You will hear of wars and rumors of wars, but see to it that you are not alarmed. Such things must happen, but the end is still to come. Nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom
Matthew, Chapter 24.
There is nothing they [Russian leaders] admire so much as strength, and there is nothing for which they have less respect than for weakness, especially military weakness.
Winston S. Churchill, The Sinews of Peace
October 13, 2026
Russo Ukrainian War
The term is so good, it's time for a new edition. Some wag has termed the Ukrainian drone strikes on Russian data farms "Operation Quiet Piggy".
And, in fact, some well known anti Trump pundits noted a big drop off on spam bots on Twitter right away.
Hmm. . .
October 17, 2026
Russo Ukrainian War
Shameful:
By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including the Lindsey O. Graham Sanctioning Russia and Iran Act of 2026 (22 U.S.C. 10802 et seq.) (Graham Act), and section 301 of title 3, United States Code, I hereby determine and order:
Section 1. Background. On September 18, 2026, I signed the Graham Act into law. The Graham Act provides for the imposition of certain sanctions with respect to foreign persons, restrictions with respect to persons, and duties with respect to goods imported into the United States from the Russian Federation and certain other countries.
Section 115 of the Graham Act authorizes the President to waive the application of any sanctions provision with respect to a foreign person, any restriction with respect to a person, and any duty under the Graham Act, subject to the submission to the Congress of a written certification that such a waiver is in the national interests of the United States and a report explaining the basis for the certification.
As described further in section 4 of this order, I am hereby waiving the application of such sanctions, restrictions, and duties provided for in the Graham Act. I have submitted to the Congress a certification that the issuance of such a waiver at this time is in the national interests of the United States.
Sec. 2. Increases in Rate of Duty. (a) The rate of duty on goods from the Russian Federation shall be increased by 500 percent ad valorem, subject to the exceptions set forth in section 114 of the Graham Act and the waivers issued in section 4 of this order.
(b) The rate of duty on goods from the largest 5 importers of crude oil and natural gas that originated in the Russian Federation shall be increased by 100 percent ad valorem if the country knowingly makes new purchases of crude oil or natural gas that originated in the Russian Federation on or after October 18, 2026, subject to the exceptions set forth in section 114 of the Graham Act and the waivers issued in section 4 of this order. The United States Trade Representative (Trade Representative), in consultation with the Secretary of State, the Secretary of the Treasury, the Secretary of Energy, and any other senior executive branch official that the Trade Representative determines appropriate, shall monitor the circumstances related to the importation and purchases by countries of crude oil and natural gas of Russian Federation origin, regularly inform the President of any such activity, and provide recommendations for further action, as provided for in section 3 of this order.
(c) The rate of duty on goods from the top 5 facilitators of Russian oil sanctions evasion shall be increased by 100 percent ad valorem, subject to the exceptions set forth in section 114 of the Graham Act and the waivers issued in section 4 of this order. The Trade Representative, in consultation with the Secretary of State, the Secretary of the Treasury, the Secretary of Energy, and any other senior executive branch official that the Trade Representative determines appropriate, shall monitor the activities of countries that facilitate Russian oil sanctions evasion, as defined in section 113(i) of the Graham Act, and report to the President on which countries are among the top 5 such facilitators.
(d) The increases in the rates of duty provided by this order shall apply in addition to any other duty, fee, tax, exaction, or charge applicable with respect to the good, including any duty imposed under title VII of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1671 et seq.), sections 122, 201, or 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2132, 2251, and 2411), or section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 (19 U.S.C. 1862).
Sec. 3. Monitoring. The Trade Representative, in consultation with the Secretary of State, the Secretary of the Treasury, the Secretary of Energy, and any other senior executive branch official that the Trade Representative determines appropriate, shall monitor the circumstances related to the importation and purchases by countries of crude oil and natural gas of Russian Federation origin, as well as the facilitation of Russian sanctions evasion by countries, and regularly report to the President on those circumstances. The Trade Representative, in consultation with the Secretary of State, the Secretary of the Treasury, the Secretary of Energy, and any other senior executive branch official that the Trade Representative determines appropriate, shall promptly inform the President of any circumstance that, in his opinion, might indicate the need for further action by the President, including with respect to the waivers.
Sec. 4. Waiver. (a) Pursuant to section 115(a) of the Graham Act, I hereby waive the application of any duties provided for in sections 112 and 113 of the Graham Act or this order. I have submitted to the Congress a certification that the issuance of such a waiver is in the national interests of the United States and a report explaining the basis for the certification, consistent with section 115(b) of the Graham Act.
(b) Pursuant to section 115(a) of the Graham Act, I hereby waive the application of the sanctions provision provided for in section 102(d) of the Graham Act with respect to foreign persons and the restrictions provided for in section 102(d) of the Graham Act with respect to persons. For the avoidance of doubt, nothing in this order affects any sanctions or other measures provided for under any Executive Order issued to address the national emergency that I continued on March 24, 2026, with respect to specified harmful foreign activities of the Government of the Russian Federation (91 Fed. Reg. 15515), as in effect on the day before the date of enactment of the Graham Act, including with respect to all persons sanctioned under any such Executive Order. I have submitted to the Congress a certification that the issuance of such a waiver is in the national interests of the United States and a report explaining the basis for the certification, consistent with section 115(b) of the Graham Act.
