Kim Monson Featured Articles

What Is a Fascist?

The ubiquity and frequency of the word fascism have grown significantly in recent years to the point that it is now used as a weapon as opposed to a philosophical argument. Declaring that another is a fascist is a way to discredit the accused fascist and silence debate about the topic at hand. For most, this logical fallacy was obvious and showed that true intellectual dialogue could not be continued, however that all changed on September 10th of this year when the accusation of a fascist led to the assassination of Charlie Kirk. Since the declaration of fascism now gives the power and authority to murder in cold blood or physically harm others, it is long past due to look at where the word comes from and what it means to be a fascist. Words are necessary for our society to exist and if we are going to accuse others of the heinous crime of being a fascist, we should all be on the same page of where fascism came from and who actually is a fascist in our country. 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.

Principles over Party

Two shoe salesmen were sent to a new territory to assess its market potential and report back to their company. The first salesman reported back, “There is no potential, nobody wears shoes here.” The second salesman reported back, “There is unbelievable potential, nobody wears shoes here.” This story is a concise example of a situation that may be viewed both as an obstacle or an opportunity. 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.”

Health and Human Services Changes Vaccine Recommendations in 2025

In 2025, Health and Human Services (HHS) has implemented changes in vaccine recommendations for the COVID vaccines, the MMRV combination vaccine, and potentially the Hepatitis B vaccine. The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) has aligned with Big Pharma to incentivize blue states to defy the CDC’s vaccine recommendation changes, and the AAP has stated intent to lobby against religious exemptions. Now more than ever, parents and consumers need to do their own risk-benefit analysis of each of the 70 doses of recommended vaccines in the U.S. 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 [https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/cdc-childhood-vaccination-schedule-covid-kids-update-pregnant-women-unchanged/], “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 [https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/rfk-jr-lawsuit-covid-vaccine-policy-kids-pregnant-women/] 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 [https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/profit-american-academy-pediatrics-childrens-mental-health-vaccines/] — 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 [https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/american-academy-of-pediatrics-end-religious-vaccine-exemptions/?utm_source=x&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=defender&utm_id=20250728].” 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 [https://publications.aap.org/pediatrics/article/156/2/e2025072714/202656/Medical-vs-Nonmedical-Immunization-Exemptions-for?autologincheck=redirected] 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 [https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/leading-pediatrician-group-defies-cdc-tells-parents-covid-shots-infants-kids/], 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 [https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/aap-tens-of-millions-federal-funding-push-vaccines-combat-misinformation/] 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 [https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/states-defy-federal-agencies-create-their-own-covid-vaccine-rules-fda/] also reported that most of the blue states have enacted laws (Colorado HB1027 [https://leg.colorado.gov/bills/hb25-1027]), 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 [https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/key-takeaways-from-acip-meeting-new-cdc-vaccine-advisers-covid-mmrv-hep-b/]: 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 [https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/cdc-vaccine-advisers-roll-back-recommendation-hep-b-shot/]: “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 [https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/former-cdc-officials-take-aim-at-rfk-jr-during-senate-hearing/]. CDC Director Monarez was fired, and the CDC chief medical officer Dr. Houry resigned. Dr. Panagiotakopoulos [https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/cdc-adviser-resigns-covid-vaccines-pregnant-women-lakshmi-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.

How Colorado Conservatives Can Unite with Unaffiliated Voters

For the past decade, medical freedom has been my primary issue. Historically, medical freedom was a non-partisan issue. That changed with the controversy over the pandemic mandate of an experimental vaccine. Medical freedom unites allies who are Republicans, Democrats, Libertarians, and Independents. These friendships have given me a unique perspective on the messaging weaknesses of the Republican party in Colorado. 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 [https://podcasts.apple.com/ke/podcast/103-you-owe-it-to-your-philosophy-to-study-how-to-win/id1706964879?i=1000727013793], 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 [https://prod-static.gop.com/media/RNC2024-Platform.pdf?_gl=1*2k6fhh*_gcl_au*ODAxMDc0MzMyLjE3MjAxODY4MTc.&_ga=2.121209992.1645374160.1721087775-1997897851.1720186817] 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 [https://www.cchrint.org/2024/11/27/investigate-mental-health-research-waste-bizarre-animal-studies/].) 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.

Focus on Your Flame

I remember hearing a story about a young man who seeks advice from his teacher after repeatedly failing to reach his goals. The teacher gave him the task of carrying a lit candle to a tree a few feet away without its flame going out. The young man tried several times but each time, the wind extinguished the flame. The teacher explained that the flame represents the young man’s mind and his focus, and the wind symbolizes distractions. Success, the teacher said, depends on protecting one’s focus from distractions—just as one would shield a candle’s flame. The young man then understood the importance of focus, discipline, and concentration to achieve his goals. 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.