pounds of illegal drugs, including 5,586 pounds of deadly Fentanyl, 55,420 pounds of Cocaine, 91,031 pounds of Methamphetamine and 193,082 pounds of Marijuana.

   How many drugs made it across the border undetected? That is unknown, but you can be assured it was plenty. Arizona Attorney General Mark Brnovich recently told Fox News that drug smugglers are driving trucks filled with drugs, across remote areas of the Border, while Border agents, who would normally interdict such activity, are busy with children and paper work. Both Congressman Jim Jordan and Steve Scalise, in separate interviews, have stated that 40% of Border Patrol agents’ time is spent in tasks other than patrol, investigation and apprehension – tasks like taking care of children at detention centers, transporting Border crossers to bus stations and filling out the incessant paper work.

   The flood of immigrants and contraband has resulted in chaos at the Border and in many of the Communities along the Border. Attorney General Brnovich says, “the system is overwhelmed”.

   An “overwhelmed system” is not Border Agent Del Cueto’s greatest concern. He is most worried about the, “got-a-ways” – those illegal border crossers who were not apprehended and who evaded the Border Patrol, successfully getting away from the Border and into the interior of the country. Del Cueto estimates that in the Tucson Sector, the number of “got-a-ways”, year to date, is 48,000 ( an average of 8,000 per month). Given the number of apprehensions, 83,000, that means the Boarder Patrol is about 50% effective in Arizona.

   Border-wide, CBP’s estimate of got-a-ways is 140,000, year to date. Del Cueto says that is low. “I can guarantee you it’s more than 140,000.” Del Cueto worries about who these people are and why they have gone the extra mile, and made the extra effort, to evade detection.

    Who would want to evade detection when illegal crossers are being welcomed at the Border, processed and released if they claim asylum or have a child that they claim is a family member? Drug smugglers would. Sex traffickers would. Crossers with a felony record would. Cartel enforcers would. Gang members and terrorists would. Foreign agents and provocateurs would.

   In instances where the crossers are observed but not apprehended their numbers are estimated. Estimates of “got-a-ways” are made by counting tracks, monitoring remote cameras, both fixed and in drones and air assets that surveil remote areas of the Border. It stands to reason that there would have to be evidence of illegal crossing in order for any estimate to be made. When crossers successfully enter the U.S. and are completely undetected, they will not be counted in the estimated number.

    When estimates can be made because there is observable evidence, the estimates are rough, at best. Large numbers of human tracks in a confined space are difficult to count. Carpet shoes are often found with other discarded clothes where the surreptitious crossers change clothes before entering populated areas so as to better blend into the population. Exterior soles covered in carpet do not leave discernable tracks.

   So, what happens to these illegal crossers that are not apprehended at the Border? Enforcement of immigration and customs laws in the interior of the country is not the purview of the Border Patrol. The oft demonized Immigration and Customs Enforcement, better known as “ICE” is responsible for protecting us from illegal crossers that make it to the interior of the country; those who are not apprehended at the Border.

   ICE states its mission to be, “to protect America from the cross-border crime and illegal immigration that threatens national security and public safety. This mission is executed through the enforcement of more than 400 federal statutes and focuses on immigration enforcement and combating trans-national crime”.

   Unfortunately, ICE has been demonized by activists and is not favored by the Biden Administration. At the same time Border apprehensions are at a 20-year high, ICE arrests are down 75%.

   As a result of the policy shift disfavoring interior enforcement, Stephen Miller, former senior advisor to the Trump Administration, recently characterized it as a, “war on ICE”. Miller went on to state that the Administration has issued a directive to ICE to, “stop arresting criminal offenders among the illegal alien population.” Chief Deputy Sheriff of Pinal County, Arizona, Matt Thomas, says, “the policy shift is killing us.”

   So, if ICE is not aggressively, “protecting America from the cross-border crime and illegal immigration that threatens national security and public safety,” who is?

   Local and state law enforcement has stepped into the breach – and not just on the Border – but everywhere. Cross border crime is a problem that started on the Border but is now flooding the Nation from coast to coast and border to border.

   Sheriff Wayne Ivey of Brevard County, Florida recently stated that human and drug trafficking across the Southwest Border affects every county in America. Sheriff Clyde Harris of Platte County, Wyoming agrees with Sheriff Ivey and likens human trafficking to slavery. Sheriff Justin Marr of Victoria County, Texas notes a large increase in cross-border crime. He states that papers and personal effects among some illegal crossers link them to MS-13 and ISIS. Chief Deputy Thomas states the federal government is contributing to the overload of crime being experienced in Pinal County. “It’s like they don’t care” he says.

    What is the Biden Administration doing to protect the citizens of the United States from cross border crime and illegal immigration? Not much, as it turns out. The Migrant Protection Protocols put in place by the previous administration have been suspended. Work on the Border Wall has stopped. “Catch and release” has been revived as a policy. Many of the migrants who are apprehended, are being bussed and flown to interior communities across the United States. The Agreements negotiated by the Trump Administration with the Northern Triangle Countries have been abandoned.

    President Biden has yet to visit the Border. It has been three weeks since he announced that Vice President Harris would take charge of the Border problems. She has yet to put in an appearance at the Border. The Secretary of Homeland Security firmly denies there is a crisis. “It’s a challenge”, he says. The press is denied access to detention facilities housing minors. The Administration’s actions and inaction lead one to the conclusion the Border is not a priority for this Administration. Instead of a strategy, there is ineffective improvisation.

   The public and the media are fixated on the treatment of the children and the humanitarian concerns regarding illegal immigrants and those claiming asylum. Meanwhile, agents of the Border Patrol are taking care of the children, acting as chauffeurs, filling out paper work and dodging the Corona virus. All of this while an estimated 140,000 “get-a-ways”, among them, drug smugglers, human traffickers, gang members, terrorists and assorted criminal felons, evade apprehension and imbed themselves in cities and towns across America.

   The Biden Administration has acted with alacrity on one issue involving the Border. It recently named its nominee to lead the U.S. Customs and Border Protection Agency, the administrative home for the Border Patrol. According to the New York Times, the nomination, if approved, will provoke a, “seismic cultural shift” in the Agency. That may be an understatement.

   In nominating the Tucson Chief of Police, Chris Magnus, the Administration managed to give a giant middle finger to the law enforcement officers who protect the Border. Magnus, a vocal critic of the Trump Administration’s Border policies (policies that worked), has been at odds with the Border Patrol and ICE since arriving in Tucson, woke views in tow, in 2016. Only a year after arriving, he wrote an op-ed criticizing Trump’s views on sanctuary cities, views with which most law enforcement officers on the Border agreed.

   Magnus made headlines when, as Chief of Police in Richmond, California, he was photographed, in uniform, carrying a Black Lives Matter sign during a protest. Magnus, who is openly gay and the first police chief in the United States to marry his husband, earned the disdain of a large segment of the law enforcement community on the Border, by openly supporting the radical, Marxist organization.

   The Vallejo Times Herald quotes a 2018 Facebook post by officials of the National Border Patrol Council, which stated Magnus, “is an ultra-liberal social engineer who was given a badge and a gun by the city of Tucson”. The Facebook post went on to allege, “Magnus was preaching anarchy and encouraging police officials to commit dereliction of duty”.

   The nomination of Magnus will require Senate confirmation. I expect Arizona’s two Democrat senators will support the nomination, but the last thing the Border needs is a demoralized Border Patrol whose leadership is politicized. The nomination is an opportunity for the Senate to show support for the men and women of the Border Patrol and ICE, while simultaneously making a statement that immigration laws are to be enforced. It is my hope that Senator John Barrasso and Senator Cynthia Lummis will seize the opportunity and vote not to confirm.

   This Administration is failing in its duty to, “faithfully execute the laws” and displays its contempt for the Rule of Law and the safety of the American people by nominating an individual who is not respected by the people he will lead and who has demonstrated support for radicalism, Marxist ideology and sanctuary cities.

    Customs and Border Protection must have a leader it trusts; a leader who believes in borders and who will enforce the law. Wokeness in the face of the catastrophe that is our Southwest Border is not a qualification for the position.

      The Biden Administration has presided over chaos and criminality at the Border. It is only a matter of time before Americans who don’t live on the Border, reap the whirlwind the Biden Administration has sewn. Political leaders in Washington need to protect all Americans from the clear and present danger that is a lawless Border.

Laws must be enforced.

Illegal migrants who are a danger to our society need to be identified, apprehended and removed. The Border needs to be sealed, the flow of drugs stopped and those sworn to protect the Border need to know they are supported and appreciated for their dangerous work.

Ray Hunkins: Wyoming’s Economy Is Changing. Is State Government?

in Column/Ray Hunkins

By Ray Hunkins, columnist

Anyone living in Wyoming knows that our state’s economy is in the process of systemic change. Systemic change occurs when change reaches all or most parts of the economy, thus affecting the general behavior of the entire economic system

That Wyoming has experienced systemic economic change, is not debatable. The change has been so radical and so rapid, that published statistics are not capable of providing accurate and useful information.

However, some recent data points reinforce the proposition that Wyoming’s economy is experiencing, “systemic change”.

In an article on January 15, 2021, the Casper Star Tribune reported that since 2019 Wyoming has lost over 14,000 jobs, a decline of 5%. In November 2020 alone, 6,000 mining jobs vanished, a “staggering 29% decline from a year ago”.

