It should come as no surprise that at the same time that the National Socialist German Workers Party (Nazism) was gaining traction, a similar socialist party was rising under Mussolini in Italy. His Fascist bloc used an emblem from the Roman times: the fasces which is a bundle of rods strapped around an ax. This emblem came to signify the main tenet of fascism which is the use of state force to unite everyone under their power and authority. Fascism was not an insult to them at the time; it was a self-identifying belief in a political movement born out of revolutionary socialism. Fascism was not born out of a desire to protect the greatness of what Italy used to be but rather a radical reimagining of what governance should be that would reorganize society and deliver national greatness through modern planning and aggressive central control. Mussolini explained the goal of fascism rather bluntly when he said, “Everything in the State, nothing outside the State, nothing against the State.” From this statement, it is very easy to glean the political, economic, and cultural goals of fascism.

A necessity of fascism is to create an authoritarian regime by which the goals of fascism could then be achieved. They did not believe in having checks and balances on the government and abandoned the idea of limiting the government and its bureaucracies. To achieve that end, fascism directly attacked the belief of individual rights and believed that the rights of the people outweighed the rights of individuals. This was typically portrayed and communicated through the ultranationalist argument using the good of the nation to justify a host of grievances including censoring the press, banning opposition parties, and jailing or outright killing opponents. It seems quite obvious then that the economics of the country would be neither outright socialism nor any sort of free market. Instead, they used corporatism and unions to allow the state to direct how private property was used and utilized. The unions allowed the state to set wages, working rules, and production priorities but at the same time they did not allow strikes. Independent unions were quickly crushed as were any corporations that did not want to listen nor embrace fascist control. For the good of the nation, fascism believes in state direction, coordination, and discipline of every major industry. Culturally, they squashed any semblance of free speech or the right to peacefully assemble. Any satire or criticism of the government was seen as treasonous. Fascists do not believe in moral relativism but neither did they believe that truth was absolute. Instead, the state was the source of truth and any disagreement with the truth was by extension a disagreement with the state – a very dangerous position to take.

This naturally begs the question of how does fascism present itself in our society? The simple answer is that unless someone is a self-identified fascist there is a high likelihood that they are not indeed a true fascist. What does bear a deeper analysis is where each party falls on its proclivity towards the fascists’ goals with respect to government power, nationalism, economics, and the culture. Perhaps the speediest analysis is to investigate first what an antifascist truly is. Any individual that supports the following is in fact supporting anti-fascism: decreasing the size and scope of the government; limiting the power of bureaucracies and government officials; support for free speech in all of its forms (individual speech, freedom of the press, the ability to peaceably assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances); representative and democratic governments; free markets; individual rights and moral absolutism. Missing from this list are two main ideas that bear greater scrutiny and nuance: socialism and nationalism. Even though the fascist movement was carried into existence by the socialist movement, both Hitler and Mussolini aligned their fascist movements against Marxism for a critical, pragmatic reason: it is much easier to consolidate power if you co-opt capital rather than outright nationalizing of all industries, thus the abandonment of socialism once the vehicle of power was under their control. Fascism and socialism/Marxism are very similar in their economic goals with minor differences on how private property is “defined” because even though fascism allows for property ownership, what ownership do those individuals truly have of their businesses if the production is controlled by the state? So how then do we deal with nationalism as this term appears to produce different thoughts under different regimes? Fascist nationalism uses the national identity to justify breaking individual rights to bow to the collective whereas civic nationalism is much different. Civic nationalism, that most conservatives follow, is a love of the country because of the ideals our country is founded on which is why many citizens can say they love America but in the same sentence denounce a strong central government – something a fascist could not do. Thus, to say that anti-nationalism is anti-fascist is a sophistic argument, when the more correct argument would be that to justify mistreatment of an individual or group based on the needs of the many is one side step away from mirroring a fascist, nationalistic ideal.

The ultimate irony is that the individual who assassinated Charlie Kirk bears more resemblance to a fascist than Charlie Kirk ever did. As opposed to standing on the side of free speech and individual rights as Charlie did, the assassin instead believed in using force and violence to silence those who had opposing views. It is dangerous for us to use words improperly especially when those words are used to silence debate and discussions which are in effect censoring opposition. If we as a society begin to throw words around without knowing their true meaning, how can we expect to self-govern? When activists, media members, or politicians point at Republicans and declare they are fascists, they are doing two things at once: lying about what fascism is and creating a permission structure for violence against Republicans. We must stop allowing lazy people on both sides to throw the word fascist around just to shut people up. We must demand for the correct definition and historical accuracy; we must request to argue like adults, not toddlers who can call you a poo-poo-diaper-baby in order to win the debate. If words are going to now mark targets for elimination, then there must be an accountability for using those words.

A few years ago, a friend leading my county’s political party got a call from a Boulder, Colorado high school politics teacher. The instructor was inquiring if someone would be interested in speaking to his class about our political party platform to his students. As a recognized speaker within the party, my name was provided to the instructor, who subsequently extended an invitation to me.

With a bit of hesitation and many questions I queried what the instructor had in mind. He explained he wanted to get his students to think for themselves about all the local political party platforms so they could understand the different public policy positions and learn to be good civic citizens. I accepted the opportunity.

The first year I did the presentation I did it from a historical perspective. I began by greeting the students at the door of the classroom and shook each of their hands, I looked them in the eye and said, “Hello, I’m Brad, what’s your name?” and handed them a booklet with the Declaration of Independence and United States Constitution. The students were polite and about one third of the class seemed receptive to my message. They asked engaging and challenging questions. Upon reflection, I recognize that my presentation focused extensively on facts and figures, which resulted in insufficient time being allocated for additional questions. I should have incorporated more stories that made a point.

Over the past two years, I have modified my program following previous experiences. My presentations typically last 15-20 minutes and focus on the principles of freedom associated with the founding of the United States. Our country was established on the idea that all individuals are created equal, reflecting the concept of human equality. The American Founders and Framers debated and acknowledged the concept of universal, equal, natural rights for everyone. Citizens provide consent to be governed and to have their rights protected by elected representatives. These representatives operate within defined limits, forming a constitutional government based on the rule of law intended to protect individual rights and property equally. Historically, this concept has served as the basis for our major political parties.

Upon my arrival at the classroom, I placed a poster on the wall listing the freedom principles just mentioned, yet I revealed them one by one and shared their significance. I opened by reciting a paragraph from Thomas Jefferson’s first inaugural speech from March 4, 1801, “…a wise and frugal government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government; and this is necessary to close the circle of our felicities.”

This section of Jefferson’s speech concisely gives the reason for our form of government, which is to protect those universal, equal, natural rights of all men, meaning all citizens. It sets the stage for how I engage the students.

Then at this point I opened the floor for questions, requiring the students to select one of the principles we discussed and tying their question to a freedom principle. This way the students must think about their question rather than base it on a preconceived notion or emotion. This approach encourages more in-depth discussion and solicits greater input from students by opening their perspectives on their questions. It allows for reflection before responding, promoting dialogue rather than one-sided communication.

One hour goes by quickly and there are always more questions than the time allotted. A few students always stay behind to thank me and ask more questions or want to make a point. Some even ask for my contact information to send me more questions if they have them. I am happy to accommodate their desire to learn more.

Notice I have not revealed which political party I am representing in this essay although you may easily guess. That is by design. The instructor does mention to the students the party I am representing in my introduction, but for the purposes here, my goal is to demonstrate that high school students are curious and want to think about ideas. They may not be ready to pick a political party, yet they do want to be challenged by concepts and information of “how to think, not what to think.”

I am hopeful about this new group of students being raised in 2025. I see in their eyes and in their questions a desire to understand and find the universal truths of mankind. They are, in my experience, optimistic and want answers to understand the world around them. The answer to many of these young people’s questions of what it means to be human and exploring life’s complexities is by having more open dialog. My interaction with these students is not just speaking to them but helping them discover these principles as truths. I think there is unbelievable potential, like the second salesman said, “nobody wears shoes here.”

COVID Vaccine Not Recommended for Children and Pregnant Women

In May 2025, the CDC changed the recommendation for the COVID vaccine for healthy children and healthy pregnant women. According to The Defender,

“Instead of a universal recommendation that all children ages 6 months and older receive the COVID-19 shots, the CDC now recommends ‘shared clinical decision-making’ between parents and providers for children ages 6 months to 17 years who are not moderately immunocompromised. That means that parents and providers can decide together whether a child should take the shot based on the child’s health status and parents’ preferences.”

However, some doctors caution that immune compromised children could have a more severe reaction to vaccines.

For people who want the COVID vaccine, it is still covered by health insurance and free vaccine programs.

This change should protect pediatricians from being compelled to order the COVID vaccine under threat of disciplinary action for not ordering it, and the change should promote risk-benefit conversations. However, the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) swiftly responded in backlash to keep selling the COVID vaccine to children.

AAP Leads Lawsuit to Keep Selling COVID Vaccines to All People

In July 2025, the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) became the lead plaintiff in a lawsuit against HHS and HHS Secretary Kennedy demanding the recommendation of the COVID vaccine to children and pregnant women and reinstatement to the CDC immunization schedule.

The Defender reported the AAP has a financial conflict of interest:

“But according to Kim Mack Rosenberg, general counsel for Children’s Health Defense (CHD), ‘The medical cartel — funded extensively by the pharmaceutical industry — has a tremendous financial incentive to preserve the status quo.’

Karl Jablonowski, Ph.D., senior research scientist for CHD, noted that the lawsuit ‘fails to mention that several plaintiffs, including the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American College of Physicians and the Infectious Diseases Society of America, received millions of dollars from the CDC to promote COVID-19 injections.’”

AAP Calls for the End of Religious Exemptions

The AAP doubled down and publicly called for the end of religious exemptions for vaccines. The Defender published “American Academy of Pediatrics Wants to Shut Down Religious Vaccine Exemptions.”

Kim Mack Rosenberg, general counsel for Children’s Health Defense, said, “The AAP’s statement calling for an end to religious exemptions to immunization ignores constitutionally protected rights regarding religious freedom and potentially is in violation of other laws as well. AAP blatantly suggests that schools discriminate against families with faith-based reasons to not take some or all vaccines.”

Lead author in Pediatrics for the AAP policy statement Dr. Jesse Hackell said, “We recommend that vaccination is required for participation in certain public activities, such as school and daycare, and if you choose not to vaccinate, you’re essentially choosing to exclude yourself from those settings.” The AAP is advocating for societal segregation for any person who opts out of any one vaccine, with over 70 doses now recommended for U.S. children.

The AAP takes the position that medical exemptions are “legitimate” and non-medical exemptions are “problematic.” The AAP’s policy statement asserts that medical exemptions “do not have a significant impact on overall community vaccination coverage,” while omitting that the AAP imposes sanctions for doctors who write medical exemptions. Essentially, the AAP policy is advocating for zero exemptions by calling for the end of parents’ religious exemptions after years of restricting doctors from approving medical exemptions.

AAP & Blue States Defy CDC and Make Rogue Vaccine Recommendations

In August 2025, for the first time in 30 years, the AAP made a recommendation for infants and children in direct conflict with the CDC.

