Ugh, just when the first corn fed, cornfederate legislature was safely in the history books, the Management Council met. Of course, the same dumb ideas that get rejected repeatedly are back up for reconsideration, at least in part.
I hear we want to do the election review again and redo the same bills that just died three weeks ago ... in exchange for 911 funding.
Tara Nethercott.
The corner crossing bill won't be back, which is too bad.
Vote the WFC out and send them back to pre 1964 Alabama where they'll be happy.
I was aware this legislation had been introduced. Frankly, Anti SLAPP provisions are really tricky as they're based, basically, on pre judging a litigants intent.
The money has to come from somewhere. Property taxes rise because in no small part new people come in and overpay in the local housing market, and otherwise inflate it.
A better idea would be to have an unrealized sales tax on the sale of real property from other states that
is used by a person within five years of moving to Wyoming.
Thank goodness. This idea was outright unworkable.
August 29, 2026
Things are going to be rough from now until the the beginning of the next legislative session as the members of the deposed Freedom Caucus be a general pain.
The WFC food fight at the legislature continues as Chip Neiman took to Facebook to pout over Senators walking out of the recent pointless joint meeting.
As Speaker of the Wyoming House of Representatives, I’m entrusted with the responsibility of appointing legislators to standing committees. It’s a charge I didn’t take lightly upon my election to the Speakership.
I’m proud of the members of the House Minerals and Appropriations Committees for finishing the job they took up for the interim pertaining to local government infrastructure funding and the Wyoming Business Council.
Today, the Senate walked out on Wyoming cities, towns and counties. Conversely, the House committee members remained steadfast in order to deliver the strongest local government funding model seen in decades. This bill will fund local infrastructure and benefit every local jurisdiction and citizen.
The Legislature isn’t a place for turf warfare.
I worry for the future of the Wyoming Legislature. I encourage those new members coming to Cheyenne, to remember who they serve; not a committee, a chamber or any particular lobbying outfit, they serve the people of Wyoming. See less
Neiman notes that he's Speaker of the House in the legislature, which is true, but he's on his way out and is a lame duck. The complaint that the "Legislature isn't a place for turf warfare" is really rich given that the WFC acted like the first Vandals in Rome in Cheyenne. If it's turf warfare, they started it.
We're going to see a lot more of this. The WFC has been kicked to the curb, but like the the 33rd Waffen Grenadier Division of the SS Charlemagne (1st French) in the Battle of Berlin, it's going to see that everything is destroyed that it can destroy before it goes.
One common theme we're now seeing in connection with the WFC losing is this one that appears in the comments to Nieman:
Me too! We are quickly becoming a blue state, just as Charlie Kirk predicted!😢
I've scene that more than once now.
People who make that comment are deluded. I don't know about this person, but they're likely also carpetbaggers. Wyoming is a conservative state, but it's not a Turning Point USA Southern Bible Belt state. This is why traditionally there was no support for restricting abortion much here (which I do feel should be restricted, and indeed illegal) and nobody cared much whether somebody was a homosexual or not, which apparently is also no longer the case. The local view, and it was expressed in the Democratic and Republican parties, wsa "I don't care what you do as long as you leave me alone". The WFC didn't want to leave people alone.
As for Charlie Kirk and his predications, I'm increasingly in the "I don't care what Charlie had to say" camp. I don't mean to sound like a Kirk basher, but those politicos and their followers that are Kirk acolytes increasingly don't impress me. Kirk was brought to UW by one of his collegiate admirers who went on to work for Hageman and get canned for following Francoist website, with the same fellow then managing Chuck Gray's campaign. That's a good enough reason not to vote for Gray, although were are are plenty of other reasons not to do so. Anyhow, Kirk never reflected a Wyoming point of view.
This is a result of the defeat of the WFC, and that Wyomingites did not rise to the occasion to take advantage of a bevy of potential exemptions, at least one of which was in my view likely illegal.
The last year made it increasingly obvious where local funding came from for municipalities and counties, which likely helps explain this.
The same sort of dumb ass movement that backs crap like raw milk as being safe, home delivery by midwives, and "denturists" making dentures without a dentist support stupid ideas like this.
Scientific idiocy has always been part of American culture. It's why people go to chiropractors and think its like going to the doctor. Or why people wear brass bracelets, or take ivermectin for Covid (a really bad and dangerous idea). Or why they think vaccines or dangerous. Or why they think Robert F. Kennedy makes sense on anything.