Despite the recent recovery of oil and gas prices, the article noted that there were only 6 rigs working in Wyoming last December, compared to 21 the previous December. According to a March 19th Baker Hughes report, there were only 5 rotary rigs currently drilling in Wyoming, compared to 20 a year earlier.

The collapse of the energy economy has had a concomitant effect on Wyoming’s tax revenue. According to the January 15th article, “mining companies contributed $6.7 million less in taxes” in December, 2020, compared to the previous December and a decline of $11 million in sales and use taxes in November 2020, compared to November 2019.

In response to the drastically reduced revenue streams, the state budget has been slashed and slashed again.

Although “systemic change” describes the trending Wyoming economy, the question that needs to be answered is whether Wyoming state government has experienced change. Put another way, are changes to Wyoming’s economy mirrored in changes to the state government?

Understandably, Wyoming policy makers have framed their reaction to the radical and rapid changes in our economy, in terms of a binary choice.

Simply put, raise taxes (Wyoming House) cut the state budget (Wyoming Senate). While cutting the budget is most certainly a necessary reaction, the services and programs to be cut and the degree and the amount of those cuts are subject to debate.

Most would agree that tax increases should be a last resort and only considered after all alternatives have been found wanting. Has Wyoming reached the point where it has no alternative but to raise taxes? I believe the answer is, “NO”.

There are two alternatives that need to be addressed by our elected leaders before any taxes are raised. These alternatives, “good government” reforms, are long overdue.  The reforms relate to the “mission” of state agencies and whether the mission is still material to Wyoming’s well-being, and if so, whether that mission is being efficiently, effectively and economically pursued. Let’s examine.

First, “mission”: State leaders need to take a “deep dive” into a needs assessment and determine whether the state government we have designed, built and that the taxpayers have financed over the past fifty years, is the state government Wyoming needs at this time in its history. Where it is found an agency’s, mission is still relevant and material, any “mission creep” should be identified. In addition, recommendations for discarding non-essential services and functions should be made.

Second, “efficiency”: The legislature, the governor and the taxpayers, all need to know that services and functions that are found to be essential, are being efficiently, effectively and economically delivered.

The absence of any mechanism for determining the efficiency, effectiveness and frugality of the agencies, departments and commissions that make up Wyoming state government is troubling. Agencies and Departments of the Federal government have oversight, not only from Congress, but from a plethora of oversite entities whose job it is to critically review the performance of executive branch agencies. An example, are the inspectors general of the various federal departments and agencies. 

Would it not be of great benefit to Wyoming, to know whether, how, and how much money, could be saved by increasing efficiency in a particular agency or department? Would it not be of importance for the public to know if there is abuse, waste, fraud or inefficiencies in the expenditure of state money?

I believe it was Milton Friedman who once remarked that government work is mostly correcting government mismanagement. Is there mismanagement in any of our state agencies? The point is, we don’t know, and we should.

Answers to the questions posed above can be provided by implementing systematic performance auditing. A great benefit of performance auditing is the ability to suggest changes, if needed, in an agency’s procedures that can result in better efficiencies and economies. These suggestions should be made to the agency or department manager, but would also be available to the governor, the legislature and the public.

What is a “performance audit”? It is an independent analysis of a program’s effectiveness, economy and efficiency It is designed to aid in decision making by leaders responsible for overseeing and implementing corrective action. The results of a performance audit should be transparent and available to the public. Above all, it should be based on an independent review of criteria developed by the auditor, not the auditee. It should contribute to public accountability.

Wyoming has a department of audit within the executive branch of state government. It’s mainly concerned with bank examinations and financial audits of state agencies, units of local government and tax paying entities.

The State Department of Audit is empowered to, “conduct performance measure reviews”. The standards by which the department of audit conducts its “performance measure reviews” are developed by the entity being reviewed. Under this statutory scheme, the agency tells the auditor what measurements to use.  

The Department is also empowered to, “conduct management studies of school districts including program evaluation and performance audits, on issues identified by…” an advisory committee in the department of education related to the school funding model.

These are not “performance audits” as that term is widely understood.

The audits performed by the State Department of Audit are confidential and not available to the public, thus defeating one of the purposes of performance audits – public accountability. The fact that the State Department of Audit is an executive branch agency under the general supervision of the governor also raise independence concerns.

The Wyoming State Auditor’s duties are not identified by the Wyoming State Constitution. That document says the auditor shall have such duties as the legislature, “may prescribe”. Under current law, the Wyoming State Auditor performs duties usually performed by a comptroller and does little or no auditing.

The State Auditor is an elected official and therefor is independently accountable to the people of Wyoming. But the Auditor is not accountable to, nor under the control of, the head of the executive branch, whose agencies and departments would be the subject of performance audits. Thus, independence would not an issue if the state auditor was directed by the legislature to audit   performance and efficiency.

It is important that a performance audit be independent, non-partisan and conducted by an entity that itself is accountable and insulated, as much as possible, from political pressure. To meet those criteria, the legislature could establish an independent inspector general for state government. The Wyoming State Auditor could also meet the above criteria.

Cutting the budget and raising taxes are two of the tools in Wyoming’s fiscal toolbox, but there is one more: Better efficiency.

Until we know that we are not wasting resources on missions no longer important to Wyoming, and until we know that no more efficiencies and no more economies can be squeezed out of state government, raising taxes should not be an option.

The Wyoming Legislature would be doing itself and the people of Wyoming a great service by directing the implementation of a systematic program of publicly available performance audits for all agencies and departments of state government. 

TAG: Ray Hunkins is a retired attorney and agriculturist who was the Republican nominee for Governor of Wyoming in 2006.

Ray Hunkins: What Josh Allen And Donald Trump Have In Common

in Column/Ray Hunkins

***For All Things Wyoming, Sign-Up For Our Daily Newsletter***

By Ray Hunkins, columnist

What do Joshua Patrick Allen and Donald John Trump have in common? More than you might think.

   Having played the game and having been an avid fan for at least the last 75 years, I love football. For the past 60 years, my interest in football has been focused on the University of Wyoming Cowboy Football team.

Thus, it was no surprise that my wife Debby (a former Wyoming Sugar Bowl cheerleader) and I joined thousands of other Wyoming fans in front of the television set last weekend to watch UW’s former quarterback, Josh Allen, lead his Buffalo Bills on a quest for the American Conference championship and the right to play in the 2021 Super Bowl.

   Watching the Buffalo – Kansas City game wasn’t unlike the feeling we had sitting down in front of the TV on a Tuesday night last November to watch the election returns and cheer for Donald J. Trump.

Having participated in politics my entire adult life and having run for state-wide political office twice, you might say I’m also a “fan” of the “contact sport” (thank you Al Simpson) known as “politics”.

   As we watched Josh Allen’s season come to an end Sunday night, I thought about the parallel disappointments of Allen’s last game of the season and the ending and aftermath of Trump’s 2020 campaign.

   Josh’s football season in 2020 was a collection of record -setting triumphs; of achievement both personal and athletic, performed in front of adoring fans and admirers.

Team records for single season pass completions, passing touchdowns, total touchdowns and percentage completions, all were broken by Allen this year. His charity work in Buffalo also endeared him to his adopted home town.

   Yet his season came to an end in a rather ignoble, childish fashion, uncharacteristic of the man that Josh has become. Toward the end of the game, I watched as Josh’s protection broke down and he was sacked behind the line of scrimmage by the Kansas City defense.

In frustration Allen threw the football at the player who had tackled him, drawing an unsportsmanlike conduct penalty from the referee and initiating a melee among players.

His toss in the direction of the defender had to have been Allen’s most pathetic throw of the season, half-hearted at best, and not meant to do injury, but unsportsmanlike none the less. Though a product of frustration, poor judgment and emotion, because his conduct was not egregious Allen was not removed from the game nor pulled from the lineup by his coach.

   Donald Trump’s term as President was filled with accomplishments just like Josh Allen’s season. And, like Allen’s season, it came to an end on a discordant note.

A four-year run of accomplishments – trade deals like the USMCA, criminal justice reform, immigration law enforcement, a barrier along the Mexican border, energy independence, peace in the middle east, “warp speed” vaccine development, and the list goes on – was followed by a serious error in judgment, resulting in considerable consequence – a Washington rally in which a good faith (I’m convinced) invitation to walk up Pennsylvania Ave. to the Capitol to protest the election, was extended to enthusiastic, law abiding  supporters as well as a few screwballs.

   A riot ensued, planned and instigated by troublemakers. Though not egregious, the President’s words to those gathered on the Mall were ill-considered and, like Allen’s unsportsmanlike conduct, the product of frustration, emotion and poor judgment.

The Dems in the House (along with a few Republicans) threw the flag- this time for an ill-conceived impeachment in the final days of the administration. Unlike Allen’s penalty, the purpose of the Trump penalty – impeachment – was clearly to remove Trump permanently from the game.

   Their critics might say that what Trump and Allen have in common is being sore losers. There is some truth in a saying attributed to the legendary  Vince Lombardi: “show me a good loser and I’ll show you a loser”.

But neither Donald Trump nor Josh Allen are “losers”, whether “good” or “sore”. That both men were frustrated and emotional as the clock ran out, I can agree. For certain ,neither man likes losing. Both enjoy, “winning, winning, winning”. The expectation of winning is in their DNA. That is, at least in part, why they are leaders with loyal followers.

