My column for the Washington County Daily News is online and in print. Here’s a part:

The language of Evers’ executive order itself is incredibly revealing. Words matter and, presumably, a lifelong educator chose his words with purpose. Let us look at a couple of excerpts. From Executive Order #168: “WHEREAS, licensed healthcare professionals should be able to provide appropriate, evidence-based medical advice to patients making reproductive healthcare decisions without fear of intimidation or criminal prosecution, and politicians should not interfere with the relationship between a patient and their doctor.”

 

Really? I seem to recall that Evers and his fellow Democrats have spent the last three years telling everyone that they must get a COVID vaccine. They have even mandated that people inject a new serum under penalty of law. They have shamed people who declined the vaccines and advocated that they should be shunned and prohibited from work. Forgive me if I roll my eyes at Evers’ protestations about politicians meddling in healthcare decisions.

 

Then there is this form the order: “without swift action, so many people — our neighbors, parents, families, and friends — could soon be unable to access the healthcare they need and deserve … .”

 

Did you notice something? In Evers’ full-throated defense of abortion, he never uses the word “woman” or that denotes that it is women who get pregnant and women who get abortions. In the new leftist orthodoxy, women are being erased with the dogma that anyone can get pregnant and have an abortion. The Democrats’ war on women is in full advance and Evers is merrily playing his fife in the vanguard.

Here is my full column that ran in the Washington County Daily News earlier this week

The long wait and speculation is over. Donald Trump has weighed in on the Republican primary for governor. Trump endorsed candidate Tim Michels saying, “Tim Michels is the best candidate to deliver meaningful solutions to these problems, and he will produce jobs like no one else can even imagine.” What does Trump’s endorsement mean for the election?

 

There is little doubt that Donald Trump still holds great sway in the Republican Party. Given his tremendous success as president and the legions of voters he attracted to the GOP, there are many Republican candidates who covet Trump’s endorsement. They covet it with good reason. Trump’s endorsement has the power to raise marginal candidates to be viable and to give a candidate enough support to win in a tight race. Trump’s endorsed candidates have a remarkable record of winning, but there are a couple of facts to keep in mind with that record. First, Trump has many positive qualities, but they come with some deep personal flaws. He is as narcissistic as they come and he wants to win. This has led him to endorse several candidates who were already going to win handily. This character flaw has also led him to endorse losing candidates because of personal grudges (Georgia). It also leads him to sometimes endorse the candidate that he thinks is going to win instead of who might actually be the best person for the job.

 

This leads us to the second fact to bear in mind with Trump endorsements. Trump’s passion to win trumps any ideology. His endorsements do not necessarily mean that the endorsee is conservative. For example, Dr. Mehmet Oz has a long-standing history of supporting gun control and big government healthcare, but he squeaked out a win in Pennsylvania over a proven conservative after Trump endorsed him. These are issues that loom large in the next Congress and Oz may prove to be a bad apple in the barrel of conservative policy.

 

With all of that in mind, Trump’s endorsement still matters a great deal in a tightly contested primary race like in Wisconsin. The difference of a few thousand votes could make the difference. Remembering that the Republican primary voter is not the same demographic as a general election voter, the impact of the endorsement in Wisconsin is varied.

 

Candidates Tim Michels, Rebecca Kleefisch, Kevin Nicholson, and Tim Ramthun all wanted Trump’s endorsement, but it mattered differently for each of them. For Ramthun, Trump’s endorsement was his only path to victory, but even had he received the endorsement, he stood little chance of winning. It was a long shot and he has zero chance of winning.

 

Nicholson is in much the same boat as Ramthun. Nicholson is a more viable candidate than Ramthun, but with two heavyweights in the race, he needed Trump’s endorsement to put him back in the ring. Without the endorsement of Trump, Nicholson’s odds are very, very long to edge out a victory.

 

Then there were two. Kleefisch had sought Trump’s endorsement, but receiving it would have likely been a mixed bag for her. It would have made her a more attractive candidate for some of the more Trumpian primary voters, but might have also turned off some of the stalwart conservative base Republicans who handed Senator Ted Cruz the primary victory in 2016 instead of Trump. Kleefisch won 55% of the vote at the state Republican convention a few weeks ago demonstrating that she already enjoys significant support amongst the reliable Republican primary voter.