Autarky is the economic concept of producing everything a nation consumes within its own borders. It's been tried numerous times, and inevitably leads at best to high prices and deprivation. At worst, it results in warfare.
Autarky was the official economic model of the Nazi Party after German economist Hjalmar Schacht joined the party in 1926 and after Gregor Strasser was ousted from party influence.* Nazi Germany provides a perfect example of how it doesn't work. Germany was a major industrial power leading up to, during and after World War Two (it still is), but it could never produce enough of anything for its own economy, even in peacetime. Moreover, it didn't have the raw materials to supply all it did produce. It imported 20% of its food supply in the early 1930s, and by the late 1930s the Nazis had only managed to boost that to 83%.
The solution was simple.
What the Germans did have, they could just seize from neighboring countries through war, and then either kill off the native population or subjugate it. That's exactly what it attempted to do. It pursued that murderously in Poland and the Soviet Union, and through vassal states in the form of France, Romania and Spain. Where that proved to be impossible. . . for the time being, it used bullying and threats, such as in regard to Sweden.
Even at that, it was never able to do it.
That seems to be to some extent what Donald Trump is advocating right now.
If we were playing hardball, all we'd do is say we're going to do no trading with Canada. If we did no trading with Canada would save $90 billion.
We could do tremendous good for ourselves by just not trading with countries.. We lose with Mexico $195 billion a year. They have nothing that we have to have, I mean. Hot tamales, tomatoes, a couple of things
Trump seems to believe that by closing the economic border with Canada and Mexico, and everyone else, unless they essentially become vassal states, the US can simply go it alone and not be harmed. Where it's obvious that won't work, we'll force acquisition, as we have now done in Venezuela and keep threatening to do with Greenland.
This is immoral, and stupid.
You'd think that a guy who went to Wharton would have a basic grasp of economics. Open economic borders, truly open economic borders, make countries rich, not poor. That doesn't mean that there's never a place for tariffs, including for protectionism, but it's generally a bad idea.
What makes for more sense is for the United States, Mexico, and Canada, to have a seamless economy with no tariffs at all. The US and Canada had a nearly duty free relationship prior to Trump, save for the infamous very high ones on dairy, poultry, and egg products. Those latter tariffs were absurd, but the US also has absurd tariffs in the agricultural sector. The US relationship with Mexico is, right now, duty free.
An absolute lack of tariffs is how it should be between the three major North American economies. Only an an economic ignoramus would disrupt that.
And only an immoral person would advocate taking the oil of another nation that is providing it under the gun. The US has been an oil addict for a century, but was showing signs of getting off the stuff. Trump, with his "it's always the 1950s" mindset can't seem to get out of that.
Trump should really know better. Wharton has a reputation as one of the best, maybe the best, business school in the country. He owes us an explanation, which he seems to be incapable of articulating, for his idiotic economic views. Wharton, and I'm serious about this, does as well. I know one Wharton graduate personally, and he is brilliant. But the example of Donald Trump is to weird to explain. For that matter, the example of Wyoming's Chuck Gray, who is an absolute Trump sycophant, is as well.
We need a combination of supreme moral sensitivity and economic knowledge. Economically ignorant moralism is as objectionable as morally callous economism. Ethics and economics are two equally difficult subjects, and while the former needs discerning and expert reason, the latter cannot do without humane values.
Wilhelm Röpke, A Humane Economy: The Social Framework of the Free Market
September 8, 2026
Retaliatory Canadian tariffs took place today with duties ranging from 15% to 50% across hundreds of U.S. products worth a total CA$27.6 billion, including dairy, agricultural equipment, paper, household appliances and electronics.
This will hurt Canadian consumer through increased cost to them, and American producers due to decreased demand.
And as this wasn't enough, 5he United States is banning the import of some dairy products motorcycles and most alcoholic beverages from Canada.
This is rank stupidity. Peter Navarro ought to be sent to kindergarten and Wharton declared a clown college.
So, if you can, go out and buy a Can Am motorcycle and some Crown Royal.
Well, probably not. I'm too old to start riding a motorcycle (I'd much prefer a mule) and I can't stand Crown Royal. But if I liked Canadian whiskey, I'd go buy some for spite.
I may just for spite.