   In neither Allen’s nor Trump’s case, do the penalties assessed seem to have affected the esteem their respective followers ( in Wyoming there is considerable overlap of followers) hold for the two men.

   The Buffalo, N.Y. media reported that hundreds of Bills’ fans turned out at the Buffalo airport early on Monday morning following the Sunday night game. The fans chanted, “we still believe”. Upon arrival, Josh Allen promised those assembled that their team would again play for the championship: “I got no doubt we will be back” he assured them.

   Like the Buffalo fans, on the day of the inauguration hundreds of Trump fans lined Southern Blvd in West Palm Beach to welcome the Trump family home to Florida.

A media report described the scene: “The impromptu street party was filed with flags, dancing and loud music as his supporters prepared for Trump’s arrival…” “It’s like the Super Bowl” a supporter remarked to a reporter.

   Earlier in the day, at a departure ceremony in Washington, Trump promised to return, saying he and his team had, “left it all on the field”. A week later Allen would say much the same.

   I would bet against neither.

***For All Things Wyoming, Sign-Up For Our Daily Newsletter***

Ray Hunkins is a retired attorney and rancher who was the Republican nominee for the office of Wyoming governor in 2006.

Ray Hunkins: Trump Has Handed His Political Adversaries A Gift

in Column/Ray Hunkins

***For All Things Wyoming, Sign-Up For Our Daily Newsletter***

By Ray Hunkins, guest columnist

 Early in his presidency, President Trump was quoted as saying something to the effect that he could shoot someone in the middle of New York’s 5th Avenue and wouldn’t lose any political support. After the events of January 6th, he may be testing that hypothesis.

I have been an enthusiastic supporter of the President, a contributor to his campaigns and a defender of his policies and persona to friends and family.

I haven’t always been a supporter. I went to the Republican National Convention in Cleveland as a Wyoming delegate pledged to Ted Cruz. But, when Donald J. Trump was nominated, I boarded the “Trump Train” and have been riding it ever since.

There have been times that I have winced at a tweet or comment, and even times when I have thought the President erred in his assessment or approach to getting things done.

The tough guy, brash “Queens approach” has never been my cup of tea. I’m more the, “walk softly and carry a big stick” type. Since nothing else seemed to work, given the absolute mess in Washington, it has been easy to overlook Trump’s objectionable characteristics on the basis that the “Queens approach” was what was needed.

   The election was a disappointment and also a surprise. When I went to bed it looked as if the President had earned another term. It didn’t seem possible that Biden-Harris could overtake the convincing lead Trump-Pence had amassed. After all, Biden and Harris had hardly campaigned.

   During the rest of November and December, it became apparent that skullduggery, of one kind or another, may have been afoot.

I believed the protestations and assertions of Mayor Rudy, attorney Sidney and others. I was far enough removed that I was unable to accurately assess the legal cases being filed in the various courts of the battleground states.

All most of us in Wyoming had heard about fraud and irregularities were allegations, denials and suspect news reports. It seemed strange that the judges and justices reviewing the campaign’s petitions and complaints wouldn’t get involved.

Mostly, the legal actions were dismissed on non-substantive grounds. I kept hoping that some court would do what courts are for: test the veracity of the accusations. None did.

I was hopeful the rally in Washington would be a positive event; that the Joint Session of Congress on that day would provide an opportunity to hear the President’s position regarding the “stolen” election and learn about the evidence his campaign believed supported that assertion. It didn’t happen. The riot that took place at the Capitol overshadowed all else.

I was an eyewitness, via Fox News, to the events of January 6th, watching much of the coverage of the rally and listening carefully to the President’s remarks.

Trump’s comments concerning the Vice President gave the impression of an effort to intimidate and bully Pence into doing Trump’s bidding.

And, what he was asking Mike Pence to do, was desperate and wildly unreasonable. At a minimum, those remarks were ill advised and the apparent intimidation by the President, unseemly.

Trump asked the crowd to march up Pennsylvania Avenue, to the Capitol. At that point the crowd was not by any stretch, a “mob,” but some of those who accepted the President’s invitation would soon become one.

What was he thinking? Was he not aware that every crowd that large is bound to have a fringe element and a few jerks hanging around? Was he unaware of the possibility of anarchists and other troublemakers infiltrating the crowd.?

Did he not remember the riots around the White House in the summer of 2020? Was he in receipt of any intelligence concerning the event?

Did it not occur to him that any trouble would result in the smearing and besmirching of those good and loyal people who had gathered to show their support for him?  In the aftermath, these are important questions.

After hearing the two remarks: threatening his Vice President unless he performed as Trump wished, and encouraging the crowd to march on the Capitol, I was filled with a premonition that major trouble could result and sadly, that’s what came to pass.

An ugly, deadly and demoralizing riot ensued. People died, the beautiful Capitol building was trashed and America’s fratricide was put on display for all, friend and foe alike, to see.

Trump handed his political adversaries a gift. His supporters, as Attorney General Barr recently noted, were recipients of a betrayal. The election grievances were lost in the melee’.

I respectfully disagree with those who have accused the President of “inciting a riot”. “Inciting” a riot would be a criminal as well as an evil act. Trump is not evil. There was nothing said by the President at the rally which could be interpreted as intent to incite a riot or any other criminal act.

Donald J. Trump, like the rest of us, is flawed. It can be surmised that he lost perspective and who wouldn’t?  

After four years of leaked confidential conversations, baseless accusations, a  fake dossier, obstruction of the Administration’s agenda, hoaxes, investigations, a special counsel, civil lawsuits, impeachment and scurrilous and salacious rumors, after an election marred by unexplained and seemingly inexplicable irregularities, it is easy to see how the President might have been caught up in the moment; how his view of political reality might have become jaded and cynical, leading to the exercise of poor judgment.

He wasn’t alone. “Jaded”, “cynical”, “caught up in the moment”, “poor Judgment” are all words that could be used to describe the unfortunate display by Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi when she tore up the President’s State of the Union address on live television. Occasions for bad judgment seems to be in abundant supply in Washington.

 The many accomplishments the Trump administration have enjoyed, despite the obstructive strategy of the not so “loyal opposition”, were exhilarating for many conservatives.

Such conservative policies and appointments have not been seen in Washington since Ronald Reagan was President. These accomplishments are now overshadowed by the tragic events of January 6th.

Overshadowed also, is the very grievances Trump and his campaign were attempting to hi-lite: voter fraud and election irregularities. Were they real or just hyperbole? We may never know.

Thanks to the riot, we missed the opportunity to make a case for meaningful election reform. The arguments of the senators who objected to the electoral vote of some states were, shortened and summarized and made in the dead of night. Who remembers what was said that night in the Senate Chamber?

  The reputation of Donald Trump’s presidency has suffered a serious blow. But, with the passage of time it will be at least partially rehabilitated. Think Nixon. I believe that’s how those of us who have ridden the Trump Train will see it.

Not surprisingly the President’s political adversaries are overreaching and appear to be piling on. Impeachment is clearly not the appropriate remedy.

It has the distasteful aroma of a vendetta about it, of getting even for past slights and insults. There seems no shortage of poor judgment and high emotion in our Capitol, at both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue.

Many mistakes have been made and poor judgment exhibited since January 6th. Equaling the President’s ill- advised exhortations, was the interjection of the Speaker of the House into the military chain of command.

By engaging the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff in a conversation about his superior’s access to nuclear codes, she displayed poor judgment at least equal to the President’s. If it comes time to hand out censures, Speaker Pelosi is deserving.

We would all, including our elected representatives, be wise to take a deep breath and calm down. Wisdom and clear thinking are needed not raw emotion and hyperbole.

It doesn’t seem that we are going to get what is needed before additional examples of poor judgment are on display in Washington.

***For All Things Wyoming, Sign-Up For Our Daily Newsletter***

Ray Hunkins: What President Garfield Can Teach Us About Education

in Column/Ray Hunkins

***For All Things Wyoming, Sign-Up For Our Daily Newsletter***

By Ray Hunkins, columnist

“…Well, when we go to his big house
Up there I asked the fellow
I said, “Who was it that did it”
Who was it that shoot the President?”

And he said, “it was Charlie Guietou
That shoot Mr. Garfield” and I said

“Charlie Guiteau done shot down
A good man, good man
Charlie Guiteau done shot down a good man low”.

— Johnny Cash, “Mr. Garfield”

The lyrics of Johnny Cash’s ballad, one of my favorites, concern the shooting of President James A. Garfield at the Baltimore and Potomac Railroad Station on July 2, 1881.  

It is an accurate description of a little known piece of history, about a little known President. 

That is understandable since Garfield, the 20th  President of our Nation, only occupied the Presidency for four months before being shot by a man disappointed at not receiving a political appointment.

President Garfield died from his wounds on September 19, 1881. He is one of the “forgotten presidents” that served between the Civil War and the turn of the century.

However, Garfield was one of the more erudite and accomplished men to serve as president during the 19th century.

Before he launched his career in politics, serving in the House of Representatives for 17 years, he was a major general in the Union Army and before that he was an educator.

He received his education at what was later to become Hiram College in Ohio, and at Williams College in Massachusetts, At age 26 he was named president of Hiram College. Garfield was a man of strong and insightful opinions about many things, including especially education.

Ms. Cathy Connolly, democrat minority leader in the Wyoming House of Representatives and professor of women’s studies at the University of Wyoming, also has strong opinions about education, especially when it comes to spending.