 

By endorsing Michels, Trump has probably leveraged his greatest possible impact on the race. Coming in late, Michels is blitzing the state with commercials and had already moved to a virtual tie with Kleefisch. Trump’s endorsement gives Michels unlimited free media attention from a mainstream media that still laps up whatever scrap Trump throws in their bowls. The endorsement also likely moves some voters from Nicholson and Ramthun into the Michels camp. Combined, it makes Michels the frontrunner with nine weeks to go until the election.

 

Perhaps endorsing Michels was inevitable for Trump. They share interests as builders and businessmen. Michels was something of an insider during the Trump administration while serving on Trump’s infrastructure task force and as a financial supporter. Michels fits the same mold of the businessman-turned-politician. But Trump is always Trump’s biggest fan and does not endorse candidates who do not demonstrate fealty.

 

My fervent hope remains that the Republicans have a robust debate about the issues that matter to Wisconsinites and how Gov. Tony Evers has failed the people of Wisconsin. Winning on Aug. 9 is important for the candidates. Winning on Nov. 8 is crucial for Wisconsin.

Here is my full column that ran in the Washington County Daily News last week:

In the face of a contracting economy, high gas prices, the worst inflation in 40 years, raging violent crime, and a collapse of government education, Gov. Tony Evers has ordered the Department of Administration to create an Office of Environmental Justice. Wisconsin clearly has a governor with his finger on the pulse of what is important to the people of Wisconsin.

 

This was not Governor Evers’ first attempt at creating an OEJ. He put the creation of the office into his draft of the most recent state budget. The Legislature, seeing no reason to enlarge government with another expensive office full of environmental activists who would erode the state’s economy as they empty the taxpayers’ pockets, declined to put the OEJ into the final version of the budget that Evers signed into law. Not to be denied, Evers has now created the OEJ by executive order under the mistaken belief that the state Constitution grants the governor to do whatever he wants via executive order when he does not get his way in the Legislature. The key to understanding the OEJ, and how bad it will be for Wisconsin, is to understand that it is not about the environment. The mission of the OEJ is not to make sure that Wisconsin protects the environment. The OEJ is not a regulatory agency to ensure that the state has reasonably clean air and water. OEJ officials will not be helping to clean up industrial accidents. The key word in the Office of Environmental Justice is not “environmental.” The key word is “justice,” as Tony Evers and the woke left defines it. I invite the reader to take a moment and go read the executive order creating the OEJ. It is easy to find. It is Executive Order #161 and it is only three pages. As with all government proclamations, there are a series of “whereas” clauses that build the justification for the order being issued. Eight of the ten “whereas” clauses in Evers’ order are about racial or social equity.

 

Only one “whereas,” the sixth one, claims that there is an environmental issue that justifies the creation of a new government office. Meanwhile, the order is replete with phrases like, “promoting environmental equity,” “environmental justice movement,” “communities of color in urban ghettos,” and “right to equitable treatment.”

 

The goal of the OEJ is not to make sure that Wisconsin has a cleaner environment. The goal is to ensure that Wisconsin’s environmental regulations meet the racial and social “equity” standard of the woke left. In the nine directives for the OEJ detailed in the executive order, there is no mention of environmental goals. Instead, the new office is directed to do things like review the impact of state laws, regulations, and policy on equitable treatment, develop recommendations using the Wisconsin environmental equity tools, and “develop a framework and strategy for environmental justice work across the administration.”

 

The message from the Evers administration is clear. In Wisconsin, there will be one more state agency to harass and bully businesses and homeowners for any environmental transgressions, real or perceived. Except now, running afoul of the environmental regulatory apparatus could also be deemed racist, transphobic, or whatever violation of “equity” can be applied from the Office of Environmental Justice. Governor Evers continues to run roughshod over the legislative process to push the woke agenda through state government. Meanwhile he continues to nap while Wisconsinites are facing real economic and social hardships. One term in office is one too many for this governor.

My column for the Washington County Daily News is online and in print. Here’s a part:

The key to understanding the OEJ, and how bad it will be for Wisconsin, is to understand that it is not about the environment. The mission of the OEJ is not to make sure that Wisconsin protects the environment. The OEJ is not a regulatory agency to ensure that the state has reasonably clean air and water. OEJ officials will not be helping to clean up industrial accidents. The key word in the Office of Environmental Justice is not “environmental.” The key word is “justice,” as Tony Evers and the woke left defines it. I invite the reader to take a moment and go read the executive order creating the OEJ. It is easy to find. It is Executive Order #161 and it is only three pages. As with all government proclamations, there are a series of “whereas” clauses that build the justification for the order being issued. Eight of the ten “whereas” clauses in Evers’ order are about racial or social equity.