According to The Defender, the AAP’s new “evidence-based immunization schedule” recommends COVID-19 vaccination for all children between 6 and 23 months of age, and for all children and adolescents 2-18 years old. The AAP also recommends annual flu shots for all children starting at 6 months old, and RSV vaccination for infants up to 19 months of age.

The AAP is a lobbying organization and is financially sponsored by Eli Lilly, GSK, Merck, Moderna and Sanofi. The Defender reported that the “AAP, which represents 67,000 pediatricians in the U.S., received $34,974,759 in government grants during the 2023 fiscal year” to promote childhood vaccines.

The Defender also reported that most of the blue states have enacted laws (Colorado HB1027), executive orders, or standing orders to continue to sell COVID vaccines to all ages (population-wide) despite the limited use (high-risk) authorized in CDC recommendations. In the red state of Florida, Surgeon General Joseph Ladapo announced Florida will end all vaccine mandates, including for schools.

New CDC Vaccine Advisors Make Changes

In June 2025, HHS Secretary Kennedy appointed new members to the CDC Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) committee and removed the participation of all organizations who had financial bias in favor of pharmaceutical companies: the American Medical Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the Infectious Diseases Society of America, the American College of Physicians, American Geriatrics Society, American Osteopathic Association, National Medical Association, and National Foundation for Infectious Diseases.

In September 2025, the new ACIP committee made three key decisions, according to The Defender:

1. COVID-19 vaccines:ACIP changed its recommendation for the COVID-19 vaccine, shifting from a universal recommendation that everyone ages 6 months and up get the vaccine to an individualized approach in which people assess the risks and benefits in consultation with their healthcare provider.
2. MMR/MMRV vaccines: ACIP voted to recommend limiting the MMRV (measles, mumps, rubella, and varicella)vaccine to children ages 4 and older, due to concerns about seizures related to the vaccine in younger children. The committee recommended that children under 4 still get the MMR (measles, mumps, rubella) and varicella (chicken pox) vaccines, but separately — not in one combined shot.
3. Hep B vaccine:ACIP postponed its expected vote to change the Hep B vaccine recommendation, currently given to infants on the day they are born.

The universal Hep B vaccine for infants is controversial as explained in The Defender:

“Hepatitis B, a liver disease caused by the hepatitis B virus, is transmitted through bodily fluids — typically by sexual contact or shared needles. Being an IV drug user is the most common risk factor for the disease. Infected pregnant mothers can pass the disease to their infants, but this is rare.”

Conclusion

The CDC ACIP has several remaining concerns with vaccines. Members are concerned that the U.S. does not have a reliable surveillance system for vaccine reactions, specifically myocarditis in young people and birth defects from the COVID vaccines. Members are concerned that vaccines are recommended for pregnant women, and yet safety studies are not conducted in pregnant women. Members are concerned that the Vaccine Information Sheets (VIS) do not give proper informed consent on vaccine risks.

The CDC has lost public trust, and HHS Secretary Kennedy has implemented changes to restore evidence-based recommendations while removing the interference of pharmaceutical companies on federal agency decisions. This year, key personnel at the CDC have been fired or quit. CDC Director Monarez was fired, and the CDC chief medical officer Dr. Houry resigned. Dr. Panagiotakopoulos, the CDC advisor who promoted the COVID vaccine to pregnant women, resigned from her CDC ACIP working group.

One side claims this is a “war on science;” while the other side champions informed, voluntary consent for vaccines which are the only drugs in the U.S. that are completely shielded from liability.

The main criticism from non-Republicans is that the party assumes that voters should use an evangelical Christian worldview to make decisions. Republican candidates use messaging with language narrowly focused on Christian voters and party insiders, which falls apart in the public arena right after the party assembly that chooses state candidates. This is not realistic strategy in a purple state to win elections. Unaffiliated voters overwhelmingly vote with the Democratic party in Colorado. Evangelical Christians overwhelmingly do not vote; up to 60% of evangelicals are not even registered to vote in Colorado. The CO GOP strategy must adapt to winning the unaffiliated voters.

A growing number of independent voters reject progressive policies of the Democrat party, but yet still have not been won over to the Republican party due to alienating messaging. This article will address how Republican strategy could adapt to be more inclusive of independent voters.

“Being Right is Not Enough to Win”

In Feds for Freedom podcast 103, Morton Blackwell of the Leadership Institute, which teaches college students to champion conservative values declares, “Being right is not sufficient to win.”  First, he describes a moral majority that is waiting to be organized. Philosophically aligned people can be found among fiscally conservative independents and among limited government libertarians, but they need encouragement to get involved in the Republican party. Second, we have a duty to our values to study proven and effective strategies for victory in public policy, because otherwise the opposition wins. Third, he explains what wins: the number of effective activists (recruit, train, activate) and the political technology (using like-minded organizations and charismatic leaders to communicate the platform and raise money.)

Regarding pastors who have taken the position that their congregations have no role in politics, Blackwell pushes back on apathy when the government attacks traditional values. He gave an example of a pastor who routinely asked all congregants over age 18 to stand up, and for those registered to vote to sit back down, and then ushers handed the unregistered adults a voter registration card with an explanation that it is their duty to get involved in public policy. Blackwell claims that moral indignation is the strongest force in politics. Republicans can unite both secular and religious voters who share the common ground of moral outrage.

Another key group of voters is college students. Blackwell rejects that they lean left, and instead asserts that they are inherently politically apathetic. When conservative and libertarian college students are made aware of clubs that share their values of limited government, free enterprise, strong national defense, and traditional values, then they grow into activism and a voter block. From my experience, the absence of college students and young conservatives in the Colorado Republican caucus and assembly process is noticeable.

Two Worldviews of Realism and Nominalism

Realism and Nominalism provide a framework to discuss politics with voters who do not hold a Christian worldview. Realism is a doctrine that claims the world has universal truths, and that people organize the world by objectively real structures which are independent of individual perception. Realism is the foundation for natural law and theology. Realists believe in good and evil, and an objective morality. Sometimes, but not always, clergy are their worldview leaders.

The opposing philosophy, nominalism, is a doctrine that claims that the world is subjective to the individual with a subjective morality, people invent names and mental constructs, and by changing names, definitions, and categories, people can change reality. Nominalism is the foundation for atheism, hedonism, utilitarianism, Marxism, and authoritarianism. Nominalists believe that people are motivated by increasing pleasure and reducing pain, and scientists become their leaders. This scientific optimism leads to a belief that scientists can socially engineer behavior to make progress towards utopia on earth with less pain and more pleasure, and people should comply with scientific authority.

My perspective is that unaffiliated voters largely reject Democrat progressivism, but the Republican messaging has not articulated in persuasive language the value in voting with realists and the dangers of voting with nominalists. The language needed is an ethical framework which avoids demonizing and shaming people who are not Christians and who are not Republicans.

High Intensity Social Issues: Abortion and Gender Dysphoria

In almost every debate, Republican candidates are asked the question, “If you are elected, would you support banning abortion?” This question is baiting a response to indicate that the candidate intends to criminalize abortion, even when there is no legislative or legal path for the candidate to ban abortion. There are many anti-infanticide voters among the unaffiliated, but Republicans lose their votes with the tone of criminalizing women with the hypothetical ban responses.

Two worldviews are listening to the candidate’s response. The realist believes that humans birth baby humans, therefore the baby is a human at conception and should be protected. The nominalist believes that if you rename the baby a fetus or cells, then you can change the reality of ending a baby’s life in abortion. Nominalists have been influenced by Planned Parenthood constructs. Republicans must reclaim language based in reality, “You can vote with the Democrat party of Planned Infanticide, or you can vote for the Republican party which protects women, children, and the family from pregnancy to natural death.”  Rational voters will not identify as Pro-Infanticide and will align with secular language based in reality.

Agreement with secular voters on this issue could include compassionate information to support life such as: resources for low-income families, employer support for maternity leave, educating women on the emotional and physical trauma from the abortion procedure, education on physical pain to the baby in the abortion process, access to contraceptives, education on ovulation, baby-care education for new mothers and fathers, and options for adoption.  Offering life-affirming resources is more persuasive than posturing to criminalize people. Republicans have traded relationship building for campaign slogans, and these slogans can disenfranchise voters. Partnerships with aligned non-profits would be a better strategy.

And how should we discuss gender dysphoria? A realist views gender as based in biology with sex organs and chromosomes. A nominalist views gender as a social construct that can be changed by surgical alterations and by change of a person’s name and clothes.

This is another area where Republicans have an opportunity to unite with unaffiliated voters with rational messaging. First, stop using the nominalist invented term of “transgender,” and reclaim the term “gender dysphoria,” which is a mental illness. Rational people do not support surgical and hormone altering of children. Second, medical experts and scientists can be corrupted for profit, and therefore a political party that demands compliance with corrupted science is authoritarian, not “affirming.” Republicans must clearly communicate party differences such as, “You can vote with the Democrat party of mental illness and social engineering, or you can vote for the Republican party and biological reality.” Third, messaging must avoid demonizing homosexual adults in their private lives, and instead should focus on protecting the innocence of children.

The Success of MAHA

Colorado is home to thousands of independent voters who would have cast their vote for Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. for President in 2024. These are rational voters who understand corruption in science and public health. These are voters who prioritize protecting children from state mandates and unchecked industries. The MAHA voters were the critical swing vote for President Trump. The “Make America Healthy Again” coalition is an example to follow in uniting unaffiliated voters with rational policy positions. As Secretary of HHS, Kennedy has demonstrated productive dialogues with elected leaders who do not embrace his affiliations, and he has inspired corporate leaders across food industries to adopt higher standards for health without overly criticizing companies for past policies. The MAHA movement is the best example in modern politics of building an effective and diverse coalition with relationship building and a charismatic leader.

Rights

The realist views rights in relation to natural law (parental rights, medical decision-making rights, self-defense rights) and in relation to work and skill (property rights). Violations of rights are theft. The nominalist views rights as what you can take, with the government in control of deciding rights. For example, a nominalist would support “free” healthcare and “free” college. In reality, none of these programs are “free” but rather are funded by the government theft of tax dollars of private citizens for special interests.

Because economic issues are historically more important to voters than social issues, Republicans should prioritize economic issues on the party platform. Republicans in Colorado need to clearly show that the unsustainable fiscal policies of the Democrat party under Governor Polis have made Colorado unaffordable. Furthermore, theft should be the overarching messaging on every issue in the platform because rational people understand and oppose theft. The proposed platform would offer freedom over authoritarianism, and then expose every issue in terms of theft with the following Democrat agendas: theft of small business by minimum wage mandates and restrictions; theft of income through “fees” (authoritarian taxes) and doubling of property taxes; theft of energy and agriculture by pseudoscience climate goals; theft of security by open borders; theft of safety by gun control laws; theft of parental rights with minor consent laws; theft of female sports with gender dysphoric male competitors; theft of bodily rights under experimental vaccine mandates; theft of life by full-term abortion targeting Black and Latino families; and theft of the Colorado way of life by ending open-meeting laws with authoritarian rule by unelected boards and commissions stacked with Democrat members.

