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.