 

Only one “whereas,” the sixth one, claims that there is an environmental issue that justifies the creation of a new government office. Meanwhile, the order is replete with phrases like, “promoting environmental equity,” “environmental justice movement,” “communities of color in urban ghettos,” and “right to equitable treatment.”

 

The goal of the OEJ is not to make sure that Wisconsin has a cleaner environment. The goal is to ensure that Wisconsin’s environmental regulations meet the racial and social “equity” standard of the woke left.

Here is my full column that ran in the Washington County Daily News last week. You might have noticed that Evers had another batch of terrible vetoes on Friday. He is the worst governor this state has had in my lifetime.

Last week, Gov. Tony Evers reminded us of what a terrible governor he is though a string of vetoes upholding his support of policies that lead to higher crime and dumber kids. Before the week had ended, Evers used his veto pen again to affirm his support for policies that enable vote fraud and disenfranchise every legal voter.

 

While some political junkies might give Evers some latitude for vetoing good bills for political advantage, he did it at the expense of good governance and a better Wisconsin. He is willing to have another year of sloppy, questionable, possibly fraudulent elections as long as he thinks it will benefit his political ambitions.

 

Evers vetoed seven individual bills related to elections. Irrespective of the political motivations of the Republicans or the Democrats, ask yourselves if each bill should have been signed into law based on its merits.

 

The first bill would have prohibited anyone other than the voter, immediate family member, or legal guardian from returning an absentee ballot. This is to put a stop to the practice of ballot harvesting. Taken in the abstract with the assumption of complete honesty, ballot harvesting is a convenience. But taken in light of the real world of corrupt characters, ballot harvesting is a license to organize the delivery of thousands of virtually undetectable fraudulent votes. Would you have vetoed a bill banning ballot harvesting?

 

The second bill would have clearly defined who can identify as indefinitely confined for the purpose of absentee voting. This provision of the law, intended as a convenience for those who are truly indefinitely confined due to age, illness, or disability, was widely abused during the pandemic by able-bodied voters who assumed the heavy cloak of disability to cast their votes then set it aside to go about their lives. Such appropriation of status is not only immoral, but it is a way to commit vote fraud by bypassing Wisconsin’s voter ID law. Would you have vetoed a bill that would have ensured that only those who are truly indefinitely confined can vote as such?

 

The third bill would have simply required the state to conduct regular checks to ensure that registered voters are citizens of our nation. Voting is a right of citizenship, and the bill would have simply had the state try to ensure that citizenship means something. Would you have vetoed the bill?

 

The fourth bill would have prohibited the spending of private money to administer elections. In the 2020 election, wealthy liberals offered millions of dollars to local election officials to “help” them administer elections. Several Wisconsin municipalities accepted. The bill would have ensured that elections are administered by government officials with taxpayer funds to ensure the transparency and accountability that voters deserve. Would you have vetoed the bill?

 

The fifth bill would have prohibited election clerks from filling out missing information on absentee ballots. Clerks have been taking on the guise of voters to fill out incomplete absentee forms for years. It is a practice that contributes to sloppy elections and lazy election clerks. Would you have vetoed a bill that requires voters to fill our their absentee ballot envelopes correctly and by themselves?

 

The last two bills had to do with the function of the Wisconsin Elections Commission. Unlike the previous five which should have all been signed into law, the last two are more questionable, but not for the reasons that Evers vetoed them.

 

The sixth bill would have required that the WEC hire Republican and Democratic lawyers to provide contrary legal advice instead of using purportedly nonpartisan lawyers. This bill would have provided a range of opinions for the commissioners to consider but might have driven unnecessary expenses.

 

The seventh bill would have had the Legislature own the guidance delivered to local election clerks by the WEC. This would have provided a check on the WEC doling out bad and illegal guidance.

 

The seventh bill is in the right direction but did not go far enough. The WEC has proven to be a poor and corrupt mechanism for the administration of Wisconsin’s elections. The Legislature should abolish it and looks to other states for better examples of ways to run clean, fair, open, honest, and secure elections.

 

Governor Evers has supported the wholesale subversion of Wisconsin’s election laws during the pandemic because he thinks it had benefitted Democrats like himself. His continued support for policies that enable and encourage sloppy and fraudulent election practices is a statement on his character.