The Colorado GOP

Currently, if a person visits the Colorado GOP website, there is a big headline about the “spending” of Gov. Jared Polis. To a party outsider this is non-persuasive because most people would expect a governor to spend large sums of money for a state government. But if the headline were to expose “theft,” then outsiders might be persuaded to consider the proposed arguments, because everyone opposes theft. Also, it is a missed opportunity that the Colorado GOP website currently does not have a link to the Republican party platform for unaffiliated voters to read. How do unaffiliated voters read Republican policy positions? Through mainstream media sound bites? Even worse, the RNC 2024 platform is written with language that shames and blames anyone outside of the Republican party. In my opinion, the pictures of President Trump in the RNC platform document are not strategic optics, because the party’s core values are distinct from any one person’s politics. In summary, the party messaging is not accessible and not written in a way that would attract unaffiliated voters.

Prior to the next election cycle, the Republican party should revisit the political climate during the first six months of 2025. President Trump’s DOGE was cutting millions of dollars in every government agency. Democrats could not defend fraud and waste, which is theft of taxpayer dollars. Democrats only pushed back strongly in the area of Health and Human Services: FDA’s food and drug oversight cuts, CDC’s public health cuts, and NIH’s biomedical research cuts. In April 2025, Democrats formed a pact from 23 states to sue HHS to stop $11 Billion in cuts. A similar, less vocal Democrat pact lawsuit was filed against funding cuts in the Department of Education. I suggest that Democrats fervently defend the health agencies because these are led by scientists, or the nominalist’s secular equivalent of clergy. This worldview is reflected in a February 2025 Time headline, “Experts Call NIH Budget Cuts an ‘Apocalypse’ for Science.” (The alleged apocalypse cut millions in NIH funding for bizarre studies such as if Japanese quail are more sexually promiscuous on cocaine.) The priority of social engineering in progressive policy is confirmed in the countless articles in 2025 about Trump’s “war on science.” Health and education are the primary institutions implementing social engineering agendas. The current political climate demands a distinction that the Democrat party is authoritarian and focused on social engineering, while the Republican party protects freedom and is focused on a rational, moral majority.

Conclusion

There is room for improvement in Republican messaging. There are issues in which Republicans take irrational opposition such as claims that cannabis is the gateway to crime and depravity, which is anecdotal and demonstrably false. There are also Republican issues with cringe-worthy optics such as female candidates in sexy poses with weapons. These pictures do not convey self-defense. And there are Republican issues in which delivery of the most compelling arguments are lost to witch-hunt messaging, instead of focusing on the inhumane nature of illegal immigration to sanctuary cities in cold climates.

Some readers might criticize my suggestions as “diluting our values,” while losing elections makes those values nonexistent in a state government that desperately needs a return to center and balance. I am suggesting speaking a language that resonates with the surrounding culture. How do we discuss important issues in secular language without shaming and demonizing? How do we appeal to people who do not make decisions based on Christianity?

How do we build relationships with people who also want a rational and moral government? We need to rethink our temperament, arguments, and approach.

The current reality of Colorado Republican candidates is that they have been more focused on winning the party politics, not winning over the people of Colorado. This requires humility, persuasion, and relationship building with unaffiliated voters.

Like the young man in the story, I find myself being distracted by the conveniences and interruptions of modern life. A ping from a text. The ring of the phone. The knock on the door. Social media reels can trigger FOMO or fear of missing out. We are distracted by what has been referred to as the shiny object syndrome. The flashy, shiny thing in the corner of our eye that grabs our attention and causes us to become distracted by it.

How does one focus on the important tasks that need to be done as opposed to the shiny object vying for our attention? First put yourself in a position not to be disturbed by these distractions. Turn your devices off or put them on “silent” or in another room. Place yourself in a quite environment. Wake up early in the morning before others arise in your household and invest time to read, write, reflect, and prepare for your day. Or if you are not a morning person do a similar routine in the evening before you go to bed and carve out 15 minutes of uninterrupted time and space for yourself.

Years ago, I had the opportunity to attend a lecture by Carl E. Larson, Ph.D., a professor of Social Sciences at the University of Denver. In his book called Teamwork, What Must Go Right What Can Go Wrong he focused on the eight characteristic goals of an effective team. I will never forget his first point which is to be focused by having “a clear and elevating goal that serves as a guiding light.” An example he cited was President John F. Kennedy’s declaration in 1961 that the United States would put a man on the moon and bring him back safely by the end of the decade. That clear and elevated goal was achieved by what I call PDF, persistence, determination, and focus.

Another way to think about focus is to imagine it as a distillery. I use this method when I write a speech or e-mail. In the distillation process the fermentation begins with the sugars from grains, fruits, and other base sources being converted into alcohol with yeast. Then, the fermented liquid is heated to separate the alcohol from water and other components which concentrate the alcohol. Often alcohol is aged to develop flavor and character. Then the product is bottled and sent to market.

I use this distillation concept to concentrate and process my thoughts about a subject before I write them down. Then, I separate them by category or likeness. Finally, I take the time to break them down further into one or two words or the essence of the matter. Then, I can build a story or an example and package it around its base ingredients, allowing me to better explain it in its most relatable form.

My business mentor Jeffrey Gitomer wrote in one of his monthly blog writings, “From Socrates to Samuel Smiles, to Orison Swett Marden, to Elbert Hubbard, to Dale Carnegie, to Napoleon Hill, to Earl Nightingale, to Jim Rohn – they all had their own way of saying THE SAME thing. Your thinking becomes your actions. And it is those dedicated, well-planned, and direct actions that lead to your outcomes. Your reality. Better stated, your success.”

Intense focus leads to intense thinking on the things on which you are concentrating. By clearing away distractions you will help yourself get to your goal and to success. Once you can define your core focus so it becomes your guiding light, you can incorporate it into your being, thinking, and belief which will give you the “definiteness of purpose” which “is essential for achieving significant accomplishments in life,” wrote Napolean Hill in his opus, Think and Grow Rich. Concentrate on your goal day by day. With attention and action, your flame will shine brightly. Focus on your flame.

As with most aspects of life, the foundation is the most important structure, and the foundation of society is the individual. How we hold our own selves accountable affects the integrity of society and our government. We are the example that we give to our politicians. When we are not disciplined enough to show economic self-restraint and pile on personal debt, can we truly be shocked to see our government do the same? We see another example of this with the mainstream media. When we have the freedom to rant and rave toward other members of our society through anonymous mediums like Facebook, we again cannot be shocked that our media will speak first and check facts second. The need to be first instead of being truthful is a mirror back onto us as individuals. We cannot take the freedom of free speech to then turn around and utter any thought or idea. It is a sign of an educated and virtuous person to instead hold their tongue and restrain their speech when necessary. It is a sign of a virtuous person who will discipline themselves to only do acts that further develop their character, instead of allowing the excuse of freedom to indulge in vices. We may be free to eat one hundred donuts a day, but it is hardly advisable or wise.

This discipline then extends farther up the chain: to our businesses, societies, churches, groups, HOA’s, and all the other groups that bind us together. Just as before, there is mirroring of the discipline an individual shows (restraining speech and actions to the necessary) and what groups do. When groups are not committed to portraying facts, we again run into the issue of lost trust. When scientific groups delve into the political and not the scientific, when restraint is not there, then trust is lost in those groups and society is the true loss. An alternative glimpse into the necessity of these groups truly harnessing their freedom is to actually take action when action may not be required. When non-profit groups take care of the mentally ill and homeless, they display how disciplined behavior benefits everyone. They have the freedom to do nothing and yet when they choose to do the correct action, they catapult our society towards more virtuous behavior. What this exhibits is restraining the problem to the lowest possible level. The more groups and communities restrain the problem to the local level; the less central intervention is needed. When we decide to hold our communities responsible and encourage good behavior, the less policing is needed.

It is once again easy to see why the federal government steps in and steps out of its needed self-restraint when individuals and groups do not hold themselves accountable. The founding of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proof positive of this. Individuals, businesses, and other groups decided that instead of restraining themselves and not dumping their trash and pollutants into the Cuyahoga river, they should instead be free to do so and what resulted was an environmental catastrophe that bridged state lines and invited in the intervention of the federal government. Time and time again, we see the breach of the federal government because we the people did not take care of issues at a local level and were not disciplined enough to keep the federal government out. However, there is also a need for federal representatives to restrain themselves from running bills and taking on issues that should not be dealt with at the federal level. When representatives are more concerned about their re-election campaign than constraining the government, we the citizens lose. When we the citizens do not restrain our praise when those same representatives bring home the bacon, then we again as a society lose.

Our government is, for better or worse, a reflection back on our society and us as individuals. When we see a lack of virtue in Washington DC, it should encourage every single one of us to reflect on the choices we are making at home and in the community. The freer the system, the more it depends on voluntary restraint to avoid coercive fixes later. Most especially in a progressively run society, if people will not restrain themselves then regulation will be forced to do so by politicians who believe in their own good intent. Just because we no longer have somebody to police us and tell us not to have three more cookies, does not mean that it is wise and virtuous to keep our hands in the proverbial cookie jar.

What Colorado’s Law Actually Does

Enacted in 2023 via HB23-1219 and codified at C.R.S. § 18-12-115, Colorado forbids a dealer from delivering a purchased firearm until the later of three days after the background check is initiated or the moment the check is approved. Delivering earlier is a civil infraction with escalating fines. The law took effect October 1, 2023. For countless Coloradans, including new gun owners facing immediate threats—this means an arbitrary, state-imposed delay on acquiring a tool of self-defense even after they have been cleared.

Our Case So Far—And Why This Week Matters

When we sought a preliminary injunction, the district court refused to pause the law. The court accepted the state’s “public health” narrative and suggested waiting periods could be analogized to other historical regulations—despite acknowledging that the first true waiting period laws did not arrive until the 20th century. That early setback was disappointing, but it was never the last word. The same 10th Circuit that will ultimately review Colorado’s law has now held that New Mexico’s seven-day waiting period is likely unconstitutional under Bruen because “cooling-off” delays are not part of our Nation’s historical tradition. That is a roadmap for Colorado.

The Governing Standard: Heller, McDonald, & Bruen

The Supreme Court made three controlling points that Colorado cannot wish away:

Individual right: District of Columbia v. Heller confirmed the 2nd Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms for lawful purposes such as self-defense. Government may not destroy the core of that right with blanket bans or disabling burdens.
Incorporation: McDonald v. Chicago applied that protection against the States. Colorado must justify its restrictions under the federal Constitution, not merely state policy preferences.
Method: New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen rejected interest-balancing and demands that a firearm regulation be consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. If the State cannot point to a well-established analogue from the Founding era (or a comparably justified and similar burden), the law fails. Waiting periods—creatures of the 20th century—simply are not there.

The 10th Circuit’s New Mexico ruling applies Bruen faithfully: general “cooling-off” laws are not historically grounded, and thus likely unconstitutional. That logic applies with equal force to Colorado’s three-day delay.

The “Everyone’s a Risk” Premise Is Factually Wrong

Colorado’s policy rests on the claim that a mandatory delay will prevent crimes of passion or impulsive violence. But the best federal data show that the people committing gun crimes are not obtaining their weapons from retailers in the first place. According to the U.S. Department of Justice’s Survey of Prison Inmates, only about 1.3% of prisoners who used a gun in their offense obtained it from a retail source. A delay on lawful retail transfers does not touch the primary channels criminals actually use. It only burdens the law-abiding.