(c) Pursuant to section 115(a) of the Graham Act, I hereby waive the application of the following sanctions provisions with respect to foreign persons and restrictions with respect to persons: sections 102(a), 102(e), 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, and 117 of the Graham Act. I have submitted to the Congress a certification that the issuance of such a waiver is in the national interests of the United States and a report explaining the basis for the certification, consistent with section 115(b) of the Graham Act.
(d) The waivers described in subsections (a) through (c) of this section shall remain in effect until such time as the President or the Secretary of State, in consultation with the Secretary of the Treasury and the Trade Representative, as appropriate, determine that further action is appropriate.
Sec. 5. Delegation of Authorities. (a) I hereby delegate the functions and authorities vested in the President by the Graham Act as follows:
(i) sections 102(a), 102(b), 102(c), 104(a), 108(b), 111(b), and 114(a)(2), to the Secretary of State, in consultation with the Secretary of the Treasury, and to the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State;
(ii) section 115 to the Secretary of State, in consultation with the Secretary of the Treasury and the Trade Representative, as appropriate;
(iii) sections 102(e)(1), 103(a), 103(b), 103(d), 104(b), 110(a), 110(c), and 116(a) to the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State;
(iv) section 111(a) to the Secretary of Energy, in consultation with the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Commerce, and the Secretary of the Treasury;
(v) section 112 to the Trade Representative, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Secretary of the Treasury;
(vi) section 113(a) to the Trade Representative, in consultation with the Secretary of State, the Secretary of the Treasury, and the Secretary of Energy;
(vii) section 117(a), with respect to the termination of the application of any sanction with respect to a foreign person or any restriction with respect to a person, to the Secretary of State, in consultation with the Secretary of the Treasury; and to the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State; and
(viii) section 117(a), with respect to the termination of any duty, to the Trade Representative, in consultation with the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Energy, and the Secretary of the Treasury.
(b) The delegations in this section shall apply to any provisions of any future public laws that are the same or substantially the same as the provisions referenced in this section.
(c) The Secretary of State, the Secretary of the Treasury, the Trade Representative, and the Secretary of Energy may, consistent with applicable law, redelegate within their respective departments any of the functions or authorities delegated to them by this order. All executive departments and agencies shall take all appropriate measures within their authority to carry out the provisions of this order.
(d) Any reference in this section to the Graham Act shall be deemed to be a reference to the Graham Act as amended from time to time.
Sec. 6. Severability. If any provision of this order or the application of any provision of this order to any individual or circumstance is held to be invalid, the remainder of this order and the application of its provisions to any other individuals or circumstances shall not be affected.
Sec. 7. General Provisions. (a) Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:
(i) the authority granted by law to an executive department or agency, or the head thereof; or
(ii) the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.
(b) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.
(c) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.
(d) The costs for publication of this order shall be borne by the Department of State.
DONALD J. TRUMP
THE WHITE HOUSE,
Absolutely shameful. There's no excuse for it.
It's not sitting well with some in Congress.
Rep. Don Bacon 🇺🇸✈️🏍️⭐️🎖️
@RepDonBacon
Congress has a lame-duck session. The President has an agenda: supplemental, reconciliation, Ballroom, etc… I think the agenda is dead. Many of us won’t fund these things knowing he is propping up a dictator’s invasion and throwing an ally under the bus.
Proclamation 232—Law and Order in the State of South Carolina
October 17, 1876
By the President of the United States of America
A Proclamation
Whereas it has been satisfactorily shown to me that insurrection and domestic violence exist in several counties of the State of South Carolina, and that certain combinations of men against law exist in many counties of said State known as "rifle clubs," who ride up and down by day and night in arms, murdering some peaceable citizens and intimidating others, which combinations, though forbidden by the laws of the State, can not be controlled or suppressed by the ordinary course of justice; and
Whereas it is provided in the Constitution of the United States that the United States shall protect every State in this Union, on application of the legislature, or of the executive (when the legislature can not be convened), against domestic violence; and
Whereas by laws in pursuance of the above it is provided (in the laws of the United States) that in all cases of insurrection in any State or of obstruction to the laws thereof it shall be lawful for the President of the United States, on application of the legislature of such State, or of the executive (when the legislature can not be convened), to call forth the militia of any other State or States, or to employ such part of the land and naval forces as shall be judged necessary, for the purpose of suppressing such insurrection or causing the laws to be duly executed; and
Whereas the legislature of said State is not now in session and can not be convened in time to meet the present emergency, and the executive of said State, under section 4 of Article IV of the Constitution of the United States and the laws passed in pursuance thereof, has therefore made due application to me in the premises for such part of the military force of the United States as may be necessary and adequate to protect said State and the citizens thereof against domestic violence and to enforce the due execution of the laws; and
Whereas it is required that whenever it may be necessary, in the judgment of the President, to use the military force for the purpose aforesaid, he shall forthwith, by proclamation, command such insurgents to disperse and retire peaceably to their respective homes within a limited time:
Now, therefore, I, Ulysses S. Grant, President of the United States, do hereby make proclamation and command all persons engaged in said unlawful and insurrectionary proceedings to disperse and retire peaceably to their respective abodes within three days from this date, and hereafter abandon said combinations and submit themselves to the laws and constituted authorities of said State.