September 10, 2026
Cont:
U.S. wholesale inflation hits 5.4% annually in August 2026.
More good news from the Trump administration.
September 11, 2026
Lame duck defeated state senator Bob Ide used the Hilltop disaster to say something monumentally stupid.
Oil everywhere is up over $100/bbl and set to rise.
Prices at the pump are at record highs.
This appears to be set to get extremely bad.
September 16, 2026
The Fed raised interest rates, contrary to the wish of King Donald.
cont:
This guy is a Wharton graduate?
September 17, 2026
Railroad surcharges on grain have doubled over the past year.
September 18, 2026
If we buy $2 billion worth of bananas from Brazil, we’re actually losing $2 billion. So if we stop eating bananas, we actually save $2 billion.
Donald Trump
Oh for goodness sakes. What an idiotic statement.
But one Trump appears to really believe.
First of all, a trade deficit in and of itself, unless you believe in autarky, si not a bad thing. A rich country, which Trump is helping to end our status as, will probably have a trade deficit. Trade deficits can be bad, but not simply because they exist, but for other reasons.
And, this is a classic example from the Wealth of Nations.
The US produces hardly any bananas. Just some in Florida, which stay in Florida, and some in Hawaii.
The US imports hardly any bananas from Brazil. Brazil only exports about $21 million to $24 million anywhere. Brazil does import $11.23 billion in fuel from the US. And this economic analysis is moronic.
Even assuming that we bought bananas from Brazil, which we do not, if we are to eat bananas, and people like bananas, we have to buy them from a foreign source. We given them money, we get bananas.
That doesn't make us poor, it actually does the opposite.
Which, once again, leads to this:
WHARTON, WHAT THE FUCK IS MATTER WITH YOU? HOW DID THIS GUY GRADUATE WHAT IS SUPPOSED TO BE ONE OF THE BEST ECONOMIC SCHOOLS IN THE WORLD?
September 24, 2026
The Secretary of Agriculture reports that if you don't like beef prices, you can switch to chicken or pork.
That's frankly quite true, and it's a thing that producers need to worry about. Pork was the primary meat for most Americans up until the post Civil War era. Once people make a major shift in diet, they tend to stick with it.
September 21, 1946 advertisement from the American Meat Institute featuring a leg of lamb.
On this topic, the news relates that a top Texas BBQ joint will no longer offer beef brisket. Too expensive. That isn't a good sign.
Also regarding meat, the USDA is recalling 167,000 lbs of uninspected beef, pork and goat meat.
On all of this, the meat prices would be easy to blame on Trump, as the Wharton School of Business seems to be economically incompetent. This, however, is largely due to other factors, although I don't know how to explain the inspection glitch.
One thing that will impact the price of meat. . .and everything else, is the price of fuel. Indeed, after a year that featured record cattle prices, for those who had cattle to sell, profits are now being lost to diesel fuel.
A common cry out there in the hinterlands right now is to impose an export ban on diesel fuel. Such a ban was in place from 1975 to 2015. It's really debated what lifting the ban would do. Midwest GOP candidates started crying for it recently, but Wyoming's Congressional representation opposes it. That doesn't tell us much, however, as Wyoming's delegation probably wouldn't oppose a proposal to nuke the state.
Anyhow, Trump indicated support for a temporary ban, and then energy secretary Chris Wright walked it back, which is extremely interesting, particularly as farmers in the Midwest are now having real second thoughts about King Donald now that they realize he's fucking them with his policies, and not other people they didn't car about.
September 29, 2026
The Trump ban on the importation of Canadian alcohol, dairy and motorcycles, comes into effect today.
The ban is moronic.
Trump rolled back fuel efficiency standards on automobiles, as he's an ancient fool about to die and lives in the past in many ways.
Wyoming has always had some progressive and farsighted people working behind the scenes while, at the same time, the troglodyte faction of the GOP, particularly strongly represented in the Wyoming Freedom Caucus From The South seek to believe it's 1861.
Electric vehicles are coming, and diesel at $6.00 will help revive interest in them. The comments on this, of course, are "dem new fangle aut o mobiles won't replace the horse", basically. EVs are coming, like it or not, and when the Trump administration is in the outhourse of history where it so richly belongs, they'll significantly revive.
We're making a fortune. So if the Republicans win, you win with us and you get $5,000. It will be called the Trump Dividend. Congratulations.