Nor is there robust evidence that waiting periods reduce violent crime. The seminal evaluation of the Brady Act’s waiting period (post-1994) found no statistically significant reduction in homicide rates—the only clear effect was a reduction in firearm suicide among older adults. That is not a justification to burden every cleared buyer with a delay while crime remains unaffected. And CDC’s Community Preventive Services Task Force concluded that there is insufficient evidence to determine that waiting periods reduce violent outcomes. When the evidence is weak and mixed, you do not get to curtail a fundamental right.

The Constitutional Problem With Delay-As-Default

The 2nd Amendment protects keeping and bearing arms; that necessarily presumes the ability to acquire them. Federal courts have recognized corollary rights like training at a range (striking down Chicago’s ban on firing ranges because it gutted the ability to exercise the right). If government may not ban the training necessary to exercise the right, it likewise may not throw up non-historical, categorical roadblocks to acquisition after a buyer has already passed a background check. Bruen forbids that roadblock of “because we think it’s safer” balancing.

Colorado points to “public health” analogies and intoxication laws to defend its waiting period, but those analogues regulate dangerous conduct, not the presumptively lawful acquisition of constitutionally protected arms by the entire populace. The 10th Circuit’s New Mexico decision recognizes the difference: generalized “cooling-off” laws burden the core right without a founding-era pedigree.

Real-World Harms the Law Ignores

Delays are not cost-free. A battered spouse, a stalking victim, a small business owner threatened by repeat criminals—each may have an urgent need for a defensive tool now, not three days from now. Colorado’s law transforms the government into the arbiter of how long a cleared citizen must remain defenseless. The Supreme Court has rejected similar logic in adjacent contexts: the State cannot expand police powers or home intrusions under vague “caretaking” theories, and after Bruen, it cannot expand firearms restrictions with ahistorical “public health” rationales either.

What This Ruling Signals Garcia v. Polis

The 10th Circuit’s message is unmistakable: waiting periods like New Mexico’s are likely unconstitutional because they lack historical grounding under Bruen. Colorado’s version is no different in kind; it just substitutes three days for seven. The core defect is the same, presuming that a cleared buyer is dangerous and imposing a blanket delay on exercising a fundamental right. When this question reaches the 10th Circuit on Colorado’s law, the court should apply its own reasoning consistently.

Back to First Principles

Heller teaches that the 2nd Amendment secures an individual the natural right to keep arms for self-defense. McDonald tells us States are bound by that right. Bruen tells governments they may not infringe it with novel policy experiments lacking historical roots. Mandatory, one-size-fits-all waiting periods fail each step: they burden the law-abiding, they do not meaningfully target criminals, and they have no founding-era analogue. Colorado’s law is not a “modest” condition on commercial sales—it is a categorical delay imposed precisely at the moment a citizen has done everything the law requires and simply seeks to take possession of their arm. That is a violation of the right to keep arms.

Colorado lawmakers have abused their power by enacting a policy grounded in suspicion, not in our constitutional tradition. The 10th Circuit’s New Mexico ruling underscores what we have argued from day one: cooling-off is not a historical exception to the 2nd Amendment—it is a modern invention aimed at the innocent. Our lawsuit will keep pressing that point until Colorado’s three-day delay is struck down and law-abiding citizens are no longer forced to wait to exercise a fundamental right.

From Independence to a Medical Facility Overnight

Gary (pseudonym) and his wife were living independently in their home, and both were in good health at the age of 90. Gary’s wife had power of attorney for medical decision making for her husband. Gary went to a hospital to have a sore on his foot evaluated. The hospital doctors told the family that Gary had a terminal diagnosis of osteomyelitis with weeks to live, needed surgery for amputation, would need a prosthetic, and eventually hospice. The family was also told that Gary was an infectious risk to his wife. He was immediately transferred to a facility. The family was in disbelief but initially allowed for the facility to care for Gary while they tried to cope with Gary’s diagnosis and the emotional trauma to Gary’s wife.

This initial placement in the facility started a nightmare scenario involving doctors, hospital lawyers, judges, and appointed guardians that is organized crime. The family would learn months later after losing control of Gary’s medical decision making, that he never had osteomyelitis. He had a simple fungal infection.

The Facility Requested a Court Appointed Guardian

The family questioned the diagnosis and the care that Gary was getting in the facility. Gary was heavily sedated and looked neglected. The facility was hostile to the family visiting and to the wife calling to check on Gary. The facility petitioned the court for a guardian, alleging that Gary’s wife could not take care of him. The family initially paid $12,000 in legal fees for one day in court, and a judge appointed a guardian for Gary.

This guardian now controlled all medical decisions and even visitation by family members. The guardian gave preference to Gary’s estranged son, whom the family had a restraining order against for prior violence.

The hospital lawyer used several tactics to hinder the family in the legal process. He would use the wrong address or incorrect postage so the family would not get notifications on the legal process.

Medical Abduction

Once the guardian was in control, she transferred Gary to another facility without updating the family. At one point, Gary was in a facility that charged up to $4,000 per day that was billed to the family. The family found Gary and reported that he had signs of neglect, with a urinary tract infection and pneumonia, showing signs of decline, and had lost the ability to speak. The guardian attempted to impose a no-trespass order on the family, but police helped the family get Gary to a hospital for treatment.

After treatment, the guardian transferred Gary to another facility. Gary went into renal failure, and the guardian opted not to treat it. Instead, he was intubated and asphyxiated. Under the guardian’s Do Not Resuscitate order (DNR), Gary died by choking. However, his death certificate reported that he died of cardiac arrest.

Gary’s death occurred eight months after the court appointed guardian took control of his care. During this time, the guardian incurred $250,000 in medical bills for the family, and $22,000 in legal bills.

Murder for Money

The family learned the hospital attorney involved with the transfer of Gary to the first facility with the fraudulent diagnosis, while disregarding the wife’s power of attorney, is married to an estate planner. The family believes that estate planners are colluding with hospital lawyers, doctors, and facilities to target people. The family even noticed an estate planning office in the hospital. Their advice is to be extremely careful with estate planners who might be involved in this. Estate planners and lawyers are using Medicare lists to offer consultations to targeted people. The family also advises not to share too much in medical appointments about any indications of asset valuation in small talk.

The family said it was very difficult to find an attorney because so many attorneys are involved in this organized crime and have ties to the hospitals and facilities. The family said that once the petition for a hospital guardian goes to court, it is likely too late for the family to retain decision making because the judges are conspiring in favor of hospital guardians. Everyone involved is getting kickbacks.

The family also advises taking strong legal actions against any untrusted family members, so they are not involved later in life and colluding in this asset theft scenario. Any profiteering family member could be recruited by this organized crime.

In conclusion, the family has formally complained to every oversight agency with no response. They did think that the Senior Medicare Patrol was somewhat helpful, but overall people must take action to prevent the abduction in medical facilities that leads to a court appointed guardian and asset theft.

Character is something I find that is best explained in stories of the classic virtues. Temperance, being moderate in all things, prudence, having wisdom in your ideas and conversations, justice, being fair in all your dealings, and fortitude, having the courage to show up, speak up, and stand up. These virtues along with gratitude, honesty, integrity, and respect build a foundation of trust over time. As the Philosopher Ayn Rand wrote in The Virtue of Selfishness, “The man who does not value himself cannot value anything or anyone.”

Curiosity is the idea that I most relate to in that it is a bridge between concepts that you may not be aware of. It may also lead to deeper understanding of the traditions of things known to you. Curiosity invites one to discover what is unknown and to look for those anomalies on the margins that are often missed. Asking questions and actively listening to find truth is a challenge that can lead to greater understanding. Being inquisitive and finding common bonds in areas of agreement can also lead to defining lines of opposition or different views. Having a genuine interest in learning new ideas from a different perspective brings serendipity to life. As Plutarch wrote millennia ago, “The mind is not a vessel to be filled, but a fire to be kindled.”

Communication is an opportunity to express oneself clearly with concise words, meaningful body movements, and a vocal intonation that opens the audience up to an exchange of ideas and thoughts in a civil and respectful manner. Opening oneself to concepts or thoughts that may differ from one’s values can lead to a meaningful dialog. To build understanding with others one can recite the words in the “Prayer of St. Francis” which has the following line. “O Divine Master, grant that I may not so much seek to be consoled as to console; to be understood as to understand.”  This reminds one that communication is a two-way endeavor. As Fredrick Douglas said, “Liberty is meaningless where the right to utter one’s thoughts and opinions has ceased to exist. That, of all rights, is the dread of tyrants… To suppress free speech is a double wrong. It violates the rights of the hearer as well as those of the speaker.”

Connection combines the elements of all three ideas above and bundles them for a stronger, more meaningful bond for personal and professional relationships. The overlap between character, curiosity and communication reinforces trust, understanding and mutual respect. Connections happen when one is consistent in dialog and deed. Being open to new and opposing ideas, to see the areas of agreement and areas where there is a differing of opinion will lead to personal growth and stronger relationships. As the great Harvey Mackay once wrote, “You can win more friends with your ears than with your mouth. People who feel like they’re being listened to feel accepted and appreciated. They feel like they’re being taken seriously and what they say really matters.”

These four C’s of understanding foster a path an individual can traverse if they are open to learning, willing to be challenged, and can adapt to paradigms that shift. Yet, it all starts with being well grounded in the knowledge of oneself. Character is a foundation. Curiosity is a doorway. Communication is a structure. And Connection is the confluence of all these elements that covers and crowns this journey into a meaningful experience. Being intentional in improving these four C’s in one’s daily life can help a person secure greater happiness. As the Father of the American experiment George Washington once said. “Happiness depends more upon the internal frame of a person’s own mind, than on the externals in the world.”

As a firearms educator, activist, Colorado Native, and plaintiff in Garcia v. Polis, I’m speaking out because this isn’t just bad policy—it’s a dangerous assault on the Constitution. What we are witnessing is the conversion of public health and education into enforcement arms for a political agenda: to stigmatize gun ownership, bypass due process, and target lawful citizens as if they were criminals.

Let’s be absolutely clear: this is state-funded civil rights abuse, and Colorado is the test bed.

The Red Flag Regime: Confiscation Without Conviction
Colorado’s Extreme Risk Protection Order (ERPO) law took effect in 2020 and was expanded in 2025. Under the original law, only law enforcement and family members could petition a judge to temporarily confiscate someone’s firearms. The 2025 expansion added a chilling list of new petitioners:
• Doctors and nurses
• Mental health professionals
• School administrators and educators
• District attorneys
And self red flags.

Any one of these individuals can now file a petition with the court, claiming you pose a danger to yourself or others. If a judge agrees, the court can issue a temporary ERPO (TERPO)—without your knowledge or the opportunity to defend yourself.

Here’s how it works:
1. A petitioner fills out a sworn affidavit alleging you are a danger.
2. A judge reviews it and can issue an ex parte TERPO, valid for up to 14 days.
3. You are immediately ordered to surrender your firearms, and your concealed carry permit is revoked.
4. Within 14 days, a hearing is held where you must prove you are not a threat. If the judge isn’t convinced, a final ERPO is issued for up to 364 days.