And I invoke the aid and cooperation of all good citizens thereof to uphold the laws and preserve the public peace.
In witness whereof I have hereunto set my hand and caused the seal of the United States to be affixed.
Done at the city of Washington, this 17th day of October, A.D. 1876, and of the Independence of the United States one hundred and one.
We are, of course, about one month away from the General Election and it's universally agreed that, at least as of right now, the economy is not doing well, which is to say that it's not doing well for average people. Having said that, all the monkeying around Trump has done with the economy has not resulted in a general collapse, as some feared. This tends to give credence to the assertion that some make that the American economy in general is so strong that it tends to keep on chugging along in spite of everything.
Having said that, prices on many things have gone up, and are now at the paint point for average people. Beef prices, for example, are up about 25%. That can't really be blamed on Trump, as its due to a historically low cattle heard, but Trump's efforts to address it were pretty much non existent at first, and the ineffectual when they were tried.
Addressing the price can only really come through a recovery of the North American herd. Trump's constant crazy hatred of Canada and Canadians isn't helping this at all, as Canada is part of the North American market. Mexican cattle, which had been banned from coming into the US due to screwworm, which we're not hearing much about, which is concerning, have started to come back in. That is likely to have some effect.
Petroleum prices have shot up enormously since Trump started an ill advised and poorly planned war on Iran for no real discernable critical objective.
Wars are inflationary by their very nature, but attacking a critical global petroleum supplier is definitely going to be inflationary, and this is set to really start hitting home. Everything in the US, whether it moves by truck, by rail, or in the air, uses petroleum. That impacts the price of 100% of American goods. Gasoline, Diesel fuel and Aviation fuel is way up in price. Heating oil is up 50% to 70% just as we're entering the season where it starts to be used on the East Coast. NOAA, which usus science, predicts a warm winter in the East, like last years, so that might not be as impactful as it could be. The Old Farmers Almanac, which I put no stock in whatsoever, predicts a cold winter.
An interesting side impact of the cost of things is that even Wyomingites are looking at electric vehicles. I overheard a conversation the other day in which two people were wishing to get them, and they're both highly conservative individuals. A report on increasing EVs appeared in one of the local online journals today.
There are still a lot of naysayers out there, but there were when automobiles started to become common for that matter.
Anyway, the Trump Administration has handed out its flood of excuses for all of this, starting at first with "it's Joe Biden's fault". Everything is Biden's fault according to Trump, whom while he routinely falls asleep in public still calls Biden, on occasion, "Sleep Joe".
The it's all Biden's fault is no longer selling very well so the "it's not much to pay to keep Iran from getting a bomb" has been tried and is still being tried, but it's not selling that well . First of all, well informed people know that while Iran is a very secretive state, the evidence that it was about to make a nuke is thin. And frankly Israel's major early role in the war made it pretty clear that this was a joint Israeli American adventure in which the Trumpites had been heavily influenced by Israel. That's adding to an anti Israeli sentiment that's been building in the US for several years and you'll even now hear, in response to the suggestion that it's all worth it to keep Iran from getting a bomb, that maybe we don't really care if Iran has a bomb.
We didn't care enough about North Korea having one in order for the US to attack it, and Trump loves the communist leader of North Korea.
So that excuse isn't working either.
So time to distract.
The government just announced that children under 16 years of age are being automatically enrolled in "Trump" savings accounts. The Government, which has no money whatsoever as it's borrowing piles, will place $1,000 of the money it doesn't have into such accounts, but parents need to claim it.
Will this achieve something?
Well, it might, or might now. Truth be known with inflation being what it is, $1,000 that can't be touched until a person is 18 years old isn't going to seem like that big of a deal right now But it might turn out to be.
Trump also promised people $5,000 if the GOP retains both houses of Congress, but then that would require Congress to do it, and Trump earlier promised everyone a $2,000 tariff dividend. The government handing out cash it doesn't have isn't a good idea and frankly I thought it was a horrible idea when President Biden started handing out cash during COVID. I've heard the Trump proposal compared to that, and that was a bad idea.
The Administration also just sent out $500.00 checks as supposed refunds for Obamacare overcharges. They seem rather strategically placed, however.
Anyhow, stayed tuned for coming attractions. The trade war with Canada is just starting, the war is no where near over, and prices are really set to climb. Trump has less than thirty days to address all of this, or even some of it, which won't be easy at all. Voters who are inclined to vote their pocketbooks are likely pretty much set in their opinions by now.
Grant Street Grocery in Casper Wyoming is the only surviving small neighborhood grocery store in the town and even advertises the same.
Opened in 1921, the store was converted into a specialty grocery store and deli some years ago, and features meats and cheeses, as well as many other items, that are unlikely to appear on the counters of regular grocery stores. It's featured here for its simple sign, as well as being a remnant of something that was once very common, a neighborhood store.