Donald Trump at the GOP Midterm Convention.
A person would have to be stupid on stilts to believe that promise, and a similar one has been extended before.
Seriously, what kind of a dumbass believes anything Trump promises at this point?
The fact that the GOP is having a "Midterm" convention is itself an example of outright desperation and hubris on the part of Trump. Trump loves Trump and you must love Trump, so he's reminding you of Trump Love so that you love him and vote for the GOP candidates to show your mindless cult like love.
The fact of the matter is that everything associated with Trump is going badly and his approval ranking is sinking like a rock. In Wyoming it's down to 54% and the impact of the tariffs on Canada haven't even hit yet, much. The war hasn't ended, inflation is about to ramp back up, and Trump's own weirdness is now too weird for anyone to ignore. The result is that Democrats, who were slated to take back the House, now appear likely to take back the Senate as well. Even in Wyoming there's some hint that the Senate may be in play and it's clear that a large number of people really aren't keen on Chuck Gray, who has been pretty quiet since the primary.
Indeed, I've seen a little lashing out at John Barrasso, who isn't running for anything. Now days we mostly see Dr. John looking at Donald Trump as if he, Barrasso, is suffering from a severe case of constipation. He may be, as he's kept his true views on everything, none of which we know, bottled up inside of himself for so long. Anyhow, if people are mad at Barrasso, who seems to have forgotten which state he's from, it doesn't bode well for Hageman and Gray, although they are both clearly the favorites.
This does bring us to some questions that should be asked in the next two months, however. Those being:
1. Do you support the undeclared war against Iran, and if yes, how do you justify no declaration of war existing?
2. On data centers, a big deal here in Wyoming, are you against them like seemingly the majority of Wyomingites are, or for them, like Donald Trump is?
3. What is your position on public lands?
4. For people who go outside, there are clearly environmental matters to be concerned about. Do you have any concerns, and if no, just don't tell us "it's a big fib", as that's just telling us that you'll lie for votes. What is your justification?
5. Epstein files. Why aren't they being released.
6. What is your real plan for balancing the budget and addressing the debt and show us that it works.
7. Do you support ending the trade war with Canada?
Two events occured yesterday which should; 1) cause a sane nation to invoke the 25th Amendment and 2) cause every Republican running for office to have to answer where they stand or never be voted on again.
The first.
Trump sworn his acolytes in so that they will be able to be called up as Long Knives to attack the upcoming Republican defeat in November.
It's not the pledge to go out and vote. Frankly, most MAGA isn't paying any attention this anyway.
It's the pledge to cheat.
Things Trump says cannot any longer be dismissed. People who think that one liner means nothing are ignoring recent history. He intends to steal the election. If he pulls that off, if he's still living and semi coherent, he intends to serve a third term.
The second was a truly bizarre video based on the Paul Harvey "God made farmers" video of years ago with a "God gave us Trump" theme.
This latches on to the extreme Evangelical leg of the MAGA stool. It would make most Christians of any branch absolutely cringe, and to claim a Divine mission like this may be very well blasphemous.
The questions that should be asked, and of any Republican candidate?
1. Will you support the results of the November election no matter what they are. If there's any hedging at all, tell the person they don't have your support for anything whatsoever.
2. Do you believe that Trump has a Divine mission? Any answer than an unqualified no should disqualify the candidate.
I can guarantee you that almost any GOP candidate, particularly if they don't know your view going into the question, will waffle and not give a straight answer.
Carrying on a bit, the religiosity of this midterm Republican convention is really something else. Protestant ministers showed up to speak at it and Tim Scott sounded like an Evangelist. At some point Protestants who are members of these communities really have to ask their pastors how they can reconcile their faith with a man who so clearly ignores Christianity.
Closer to home, Harriet Hageman is ignoring calls for a debate with James Byrd and Byrd is calling her out on it. His post from Facebook:
James Byrd for United States Senate
IF YOU WON'T FIGHT FOR WYOMING ON A DEBATE STAGE, WHO ARE YOU FIGHTING FOR?
Harriet Hageman won't stand on a stage. She won't return calls. She won't even respond. And now her silence is about to cancel the one chance Wyoming voters had to see both Senate candidates side by side.
You don't get to represent this state if you won't show up and defend what you believe in front of it. Silence isn't leadership. It's a candidate deciding Wyoming doesn't deserve a real conversation at all.