No arrest. No charges. No trial. But your rights are gone.

This directly contradicts the Supreme Court’s ruling in Caniglia v. Strom (2021), which held that concerns related to mental health in civil situations cannot be used to justify the warrantless seizure of firearms.

OGVP and Let’s Talk Guns Colorado: Public Health as Political Weapon
The Office of Gun Violence Prevention is the bureaucratic backbone of this operation. Created by HB21-1299 and funded by $3 million in taxpayer dollars, its mission is to “coordinate and promote effective strategies” for preventing firearm-related injuries and deaths.

In practice, it’s a state-run propaganda center that:
• Compiles biased and politically curated data to justify more gun restrictions
• Disseminates materials framing firearm ownership as a public health threat
• Partners with anti-gun nonprofits to normalize ERPOs and promote red-flag culture in medical settings

One of its key partners is Let’s Talk Guns Colorado (LTGC), a publicly funded campaign housed within OGVP. This group pushes ERPO materials into clinics, schools, and hospitals. It trains medical professionals to ask patients about guns, assess “risk factors,” and encourages them to petition the courts.

This is not education. This is indoctrination.

Doctors and nurses are not investigators. They are not trained in law enforcement. Yet under these policies, they are deputized to surveil, report, and trigger the removal of your firearms based on nothing more than a feeling or political bias.

This transforms healthcare into a surveillance mechanism and destroys the trust between patients and providers. Every visit becomes a potential opportunity for the state to intervene—not to help you, but to control you.

Violating Privacy, Due Process, and the 2nd Amendment
The right to keep and bear arms is not the only casualty. These red flag mechanisms violate multiple layers of constitutional protections:

Privacy
Medical red-flagging erodes the doctor-patient relationship. Patients will avoid disclosing struggles with mental health, stress, or trauma for fear that doing so will result in the loss of their firearms. This silences those who most need help and creates a culture of fear inside the healthcare system.

Due Process
You can lose your rights before you ever step foot in a courtroom. The initial hearing is held without you present. When you finally get a chance to defend yourself, the burden is on you to prove you’re not dangerous. That’s guilty until proven innocent, and it’s un-American.

2nd Amendment
As District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) affirmed, the 2nd Amendment protects an individual’s right to possess firearms for lawful purposes. McDonald v. Chicago (2010) incorporated that right against the states. Bruen (2022) made it clear that no modern regulation can stand unless it aligns with historical tradition.

There is no historical precedent for giving doctors or school staff the power to disarm citizens. None.

This Is a Blueprint for Tyranny
The ERPO expansion, OGVP, and LTGC together form a blueprint for tyranny—one that uses state funding and soft surveillance to condition the public into compliance.

They are:
• Normalizing gun seizures without trial
• Turning community professionals into state informants
• Inserting political ideology into private healthcare
• Eroding fundamental civil liberties one layer at a time

This is not about safety. If it were, the state would focus on criminals, not lawful gun owners.

This is about power—and control.

Colorado Is the Test Site—But You Are the Firewall
What happens in Colorado won’t stay in Colorado. If this system proves effective here, it will be replicated in other states.

They will take your gun rights, then your privacy, and then your parental authority. All of it under the banner of “health,” “safety,” and “prevention.”

We must stop this now.

Stand Up, Get Loud, and Fight Back
We are facing a slow, calculated assault on our freedoms—and the only thing standing between tyranny and liberty is you.

This is your call to action:

Get Involved at the State Level
Everything starts locally. Pay attention to what’s happening in your city councils, school boards, and statehouse. That’s where the infringement begins—and that’s where we fight it.
➡️Attend public hearings.
➡️ Testify against anti-gun legislation.
➡️ Call and email your representatives—they work for you.

Be Active in Your Community
Normalize gun ownership. Be the voice of reason and responsibility. Join or start community coalitions that stand up for civil liberties.
➡️ Host town halls, educational workshops, or firearm safety classes.
➡️ Get your church groups, sports teams, and neighbors talking about the truth.
➡️ Speak boldly—because silence is surrender.

Register and Vote Like Freedom Depends on It—Because It Does
If you’re not registered to vote, do it today. And don’t stop there—encourage your family, friends, and neighbors to do the same.
➡️ Vet your candidates.
➡️ Elect pro–2nd Amendment advocates who will uphold the Constitution.
➡️ Make the ballot box your defense line.

Support the Front Lines—Support The 2nd Syndicate.
If you believe in truth, transparency, and the fight for our rights—help us keep fighting. The 2nd Syndicate is on the front lines:
• Writing articles that expose unconstitutional laws
• Organizing grassroots efforts across Colorado
• Supporting lawsuits like mine, Garcia v. Polis
• Equipping citizens with the knowledge and tools to fight back

Your donation empowers our mission.
Every dollar helps us reach more people, build stronger networks, and push harder against the political machine.

Donate Now at www.2ndSyndicate.com
Stand with us—because if we don’t fight, who will?

Alicia Garcia
Plaintiff – Garcia v. Polis
Director of Public Relations & Communications, Colorado Federal Firearms Licensee Association
Board Secretary, CFFLA
Co-Founder, 2nd Syndicate

The recent disputes over curriculum have exposed the fact that schools are no longer passive educational institutions and thus are no longer neutral in their ideological stances. This is relatively unsurprising given the progressive leanings of our college system; those progressively educated college graduates are taking their ideas back to their schools and are passing along the ideology. What used to be reading, writing, and arithmetic has now been slowly transitioned into a complex framework of teaching on race, gender, and power. The progressive model necessarily subsumes the role of the parent to the educational “expert” whose curriculum is now guided by political goals and not developmental needs. Where we once curated curriculum to the student to meet them at their innocence, we now worry more about how to educate them in their “true” identity. Instead of asking if their soul is ready for weighty concepts, it is instead more important to make graphic sex books available to 5^th graders. The unfortunate outcome for far too many children is confusion and by default the constant erosion of their innocence. The frightening aspect to this curriculum is that it is instead portrayed as neutral, hidden behind benign sounding words like health, inclusivity, or the latest fad of Social and Emotional Learning.

Social and Emotional Learning (SEL) has its origins in the 1960’s and its innocuous beginnings were filled with good intent. With DEI (Diversity Equity and Inclusion) becoming increasingly unpopular, in 2019 the concept of Transformative Social and Emotional Learning co-opted the original intent of SEL and instead used SEL as a trojan horse to bring in the racial and social ideologies promulgated by critical race theory. The focus of Transformative SEL is on critically examining root causes of inequity and identity politics which sounds remarkably just like DEI and critical race theory. SEL used to mean teaching empathy, self-regulation, and emotional vocabulary but now it is a vehicle to teach inequity, critique norms, and question institutional bias. Under the auspices of soft skills, children are becoming fluent in adult ideologies but strangers to their own innocence. SEL is not just asking kids to reflect, it is asking them to redefine.

It is not just the girls that are collateral in this gender warfare, boys are just as susceptible to the emotional and spiritual confusion brought about by these ideas. Boys are now asked, and taught, to question their masculinity and patriarchy before they even have a chance to understand it. They are taught that strength is oppressive and that their leadership is dangerous. This is not the formation of virtue but rather the systemic fragmentation of identity. Early exposure to sexualized content is damaging to both boys and girls. And our schools are demanding they be allowed to keep that content available, whether it is in the form of curriculum, books, after school activities, or special events. This is not just exposure, it is a spiritual and emotional violation that parents are told to either ignore or stay out of thus forcing their participation in this moral confusion.

This is far deeper than a culture war. This is not just political action or minor differences of opinion on how to teach children. We can no longer outsource the moral teaching of our children to the public school system in the ignorant hopes that the schools will remain neutral. As parents, we must demand accountability and transparency and not just wait for some other parent to do so. Parents must take control of the school boards, run for school board, organize parental audits, volunteer in the classroom, get to know the teachers and your children’s friends’ parents, and scrutinize reading lists and lesson plans. The time for passive actions and silent battles has long passed us by. This goes far deeper than political action and instead demands that each parent be accountable for the moral stewardship of their child’s future. Our children should never have been dragged into a culture war, but now that they are, it is the front line that parents from all sides of the political aisle should come together and circle around our wagons. Children are now being used as chess pieces in a progressive game where no one wins, and innocence is lost. A child’s innocence does not last forever, it is rare and pure, and it should be protected for as long as it can be, not sacrificed ruthlessly for an ideological gain.

Doctors and nurses fail to inform parents of vaccine risks by design because of a financial compensation system awarded by insurance networks only if the majority of the patients in the clinic are vaccinated. True informed consent would include potential benefits, known adverse reactions including disability and death, lack of liability for the doctor and manufacturer, options to test natural immunity in lieu of vaccination, and rights to vaccine exemptions.

From “Vaccine Sales Pitches: What Your Doctor Won’t Tell You:”

“Doctors are financially conflicted under this ‘performance recognition program’ [up to $400 per child] to coerce vaccine uptake. Any parent who communicates a choice to delay or refuse a vaccine can expect the doctor to label the parent as ‘difficult,’ and in some cases the doctor will dismiss the family from the practice. Parents are pushing back on the vaccine schedule with 76 doses of 18 vaccines by age 18, compared to 11 doses in 1986.

Doctors often provide a Vaccine Information Sheet (VIS) with each vaccine, which list pain and mild swelling at the injection site as the only possible adverse reaction. Lacking full transparency, parents are not informed of the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP) which was designed to address vaccine disability and death in a quasi-judicial government process where records are commonly sealed from the public and compensations are rare. Doctors also do not inform patients that vaccines have been shielded from liability since 1986, and disability from adverse reaction is completely the risk of the patient to include medical expenses, loss of employment, and loss of quality of life. This risk should be part of the cost-benefit discussion for illnesses which are extremely rare and non-fatal in the first world in 2025.”

2: Violations of Religious Rights in Daycare/School/College/Employment

In recent years, schools and employers have attempted to ignore people’s religious exemption rights in the U.S. Constitution and instead imposed illegal religious scrutiny tests which are prohibited in the Religious Freedom Restoration Act

Regarding school exemption rights, from “Who Can You Trust? How Schools and Employers Violate Exemption Rights:”

“As of 2024, parents report that various schools and programs claim that they do not accept ‘non-medical exemptions.’ My advice to these parents is to know their exemption rights, and to not rely on administrators to inform them correctly. If a school is following state vaccine statute, then the school must also follow state exemption statute. Colorado Revised Statute 25-4-902 contains the immunization recommendations and Colorado Revised Statute 25-4-903 contains the vaccine exemption rights.”

Regarding college and employment exemption rights, from “Who Can You Trust? How Schools and Employers Violate Exemption Rights:”

“The pandemic expanded vaccine ‘mandates’ beyond students and healthcare workers to all employment sectors. It took years in the judicial process, but courts have ruled that denial of religious exemptions is discrimination as reported by KDVR in May 2024, ‘US appeals court rejects CU’s vaccine mandate, cites ‘religious animus:’

A U.S. Court of Appeals ruled on May 7 that the University of Colorado Anschutz School of Medicine‘s COVID-19 vaccination mandate and refusal to include a religious exemption were unconstitutional under the First Amendment, according to court documents. According to the opinion written by 10th Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Allison Eid, ‘A government employer may not punish some employees, but not others, for the same activity, due only to differences in the employee’s religious beliefs.’