President Trump signed an order allowing for the temporary sale of red diesel, which you tend to only find easily in farm country, for regular diesels. Effectively its a sort of kind of temporary suspension of the Federal tax on diesel.
I'd quite frankly question the Presidents ability to legally do this, but if I see red diesel for sale, I'm buying it.
2026-009Emergency Relief Permits for Transportation of Oversize and Overweight Loads of Agricultural Products
2026-010Executive Order Recognizing and Adopting the Federal Monitor Carrier Safety Administration Hours-of-Service Waiver for the Intrastate Transportation of Gasoline and Diesel Fu
On the red fuel order, some states, or at least Montana, have warned diesel users that they're not lifting their provisions. Also, red diesel stains filters and engine parts, so when the suspension ends, and you take your truck in to be serviced, you may have a lot of explaining to do.
And now this:
Trump is so desperate to put the economic destruction of the Iran War behind him that he's made a deal with Putin to import diesel fuel.
First of all, this isn't enough diesel to make any sort of difference and I frankly do not think it will even occur. But more significantly he's made a deal with a country that is engaged in a completely immoral war against a neighbor and losing, and by doing this, helping them. The US, it might be noted, has just acted to increase sanctions on Russia.
Totally inexcusable.
October 14, 2026
Inflation jumped in September.
Now, it's not Trump's fault. It's Joe Biden's. He set the inflation meter on 10 and then hid the key with the Epstein files, so you can see the problem.
It's not like an illegal war we're losing or tariffs had anything to do with that.
Governor Gordon and Cynthia Lummis came out against the Trump Russian diesel plan. Barrasso, who is now a toady, predictably supported it. Hageman when asked about it cited regulations in the US as the problem, which is absolutely and completely absurd. She'd earlier voted against aid to Ukraine and has been in the Trump camp consistently.
By the way, the price per barrel for crude oil has gone up, as have the price of diesel futures, since Trump announced his "deal" with the Russians.
I went down to the old county courthouse and caste my votes. I've now weighed in for 2026.
In some ways, it wasn't easy for me. I knew who I wanted to vote for, but I was a bit tortured between not voting for Chuck Gray and Harriet Hageman and leaving my ballot blank, or for casting a vote for one of their opponents.
I did the latter.
The situation facing the country is just too dire. We are, effectively, in the 1932 German election where the choices are boiling down to a desperate few. Or, perhaps, we're in the June and November 1946 French election where the Catholic Christian Democrats were in a coalition with the Communists, which shows how dire the situation was in the Fourth Republic. The choice now is to vote against a rising force of bloody fascism and acknowledge that the opponents retain some real taints, or to allow the country to do down the Via dei Fori Imperiali.
It's that dire.
The last few days made up my mind for me. A government that makes an open spectacle of execution and then sides with Vladimir Putin.
I'm not going there, and I cannot tolerate going there.
Nien, Non, No.
In two years I'll reassess. Chances are that at least one of the candidates I voted for I won't vote for again.
So, how did I vote?
Let's look at the state elections, that was easy.
Governor:1
Eric Barlow. He's the only real choice, and he's a good one. Rebecca Bextel thinks she's a conservative, but she's a Dixiecrat through and through. She needs to go home to Sweet Home Alabama, where she is literally from. Kenneth Casner is an overdone, baked in the sun, left out to dry, joke of a candidate. He symbolizes the pathetic state the Wyoming Democratic Party is in. The Democrats used to have some fine candidates, and it wasn't all that long ago that they were in the Governor's chair. Casner? Give me a break.
Barlow's election will be the death of the Wyoming Freedom Caucus, whose Bittereinders are already retreating to the Constitution Party Redoubt.
Good riddance to them.
So, here, I voted for a straight Republican ticket.
The other state races.
Other than Governor, we had a host of uncontested or barely contested races in which incumbents sought reelection. Fortunately for all of us, they are all really good candidates.
The one contested one is Superintendent of Public Instruction. In that race Ana Cordova, a Democrat, contests with Steve Harshman, a Republican.
There's' no doubt that Harshman, an local educator of long and respected standing, is an excellent choice. Still, I thought about voting for Cordova, a young educator with an impressive background. Harshman is 62 or 63, Cordova much younger. I suspect that Harshman might look at running for Governor, but he'll be 72 years old at least before he can, given that Barlow will win two terms.
Again, here, on state races, I voted a straight Republican ticket.
The property tax initiatives
There is a Freedom Caucus ballot initiative to cut residential property taxes in half, which benefits the carpetbagger class. It would but local governments like a fish, but hey, hey, the carpetbaggers have already educated their children and live behind walls, so they'll be okay.
I actually had a county commissioner explain this one to me in detail. Rank and file property owners voting for it, given the other deductions a property owner is eligible for, are screwing themselves.
I voted against it.
Frankly, I'd impose a tax, if I could, on the property of the carpetbaggers, which drives up property values for anyone else. Raise your kids in California? Well, you weren't here while we were enduring the ups and downs of the Wyoming economy and now you can pay for it. Stay in California if you don't like it. Even if you do, stay in CAlifornia.