In a recent opinion piece in the Casper Star Tribune (8/5/2020), she urged the legislature to disregard the dire financial straits in which Wyoming presently finds itself.

With the rig count at “zero” and coalmines continuing layoffs, she chose this moment to advocate for increasing the huge K-12 Wyoming education budget.

Ms. Connolly suggested expanding Wyoming’s already expansive and expensive “basket of education goods and services” by piling on even more “goods and services”. Items such as social workers and publicly funded pre-school were, suggested.

Such an expansion would result in even more per pupil expenditures on top of the already bloated funding model that outspends, by a wide margin, each of our neighboring states.

Current evidence suggests we spend more per pupil, and get less for it, than any neighboring state.

The most recent available statistics on state expenditures and state educational outcomes does not support the thesis that more money results in better outcomes.

Wyoming spends $16,537 per pupil, sixth highest among the 50 states. However, our neighboring states spend much less: Nebraska $12,579; Idaho, $7,486; South Dakota, $9176; Colorado, $9809; Montana, $11,443 and Utah, $7,179.

The latest ranking of NAEP (National Assessment of Educational Progress) for 2019 showed Wyoming scored higher in some categories and lower in others, when compared to neighboring states. There was little correlation between expenditures and outcomes.

A fascinating 2018 report from the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank, using NAEP test data and accounting for different demographic characteristics in the states, as well as cost of living differences across the states, ranked the states on the efficiency of education spending.

The report explains: “In these efficiency rankings, achieving successful outcomes while economizing on education expenditures is considered better than doing so through lavish spending”.

In Cato’s efficiency rankings our neighboring states are ranked much higher than Wyoming. South Dakota ranks 8th, Colorado 9th, Utah 12th, Idaho, 15th, Montana 16th and Nebraska 29th. Wyoming is ranked 37th.  

According to Cato, 37 states get more bangs for their educational buck than does Wyoming.

Adding more dollars to the educational budget isn’t needed. What is needed is more efficient spending. That means spending on basics and not bells and whistles.

It also means auditing the expenditures to assure taxpayer’s money is being spent wisely and efficiently. This is called, “performance auditing” and Wyoming currently has no such mechanism in place.

So where should the spending focus be? Mr. Garfield suggested the answer: It is not fancy buildings and expensive equipment. It is the teacher. It is the connection between teacher and student that is indispensible to a quality education. The focus should be there.

Mark Hopkins was the president of Williams College from 1836 to 1872. He was a former professor of Garfield’s. At a Williams College alumni dinner at Delmonico’s restaurant in New York City in 1871 a debate about raising money for the College’s building and equipment fund broke out.

Garfield strode to the podium and declaimed, “Give me a log hut, with only a simple bench, Mark Hopkins on one end and I on the other, and you may have all the buildings, apparatus and libraries without him”. 

Mr. Garfield knew that true education is an interaction, a conversation, between student and teacher that is not dependent on lavish surroundings, expensive “apparatus” or auxiliary personnel.

Yes, the things mentioned may be nice when money is not a limiting factor. But in times of austerity, it is the focus on fundamentals that will assure quality education is delivered. Nothing is more fundamental to education than a quality, dedicated, knowledgeable teacher.

Mr. Garfield was a good and wise man. Decision makers in Wyoming can learn from his wisdom.

From 1997 until 2002, Ray Hunkins served as chief counsel to the State of Wyoming in matters relating to education finance.

***For All Things Wyoming, Sign-Up For Our Daily Newsletter***

Ray Hunkins: Mountain West Conference Punts On Football Season — Who Called The Play?

in Column/Ray Hunkins

***For All Things Wyoming, Sign-Up For Our Daily Newsletter***

By Ray Hunkins, guest columnist

In early August, the Mountain West Conference (“MWC”) announced an adjusted football schedule for the fall of 2020.

Just five days later the conference’s board of directors, citing concerns over health and uncertainties created by the coronavirus, overrode the decision and informed the public there would be no fall sports and no football season, a season that held much promise for our Cowboys.

The repercussions from the MWC decision were immediate and severe.

It is estimated the decision will cost the University of Wyoming $10 million to $15 million in lost revenue; this at a time when Wyoming state government generally — and the university specifically — are reeling from the combined effects of the coronavirus and the collapse of Wyoming’s energy economy.

The announcement dealt a blow to the morale of all concerned.

Sally Ann Schurmur, in her Aug. 16, 2020, column in the Casper Star-Tribune put it this way: “This is not something we will ‘get over.’ We are not being ‘ridiculous,’ ‘small minded’ or ‘selfish.’ This is a tragedy.” Indeed it is a tragedy. Sally’s eloquent eulogy for a lost football season reflects the feeling of many.

This was more than a decision about athletic competition. It was a public policy decision made by unelected higher education administrators, all but one from states other than Wyoming. 

The MWC’s board of directors, comprised of the presidents of the 12 member institutions, made the decision. If it turns out the presidents made the wrong decision, they will not be held accountable to most of the people and many of the institutions they have harmed.

“Where there is a will, there is a way” is an adage for the ages. Six of the 10 Division I Football Bowl Subdivision conferences had the will and found a way to play football. 

The service academies are playing. BYU is playing. Even our Wyoming high schools are playing.  The PAC 12 however, under the firm influence of California, Oregon and Washington and the politicians who run those states, opted not to play.

Are we to believe the schools that are playing football this fall were negligent or uncaring in choosing their courses of action? These schools say they can provide a safe environment. The Mountain West – at least the presidents who made the decision not to play– did not have the will, and therefore didn’t find a way.

There isn’t much transparency as to how or why the presidents’ decision was reached. Many questions are raised by the curious way in which the decision came about. 

For instance, why did the MWC Board cancel all fall sports such a short time after the conference office announced an adjusted football schedule? 

Who moved that the season be canceled? Who seconded the motion? What reports and written materials were given to the presidents? Who were the medical experts consulted and what advice did they give? Were there differences of opinion among the medical experts or among the presidents? 

Were the medical experts from the conferences that are playing consulted or even questioned? Did the presidents consult with the athletic directors, coaches, and governing boards of the institutions before voting on the motion to cancel the entire season?

What was their advice, or in the case of the governing boards, what direction was given? Can the transcript of the MWC board meetings dealing with this subject (and minutes of those meetings) be released and if not, why not? 

The president of San Jose State University, Mary Papazian, is currently the chair of the MWC board of directors.

She answers to a “chancellor” of the California State University system. So do the presidents of the other California universities that are members of the MWC — Fresno State and San Diego State. The Chancellor answers to a board that includes Governor Gavin Newsom and three other California politicians.

Those politicians are also members of the board of regents of the University of California system. Several of the schools in that system are members of the PAC 12 Athletic Conference which opted out of a fall football season. 

It could be argued that President Seidel of the University of Wyoming deserves some slack.

On the job for a month before being called on to cast such a consequential vote, he might not have had all the background and knowledge needed.

Nevertheless, in an interview he gave a lengthy defense of the MWC board’s decision and seemed to place himself in the deliberations from the beginning.

Reporter Davis Potter of the CST, in a room that appeared to be devoid of anyone else, interviewed Wyoming’s new president, dapper in suit and matching COVID-19 mask.

The interview was posted on YouTube. Unfortunately, the President’s words were muffled and garbled by reason of mumbling through the mask.  

From what could be discerned, President Seidel asserted the board’s decision was unanimous and based on the unanimous recommendation of medical experts advising members’ athletic departments.

According to the president, there were warnings of potential heart problems for athletes who might catch the virus. Although he parroted conclusions, no details were given and no evidence was offered. 

However, in an interview posted on the MWC website, Commissioner Craig Thompson seemingly contradicted Seidel by asserting the rationale for cancelling the season wasn’t anything more than “continued unknowns.” 

The commissioner went on to state the obvious regarding health concerns: “Different studies show different things, and it’s amazing that intelligent people can reach different conclusions.” 

It sounded like there was a smorgasbord of opinions available for the MWC board to choose from.

The MWC chose not to rely on the “different conclusions” of other medical experts. Were the conclusions chosen by the MWC board selected because they fit a desired narrative?

In a statement on its website, the MWC revealed, “numerous external factors and unknowns outside our control made the decision necessary.”

The MWC board embraced conclusions that other conferences and schools chose to reject. Why? What are the “external factors” that influenced the MWC board’s decision?

The action of a group (the MWC board) external to Wyoming is causing significant damage to the state, monetarily and in other ways. The lives and possible careers of student-athletes have been disrupted. What discussion took place at the board meeting about these factors?

The people of Wyoming deserve a full explanation for the MWC board’s decision. We need to know what “external factors” influenced the decision and whether another agenda was at work.

We need to know if President Seidel cast his vote at the direction of the board of trustees. We need the truth and we need transparency. Governor Gordon should see to it.

Tag: Ray Hunkins is a former president of the University of Wyoming Alumni Association, a former member of the University of Wyoming Foundation board of directors and was honored as a “Distinguished Alumnus” by the University in 2005.

***For All Things Wyoming, Sign-Up For Our Daily Newsletter***

No Need For “Hate Crime” Legislation In Wyoming

in Column/Ray Hunkins

***For All Things Wyoming, Sign-Up For Our Daily Newsletter***

By Ray Hunkins, Columnist

Last week a column ran in The Hill titled, “Why Are Arkansas, South Carolina And Wyoming Holding Back On Adopting Hate Crime Laws?” by Dov Wilker, regional director of the American Jewish Committee in Atlanta. 