Tell Wyoming PBS: don't let her refusal to stand for what she believes in decide this for the rest of us.
Stand and fight.
That really is a chicken move by Hageman, but it seems to me she's taken that approach in the past as well.
In the past it struck me as arrogance. She stopped debating as a wave of the hand type of move, although Grey Bull pulled down 25% of the vote in 2022 and Cameron 23% in 2024. Here, it strikes me as fear. Gray Bull was a good debater and still drew 25% in a year that heavily favored Hageman. Now, with four years in, Hageman has an extremely exposed record. She poked Wyoming voters in the eye on public lands and basically called them dumb. In the category of dumb, her family's homestead burned to the ground but she still is a climate change denier. She was endorsed by Trump and has yet to explain how Wyoming farmer and ranchers should view South American beef. It's unfortunate that she lost to Mead, who was such a better candidate.
It's pretty questionable how she'd do in a debate against Byrd. Byrd would likely best her, and what's more, he knows that. So he's making her chicken move an issue.
Hageman ought to be held to account for hiding.
AN OPEN LETTER TO WYOMING PBS
August 11, 2026
To the Leadership of Wyoming PBS,
On August 10, our campaign was notified that Wyoming PBS would not be holding a primary debate for U.S. Senate, because our opponent declined the invitation to participate. A similar notice was given to Lisa Kinney, one of the Democratic candidates for Wyoming's U.S. House seat, whose opponent also declined. As a result, neither of Wyoming's federal Democratic primary races will be represented in a debate on Wyoming PBS this cycle.
I want the public to know directly: I did not refuse this invitation. I remain ready and willing to speak to Wyoming voters in this format, and if Wyoming PBS were to offer me the opportunity, I would be there.
We understand the position Wyoming PBS is in. Federal equal-time provisions limit what a broadcaster can do when only one candidate is willing to appear, so PBS can't simply offer a solo forum in place of a debate, and balancing that against the responsibility to keep voters informed is a hard job. We don't take issue with that constraint itself.
But we do take issue with the precedent this sets.
If one candidate declining is all it takes to cancel a debate outright, then any candidate who wants to dodge scrutiny now has a guaranteed way to do it. That's not a neutral policy. It rewards avoidance and punishes the candidate who actually showed up. It hands one side the power to decide, unilaterally, whether Wyoming voters get to see a debate at all. That is not how this is supposed to work.
When journalism requires the participation of good faith actors, rather than holding all individuals to account regardless of whether they participate, it will ultimately fail at its own goal of accountability. It is always easier to hide than to be held to account.
We've also noticed a related pattern: nominees who clear a primary and then simply skip general election debates too. Put these trends together, and debate participation stops being something candidates owe their constituents. It becomes optional for anyone who calculates they have more to lose than gain by showing up. That should worry Wyoming PBS as much as it worries us.
We are asking Wyoming PBS to make a public commitment that the U.S. House and Senate debates ahead of the Nov. 3, 2026 general election will occur, period. That commitment should hold true regardless of the participation of our opponents.
If a candidate refuses to show up, hold the debate anyway and leave their podium empty. Stations across the country already do this when a candidate declines. It lets voters still hear from the candidates who did show up, and it makes the absent candidate's choice visible instead of erasing the event altogether. Voters deserve to hear from all candidates in each race. Short of that, they deserve to see plainly which candidates showed up to answer for their records and which ones didn't. No candidate should get to use their own absence as a weapon to keep another candidate off the stage.
We'd also push Wyoming PBS to rethink its approach for future primary cycles. One candidate's refusal shouldn't be enough to cancel a debate outright, and that shouldn't hinge on how many candidates happen to be on a given party's ballot. A party fielding one or two contested candidates deserves the same debate access as a party fielding a dozen. Anything less penalizes voters for the size of their party's field, not for anything they did.
We appreciate the work Wyoming PBS does for this state, and we expect a response.
It turns out that neither Gray nor Hageman are willing to debate.
I'd have much less faith in Kinney being able to really do well in a debate against Gray, although she was a practicing lawyer and has been a legislator. Additionally, Gray's default setting when he gets stressed is asshole.
Both Hageman and Gray's campaigns are defending their position to be chickens. So are their diehard supporters. But it isn't a good look.