My column for the Washington County Daily News is online and in print. Here’s a part:

Last week, Gov. Tony Evers reminded us of what a terrible governor he is though a string of vetoes upholding his support of policies that lead to higher crime and dumber kids. Before the week had ended, Evers used his veto pen again to affirm his support for policies that enable vote fraud and disenfranchise every legal voter.

 

While some political junkies might give Evers some latitude for vetoing good bills for political advantage, he did it at the expense of good governance and a better Wisconsin. He is willing to have another year of sloppy, questionable, possibly fraudulent elections as long as he thinks it will benefit his political ambitions.

 

[…]

 

Governor Evers has supported the wholesale subversion of Wisconsin’s election laws during the pandemic because he thinks it had benefitted Democrats like himself. His continued support for policies that enable and encourage sloppy and fraudulent election practices is a statement on his character.

Here is my full column that ran in the Washington County Daily News this week:

Everyone assumes that Gov. Tony Evers will just veto any bills that the Republicans in the Legislature send to his desk. Evers does not want to give the Republicans any wins in an election year. But while the media and the public ignore Evers’ vetoes as the expected result of political gamesmanship, they are whitewashing just how terrible our governor is.

 

One bill that Governor Evers vetoed would have reshaped the Police and Fire Commissions for Milwaukee and Madison to require employee representation. The Police and Fire Commissions are the civilian boards that govern the police and fire departments. Under current law, all of the commissioners for boards in Milwaukee and Madison are appointed exclusively by the mayors of those cities.

 

Among other reforms, the bill that Evers vetoed would have required that one member of each board would have had to been selected from a list put forth by the employees of the police and fire departments through their unions. Essentially, the bill would have required that the employees of these organizations have one voice on the boards that govern their organizations. Evers vetoed the bill to make sure that the mayors’ commissions are not forced to listen to their employees.

 

Another bill that Evers vetoed would have rescinded a very simple regulation to allow rural communities to recruit and retain more people for emergency medical services. After lengthy discussions with rural EMS providers, the Republicans passed a bill to make the National Registry of Emergency Technicians exam optional. This simple deregulation would have removed this barrier for rural EMS providers to recruit medical personnel while still allowing them the tools to ensure quality services. Evers’ refusal to make government regulations a little more flexible means that rural communities will continue to have this barrier that limits their ability to fully staff their emergency services. A third bill that Evers vetoed would have made the age of admission for early grades equal for government and school choice schools. Under current law, a government school can allow a child to enter pre-kindergarten, kindergarten, or first grade if they are younger than the prescribed age through use of an early admission policy. This is very simply to allow children who are ready for the higher grade to join that grade even if they are a little younger than the required age. This is often used for those summer babies who missed the Sept. 1 age cutoff by a smidge but are able to join their peers.

 

This tool for early admission is not allowed for children who participate in any of the state’s school choice programs. The bill would have permitted choice schools to have the same rules as government schools. Governor Evers is and always has been a passionate advocate for forcing all kids to attend their local government school even if that school is failing them. Evers’ goal is not education. His goal is to ensure that the government school bureaucracy continues to have an endless supply of tax dollars pumped into it.

 

Perhaps worst of all in this batch of vetoes, Governor Evers vetoed a bill that would have made it easier for law enforcement to prosecute rioters when they tear down our cities. It is not easy to forget how Governor Evers reacted too slowly to the riot in Kenosha as rioters set downtown Kenosha on fire and roiled the city in waves of violence. Kenosha was merely the worst of the riots that plagued other Wisconsin cites and are sure to happen again.

 

After those riots, it was difficult for law enforcement to hold rioters accountable under current law. Americans love a good protest and to use civil unrest as a means of political action, but there is a line where civil unrest becomes a riot. That line is when people start destroying property and assaulting others. The problem is that Wisconsin law, unlike many other states, does not have a clear definition of what a riot is. The bill that Evers vetoed would have clarified Wisconsin law to define a riot and the penalties for people who participate in a riot.

 

Evers’ veto of this bill signals that he will continue to tolerate rioters when they burn down the next city. It is part of a pattern of behavior with Evers as he continues to tolerate the everyday criminals who are wreaking havoc on Wisconsin’s cities every day. As crime soars and more people fall prey to violent criminals, Evers looks for more ways to coddle criminals.

 

Evers’ vetoes remind us of what a terrible governor he is. As long as he is in office, Wisconsin will have no employee representation of PFC boards, fewer EMS personnel for rural communities, dumber kids who are forced to attend schools that are not working for them, and more violent crime. Evers is making his positions clear. Are you listening?