Anyway you look at it, I'm not for giving the Bextels and Biens an advantage in taxes at our expense.
Representation in Washington D.C.
It was this set of choices that were difficult for me.
There was never any question that I would never vote for Chuck Gray. I never have, and I never will. Chuck needs to go back to Los Angeles and work for a good twenty years at a convenience store in Watts so he knows who real people are. Likewise, there was never any question I'd vote for my law school near contemporary Harriet Hageman, whose evolution from farm girl, polo shirt wearing, cute student to dressed in black lawyer for the rich and powerful is a disappointing memory of a very long career.
She didn't have to turn out like this. If she'd gone to work for one of the real civil firms in the state, she would not have.
No, the question was whether I'd vote for Kinney, Johnson, or Byrd or nobody at all.
In the end, given the dire situation, I voted for the Democratic candidates.
Now, I'll note that I think Byrd is an excellent candidate. Better than Hageman in every way, save perhaps for two ways.
Gray symbolizes everything wrong with the GOP in Wyoming except that instead of being a carpetbagger from the Confederacy, he's a carpetbagger from Los Angeles, and a pathetic one. California conservatism was real conservatism. Gray's father was an admirer of Reagan, not Strom Thurmond. Gray is an example of how Sun Yat-Sen tragically gave us Mao Tse-Tung. A movement gone preversely wrong, although Reagan's embrace of the fowl Dixiecrats made that predictable. And Gray, about whom we know very little, is still young enough that he can be forced into evading the fate of Donald Trump, a rich kid who publicly putrefies to the detriment of us all.
Gray's only platform is that he loves Donald Trump more than Trump loves Trump, that he's a latter day opponent of wind energy, for what appears to be opportunistic, and that as a 36 year old man whose not married and not known to have a publicly acknowledged interest in any identified female, he's opposed to transvestites in women's sports.
Seems like populist bullshit.
Gray would support Trump in anything, which in the next two years is going to be extremely dangerous. I could not vote for him.
Which left me voting for Kinney.
Kinney is a moderate left Democrat, and I'm not. I'm sure she's for "choice" or "reproductive rights', which infanticide, and I am not. I suspect this would be Byrd's position as well Should she be elected, in two years I'm voting for whichever rational Republican emerges. If a better GOP candidate emerges for the Senate, abortion would be my defining issue there as well, in six years. The next two years are the key, however. The Democrats are going to take the House and its necessary they do so. Giving Chuck Gray a titanic dope slap, or better yet send him crying in his knee pants back to Los Angeles, is necessary.
As for the Hageman/Byrd contest, Byrd would make a really good Senator. If the Democrats take the Senate, we couldn't be better represented. He has the same, I assume, pro choice problem, but my guess is that isn't deep with Byrd, but I base that on nothing other than instinct. He would be a real voice for Wyoming and we're going to need one, should the Democrats take the Senate, and leave John Barrasso wandering around the halls of Congress giving deep stares at John Thune, or whomever.
Do I think the Democrats can take these races? Frankly, no. But if they do well, that sends a message to at least Hageman, who probably would moderate her positions. Gray, if elected, will face a challenger in 2028 and be sent packing.
So here I voted a straight Democratic ticket.
The local races
I haven't said much about these.
My City of Casper ward race featured a guy with a business background facing a young women with fishing tackle on her face. I'm not voting for fishing tackle.
The county commission race featured one incumbent, Dallas Laird, one former commissioner who was later assessor, who was not great in either role, Matt Keating, one former Casper mayor, Ray Pacheco, one Evansville former mayor, Candace Machado, and somebody else.
I had to vote for three.
I voted for Keating, Pacheco, and Machado. Two Republicans and one Democrat.
On this race, I frankly voted against Laird, who is as old as dirt. He's been in local politics since Sitting Bull was in grammar school and it was time for him to go. Besides, he came into office promising to do something about the county selling the hospital to Banner health, which was by then impossible to do anything about, and he didn't do anything about it. He never could have, once something is sold, it's sold. As a lawyer, he knew that, or should have known that.
I'm not keen on that sort of misrepresentation.
Pacheco I have reservations about, but he tries to please people in the best way, so I'm okay with him.
Machado is a gadfly, but down at the county, which is sort of a geezer reservoir in transition, I figure that might be a good thing.
Governor Gordon wrote an op ed opposing the property tax initiative.
As noted, I voted against this initiative which would have the impact of mostly benefitting people with really high dollar residences.
This entire cutting property tax movement strongly resembles something that was done in California some decades ago and really hurt it. It's notable that it's strong in the Freedom Caucus camp, which is heavily populated by carpetbaggers. They don't have the same connections to their communities that real Wyomingites do. A prime mover in the initiative was failed Gubernatorial candidate Brent Bien whom, as we've noted, spent most of his adult life sucking on the Federal Government's tit which means he didn't have to worry about local services and education like the rest of us did and do. The element of Solidarity seems to be completely lacking in the populist far right
And that, frankly, is not a very Wyomingite or Western way of looking at things.
cont:
FOR
IMMEDIATE PUBLICATION:
Why
Passing Prop. 1 Would Have A Devastating Impact On Wyoming
Byline:
Governor Mark Gordon
Word
Count: 799
On
December 10, 1869 our first Territorial Legislature approved, “An act to
provide a territorial and county revenue.” In doing this Wyoming
modelled the Framer’s ideal of local control, of decisions and
responsibilities kept at the local level where citizens can have a direct
impact on how those decisions are shaped and financed.