Rod Miller voices his opinion about Proposition 1.
What the text of Prop 1 states is:
(xliii) A portion of property used as a primary residence as a homeowner’s exemption. The following shall apply to the homeowner's exemption:
(A) For property used as a primary residence, fifty percent (50%) of the assessed value of the primary property is exempt from property taxation as a homeowner's exemption. Not more than one (1) homeowner’s exemption shall apply to the same property in any year and no owner shall claim more than one (1) homeowner’s exemption in any year including property that is improved by a residence that houses more than one (1) family. To claim a homeowner’s exemption the person shall have been a resident of this state for not less than one (1) year prior to claiming an exemption under this paragraph and shall have resided in the applicable primary residence for at least six (6) months of the immediately preceding tax year. To claim a homeowner’s exemption, the owner of the property shall submit a sworn claim to the county assessor not later than the fourth Monday in May on forms provided by the department of revenue demonstrating that the person is the owner of the property, and that the property is the person's primary residence. False claims are punishable as provided by W.S. 6-5-303.
Basically this proposition was a Wyoming Freedom Caucus "I just moved here with lots of money from California, bought a McMansion or a 40 acre dirt farm, drove up everyone's property taxes, and I don't like it". The proposition would gut local communities income like a fish, which most of these people don't care about as they truly hate the government and don't care about educating children, for instance, as they prefer ignorance.
We're voting no on Prop 1.
Indeed, this is the one thing we've actually answered a poll on. The poll was clearly supposed to be in favor prop 1 and the pollster, pretty clearly calling from some place in the South, didn't really know how to react to my answers to the questions.
Speaking of speaking, where's Harriet and Chuck on doing a debate?
Speaking of those two, there are questions as we proceed along that they should be made to answer.
Harriet, now that her home county is on fire again, should be forced to answer if she's willing to basically burn everything down to support the lie that climate warming isn't real. We all know it's real. She no doubt knows it's real. Why the fib?
Both should be made to answer if they support the illegal war against Iran and why?
And what about those diesel prices, eh?
On other matters, there's some rumors going around that Bill Allemand, the far right wing Freedom Caucus candidate who barely survived a primary challenge, may bail out of office. Apparently he may run through the election, according to one version of it, and then bail out some time after that. Without the Freedom Caucus crew in Cheyenne there's nobody to tell him what to do, and it would appear, generally, he needs somebody to tell him what to do and he knows that. He's not going to have any friends any longer in Cheyenne either.
If he bails out now, he probably throws that race to the Libertarian running in the district, although there is a Democrat running as well. He likely won't do that now and I'm not exactly sure what happens if he does. The logical thing would be that the other GOP candidate from the primary would replace him through a party process. If he drops out after the fall election, and if he wins it, the party would pick three names and send them to the County Commissioners who would pick the new legislator.
That, in fact, is how Chuck Gray first took office.
September 17, 2026
The propeller hat Dixiecrats in the GOP are at war with their own party. Unfortunately for that party, they are also in control of a lot of county, and the state, committees.
Hence some of those organizations basically backing the losing campaign of carpetbagger Rebecca Bextel.
The party is really hypocritical. This past year it endorsed candidates in the primary for the first time and basically told GOP voters who they had to vote for. It endorsed Hageman, Gray, and Bien. Bien came in third in the Governor's race and they've been pouting ever since.
Barlow, who won the Governor's race, swamped his opponents, taking 45% of the vote, but sad Dixiecrats note that 45% is not 50%, and therefore, they argue, he's not the legitimate candidate. That logic is pretty flawed as he certainly is under Wyoming's law, and his only real rival in the campaign was Trump endorsed Degenfelder, who took 30%. Dixiecrat darling Bien took 24% and sad Confederates note that if you add Degenfelder and Bien together, that's more than 50%.
It is, but it assumes that Degenfelder voters would have voted for Bien if she hadn't been running. The opposite is probably true. The 1/3 bottom of the bell curve probably would have voted for Trump knighted Degenfelder if Bien hadn't been running, but Degenfelder voters in large part would likely have gone for Barlow if Bien hadn't thrown his gray kepi into the ring. If anyone had an argument here, therefore, it would be Degenfelder.