I don’t have an opinion about Arkansas or South Carolina, but I feel comfortable offering an answer to Mr. Wilker for Wyoming. The answer is: Because in the Cowboy State such laws are not needed.

Before explaining, I should confess my bias. I have never been keen about hate crimes and hate crime legislation.

A “hate crime” is a crime based on thought. “Motive” is the reason a criminal act is perpetrated.

It can be proven through evidence of thought. Hate crimes thus place motive as the operative fact to be determined in a trial alleging a “hate crime”.

In my opinion, criminalizing thought is a dangerous road to start down. Doing a criminal act ought to be enough to result in conviction if the act is proven, regardless of motive.

Additionally, “hate crimes” usually carve out special protections for certain classes of people – racial and ethnic minorities usually, and sometimes sexual orientation and gender classifications.

That means, when it comes to “hate crimes”,  all victims are not treated equally and that is also troubling.

But, even if my reservations about hate crimes are overcome or ignored, Wyoming still doesn’t need hate crime legislation. We don’t need such legislation because we already have it’s functional equivalent.

In The Hill column Mr. Wilker states, “in Wyoming, where Matthew Shepard, a gay college student, was beaten, tortured, and left to die, hate crimes are classified as misdemeanors [emphasis and link in original]. Shepard’s murder inspired an expansion of the federal hate crime law to include a victim’s perceived gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability.”

Mr. Wilker is wrong on several counts. First, Wyoming has no separate “hate crime” law, misdemeanor or otherwise.

If you click on the link Mr. Wilker provides in the above quoted text, you will find the Wyoming statute he claims is a “hate crime” is no such thing. It is a law prohibiting discrimination, not hate.

It provides for a penalty based on action not thought or motive. The elements of the misdemeanor crime cited by Mr. Wilker do not depend on a mental state but rather on a prohibited action, i.e. denial of a necessity “because of race, color, creed or national origin”.

In Wyoming, discrimination is a crime but not a “hate crime”.

The second reason Mr. Wilker is wrong is because Wyoming already has the functional equivalent of a “hate crime” law.

The Wyoming criminal code provides for indeterminate sentencing in most criminal cases. Criminal laws in Wyoming, for the most part, provide for a range of sentence between minimum and maximum periods of incarceration and fines up to a maximum amount.

The sentencing judge is vested with wide discretion in making sentencing decisions. He (or she) can sentence a felon to any amount of time, providing his sentence is within the maximum and minimum set forth in the statute. .

So what is the “functional equivalent” of a “hate crime” statute and how does it work in Wyoming? In Daniel v. State, (482 P.2d 172, 1982 Wyo), the Wyoming Supreme Court held that Wyoming’s system of indeterminate sentencing necessitates granting of broad discretion to the sentencing judge.

And, in exercising that discretion the judge should give consideration to all circumstances of the crime, aggravating as well as mitigating. That means that motive can be a factor to be considered by the judge in imposing sentence.

“Hate” may very well be an aggravating factor that results in additional punishment. A perpetrator whose motive is “hate” because of the victim’s status may find he is sentenced to additional time in the state penitentiary because of his motive.

Because Wyoming has an indeterminate sentencing system, which requires that all circumstances, including motive and the mental state of the defendant, be taken into consideration when sentencing, Wyoming has the functional equivalent of “hate crime” legislation.

It is not the law cited by Mr. Wilker in his opinion column in The Hill, but it serves our state well and without the necessity of incurring additional expense and time for a separate trial on the issue of what the perpetrator was thinking when he committed the crime.

The next time you write about Wyoming, do your research Mr. Wilker!

***For All Things Wyoming, Sign-Up For Our Daily Newsletter***

Ray Hunkins: 100 Years Ago This Month, Wyoming Became The Equality State. Here Is How That Happened

in Column/Ray Hunkins

***For All Things Wyoming, Sign-Up For Our Daily Newsletter***

By Ray Hunkins

One hundred years ago, on August 26, 1920, the United States Secretary of State issued a proclamation declaring that thirty-eight states had ratified the Nineteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, granting women the right to vote. The Amendment, entitled, “Woman Suffrage”, was short:

The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by a State on account of sex. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Many people believe that the passage of the Nineteenth Amendment was the beginning of equal political rights for women in the United States and around the World. Many people would be wrong.

Wyoming was among the 38 states that initially ratified the Amendment. But Wyoming was not a newcomer to women’s suffrage. As a Territory, it had granted women the right to vote in local and Territorial elections. But it had done more. From 1869 forward the women of Wyoming Territory not only had the right to vote, they also had full and equal political rights with men, including the right to run for, and hold, elected political office in the Territory. Wyoming’s radical experiment occurred fifty-one years before the Nineteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution was ratified

 This is the story of how the political decision was made to grant the few women who were residents of Wyoming Territory in 1869, equal political rights with men. It is the story of why that decision was made in the rough, violent, mostly lawless, women-starved, newly minted territory on the western frontier, called Wyoming. It is the story of Louisa Swain, who at the age of seventy, became the first woman voter in the World to cast a ballot under democratically enacted laws granting women equal political rights with men. It is the story of how Wyoming became the “Equality State”.

 Early on the morning of September 6, 1870, Louisa Swain cast a ballot in rough and tumble Laramie, Wyoming. Although she was the first woman voter, she would be followed that crisp and sunny morning by many others; women who not only exercised their right to vote, but who also exercised their newly granted political right to run for office and hold elected and appointive positions in territorial, state and local government. The result was a cascade of “firsts”: First woman juror, first female bailiff, first woman governor, first female judge, and the list goes on.

Why did this happen on the western frontier instead of in the more refined and cosmopolitan east? What were the conditions that made equal rights for women possible in a frontier territory fifty years before it occurred elsewhere? The answers constitute a story worth the telling.

Civilization in Wyoming followed the progress of construction of the nation’s first transcontinental railroad, the Union Pacific. The UP brought a dozen towns to Wyoming where there had been none before, including Cheyenne and Laramie City, as it was then known. The construction crews reached Cheyenne in the summer of 1867 and Laramie early the following year.  The railroad also brought the Army for protection, along with surveyors, tie hacks, graders, bridge builders, tracklayers, ballasting crews and finally, train crews.  According to the papers of General Granville Dodge, the Chief Engineer of the Union Pacific, the construction crews, totaling some 1,000 men, were made up of ex-Confederate and Union Civil War veterans, mule-skinners, Mexicans, Irish, bush whackers, and ex-convicts. It was a rough crowd.

The Army established posts at both Cheyenne (Ft. D.A. Russell- 1867) and Laramie (Ft. Sanders-1866) to protect railroad construction crews from Indian raids.  These military posts were not mobile.  They did not follow the “end of track”. As a result, they were a stabilizing force for both Cheyenne and Laramie after the railroad construction crews had moved west.

Those involved with the construction of the railroad needed goods and services. Purveyors of hard spirits, bawdy- house owners, bartenders, gamblers and pimps arrived almost simultaneously with the track crews. Shopkeepers, liverymen, and settlers followed closely. One such settler was Louisa Swain who arrived with her husband, a cabinet-maker, in Laramie City shortly after the railroad construction crews had moved northwest toward Rawlins. Mrs. Swain would become the World’s first woman voter.

As was typical, the towns that grew up in the wake of the Union Pacific construction, at first swelled and then, when the tracklayers and tie hacks moved on (along with some of the worst elements), the communities either survived as communities, or they became ghost towns. Wyoming had some of both.

Cheyenne, a few weeks after the railroad construction crews came through and headed west to Sherman Hill, had an estimated population of 6,000. Only about 400 of that number were women. In the special census taken in the summer of 1869, after the end of track had climbed Sherman Hill and descended into the Laramie Valley, Cheyenne’s population had shrunk to 2,305. In the special census, all of the large county named Albany, where Laramie City was located, could only count 2,027 people. Only one year later, in the 1870 census, after the track crews had moved into Utah, the whole of Wyoming Territory retained only 8,104 hardy souls, of which 1,000 were women.

In 1864 Wyoming had become a part of Dakota Territory. But the capitol of Dakota, Territory, Yankton, was a long way from Cheyenne, and an even longer way from South Pass City.  There were no direct lines of communication between those two parts of Dakota Territory and the two parts were separated by Indian lands, some of which were occupied by hostiles.

 Responding to the cries for law and order and the urging of those in Wyoming for a government closer to the people, Wyoming was removed from Dakota and became a separate Territory. President Johnson signed the act creating Wyoming Territory on July 25, 1868. On that day the Union Pacific tracklayers were approaching Rawlins.

Wyoming became a separate territory, at least in part, because Congress’ attention was focused on the construction of the transcontinental railroad and the expectation that settlement would occur along its route. .

The desire for “law and order” in Wyoming, and especially in Laramie City, was well founded.  On June 12, 1868, Laramie City residents went to the polls and elected a provisional Mayor. Three weeks later he resigned. In a letter to a local newspaper, he explained the town was “ungovernable”. The rest of the elected officials promptly followed suit. The Journal of American History described the conditions that led Laramie City to be nicknamed, “Hell on Wheels”:

Asa Moore, proprietor of the Diana and the Belle of the West, with the support of

the other saloon, brothel and gambling establishment owners formed a rump

government with himself as mayor and justice of the peace. Sam Duggen, one of

Moore’s henchmen, was appointed town marshall. Duggan did have some familiarity with

the law, having been acquitted of murder in Cheyenne just prior to his arrival in Laramie.