Invoking public health and safety, CU implemented a hostile religious scrutiny test, asked applicants about previous vaccines, and set a requirement that the religion must forbid all vaccines for all adherents in all circumstances, and then rejected exemptions which did not meet their religious scrutiny. CU also invented a revised discriminatory religious exemption process which denied all students and yet allowed some employees to work remotely. CDPHE was complicit because CDPHE failed to direct CU (and other employers) to the statutory process for religious exemptions.”

Additionally, schools with school-based health clinics are in a posture to violate parental rights. These school-based health centers work in private partnerships with Melinda Gates and Planned Parenthood to promote vaccines, abortions, transgender ideology. Schools are also operating parent portals which routinely share student medical records and vaccine records with the entire district staff and should limit access to student medical records to the school nursing office in accordance with privacy laws.

3: Violations of Consumer Protections at Hospitals & Pharmacies

Hospitals and pharmacies have adopted predatory sales tactics for profit too. Every fall, the local pharmacy at your grocery store will offer customers eight vaccines: COVID, Pneumonia, Shingles, Diphtheria, Tetanus, Pertussis, RSV, and Influenza. In “Are We Protecting Grandma?,” I reported the low efficacy and serious adverse reactions associated with these vaccines. In “Are Vaccines Marketed to Senior Adults Safe and Effective?,” I reported how public health is incentivized to market these vaccines to seniors while the evidence indicates that the COVID vaccines do not prevent death or hospitalization, and the influenza vaccine actually increases risk of infection to other respiratory viruses by 65%. Why does public health refuse to promote Vitamin D for all ages during October through March which is the key susceptibility for respiratory virus infection? Vitamin D is not profitable like vaccines.

Hospitals include an intentionally vague word of “biologics” on their consent forms, and there have been documented cases of doctors vaccinating patients while under sedation because the patient unknowingly consented to “biologics.” When people request to cross out this word on consent forms, hospital staff often tell patients that they do not have a way to print out the form and coerce the patient to sign the electronic form as-is on a screen. Furthermore, hospitals offer every incoming person to the Emergency Room a DTaP or TDaP vaccine, regardless of situation, while only in extremely rare situations would a patient have a non-bleeding puncture wound with animal feces contaminated with infected bacteria. The screening is presented as “Are you up to date on your DTaP or TDaP vaccine?” without any explanation of what the risks for diphtheria and tetanus are and without explanation that the vaccine requires weeks to provide any potential benefit. Often this vaccine is offered as just a “tetanus” vaccine, without explanation that it is actually a Tetanus, Diphtheria, Pertussis combination vaccine.

4: Violations of Medical Ethics at Doctor’s Offices

In Colorado, numerous minor consent laws passed under Gov. Polis’ two terms allow children at the age of 12 to consent for contraceptives, abortion, STD testing and treatment, HIV and cervical cancer screening, substance abuse treatment, mental health services, and psychotherapy. In these areas of minor consent, providers are not required to notify parents of treatment or medications prescribed, and parents need the approval of the minor to access medical records. These laws assume that a 12-year-old child can manage his/her own healthcare. Doctors of 12-year-old children often tell parents that they cannot enter the exam room anymore. In actuality, the child can opt to have his/her parents in any medical appointment, just like any adult can choose to include a patient advocate.

In “The $1 Million Cost Per Person for Gender Transition,” I reported on the predatory profit over the lifespan for each experimental transgender operation, while imposing a burden of lifelong medical dependency to mitigate permanent adverse effects. I concluded:

“Minor consent for experimental and pharmaceutical medical treatment is irresponsible and unethical. It violates the principles of informed consent by giving treatment to a child who does not have the cognitive competence to understand risks, and it omits screening for the medical history that only a parent or guardian would be able to provide. Parents are advised to setup notifications with their health insurance companies for newly prescribed drugs for their children, and to discuss this issue with administrators at their schools who may not be aware of the recent changes to minor consent. Ultimately, families assume all of the risks and costs of these treatments.”

5: Privacy Violations in CIIS Database for Intended Coercion

In “Medical Surveillance From Womb to Tomb: Colorado Immunization Information System (CIIS),” I explained my pharmaceutical industry capture concerns with CIIS: an opt-out system instead of an opt-in system; failures in security audits; inaccuracy costing taxpayers millions of dollars annually with no evidence of public health benefit;  shares personal health data for profit; never uses functions for highly reactive vaccine notifications for public safety; uses data for coercive reminder-recall-home visit operations; uses data to target populations for vaccine uptake including low income families and pregnant women; and operates with goals for a 2030 federal vaccine tracking database connected to RealID. I encourage parents to opt-out of this tracking system, as well as school mental health surveys.

6: The Fraud in School Mental Health Surveys

In “School Mental Health Surveys Are A Tool for Expanding Pharmaceutical Drugs to Students,” I detailed the questions included in these surveys to measure alleged “symptoms.” I explained why parents should opt-out of all mental health surveys at schools, including IMatter and Health Kids Colorado Survey. These surveys are data-mining students for highly sensitive and self-incriminating information which could have life-long repercussions. This information is designed to be collected by third parties (people who are not mental health professionals) for referrals for counseling, SSRI drugs, and gender dysphoria counseling. These surveys and alleged school mental health assessments are not actually evidence-based instruments used to diagnose mental health disorders per the DSM. Instead, the BIMAS or Behavior Intervention Monitoring Assessment System is Social Emotional Learning (SEL) compliance monitoring tool.

Furthermore, the survey data collected for the state could result in restrictions in future gun ownership for the respondents. In “How the New Office of Gun Control Shall Infringe on the Second Amendment,” I explain how CDPHE collects the school survey data in the Office of Gun Violence Prevention:

“The office’s surveillance and survey data systems are already controversial: Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS), Healthy Kids Colorado Survey, and Colorado Healthy Schools Smart Source. This is an indicator that gun ownership will become a public health priority (not a public safety priority) and will be tied to mental health. Any person indicating any level of mental health symptoms in a survey is potentially “at risk” of engaging in gun violence. These surveys are designed to data mine and profile minors, which could result in a lifelong label which later disqualifies a person from gun ownership. For example, I completed the IMatter school mental health assessment in the controversial HB23-1003, and my score of 1 from reporting using CBD oil once in the past year resulted in a “medium risk for substance abuse problems” and a recommendation for six sessions counseling without parental consent. I can only conclude that these non-evidence-based mental health surveys are not intended to ‘help’ students but to ‘flag’ students. Parents need to opt-out their students from these surveys administered by third party data collectors acting without transparency with parents and educate their children on their right to not self-incriminate on drug and alcohol use.”

7: The Risks of Health Data Trackers

Children’s Health Defense responded in opposition to HHS Secretary Kennedy’s broadly stated support for wearable health data trackers in “‘Every American Wearing a Wearable’ Is Not a Vision We Share.” There are both health risks and privacy risks.

“Wireless technologies, including wearables, have clear and well-documented harms. These devices continuously emit radiofrequency (RF) radiation in direct contact with the body for long periods of time. They also have multiple transmitters/receivers (Bluetooth, Wi-Fi and cellular), operating on several different radio bands. Cumulative and long-term exposures have known significant risks. RF radiation exposure is associated with a wide range of adverse health effects, including ‘increased cancer risk, cellular stress, increase in harmful free radicals, genetic damages, structural and functional changes of the reproductive system, learning and memory deficits, neurological disorders, and negative impacts on general well-being.’”

“Wireless technologies also have extensive and well-documented privacy impacts. They continuously collect biometric data, including heart rate, quality of sleep, blood pressure, cholesterol levels, oxygen levels, calorie burn, sweat gland emissions, hormone levels, body temperature, emotional responses, movement, and precise geolocation. This biometric data is transmitted over the internet and can be used to create an intimate profile of the user’s physical and psychological states. This intimate profile can be made available to employers, medical providers, private corporations, artificial intelligence systems, insurance companies, and government entities. This surveillance infrastructure may lay the groundwork for psychological targeting, predictive modeling, social control, and unprecedented intrusions into personal freedom.”

8: Corruption in Family Court and “Parent Evaluators”

Parents in the process of a contentious divorce or with allegations of abuse are led to believe by the court that they must hire a “parent evaluator” to assess the health and safety of the children. There are no certification requirements for “parent evaluators” and there have been at least two cases of complete frauds in Colorado resulting in class action suits. As Colorado Politics reported, these evaluators are unqualified with fake credentials, unfit with abuse in their records, and often biased in favor of child abusers.  Responsible parents have lost custody based on the recommendations of these “parent evaluator” frauds who can charge up to $10,000.

9: Fluoride is Neurotoxic

In 2024, federal court decided that water fluoridation is neurotoxic and lowers IQ, with fluoride being especially harmful to pregnant women and young children. The American Dental Association and American Fluoridation Society continue to defend the use of fluoride. The EPA plans to spend six more years to review the issue, and recently decided to appeal the fluoride court decision.  The court decision as summarized by Fluoride Action Network:

“The issue before this Court is whether the Plaintiffs have established by a preponderance of the evidence that the fluoridation of drinking water at levels typical in the United States poses an unreasonable risk of injury to health of the public within the meaning of Amended TSCA. For the reasons set forth below, the Court so finds. Specifically, the Court finds that fluoridation of water at 0.7 milligrams per liter (‘mg/L’) – the level presently considered ‘optimal’ in the United States – poses an unreasonable risk of reduced IQ in children…the Court finds there is an unreasonable risk of such injury, a risk sufficient to require the EPA to engage with a regulatory response…One thing the EPA cannot do, however, in the face of this Court’s finding, is to ignore that risk.”

10: Predatory Organ Donation Risks

Organ transplants are highly profitable surgeries. If people are designated organ donors, could it influence the quality of life saving care that they receive at a hospital? What if a doctor decided that organs were more profitable than saving a life? “How organ donations broke records even during the pandemic” makes a person wonder how organ donors increased 18% in 2021 from 2020. During this time ventilators were widely used despite resulting high death rates, and in many cases the families of the deceased were not allowed to enter hospitals, see the body, or hold a funeral. Given these circumstances, it might be prudent for a family to designate organ donation only after a family member is deceased

It is fascinating to dream and ponder the possibilities of far-off stars. I too ponder the mysteries of the universe by dreaming about what is beyond here and now. Yet, it is in day-to-day life that I find my full potential and the real opportunities of what is possible. Pondering a possible outcome is potent, yet it is in action that helps us achieve it.

I remember when I was a kid there was a cartoon with a character that had an angel on one shoulder and a demon on the other. They would fight for control over the main character’s attention. Life can be like this with dreams getting overcome by the practical things we need to do daily.

My observations and reason guide me toward opportunities that, with hard work and the use of my mind, benefit me. It takes self-mastery, moral courage, and the practice of virtues to stay grounded. There are many diversions that can divide our attention and get us off track. Vices can be like a magnet pulling on our being. It takes a strong will and tedious work to overcome those animal appetites that deviate our good intentions.