Wyoming
voters are faced with the proposition on this November’s ballot to reduce the
property tax in our state by 50%. This initiative, called Proposition
One is the first step in what could be a further call to completely dismantle
a system of taxation Wyoming has relied upon since before statehood. The
reduction by 50% would have an immediate and devastating effect on the
services most Wyoming citizens rely upon in their communities.
Property
taxes are not always ideal. But they do provide a direct mechanism for
citizens - not politicians - to decide on and pay for the services they
desire and benefit from. Wyoming saw rapid increases in residential
valuations and those increases have been hard to bear for some.
Accordingly, the legislature, with my support over the past few sessions,
enacted meaningful property tax relief while preserving citizens’ rights to
determine what and how best to fund the services they see as essential.
Nevertheless,
property tax as a mechanism for building and maintaining our communities is
not improper. It is the cost that has become burdensome. Tax reform is
fundamentally different from destroying a tax base or relying on the
legislature to fund essential services.
Some
things are universal - safe neighborhoods depend on services such as
firefighting, emergency responses, good schools, and maintained roads.
All of these are essential to Wyoming’s long term strength and
vitality. They make our communities places where families can stay,
businesses can grow, and the next generation can build a future they can call
home.
Local
control is a conservative principle - it means that decisions about community
needs should rest as close as possible to those people who live there, who
pay the taxes there, and who can hold their local elected officials
accountable. How responsible do we find Congress these days? Our
communities need both the authority and the financial ability to meet those
needs. Every property owner having “skin in the game” helps to assure the
citizenry pays attention and demands accountability at the local - very most
responsive - level.
In my
time in office, in successive budgets, I have seen the legislature
continuously reduce its commitment to towns and counties, to make them fight
harder for Cheyenne’s attention. Property tax does not go to the state
- it stays at the local level. Reducing and/or eliminating an essential
obligation’s funding does not eliminate it, and remarkably this ill conceived
Proposition lacks any plan to cover those costs other than counting on the
fickleness of future legislatures.
Wyoming
families deserve affordable taxes and a disciplined government, and during my
terms as your governor you have gotten both. We cut government, streamlined
regulations, provided tax relief, and ensured a healthy and strong state. We
did not cut the legs out from under communities and counties.
They
also deserve ambulances when they call, firefighters when their homes are
threatened, safe roads to work and school. They expect meaningful taxpayer
relief that maintains strong communities. "The Wyoming people have
already benefited from powerful property tax relief like the 25% homeowner
exemption or the 50% long-term homeowners exemption among other relief
measures." Cutting just to cut is not a responsible way forward for
Wyoming.
Wyoming
can, has, and will continue to help reduce tax bills to homeowners, but
smaller local revenue does not make essential services less expensive.
Fuel, emergency equipment, road repairs, and the people who protect our
communities still cost money. All but our most wealthy local
governments are feeling the same pain we are in paying for fuel, the same
decisions on what we can afford.
For the
past half century, Wyoming has worked to protect her communities from the
booms and busts of a commodity economy. It has been good work and we have all
benefitted from those who laid solid groundwork.
If the
only answer for the loss of locally derived revenues that fund essential
services like educating our children, should Proposition One pass, is for the
state to “backfill” local communities from limited funds depending on
favorable markets, we must also prepare ourselves for hard times ahead and
remind ourselves, dependency on state government in Cheyenne weakens our
local communities opportunity to set their own destiny.
Protecting
the essentials means protecting Wyoming’s capacity to govern itself. We
must never walk away from that fundamental, conservative principle. If you
care about the essential services in your communities, join Jennie and I in
voting No on Proposition One.
Frank Eathorne, who was the head of the State's GOP when it turned full Freedom Caucus, and who was such a MAGA that he went to DC with Bob Ide to be there on the day of the insurrection rally (he missed the insurrection himself, as did Ide), has endorsed Dixiecrat Alabama Becky Bextel.
What hypocrisy.
Eathorne was part of the group that brought in the absolute loyalty to the GOP era, which meant absolute loyalty to the Dixiecrats. The voters tossed out the Confederates in the last election, but there's still a lot of them in county committees, and they've been sulking ever since. Going into into the election Meine Ehre heißt Treue was their motto, but since then they've wandered around mostly pouting. Some have endorsed Alabama Becky.
Eathorne owed an apology to Joanna True. She won't be getting one, of course.