His deputy, Edward Franklin, had his law enforcement career curtailed when he was shot

and wounded while stealing mules from the Army and was incarcerated in the Fort Sanders

guard house. Throughout the summer of 1868 the town ran wide open day and night.

Shootings and murders occurred daily and after dark respectable citizens stayed off the

Streets. Laramie City was truly, ‘Hell on Wheels’.

In frustration with the lawlessness in Laramie City, a growing number of law-abiding residents supported the formation of the largest vigilante group in the West, some 500 strong. They hung, shot, rousted and ran out of town, the worst elements of Laramie City’s criminal class.

Meanwhile in Cheyenne, the first territorial legislature convened on October 12th, 1869.  William H Bright from the western Wyoming mining town of South Pass City, known as, “ Colonel Bright”, was elected President of the first territorial legislature’s upper chamber, known as, “The Council”.  Colonel Bright was a southern gentleman and reported to be a veteran of the Confederate Army. He was also a Democrat. Colonel Bright had made the long trek from South Pass City in far western Wyoming, to Cheyenne with his mind made up that enfranchisement of women should commence in the Territory and that it should be a priority of the first legislative session.

 Esther Hobart Morris, destined soon to become the first woman ever to hold judicial office, was also from South Pass City. South Pass City was not a large community and it is almost certain that Col Bright and Ms. Morris were acquainted, and probably well acquainted. Although there is no record of it, it is probable that the two discussed Colonel Bright’s intention to introduce legislation enfranchising women when he got to Cheyenne for the commencement of the first Territorial legislative session.

On the morning of November 9th, 1869, Col Bright took to the floor of the Council and announced that on the following Monday, “or some subsequent day”, he would introduce, “a bill for women’s rights”. Good to his word, the bill was introduced on November 27th as Council Bill Number 70 and was entitled, “An Act To Grant To The Women Of Wyoming Territory The Right Of Suffrage And To Hold Office”. Council Bill Number70 came up for final passage on December 6th, 1869. On final reading the votes were Yeas 6, Nays 2, with one absence. The lower chamber concurred and Territorial Governor Campbell, a Republican appointed by President Grant, signed the bill. It became law on December 10th, 1869. In relevant part, it provided:

     Sec.1. That every woman of the age of twenty-one years, residing in this territory, may

                  at every election to be holden under the laws thereof, cast her vote. And her

                   rights to the elective franchise and to hold office shall be the same under the

                  election laws of the territory, as those of electors.

     Sec.2.  This act shall take effect and be in force from and after its passage.

The 1869 territorial legislature also passed bills to protect the right of married women to hold property and earn income and an equal pay requirement for school teachers of different genders, “when the persons are equally qualified”. The lower house even adopted a resolution setting aside a seating area for, “ladies who may desire to attend the deliberations….” It can readily be seen that the Territory’s legislators had an interest in women’s rights that were not shared in other parts of the Country. In that respect, Wyoming was fifty years ahead of its time.

After the bill to grant women equal political rights became law, the first subsequent election was on September 6th 1870. The first woman to cast her ballot at that election was Louisa Swain.

Louisa Swain was born in Norfolk, Virginia in 1800 or 1801. Her father was a seafaring captain, lost at sea when Louisa was a youngster.  When she cast her ballot, Louisa was 70 years old and a grandmother. She was also highly regarded by the law-abiding element of Laramie City. Some evidence suggests Louisa Swain was selected to cast the first ballot by the ladies of Laramie at a meeting held the night before the election was to take place. On the morning of the election, Mrs. Swain put on a fresh, clean apron over her housedress. She walked to the polls early in the morning unaided and unattended, carrying a little bucket for yeast to be bought at the bakeshop on her return home. Bystanders stood and watched as she approached the polling place when it opened. A witness reported that Mrs. Swain made a determined effort to be the first voter at the polls. The Journal of American History recites, “it is interesting to note that the domestic instinct was not consumed by the new political opportunity and that the judge of elections recorded the vote of this gentile, determined, white haired woman with more than an ordinary degree of reverence.” After casting her ballot, Mrs. Swain went to the bakeshop, picked up her yeast, and went home to bake bread. Meanwhile, ninety-two other women cast their ballots that day in Laramie City.

The day after her historic vote, the Laramie Daily Sentinel ran an editorial, which read in part,

“Mrs. Swain is an old lady of the highest social standing in our community,

universally beloved and respected, and the scene was in the highest degree

Interesting and impressive. There was too much good sense in our community

                    for any jests or sneers to be seen on such an occasion”.

The Republican Boomerang reported the event as a, “shot heard round the world”. Dispatches and cables heralded the news of universal suffrage for Wyoming Territory. The “big little Territory” was on the map.

Colonel Bright, ever gallant, was reported to have offered this toast at a gathering on election night: “Here’s to the lovely ladies….once our superiors, now our equals”.  

In the East, outside of the suffragette community, there was only passing interest, and that mostly evidenced by snide remarks and snobbery. For instance, The Nation, in its March 5, 1870 edition, slandered Wyoming women with this:

The experiment [women’s suffrage] is also being made in Wyoming Territory; but

The women there are but a handful, and, it is said, leave much to be desired, to use

a very safe and convenient Gallicism on the score of character, so that their use

of the franchise will hardly shed much light on the general question.

Scrivner’s Monthly, opined in February, 1875,  “it seems far more likely to us that within ten years Wyoming will ‘go back’ on her woman suffrage record, than that any State of the Union will follow her present example”. Scrivner’s came close to being prophetic.

The euphoria in Wyoming caused by the unique experiment in granting women full and equal political rights with men, did not last long. The Democrats (assisted by a Republican Governor), having achieved fame and approbation by passing the first legislation granting women equal political rights with men, soon began to backslide and lend credence to Scrivner’s.

In 1871 the Second Territorial Legislature convened. The First Territorial Legislature had become famous and took pride in its place in history at being the first legislative body ever to have passed laws granting women equal political rights with men. Two short years later, the Second Territorial Legislature convened and became the only territorial or state legislature ever to attempt to deprive women of political rights.

On November 16, 1871, Democratic Representative Castle introduced a bill to repeal women’s suffrage as House Bill Number Four. In contrast to the First Territorial Legislature, which was solidly Democratic, in both the upper and lower chambers of the Second Territorial Legislature, there was a scattering of Republicans. The Journal of American History explained: “it was evident from the moment it was introduced, nine days after the legislature convened, that there was a determined effort on the part of the Democrats to repeal the law which had given women the right to vote”.

Why did the Democrats in the Second Territorial Legislature do an about face and attempt to abolish equal political rights for women? The most likely answer is that in an era before the secret ballot, the women of the Territory were known to have voted Republican. Indeed, the election of the Territorial delegate to Congress, a Republican, was attributed to the female vote in the 1870 election. The Democrats had had enough of the experiment. Women suffrage was not serving the Democrats’ political interest.

The day after the bill to repeal women’s equal political rights was introduced, it passed the House by a vote of nine to three, with one absent. The three votes against repeal were all Republicans; the nine for repeal were all Democrats. The bill to repeal was then sent to the upper chamber. Here also, the bill to repeal the landmark law granting women equal political rights met opposition only from the Republican members.  The repeal bill passed the Council, five Democrats voting for it and four Republicans voting against it. The repeal bill, having passed both houses of the Territorial Legislature, was sent to Territorial Governor John A. Campbell, a Republican.

Governor Campbell, without hesitation, promptly vetoed the repeal bill. In his message Governor Campbell explained his veto: 

            It is simple justice to say that the women entering for the first time in the

            history of the country, upon these new and untried duties, have conducted

            themselves in every respect with as much tact, shrewd judgment, and good

            sense as men.

In order to pass the repeal bill over the Governor’s veto, a two-thirds vote of each chamber was required. In the House the vote to override, “the Governor’s veto to the contrary not withstanding”, was nine Democrats, in favor, two Republicans against and two absences. Thus on December 9, 1871, the bill to override passed the lower chamber by the required two-thirds majority, with no votes to spare.

The fate of the Territory’s experiment with equal political rights for women was now in the hands of the Territory’s upper chamber, the same chamber that had given birth to equal political rights for women two years earlier. If the Governor’s veto was to be overridden, the Council was also required to pass the legislation by a two-thirds majority. Here also, the veto override failed on a strict party line vote. All five Democrats voted aye, and all four Republicans voted nay.  The Council’s Journal reported the results: “There not being a two-thirds vote the bill was lost”.

Thus by the slimmest of margins, the Republicans assured that Wyoming would not become the only political subdivision in the Nation to ever abolish equal political rights for women. Had one Republican faltered in his conviction, in either chamber, Governor Campbell’s veto would have been overridden and women’s political equality would have been lost for many years.

It is ironic that history would allow both political parties to claim they were the true champions of women’s equal rights. The Democrats could claim they fostered the experiment and the Republicans could claim they preserved it. Both would be right.

The citizens of Wyoming Territory became comfortable with the idea of women suffrage. Ten years after the bill granting women equal political rights was passed and signed into law, the Speaker of the Wyoming House observed: “My conclusions are that the household or family is more interested in good government than a single man is, or indeed can be, and if good government be the ultimate sought by a civilized people, I see no safer, wiser or better way of securing that object than by a ballot in the hand of a woman.”