I find daily routines move me in a positive direction. I wake up early in the morning and recite positive phrases and have thoughts of success that prepare me for the day. I read a page or two of something that will inspire or inform me. I will often write down my own reactions to what I have read. It can be a paragraph or a page, but I challenge myself to write. I stretch and breathe deeply before I go to the gym to help strengthen my body as well as my mind. These are a few habits that I attempt to do daily.

By doing this routine I have found it helps me meet the challenges of my day. I am no superhuman being. I have realized over time that if I complete these daily tasks, I tend to have a more successful day. I try to make the most of every minute because I realize time is limited and I want to invest it wisely. I do a lot of self-talk and give myself a small reward for meeting my goals. It is not always easy, and sometimes I miss the mark. Yet, I know if I do my best that day, I can get closer to the destination I set for myself.

I also find being a member of a club or service organization and interacting with people helps build my skills and fulfills a need to listen, learn, and laugh with others. These groups I belong to align with my values and enhance life by rewarding me with immense satisfaction. I have observed that too many people have a void in their lives by not belonging to a meaningful group or organization. There are so many ways to get involved and find a charity or a cause that can provide countless opportunities for making a difference in your life and the lives of those you can impact.

I know there are struggles people face. I empathize with those who have challenges and struggle with many of these debilitating situations that life puts in one’s way. I am grateful I have found a way I can address overcoming obstacles by doing these few routines and being involved in group activities to help me be and do my best.

Dreaming and looking ahead is part of human experience. It needs to be encouraged and cultivated. However, I have found it is the luminous little daily activities that have helped me get to my own accomplishments. Yes, look up at the wonders of our universe, just be careful where you step.

On Independence Day, July 4 at 5:00 PM Eastern, President Donald J. Trump signed the bill into law. Symbolically, it is perfect timing. Constitutionally, it is long overdue.

But let’s be honest: while this bill is a win—it is not the win we needed. And it is time our elected representatives, especially those on the right, stop treating partial relief like full-blown victory.

What Changed

Beginning January 1, 2026, the tax stamp fee required under the National Firearms Act will be reduced from $200 to $0. That applies to suppressors, SBRs, SBSs, and AOWs.

For many Americans—especially blue-collar families and newer gun owners—this change finally opens the door to lawful NFA ownership without being priced out of owning a firearm. It removes a financial barrier that’s existed since 1934.

It is a significant step. But it is not the finish line.

What Didn’t Change

While the $200 tax is gone, the entire NFA process remains. Gun owners must still submit fingerprints, photos, background checks, detailed paperwork, and wait months for ATF approval—all for items that should never have been regulated in the first place.

You are still entered into a federal registry. You are still seeking permission to exercise a constitutional right. That’s not freedom—it’s a slightly cheaper version of the same infringement.

Meanwhile, states like California, New York,  and Colorado continue to layer their own restrictions on top of the federal rules. The bill did not address that either.

Why the Real Reform Was Blocked

There was real momentum behind removing suppressors and SBRs from the NFA entirely. The votes were there. The language was drafted. The people were ready.

But the Senate Parliamentarian ruled that delisting NFA items was not a budget issue—and therefore could not be included in the reconciliation bill. That decision shut down the core of what needed to happen.

Democrats, when they face roadblocks, change the rules. They have eliminated the filibuster for judicial appointments, invoked the nuclear option for legislation, and rewritten precedent to move their agenda forward.

Republicans, in this case, respected the rules. They chose not to challenge the Parliamentarian. And while that may reflect principle, it also shows a reluctance to fight as hard as their opposition does.

You don’t go hog hunting with a pocketknife and a prayer. If the other side’s out there with dogs and rifles, you had better be bringing more than good intentions—because they are not out to play fair.

This was our moment to gut the NFA. We settled for trimming around the edges.

To Our Republican Leadership

To those who helped push this bill through thank you. But to the rest—those who stood on the sidelines or played it safe—know this:

The Second Amendment is not a slogan or a fundraising tool. It is a line in the sand.

Our base does not want lip service. We want action. If the other side is willing to break norms to take away rights, then our side needs to be just as bold in defending them.

No more excuses. No more calculated hesitation.

What I See on the Ground

At my shop, Spartan Defense, we work every day with customers navigating the NFA process—people who want to follow the law but are constantly met with red tape, wait times, and confusing rules. I have seen how these barriers discourage lawful ownership of firearms and complicate even the most basic purchases.

This change will help. But helping is not the same as fixing. The core issue—the registry, the approvals, the classification of suppressors and short barrels as “special” items—still remains.

Where We Go From Here

The momentum can’t stop now. We must:

1. Remove suppressors, SBRs, and AOWs from the NFA registry completely
2. Modernize ATF systems to eliminate excessive processing times
3. Introduce federal preemption to block states from backdoor bans on our constitutional rights
4. Support candidates who act, not just campaign

Final Thoughts

This bill proves one thing clearly: pressure works. When the firearms community stands up and speaks with one voice, things move.

But it also proves that if we settle for small wins, that is all we will ever get.

We have cracked the surface of the NFA—but the core of it still stands. Until there is no tax, no registry, no permission slips for lawful ownership, the fight is not over.

This Fourth of July, I will be celebrating like everyone else—but I will also be watching the road ahead.

Because true liberty does not come from legislation. It comes from the people who refuse to stop demanding it.

Our founders labored incessantly over the proper role of the federal government and in turn, what matters were best left to the states. The instinct to act swiftly on this issue is understandable because who else should be protected more than our children, especially when the consequences are so permanent? The emotional pull and moral urgency justifiably drive calls for national legislation. As freethinkers, we owe it to posterity to ask ourselves harder political questions such as, is this a wise course of action? If we pass this law now, what would prevent a future Congress from overturning it when the political pendulum swings? Progressives have long appealed to morality to justify federal overreach. Would they not use the same tools to push their agenda later? For decades, state authority has been eroded under the weight of federal bureaucracy and so-called expertise. With the current Court showing a willingness to restore power to the states, should we really rush to entrench federal authority further? Even the most well-intentioned legislation, especially on issues we care deeply about, may set a precedent that others will exploit in radically different ways. Which then begs the question: does federal law shape a state’s culture, or is that cultural fight best left to each state to work through on its own?

There is a common hope that if we pass the right legislation, culture will follow. But is that hope misplaced? Does it bypass the hard and necessary work of shaping culture through persuasive conversation, lived example, and local leadership? The appeal of federal action lies in its speed. It feels like a shortcut to victory but often shortcuts skip over the very ground that needs to be won. Kansas provides a recent and sobering example. After the Dobbs decision, Kansas was in a prime position for its pro-life laws to take effect and protect the unborn. Instead, the state’s voters passed a constitutional amendment locking abortion access permanently into law. That same reaction could easily take hold in blue states if Congress tries to outlaw gender transition procedures for minors nationwide. Places like Colorado may double down, passing state laws that entrench those very practices in response. National legislation regularly can harden opposition instead of softening hearts. When Obamacare passed, did it change conservative minds about government-run health care? Or did it deepen the divide? Cultural change does not happen at the stroke of a fancy pen. Rather it requires persuasion, not pressure. That leads to the next question: what are the electoral consequences of pushing policy ahead of persuasion?

Abortion has been the millstone that Democrats have hung around the neck of every Republican candidate for decades. Even those running for mayor or state representative (offices with little or no influence on abortion) have found themselves grilled on the issue. How many school board, city council, and state house races have been lost because a candidate fumbled the question? Democrats have mastered the tactic of painting opponents as either heartless or clueless, and Republican candidates have often played right into it. Then came Dobbs and for the first time in years, federal candidates were gifted an exit ramp. They could rightly say abortion was a state issue and redirect the conversation. So why would we now hand that advantage back? Republicans already struggle to communicate their compassion, often defaulting to logic over emotional connection. Many have yet to show the rhetorical skill to handle nuanced morality questions without stepping into a trap. Even with polling on our side when it comes to gender procedures for minors, why would we risk handing Democrats another line of attack? Federal legislation would put every congressional candidate back in the crosshairs, especially in blue states like Colorado where the margins are already razor thin. We should ask ourselves whether that fight is worth losing the winnable races that help us shape the broader culture in the first place.

The desire to act is noble and the instinct to protect children is right. But as with any major policy question, we must weigh principle, culture, and strategy together, especially in a time where the American people are so unengaged with the founding principles. Just because we can pass a national law does not mean we should. Cultural change is not imposed but rather cultivated. If we overreach too quickly, we risk sparking backlash, losing political ground, and hardening the very opposition we hope to persuade. The Supreme Court has opened the door for states to lead in a way that conservatives should celebrate. It is an invitation to do the harder work of shaping culture at the local level, where trust can be built and change can last. As Republicans, it is important to note that we also believe in change beginning locally. Protecting the future generations of our country is an important issue, perhaps the most important. It is so important that we must look at this through the eyes of a founder, analyzing where and how the government should play a role. If we want a future where children are protected and truth is honored, we must fight the right battles, in the right places, at the right time. That is not weakness or cowardice to act but rather it shows that we are capable of thinking beyond the present and are willing to fight for posterity.

Colorado: Recommended, Required, and Exemptions for Vaccines

The following vaccines are “recommended,” which means optional, and no exemption is required: COVID-19, Dengue, Hepatitis A, HPV, Influenza, MPox, Pneumococcal, RSV, Rota virus, and Meningococcal. The following vaccines are “required,” which means an immunization record, exemption certificate or exemption education module, or proof of immunity (titers blood test) is required for schools and daycares: Hepatitis B, Diphtheria/Tetanus/Pertussis (DTaP or TDaP), Haemophilus Influenzae (Hib),  Pneumococcal, Polio, Measles/Mumps/Rubella (MMR), and Varicella.

For exemptions, Colorado has a medical exemption certificate, and a “non-medical” exemption certificate, which in 2020 legislation replaced the religious and philosophical exemptions, established in 1978. Doctors refuse to sign either of these forms, because it puts their quotas for vaccine sales at risk. Doctors lose significant compensation for every patient who is not fully vaccinated with every “required” vaccine. Most parents who choose to exercise their exemption rights complete a vaccine education module option, which omits all serious adverse injury, disability, and death data.

In one Blue Cross Blue Shield example cited by Children’s Health Defense, pediatricians are incentivized with bonuses for vaccinating a high percentage of children:

“For vaccination, providers receive $400 for each eligible two-year-old who has received all 24-25 vaccines [per the CDC schedule], but only if the provider manages to administer each and every shot to at least 63% of his or her patients. Thus, there is a formidable incentive not to let any patients slip through the cracks.”

Doctors are financially conflicted under this “performance recognition program” to coerce vaccine uptake. Any parent who communicates a choice to delay or refuse a vaccine can expect the doctor to label the parent as “difficult,” and in some cases the doctor will dismiss the family from the practice. Parents are pushing back on the vaccine schedule with 76 doses of 18 vaccines by age 18, compared to 11 doses in 1986.

