Freedom Unaffiliated

By Mike Rosen

Getting creamed in the polls on illegal immigration, the economy, inflation, Biden’s creeping senility, betraying Israel, and Kamala’s incompetence, Democrats are hanging reelection hopes on the abortion issue, a low priority for most voters and with the pro-abortion faction already committed to Democrats on most other issues anyway. Nonetheless, in a recent interview with the New York Times, Vice President Harris condemned the conservative Supreme Court majority for its 2022 Dobbs decision overturning Roe v. Wade. while she preposterously claimed, “This court has shown itself to be an activist court.”

True to form, Harris’s claim gets it exactly backwards. Judicial activism is just what conservatives have criticized liberal jurists for practicing. In fact, liberals have shrewdly defended that philosophy by disguising our founding document as a “living constitution.” A century ago, Harvard Law School Dean Roscoe Pound frankly and condescendingly advocated “putting the law in the hands of a progressive and enlightened caste whose conceptions are in advance of the public.” Justice Louis Brandeis called for a shift “from legal justice to social justice,” a term radical socialists like Bernie Sanders echo today. More recently, former Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer explained that “the court should apply the Constitution’s values with a pragmatic view toward present circumstances, rather than focusing only on the document’s historical meaning.”

Conservatives strongly oppose that notion which empowers imperious, leftist, unelected judges to usurp the role of legislators by falsely reinterpreting the Constitution and laws to achieve their desired political and social ends. The traditional conservative philosophy, followed by the current Supreme Court majority, is known as “originalism.” It means that the actual words and intent of the Constitution should be honored by jurists and not overridden by the personal beliefs of unelected philosopher-kings in black robes on the basis of what they believe the Constitution ought to say.

Justice Oliver Wendall Holmes, Jr. concisely exposed judicial activism for what it truly is when he calmly explained to an idealistic lawyer in his courtroom, “This is a court of law young man, not a court of justice.” In other words, the place to change or correct what you believe is an unjust law is through elected representatives in the legislature. The duty of judges is to rule on laws as written and intended in accordance with the Constitution.

If you believe the Constitution is unjust or outdated, the remedy is to amend it as prescribed in the Constitution, requiring a two-thirds vote in each chamber of Congress and ratification by three-fourths of the state legislatures. By the founders’ design, this shouldn’t be rash or easy. The Constitution isn’t just an ordinary statute passed by a simple majority. It’s the nation’s foundational document and appropriately requires revisions to be confirmed by a super majority of the people’s representatives.

Judicial activism, honestly defined, is a convenient shortcut increasingly exploited by Democrats in blue states and cities with compliant progressive courts. The same kind of places that elect district attorneys who refuse to prosecute shoplifters, auto thieves, thugs, rioters, and release repeat offenders without bail — all in the name of “social justice.” How can anyone be surprised when crime rates soar and career criminals flourish?

In order to contrive a federal right to abortion in its 1973 ruling in Roe v. Wade, a liberal SCOTUS majority invented out of thin air a so-called right to privacy in what they labeled as “the penumbra” of the Constitution. Penumbras occur in solar astronomy during an eclipse, not in the law. As a metaphor, a penumbra is defined as a vague area. But there’s no mention of privacy specified in the Constitution nor an absolute right to it. If there were, search warrants and IRS audits would be prohibited, and paparazzi could be barred from hounding celebrities. Objective Constitutional scholars have judged Roe to be a faulty ruling. Even Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg, a reliable court liberal, concurred with that assessment. By voting to overturn Roe, originalist justices didn’t outlaw abortion they just decentralized it, returning this complex, controversial, divisive moral issue to each state to deal with as it aligns with the beliefs and values of its people.

No, it’s certainly not judicial activism when originalist jurists overturn unconstitutional rulings like Roe, strike unconstitutional laws, or overrule activist judges in lower courts. Kamala’s false claim is the equivalent of mistaking the cure for cancer with what caused it.

Sterilizing history at Arvada High condemns the young to repeat it.

By Jon Caldara

Kill the Redskins!

Remember the scene from Charlton Heston’s “The 10 Commandments” where the pharaoh orders Moses’ name stricken from the history books? The state of Colorado is now pharaoh. So let it be written, so let it be done.