Neither Bien or Degenfelder, who hope to dig out of their holes rather than convert them into political graves have said anything about the results being illegitimate but upset WFC members have a bit, for Bien. They tried to get a write in campaign going for him and at least locally one badly defeated WFC member still is. Others, including some committee members, are backing Bextel, who will lose massively in November.
The Constitution Party itself, which support a strict reading of a double secret constitution only they know about, is open enough itself to admit that it's hoping that Bextel can pull down 10% of the vote so that it can be a "major" party. Under Wyoming's law on primaries, which I believe to be unconstitutional, that would make the party the very model of a modern major party.
That result might occur and it might actually be a good thing, although anyone voting for Bextel, as noted, fits into the bottom end of the bell curve. What it would do, however, is give propeller hat wearing Dixiecrats a place to actually go, and they should go there. They are not Republicans.
Lubnau notes that upset Dixiecrats in GOP committees positions oddly don't make the same argument about Freedom Caucus darling Chuck Gray, who only pulled down 25% of the vote. While Barlow isn't threatened by Bextel, Gray actually may be by Libertarian Johnson and Democrat Kinney. I wouldn't have given Kinney any chance at all, but Gray's refusing to debate her is actually elevating her status.
On Sheridan County, while some on its GOP committee may be crying in their Bomber Mountain Amber Ale, the results were the same as they were statewide. Barlow swamped his competition and while Bien did come in second there, he only barely beat out Degenfelder. Again, those Degenfelder votes would have most likely gone to Barlow. And Gray only barely beat out Biteman and Christensen there.
One final thing to note. Teton County, where Bextel has hung her kepi, and Sheridan County, are the homes to a lot of rich carpetbaggers. These people tend to vote their own economic interests, and not paying taxes and telling the peasants to go **** *** are in that category. Like the rank and file in Confederate Gray in the 1860s, a lot of that rank and file (which here includes a lot of carpetbaggers) tend to be dim enough to follow the dictates of their oligarchic masters. We're seeing that, and frankly just a lot of real bottom of the bell curve ignorance, at work on these topics.
On other topics, Postmaster General David Steiner wants to quit his job, according to insiders.
He should as he's serving a madman.
The Post Office has been in the news recently as Trump keeps ordering it to impose impossible regulations on mail in voting, which Trump himself uses, as part of Trump's effort to interfere with and steal the November election. The Supreme Court won't let him so he's having a major tantrum.
cont:
Holy smokes. . Rebecca Bextel has released a campaign video. Buckhorn Bar t-shirt aside (after a certain age, no matter how doe eyed you may be, you can't pull that off), she sounds like the biggest Alabama hick ever. Her accent is so thick it's really impressive. Trying to use the tag line "you don't have to be smart to be governor", she unintentionally sounds to native Westerners as Southern hick, which is admittedly a stereotype, given that's how Westerners tend to view Southerners. Southerners probably are unaware of that.
Bextel has lived in Wyoming for 20 years, which means that she's hardly lived here any time at all. And she lives in Teton County, which Deep Wyoming regards as California.
Anyhow, in terms of actual intelligence, Barlow is a veterinarian, one of the most difficult degrees to obtain. Bextel has a degree from the University of Alabama, although I don't know in what.
Becky also tried to sound tough in a recent Chamber of Commerce appearance by claiming she had "bigger balls" than her opponent.
Pretty insightful, really. She had to demean her status as a woman in order to have merit in her own eyes.
The Dixiecrats. Just go home.
September 18, 2026
Harriet Hageman wrote a guest column in the Cowboy State Daily regarding birth right citizenship.
Hageman won't debate her opponents and probably for good reason. She's arrogantly supported a bill that would have set public lands up to be privatized and essentially called Wyomingites' opposing it stupid. She claimed to be a "Constitutional Conservative" but has done nothing about Trump running roughshod over the Constitution, including waging an illegal war that's driving up prices for everyone in the state. She has nothing to campaign on and American's short attention span doesn't allow for a "I'm not Liz Cheney" as a platform. With Trump down to a 54% approval rating in Wyoming, "I love Trump" is starting not to sell so well either. So she's taking a page out of the Desperate GOP Playbook, that being hordes of foreigners are coming here to have babies, or in this particular case, hordes of Chinese are coming to have babies.
Well, in reality, for the first time in fifty years the US had negative migration last year. That is, more people are leaving the US than entering it. The US has been teetering on the edge of rapid decline for years, but Trump has floored the accelerator on that, with the help of Republicans in Congress, and the country looks like a joke. China, the nation which Harriet maintains is trying to plant vast hordes of babies into our country, is the clearly up and coming nation.