The year before Wyoming became a state, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Wyoming Territory remarked:

It [women suffrage] has been weighed and not found wanting. It has made our elections quiet and orderly. No rudeness, brawling or disorder appears or would be tolerated at the polling booths. There is no more difficulty or indelicacy in depositing a ballot in the urn than in dropping a letter in the post office.”

In anticipation of statehood, Wyoming elected delegates to a constitutional convention that convened in September of 1889. Forty-nine delegates attended the convention, all of them men. On the fourteenth day of the convention, a delegate from Cheyenne proposed that women’s suffrage be put to a separate vote of the people before being incorporated into the new state constitution. The proposal was hotly debated by those in favor of and opposed to the idea of equal political rights for women. Those in favor of submitting the issue to a vote of the people argued that some of their constituents were opposed to woman suffrage but in favor of statehood and would vote against the proposed constitution if it contained a section allowing for woman suffrage.  The sponsor of the proposal, who said he was in favor of equal political rights for women, argued that such a provision was a departure from the norm and therefor should be subject to a separate vote of the people who had never had a chance to vote on the subject.

Delegate Hoyt summarized the sentiment against the proposal:

No man has ever dared to say in the territory of Wyoming that woman suffrage is a failure. We stand today proud, proud of this great experiment….Why then this extraordinary proposition?

The proposition failed on a vote of twenty against and eight for.  The constitution, with provisions mandating equal political rights for women, was passed unanimously by the convention and on November 5, 1889; the citizens of what would soon be the State of Wyoming adopted it. Two separate constitutional provisions touched upon equal political rights for women.  Article 1, Section 3 provided:

Equal political rights.

Since equality in the enjoyment of natural and civil rights is only made sure through political equality, the laws of this state affecting the political rights and privileges of its citizens shall be without distinction of race, color, sex, or any circumstance or condition whatsoever other than individual incompetency, or unworthiness duly ascertained by a court of competent jurisdiction.

That provision by itself was apparently too obtuse for the assembled delegates and they addressed the subject of woman suffrage and equal political rights again, and more directly, in Article 6, Section one, which provided:

Male and female citizens to enjoy equal rights.

The rights of citizens of the state of Wyoming to vote and hold office shall not be denied or abridged on account of sex. Both male and female citizens of this state shall equally enjoy all civil, political and religious rights and privileges.

Wyoming citizens had spoken on the subject of women’s political rights, both through their elected delegates to the constitutional convention, and directly in adopting the constitution. But, opponents of the Wyoming experiment had one more opportunity to express themselves.

Only months after the constitution was approved by the citizens of Wyoming territory, Congress took up Wyoming’s petition to be admitted as a state in the “Union of States” There was opposition from the Democrats, especially in the House of Representatives. Though the Democrats were not keen on the admission of another Republican leaning state, one of the main articulated objections had to do with the evils of Wyoming’s experiment with woman suffrage. Nevertheless, the House of Representatives passed the act by an uncomfortably close vote of 139 to 127. The Senate followed suite and Wyoming became a state on July 10, 1890.

In 1893, the Wyoming state legislature provided for a “great seal of the state of Wyoming”. The bill stated in part:

Standing upon the pedestal shall be a draped figure of a woman, modeled after the statute of the ‘Victory of the Louvre,” from whose wrists shall hang links of a broken chain and holding in her right hand a staff from the top of which shall float a banner with the words “Equal Rights” thereon, all suggesting the political position of women in this state.

That language was passed by the legislature and signed into law by Wyoming’s governor twenty-seven years before ratification of the Nineteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. It remains law today.

Now you now know the story of how Wyoming became the, “Equality State”. But the question remains, why Wyoming and not some other state or territory? Why did this happen in a frontier territory, at the very edge of civilization? What was it about the culture of the frontier, of Wyoming, that made such an event possible?

We have seen how women vastly outnumbered by men as construction of the Union Pacific moved west through Wyoming. Women were precious few and because that was so, they were precious. Decent women were respected and put on a pedestal. Their honor was defended and their detractors attacked, sometimes with a vengeance. State and local laws and ordinances were passed which sought to punish men, sometimes severely, for insulting women. Cowboys were sometimes even afraid to talk with respectable women for fear of getting into trouble. One social scientist reported that Wyoming ranch hands about the turn of the century would shout out a warning to their friends, “Church time” when a married woman approached and then would lapse into respectful silence until she had passed.

Side by side with this respect for “decent women” was a proclivity toward violence, alcohol, rowdiness and a preoccupation with women of the night. . Over and over again contemporary reviews of the success of suffrage in Wyoming focus on improvement in decorum at the poling places. The absence of drunkenness and rowdiness at the polling places was attributed to the presence of women.

There is no doubt that those who began to settle the West, looked forward to civilizing it. Mostly, they yearned for peace and tranquility. Men conquered the territory but women made it habitable. There was also the belief that if women could vote the effort to civilize the territory would b easier. As one Wyoming stockman from long ago put it,  “I always said that I wanted a woman to walk beside me, not behind me”. That is why Wyoming became the Equality State.

EDITOR’S NOTE:  This is courtesy of the Louisa Swain Foundation, publisher of “The View From Thunderhead” by Ray Hunkins. This piece is the first chapter of that book which is a project of the Foundation in celebration of the 150th anniversary of the world’s first woman voter. The Foundation will commemorate Louisa Swain’s vote 150 years ago, and passage of the 19th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States 100 years ago, at the Foundation’s History House in Laramie, 317 S. 2nd Street, on September 6th, 2020, “Louisa Swain Day”.

***For All Things Wyoming, Sign-Up For Our Daily Newsletter***

Ray Hunkins: Ludicrous, Wyoming Follows Same Orders As New York City

in Column/Ray Hunkins

***For All Things Wyoming, Sign-Up For Our Daily Newsletter***

By Ray Hunkins, columnist

On March 22 I wrote a column entitled “And Then, What?” which was published on this site.

The point of the piece was to remind us that policy makers charting a course for battling the Wuhan corona virus in Wyoming and the Nation, needed input and recommendations from those familiar with economic issues, in addition to those familiar with the medical issues involved.

Before choosing a course of action, it was suggested, the decision makers pondering the extension of the economic shutdown, should ask, “if we extend the economic shutdown, then what?”.

The President, acting on the recommendation of his medical advisors, utilizing what was soon to be shown as grossly inaccurate models, extended the voluntary shutdown, by a month, until the end of April.  The strategy in extending the shutdown was “to bend the curve.”

We were told that, “bending the curve,” meant to eliminate the possibility of overwhelming the medical infrastructure by having too many patients hospitalized at the same time. Various governors, including Wyoming’s, announced compatible measures, some voluntary, some mandatory.

We now have had roughly a month of economic inactivity, or at least sharply diminished economic activity. It is now possible to observe both the progress of the “war” on the virus and the “war’s” impact on our economy. Neither are pretty, but a question yet to be answered is this: is the economic shutdown necessary beyond the end of April?

The “war” on the virus, in some form, will continue until the virus is no longer a significant threat to our population. Tactics (as opposed to strategy) will continue to be debated. The medical people have explained that the pause in economic activity is not designed to eliminate contagion of the disease, only to delay contagion until the apex has passed so as not to overwhelm the hospitals.

Once the shutdown is lifted, transmission of the disease will resume unless there is immunity. Immunity can be achieved with a vaccine or by what is known as, “herd immunity”.

So far, the “war” has produced the following relevant medical statistics: As of this writing (April 5), our government reports 330,00 cases of corona virus, out of a population of 331 million, with 9,528 deaths. About half the cases and more than half of the deaths are located in just three states: New York, New Jersey and Michigan.

In Wyoming, 207 cases have been reported out of a population of 567,000. Five Wyoming counties have had no reported cases. Three counties report only one case. Only five counties report more than 10 cases.

The greatest number of cases is in Laramie County with 44. No deaths have been reported anywhere in Wyoming. Despite these statistics, the medical advisors in Washington, and some people in Wyoming, clamor for the imposition of statewide “stay at home” orders where none have yet been issued. Wyoming does not have such an order. The idea that Wyoming must, in the interest of public health, institute the same measures as the state of New York is preposterous.

The idea that residents of Platte County, where no cases have been reported, must obey the same orders as the residents of the five boroughs of New York City, where 68,000 cases have been reported, is ludicrous.

Yet the authoritarians among us, seeking uniformity of process, blithely advocate the imposition of draconian measures everywhere, urban and rural states alike, ignoring the facts, our federal system and the separation of powers mandated by our Constitution.

On April 4th, the Casper Star Tribune reported that 12% of the reported cases in Wyoming were known to have required hospitalization, though in 24% of the reported cases it was not known if hospitalization occurred. There are 1261 staffed hospital beds in Wyoming, according to the American Hospital Directory.

Hypothetically, in the unlikely event 36% of the reported cases required hospitalization, the patients would have taken up 71 beds across the state, assuming they were all in hospitals at the same time. Because of these facts, “bending the curve” of the disease in Wyoming would seem to be unnecessary, perhaps even unhelpful.