As we've noted before, there's a good side to this. Becky, Frank, Allemand, Sanchez-Williams, Bear, Bien and their ilk are not Republicans and they are not Conservatives, a least not of the normal type. They're Populist Dixiecrats with more in common with the pre 1970s South than anything in Wyoming. A couple of them are in fact bonafide Southerners and show strongly Southern beliefs. Some are Wyomingites showing a pretty strong streak of narrow-minded ignorance. They deserve their own party, and the Constitution Party, which believes in a double secret Constitution only they know about, is their natural home. The more than de facto migrate over to it, the better.
An example of Republicans moving over to the Constitution Party is given by an old friend of mine. We don't discuss politics. He's a really nice guy who moved in here from Kansas in the 80s and has fallen off the WFC deep end. He was, or is, a figure in his county's organization and it was clear heading into the race he was beginning to get upset by how things were going. One thing that upset him was that Hageman, endorsed by Trump, knew where her bread was buttered and didn't endorse the official GOP sanctioned Brent Bien, who ended up going down in flames. That caused him to abandon Hageman.
Now, doing the same thing that Hageman did that upset him so much, he's backing Constitution Party Tamara Trujillo for Secretary of State. This is all the more remarkable as Robert Short, a really good candidate, is from the same county.
Trujillo is so unknown that she'll be lucky if she recognizes her own name on the ballot. But what's interesting here is that a diehard MAGA member of the GOP is going for a Constitution Party candidate who will lose so badly that nobody will ever remember her name. The WFC Dixiecrats are actually moving over to the Constitution Party. If they muster 10% of the vote, which isn't a wholly good thing, they'll probably bolt en masse before they come crawling back in 2028 as defeated lap dogs.
Trujillo is originally from Cheyenne, and indeed reading her biography, she's from the district in Cheyenne that's heavily Hispanic. Her biography is pretty minimal, but it's clear that she married somebody who was in the Navy and seems to have had a 17 year career in that service. She notes that she was a registered Democrat. Without it really being clear, it seems she's a Catholic, and she certainly would have been originally. Her position statements and issues are so bland they literally could apply to a person running from any party whatsoever. I can understand what brought her over to the GOP from the Democratic Party, but what drew her to the Constitution Party is a complete mystery.
Alabama Becky has an op ed in the Oil City News in favor of Prop 1.
Prop 1 would gut local governments like a fish. She doesn't believe that but instead believes that "spending priorities" will make it all okay.
People who say that about local governments are naive or ignorant. Wyoming's local governments are stretched to the financial limit right now. The Tribune ran an article on it asking the following question:
I'll make a prediction here on what the answer to this is if Prop 1 passes.
As long as the property destroyed and the residences burned up belong to regular people, or people living in trailers, etc., the WFC will be happy. If schools get slashed, they don't believe in education anyway. Education causes people to realize that things like Global Warming are real, which can't be true as they don't want it to be. Fire that burn up trailers are burning up the homes of peasantry whom they don't hang out with even though they depend on their support.
But as soon as one Carpetbagger McMansion is destroyed. . .that'll matter. They'll demand something be done, and that something will probably be a large increase in sales taxes, or an income tax.
And we'll regret passing Prop 1.
And, on tonight:
I've already voted, of course.
The most notable thing about these debates is that there won't be a Senatorial one as Hageman won't show up.
What a brave lass.
Chuck Gray won't show up either.
Rebecca Bextel, who apparently will be there, should be asked if Chuck's failure to show up means that not only does not have big balls one of her favorite topics, but perhaps no balls at all.
Back to Gray, somebody I know who is on the periphery of the Gray campaign, and somebody I know who thinks they're a conservative Republican while actually being a fairly ignorant MAGA Dixiecrat, have been posting cartoons from the "Rino Rocket". They have the same general theme, Republicans are smart, Democrats are evil, etc. They seem to have the same panicky "oh crap, we're going to lose" feel to them, which makes me wonder if Republican circles feel that they stand a chance of going down in Wyoming.
One, by the Gray acolyte, shows MAGA/WFC in the way it sees itself. A cartoon busy women who is overflowing her shirt but who has a cross handing down into her cleavage warns that its cheaper to vote Republican than to move when the Democrats take over.
The person who posted that has been in the region his entire life. Our migrant problem here is the Dixiecrats moving in. It'd be cheaper to go back to the real GOP and protect the state, which they claim they want to do, than to bring in Nathan Bedford Bextel Forest and Confederate things up. But the image is interesting. As I've noted before the Daisy Duke image of female Republican came in with Carpetbagger Foster Friess. A cartoon, however, warning you not to vote for Democrats sporting an image of Christianity between overflowing cartoon tits is sending a rather peculiar message.
Branching out to a local sheriff's race, probably for the first time, incumbent Sheriff, Democrat Aaron Appelhans faces a challenge from carpetbagging Daron L. Wyatt, a retired Anaheim California police officer. Wyatt and his wife, Misty, permanently moved to Albany County around 2019 after buying property there some time earlier.
An interesting thing about this race is that Sheriff Appelhans is the first African American sheriff elected into office in Wyoming. His race wasn't an issue in his first campaign at all. He seems well liked, and he came into office at a time that Albany County was having some controversial law enforcement issues.
Wyatt's campaign, whether he means for it to or not, really seems to have the "I'm from ________, which I hated, and I'm here to tell you how to run things.