Doctors often provide a Vaccine Information Sheet (VIS) with each vaccine, which list pain and mild swelling at the injection site as the only possible adverse reaction. Lacking full transparency, parents are not informed of the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP) which was designed to address vaccine disability and death in a quasi-judicial government process where records are commonly sealed from the public and compensations are rare. Doctors also do not inform patients that vaccines have been shielded from liability since 1986, and disability from adverse reaction is completely the risk of the patient to include medical expenses, loss of employment, and loss of quality of life. This risk should be part of the cost-benefit discussion for illnesses which are extremely rare and non-fatal in the first world in 2025.

CDPHE has set up vaccinated student population goals of 95% for each school, with school-shaming reporting requirements for schools which fall below this goal. CDPHE is also under financial incentives to promote this 95% vaccinated criteria. Historically, herd immunity was based on 60% of populations having naturally acquired immunity. Sixty percent natural immunity was the threshold which protected the elderly and infants. Ninety-five percent vaccinated is a criterion based on financial incentives for federal grants to CDPHE.

On June 9, 2025, Secretary Kennedy tweeted, “Our entire healthcare system runs on a bundle of perverse incentives.”

Secretary of HHS retires all ACIP Committee Members

On June 9, 2025, HHS Secretary Kennedy removed all seventeen members of the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP). As reported by The Defender:

“The committee decides which vaccines should be recommended to the public, who should take them and how often — recommendations the CDC typically rubber stamps. However, most members have financial ties to pharmaceutical companies marketing vaccines or have worked with public health agencies to promote controversial vaccines, including the COVID-19, RSV and HPV shots. These problems have plagued the committee for decades. A 2000 investigation by the U.S. House of Representatives found that enforcement of conflict-of-interest rules was ‘weak-to-nonexistent.’ A 2009 HHS inspector-general report made similar findings, Kennedy wrote. Investigations by The Defender in 2021 and 2024 also found that most committee members had direct ties to pharmaceutical companies. Kennedy wrote that the committee has ‘never recommended against a vaccine — even those later withdrawn for safety reasons.’ He said the committee has failed to ‘adequately scrutinize’ vaccines for babies and pregnant women.”

Kennedy has replaced 8 of the 17 ACIP members, to include scientists, public health experts, and physicians. Kennedy has also been very vocal that none of the current required vaccines have been tested against a true saline placebo in the licensure approval process. The lack of saline placebo controls potentially hides adverse reactions and side effects in clinical trials. On June 10, 2025, Kennedy tweeted. “No one can scientifically ascertain whether these products are averting more problems than they are causing.” In an interview, Kennedy alluded to his concern that the unknown risk profiles of vaccines might be contributing to autoimmune diseases.

How did Colorado preemptively respond to Kennedy’s signaled removal of the heavily conflicted ACIP members? Colorado passed CO HB 25-1027 which included a change from following vaccine recommendations of ACIP to following recommendations of the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP), American College of Obstetrics and Gynecologists (ACOG), and American College of Physicians (ACP). These organizations also incentivize vaccine uptake for the providers under their accreditations, and they are under industry capture with board members who have conflicts of interests.

Conclusion

Consumers must use neutral sources to make vaccine decisions and not rely on vaccine salesmen. The National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC) provides fact-based information on each vaccine, and the risk prevalence of each disease. The current immunization program is operating under a system of coercion rather than voluntary informed consent, as well as health agency corruption rather than gold-standard, placebo-controlled science.

But for law-abiding gun owners in Colorado and at least 17+ other states, that “win” could turn into a catastrophic loss of rights unless Congress adds a crucial piece of language: Section 3 of the Hearing Protection Act (HPA).

This is not a minor technicality. Without Section 3—and without federal preemption—millions of Americans will lose legal access to suppressors the second this bill becomes law.

The Legal Trap in Colorado

Under current Colorado law (CRS 18-12-102), suppressors are classified as “dangerous weapons.” Their possession is only legal when the individual has a “valid permit and license.” For decades, the federal NFA tax stamp has been interpreted as fulfilling that requirement, effectively serving as Colorado’s proxy for lawful suppressor ownership.

If the Big Beautiful Bill strips away the NFA registration and tax stamp process but does not replace it with a new legally recognized mechanism, then Colorado gun owners will suddenly find themselves without any legal path to buy or possess suppressors—despite federal deregulation.

That is not just ironic. It is devastating.

The result? What was intended as a pro-gun reform would instead criminalize the very people it was meant to protect in states like Colorado, Connecticut, Washington, Michigan, Georgia, and more.

The Solution: Section 3 of the Hearing Protection Act

Thankfully, there is a fix—but it must be included in the final bill.

Section 3 of the Hearing Protection Act ensures that any individual who purchases a suppressor using a standard background check through ATF Form 4473 will be considered in compliance with any state or local licensing or registration law that used to rely on the NFA.

In other words, it legally replaces the tax stamp with the same background check already used for standard firearms. This provision creates a bridge for suppressor ownership to remain legal in restrictive states like Colorado.

Let us be clear: The 2nd Syndicate does not endorse or favor the Form 4473 system. We have long held concerns about government overreach, centralized data collection, and the misuse of firearm transaction records. However, under current law in states like Colorado, the 4473 is the only available federal mechanism that can substitute for the NFA tax stamp and preserve lawful ownership.

It is a means to an end—not a permanent solution—but the only one available to ensure Coloradans are not disarmed by default.

Without it, the moment the NFA tax stamp disappears, so does the only recognized legal justification for ownership in these jurisdictions. That means no new purchases, no transfers, no possession—no rights.

Federal Preemption: Stopping the States from Rebuilding the NFA

Section 3 is the minimum necessary for suppressor deregulation to work in Colorado. But to truly safeguard against future abuse, federal preemption must also be included.

That is where Section 4 of the HPA comes in. This section prohibits states from imposing their own suppressor-specific taxes, registration schemes, or licensing requirements—ensuring that once the federal burden is lifted, states cannot just build their own version of the NFA in its place.

Colorado is already trending in that direction. Just this year, SB25-003 advanced sweeping state-level gun control that would require FFLs and instructors to obtain new licenses and undergo government-approved training. If suppressors are removed from federal oversight without preemption, anti-gun legislators will seize the opportunity to regulate them harder than ever at the state level.

Federal preemption would stop that cold.

The Truth About Suppressors

Suppressors are not sinister tools from spy movies—they are safety equipment.

• Suppressors reduce the sound of gunfire to hearing-safe levels, typically around 130 decibels. That is still loud—louder than a jackhammer—but much safer than the 160+ decibels of an unsuppressed firearm.
• Suppressors are legal in over forty states and used widely for hunting, sport shooting, and personal protection. They do not “silence” a firearm. They simply mitigate the explosive noise that damages hearing and disturbs communities.
• Adding a suppressor to a rifle often increases its length by 6 to 12 inches and adds significant weight to the muzzle. For smaller statured individuals, youth, and disabled shooters, suppressors can make shooting more challenging—not easier—without properly fitted firearms or shorter platforms.

Suppressors make firearms safer and more accessible—not more dangerous. Removing the regulatory burden is long overdue. But it must be done correctly, or the consequences will be worse than the status quo.

A Warning to Colorado Gun Owners: This Bill Could Backfire

If Congress passes the Big Beautiful Bill without Section 3 or preemption, it will strip Colorado gun owners of their ability to buy, own, or transfer suppressors—period.

This is not theoretical. This is current law.

This outcome is not just bad policy—it is a betrayal of the Second Amendment community that worked to make this bill a reality in the first place.

A Call to Action for Colorado Republicans and Gun Owners

We urge every citizen of Colorado who values the right to own suppressors to immediately contact the following leaders:

• Senator Mike Crapo (Ranking Member, Senate Finance Committee)
• House Speaker Mike Johnson
• Senator John Barrasso
• Chairman Andy Harris, M.D. (House Freedom Caucus)
• Your local U.S. Representative and Senator

Tell them:

“Fix the bill before it breaks Colorado. Include Section 3 of the HPA and federal preemption. Do not legalize suppressors for some and criminalize them for others.”

This is not about compromise, it is about completing the mission.

In Closing

The 2nd Syndicate and the Colorado Federal Firearms Licensee Association (CFFLA) stand united in our support for full suppressor deregulation done right. The only path forward is through the inclusion of Section 3 and strong federal preemption language—provisions that ensure all Americans, including those in states like Colorado, are truly protected.

We encourage Congress to strengthen the Big Beautiful Bill by adopting the complete language of the Hearing Protection Act and the SHORT Act. These proven, well-crafted provisions will not only modernize federal firearms law but will also close dangerous state-level loopholes that would otherwise leave millions behind.

Let us get this right. Let us protect all gun owners. Let us finish the job.

Stay informed by visiting The2ndSyndicate.com and following us on X, YouTube, and Rumble. This article may be republished with credit to The 2nd Syndicate.

I have been to hundreds of concerts and seen, heard, and experienced my musical favorites live. I have worked as a roadie in a country band and was lucky to be backstage and have personally met many artists. They all have one thing in common no matter what the musical genre. Their music all started with an idea. It may have started with a chord or a hook, but there was an idea ready to catch fire.

A great song may get you to download a complete album. A great album may get you to buy a concert ticket to hear the music live. A great performance may make you a lifetime fan of the artist. It is the emotional connection of that idea that the fan is buying and how this makes them feel through the music.

This is true in sales, a purchase we make or an idea we embrace. All sales start at the heart which leads to the head. Emotional connection is a powerful driver of our habits and success. Music is thought of as being universal and, like an idea, it can spread from person to person. Think about a song you heard in high school that you liked. You shared it with a friend and may have said, “Hey you have to listen to this song, it’s great.” And they did. This friend tells their friend, who tells another, and now you have some momentum in launching that song into a hit for that artist.

Word of mouth exposure is the most effective way to get others to buy into your point of view. Think about a movie you like or a book you read or a restaurant where you enjoyed a meal and told friends and family. Your recommendation can have a huge impact on others if they trust you and you have credibility. Think what could happen if you were to treat the idea of freedom as you would when you have a cultural or culinary experience. The WOW factor could be infectious. What if you took some time to talk, write, and discuss how freedom, like music, makes your life better?

I have talked to many younger people who do not understand the idea of freedom. They do not see how people have had to fight for it to preserve it. They take it for granted. Freedom has not been the normal progression throughout history. The natural order of things, especially in a political sense, has been dominated by kings, chiefs, clans, tribes, religious theocracies, or central power brokers who rule through fear and force.

It has only been in this one exceptional place that people have been free to rule their own lives and property because of the rule of law. From Jerusalem to Athens to the Angolshpere, the manifestation of freedom, capitalism, free markets, property, and individual rights have been fused together and coalesced through the American experiment.

There is an adage which states that four strangers who fight a lion will die, but four friends who fight a lion will win. It is time to find or create groups capable of mutually supporting one another to plan together, write together, speak to others, and become activists for freedom by writing, telling, and sharing your story of freedom with family, friends, grandchildren, and acquaintances. This can be a catalyst for others to share their freedom story as something we should be talking about and how it allows for human flourishing.

When you sit around a campfire you often tell stories and sing songs with friends and family. A campfire must be stoked occasionally for the embers to flare and the heat to warm those around it. Music, like the idea of freedom, can strike a chord if properly nurtured. The great Duane Allman who formed the Allman Brother Band once said, “There’s a lot of different forms of communication, but music is absolutely the purest one.” Freedom makes it all possible.