 The “war” has also produced the following relevant economic statistics: Since March 1st, over 10 million Americans have filed for unemployment. The past two weeks have erased nearly all the jobs created in the past five years. But that is just the beginning. Financial advisor Stifel Nicolaus’ chief economist predicts peak unemployment of 30% in the U.S., saying in an April 3, 2020 report, “As we continue to keep the economy closed, more than 45 million Americans are expected to lose their jobs.” The St. Louis Fed agrees, predicting unemployment could rise to over 30%, surpassing the peak of the Great Depression.

In Wyoming, no current unemployment statistics are available, but on March 21, the Casper Star Tribune reported the Department of Work Force Services, which handles unemployment claims, was “inundated” with calls resulting from an order issued by the governor shutting down certain Wyoming businesses.

By order, all restaurants and bars were closed except for “take out”. The Department reported 37 people were assigned to take calls on that day and there still was an hour’s wait for callers on the Department’s multiple lines. About 10% of the state’s work force is involved in the food service and restaurant industry. In 2019, that amounted to 28,700 jobs.

With the widespread closing of eating establishments nationwide, not surprisingly the meat complex and cattle markets collapsed.

On April 5th, the Casper Star Tribune reported the biggest one-day loss in choice grade beef prices – $0.798 a pound and observed, “As public precautions regarding the novel coronavirus extend further into the spring, farmers and ranchers drift closer towards financial doomsday.”

This is a clear prediction that the “public precaution” mentioned might be synonymous with financial ruin for Wyoming agriculture. My friend Del Tinsley, former publisher of the Wyoming Livestock Roundup and a cattleman himself, verifies that the feeder market tanked last week and Wyoming ranchers are more than a little concerned.

It’s impossible to predict the extent of the economic carnage that is being imposed on our nation and on Wyoming. When the dust settles, I believe we will see that for Wyoming, the cure has indeed been worse than the disease. That is simultaneously, both a blessing and a curse.

But, one thing is certain. The longer this shutdown goes on, the worse the carnage will be. All the government checks and loans, all the red tape and bureaucracy, all the billions and trillions of government largesse that will have to be repaid by someone – none of it will be the magic remedy that makes us economically well again- never mind “great.”

With appropriate precautions and best practices, we need to get back to work and we need to do it at the conclusion of the current shut down – at the end of this month – by May 1st. No more economic shutdown extensions.

The sooner Wyoming goes back to work, the sooner our restaurants and small businesses are opened for business, the sooner we can begin to climb out of this economic, cultural and social purgatory in which we have been placed. Placed there for 71 hospital beds that were available when needed.

Wyoming isn’t New York, New Jersey or Michigan.  Chugwater isn’t Brooklyn. One size doesn’t fit all. It never has.

Ray Hunkins, author of the book, “The View From Thunderhead”, was the Republican nominee for Governor of Wyoming in 2006. He is now retired and lives in Cheyenne, west of Wheatland in the Laramie Mountains and in Tubac, Arizona. He is an Emeritus Fellow of the American College of Trial Lawyers and the International Society of Barristers.

***For All Things Wyoming, Sign-Up For Our Daily Newsletter***

Ray Hunkins: After Coronavirus, Economic Disaster . . . And Then What?

in Column/Ray Hunkins

By Ray Hunkins, contributor

In last Sunday’s Casper Star Tribune, a columnist wrote from France describing the loss of personal freedoms as a result of that country’s quarantine order. 

She noted: “Governments are taking drastic measures with little logical explanation of why the measures are different for the Chinese virus than they have been for the flue which has affected and killed more people”. She then posed this question: “Knowing that ‘zero risk’ doesn’t exist, is the price of zero freedoms worth paying – in any instance”?

She was writing about the loss of personal freedom in France as the result of the virus crises, but the same point could be made about economic freedom in the United States.

To date, the loss of our economic freedom, indeed of our economy, has been the result of mostly “recommendations” and “suggestions” by our federal government, not directives with the force of law as in France. But, recommendations vs. directives, is a distinction without a difference when it comes to economic impact.

By the “recommendation” of our federal government the U.S. economy has largely been shut down resulting not only in the loss of huge sums of money, but also of economic freedom.

As I write this (March 22) we have completed the first half of what amounts to economic purgatory, with one week to go until the situation is “reassessed.”

What situation? Public health officials have pledged to reassess the public health situation brought about by the virus. But the doctors will only be assessing health risks. That’s their job. I would be surprised if the folks in white coats don’t recommend a continuation of the economic shutdown. When one is good with a hammer, every problem looks like a nail

The economists and other financial types are also, presumably, going to reassess the impact of the total economic shutdown. There is a tension between what is perceived to be serious risk to the health of segments of our population and our economy. This tension is set to play out when the reassessment is made.

There are those whose work requires an assessment of possible reactions to a proposed action. Their job is to ask the proponents of a proposed action, “and then what?” Military planners who “game out” various battle scenarios come to mind. Trial lawyers who build “decision trees” to catalogue various outcomes to a possible motion, or a witness who may or may not be called at a trial, are also examples. Those exercises help with determining the risks associated with a particular action and the benefits to be derived therefrom. They answer the question, “and then what?”

No doubt, with the partial information then at hand, a risk – benefit analysis was performed before we embarked on our present course of action in response to the Chinese corona virus.

We have more information now, on both sides of the equation – severity and spread of the virus, and the impact of the shutdown on the nation’s economy. According to most knowledgeable people, it is likely we can survive the fifteen-day shutdown with serious but modest short-term negative economic impacts, some of which are already surfacing; beyond that, the impacts are likely negative over an expanding number of sectors and at an increasing rate. That would have national security implications.

Logic tells us, the longer the shutdown lingers, whether voluntary or involuntary, the bigger the negative impact to the economy. Recession seems a certainty now. Depression is the next stop on this economic journey and it is one no American should want to experience.

Coupled with the trillions of dollars that are being spent to “stimulate” the economy, we could witness the collapse of not only the economy, but of society itself. Venezuela, with its central planning, shortage of goods, hyperinflation, loss of freedom, authoritarian rule and violence comes to mind.

As we approach the end of the current “pause” in economic activity and the “reassessment” takes place, let us hope for a realistic cost-benefit re-analysis that takes into account what comes next, not only with the spread and severity of the virus, but also with the economic destruction that has taken place and that will surely be increasing with every day the shutdown continues.

The question that needs to be asked and answered in Washington, as a part of the reassessment is this: If we extend the shutdown significantly, then what? It may be that the decision on whether to resume activity is left to the governors based on the status and condition of each state or region. If that is the case, Governor Gordon will be faced with a difficult but necessary decision.

We are told those most at risk are the elderly, especially those with preexisting medical conditions. They should be protected and there is no visible reason why people, the elderly and others, can’t be protected when economic activity resumes. We can walk and chew gum at the same time.

My own view is that protecting the elderly specifically, and the population generally, can be accomplished without sacrificing the nation’s (or Wyoming’s) economy beyond the present economic pause. Of course, common sense and best health practices should be followed when activity resumes.

But, speaking only for myself, and as one who celebrated his eighty-first birthday this month, I would rather take the risk of contracting the virus than see my children and grandchildren experience a depression or worse.

When the planners meet to reassess the situation and decide whether to keep our economy on hold, I hope one of them asks, “and then what?”

Ray Hunkins, author of the book, “The View From Thunderhead”, was twice a candidate for Governor of Wyoming. He is now retired following 50 years as a member of the Wyoming State Bar.

Ray Hunkins’ Book About Wyoming is a Delight

in Column/Bill Sniffin

By Bill Sniffin, Cowboy State Daily

At 224 pages, the new book, The View from Thunderhead by Ray Hunkins, is a delight. You almost wish it were even longer.

Hunkins is an iconic Wyomingite. He has had a varied career as an attorney and as a rancher.  He twice ran for governor and has been a champion for the University of Wyoming. Part of the reason for this book is to recognize our state’s amazing history with Women’s’ Suffrage.

He was the chairman of the Louisa Swain Foundation, of Laramie, from 2008 to 2010. This group celebrates the woman who was the first woman to legally vote anywhere in the United States.  As a result of the Wyoming territorial legislature’s decision to allow women the vote, Louisa was the first woman to cast a ballot in an election, doing so in Laramie, on Sept. 6, 1870.

Hunkins, 80, and his wife Debby had a ranch for decades outside of Wheatland near Laramie Peak called Thunderhead Ranch. They currently live in Cheyenne.  

Over the years, Hunkins has been a prolific writer with most of his articles appearing in the Casper and Cheyenne daily newspapers. This book contains some of his favorite stories and they are very good. 

Hunkins is a dedicated and experienced ranchers so many of his favorite stories are about ranching.

As a politician, he does not shy away from taking some serious stand concerning the issues of our time.

But most of all, Hunkins loves Wyoming.  It comes through again and again.  Whether he is talking about some upsets pulled off by the University of Wyoming football team or when talking with a Marine recruiter about why so many young people in the Cowboy State sign up for military careers.

He defends the traditions of Wyoming in one essay when he felt the state was unfairly attacked.  In 2002, Sam Western wrote a book called “Pushed Off The Mountain, Sold Down the River,” which was very critical of the state.  Hunkins eloquently defended Wyoming.  He and Western ultimately debated their positions on a Casper TV program later that year.

He even has an interesting piece about meeting with Pope John Paul II, which might make him unique among Wyoming people.

The book is priced at $55 and was published by the Swain Foundation. Copies are available at the Swain Foundation website.

Ray is a great cheerleader for Wyoming.  It is so fitting that this book got published so everyone can see for himself or herself.

Go to Top