It's nice that Wyatt wants to continue his law enforcement career. He should move back to Orange County and run for sheriff there.
In Mississippi, Democrat Scott Collom is lampooning Cindy Hyde-Smith's suggestion that if beef is too high, you can choose another protein.
October 14, 2026
I haven't watched it, so I have no comments, yet.
It sounds like Alabama Becky was into name calling.
Nor have I watched this one, and I very well might not.
cont:
Some initial debate comments.
Kenneth Casner looks absolutely ancient. Way older than his campaign photo. He sounds ancient too, and looks like a very elderly man in his daily loungy clothes.
Casner keeps babbling about the "money situation". He doesn't seem to grasp what he's talking about.
Becky has learned how to pose.
Becky's understanding of municipal budgets is dim and, additionally, shows that she lives in wealthy Teton County. Like a lot of WFC members, she oddly wants central control over municipal expenditures.
Bextel's accent is thick. She can't pronounce the word "Wyoming". It come across as "Wyooomin"
Bextel hates the Wyoming Business Council. She seems to have a beef with the University of Wyoming and specifically referenced wiping out "German studies", which UW doesn't have. Did she mean the German department? The German study abroad program?
A lot of the specific things she claimed about Barlow were false, based on subsequent reporting.
Bextel, of course, is a graduate of the University of Alabama.
Barlow basically ignored Bextel's taunts and answered the questions.
Casner doesn't understand how judges are appointed. Bextel said the nominees are chosen by "deep state swamp creature lawyers".
I gave up on the debate at about that point.
October 16, 2026
Before I move on, I'll note my final observations on the half of the debate I watched.
Bextel isn't impressive intellectually. She repeats the usually far right bromides about how the government is a fat calf that needs to be slaughtered so that a golden age of, well, they'll be no servivces.
Casner is embarrassingly old. Dressed like an inmate at a nursing home, the Democrats should be ashamed.
Barlow didn't rise to the bait and he will win the election, but he's not a good speaker. Stilted is how I would describe his performance.
Now, on to a candidate avoiding debate, Harriet Hageman. She gave a town hall in Evanston where she oddly took the position that the November elections will break the deadlock in Congress.
They might, but only because the Democrats might take control of both houses.
On that, the Republicans since King Donald the Usurper took control of the country and started ruling by decree have been amazingly ineffective. The one piece of legislation they can point to is the Big Ugly Bill Bankrupting the Country, and that was forced upon him by the Orange Monarch.
But, oddly, the Senate, where's she's attempting to camp, might have had a bit of a back door role, in the GOP, in keeping things from getting any worse. That might be a partial positive legacy, even though it certainly isn't a spectacular one, of the Republicans in the 119th Congress. If they turn out to have been a reluctant clandestine guerilla army, I wonder if we'll even ever know.
Of course, that's supposing a lot. More likely, they were a bunch of toady cowards.
The House debate happened, with one notable candidate missing.
I sense that possibility is more real than people might imagine.
In 2024 the election for the House looked like this: Hageman: 70.61%, Cameron:23.24%.
And Cameron was a complete unknown.
In 2022, when people were mad at Liz Cheney, the race looked like this: Hageman: 68.18%, Grey Bull: 24.37%.
So the Democrats pull about 24% of the vote no matter what.
Lots of people hate Chuck Gray. A lot of people who don't hate him hold him in contempt. Only the real Cornfederates like the guy.
So, what we know is that in any normal year, Kinney would pull 24% of the vote.
This isn't a normal year.
I'd guess that Kinney will pull at least 35% of the vote bare minimum.
Then there's Johnson, who is an effective speaker. The Libertarian is going to pull at least 5% of the vote, I'd guess.
And this year, there's a Constitution Party candidate who might pull in about 4% simply because he speaks fairly well and the Constitution Party is making a lot of noise.
Now, if that's right, that would mean that Gray opponents would pull 44% of the vote. Gray would still slide into Washington.
But. . . .
The level of Gray contempt is epic. The legal community and professional business class despise him. So if these numbers adjust just a bit.
It's not impossible that Kinney might pull down 40% of the vote, Johnson 10% and Haggit 5%. That would leave Gray with 45%. He's still win.
But adjust it just a tad, say Johnson 15%, maybe Haggit at 10%, and Gray is out on his ear going back to Daddy's radio station.
What about the Senate Race.
This race is to fill Lummis' seat. In 2020, when she was elected to the Senate, the tally was: Lummis, 72.85% to Ben David 's 26.76%
Byrd will do better than Ben David.
Look again, therefore, to Hageman. She's never done better than 71% of the vote. That's good, mind you. She's also never faced a candidate as tough and good as Byrd. Byrd will pull in at least 30% of the vote even if Hageman doesn't move. But can he pull down more?
Getting to 51% is really a stretch. But these are extraordinary times.
And with that, we'll close out this edition.
Footnotes:
1. As always, I'm going with the conventional color conventions. Blue is conservative, red left of center. This is how it is the world over.
Orange, well I used that for a distributist sort of view. It's the color of Christian Democracy.