The truth of the matter is that this problem, if there was one, has pretty much jumped the shark. While I'm really skeptical of it being a crisis, right wing demographers right now are arguing the opposite problem, that being that the US population is actually starting to decline, that decline accelerated by the country having become unwelcoming to foreigners. The solution is supposed to be for (white) Americans to get busy, so to speak.
That interestingly cuts in an opposite direction for a person like Hageman, and it really stands in contrast to Cheney. Cheney, now 60 years of age, is a Gen Xer and the mother of five children. Hageman (age 63) is technically a Baby Boomer (perhaps more accurately a Gen. Jonser) with no children whatsoever. Both are lawyers, but Hageman looks a lot more like a feminist in every fashion. Indeed, as I slightly knew here, and knew her friends better, I was quite surprised early on when she emerged as a Conservative.
I'm well aware, of course, that these sorts of questions aren't even supposed to be raised in polite society, but we no longer live in a polite society and people like Hageman are part of the reason why we do not. So the questions are fair game.
Anyhow, Hageman may have some accomplishments but I don't know what they are, and whatever they are, they to not appear to be large enough to justify voting for her. Mostly she's been a Trump loyalist right up until recently, and an opponent of public lands. She's complicit in the failures of the Trump Administration by doing nothing, or actively supporting them, and she's detrimental to the interest of Wyoming.
Time, therefore, to drag out the Hordes Of Chinese Babies Have Landed on Our Shores line.
Wyoming sportsmen, and frankly everybody, cannot support the candidacy of Harriet Hageman. She's in the public lands hater category.
She just introduced this bill.
119th CONGRESS 1st Session
H. R. 2773
To provide that the Secretary of the Interior may not enter into certain conservation easements with a term of more than 30 years, and for other purposes.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
April 9, 2025
Ms. Hageman (for herself and Ms. Fedorchak) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Natural Resources
A BILL
To provide that the Secretary of the Interior may not enter into certain conservation easements with a term of more than 30 years, and for other purposes.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1.Short title.
This Act may be cited as the “Landowner Easement Rights Act”.
SEC. 2. Limitation on conservation easement terms.
After the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary may not enter into a conservation easement with a term of more than 30 years.
SEC. 3. Renegotiation of conservation easements.
At the request of an owner of land that is subject to an eligible conservation easement, the Secretary shall—
(1) not later the 6 months after the Secretary receives the request from the landowner, provide to the landowner—
(A) a detailed map of the easement; and
(B) notice of the current fair market value of the easement as determined by the Secretary; and
(2) renegotiate the terms of the eligible conservation easement, including—
(A) a term not longer than 30 years; and
(B) payment by the Secretary to the landowner in an amount equal to the fair market value of the easement, as determined by the Secretary under paragraph (1)(B), minus the amount paid by the Secretary for the eligible conservation easement being renegotiated (adjusted for inflation); or
(3) allow the landowner to buy back the eligible conservation easement or a portion of the eligible conservation easement at fair market value, as determined by the Secretary.
SEC. 4. Notice to landowners.
The Secretary shall notify the owner of the land subject to that conservation easement of the owner’s right to submit a request under section 3—
(1) not later than 3 months before the conservation easement becomes an eligible conservation easement described in section 5(2)(A); and
(2) not later than 1 year before the conservation easement becomes an eligible conservation easement described in section 5(2)(B).
SEC. 5. Definitions.
In this Act:
(1) CONSERVATION EASEMENT.—The term “conservation easement”—
(A) means a voluntary, legal agreement between a landowner and the Secretary that limits use of the land in order to protect its conservation values; and
(B) does not include agreements—
(i) with Indian Tribes; or for
(ii) related to utilities.
(2) ELIGIBLE CONSERVATION EASEMENT.—The term “eligible conservation easement” means a conservation easement that—
(A) has been in effect for longer than 30 years; or
(B) was put into effect before 1977 without the creation of an official corresponding map.
(3) SECRETARY.—The term “Secretary” means the Secretary of the Interior.
This just guts conservation easements that the Federal Government participates in. It make the easement no easement at all.
Why on earth did people vote for Hageman in the primary?
With this outrage, we will close out this edition.