Arvada High School has been around for more than 100 years, one of the oldest high schools in Colorado. Its physical location has moved around as the city has grown, but since 1920 it’s been a source of pride for many students, teachers and graduates.

It’s traditional mascot name, “the Redskins,” was dropped in 1993 in favor of the more politically correct (and maybe more metaphorically accurate) “Reds.”

A few years later, “Reds” was changed to the criminally milquetoast, “Bulldogs.” But with today’s discrimination against pit bulls, including cities that ban them, that name too might be offensive to a future generation.

But this isn’t the story of a school dropping an offensive mascot name. This is the story of the state requiring history be scrubbed from the records.

Arvada High has what it calls its “museum.” It’s not actually a museum. It’s mostly a large trophy case with artifacts from the school’s history, including the original front door of the first high school. The exhibit items were gifted from past generations of graduates. It even holds a history booklet telling the tale of their mascot.

After the school building was completed in 1922, vocational agriculture and welding teacher Thomas D. Vanderhoof built the football field and started a team. A student from the time said, “The dye from the red football jerseys stained our skin. A young girl noticed this and told Coach Van that we looked like Redskins.”

A mascot was born.

Even though another history compilation says the area’s Native Americans liked the new name, so long as the football team “always fought fairly,” it was obviously born out of pure hate and racism.

So given for three-quarters of its existence everything at Arvada High School was adorned with Indian-themed emblems and words, like the school newspaper, “The Redskin Arrow,” it’s no surprise three-quarters of its museum’s contents are emblazoned with those emblems and words.

So, in good old-fashioned book burning style, it looks like most of the museum’s 100-year-old content will be removed.

Certainly, you can blame the school administrators for whitewashing history. (See, see what I did there — whitewashing.) But they give the excuse every edu-crat and concentration camp guard uses: we’re just following orders.

Just like the communists in Russia just had to change Stalingrad’s name to Leningrad, the communists in the Colorado state Legislature just have to rewrite history.

In 2021, the governor signed Senate Bill 116 which outlawed naming public schools and mascots after Indians or face a $25,000-a-month fine. The Commission on Indian Affairs got the privilege to decide what we should find offensive.

So, good thing Arvada High dropped its Redskins moniker in 1993. Right?

In October, the Jefferson County School District got a love letter from the Colorado Commission on Indian Affairs notifying them they voted to put Arvada High on its hit list for a mascot they haven’t had in three decades.

(How cool is it this commission has the word “Indian” in it, yet runs around commanding people to ban the word “Indian”?)

They informed Jeffco, “The ‘ use’ of a prohibited American Indian mascot may include, but is not limited to, a school’s display or depiction of such a mascot on its grounds, physical buildings, letterhead, website, tangible property or equipment even if the prohibited American Indian mascot no longer serves as the school’s official mascot.”

Funny, I can’t find any of that last part in Senate Bill 116.

So, Arvada High’s historical items, and all the lessons about racism they teach, will likely go.

And this revisionism is not just in the schools. It’s in a City Park where SB116 doesn’t apply, only identity politics does.

Years ago, alumni paid for a boulder with a large metal plaque honoring the site of the original Arvada High School. But it was stained with the Redskins moniker. The boulder is still there. The large metal plaque has been ripped off.

I’ve been told it’s sitting in the Arvada city manager’s office.

Forget school pride. Sterilizing history condemns the young to repeat it. Good work, guys.

Investors should consider what scholarships promote in future.

By Jon Caldara

Canceling college loan debt isn’t enough!

You heard me. Confiscating money from people who never went to college, as well as those who foolishly paid off their own college loans, to give the booty to those who knowingly agreed to pay back their loans isn’t enough.

Why? Well, duh — it doesn’t memorialize acts of violence perpetrated in the name of social justice!

If you had a modern college education, you’d understand that.

Colleges and universities around the country should follow the lead of the University of Colorado and give out scholarships in the name of domestic terrorists.

I survived CU Boulder in the 1980s, and even then it was a propagandist arm of the socialist movement. But now it is literally celebrating acts of violent terrorism by awarding scholarships in the name of those who bombed buildings in Boulder in the 1970s.

The university just celebrated the 50th anniversary of “Los Seis de Boulder.” Even with my CU degree I know that means the “The Boulder Six.”

The celebration included artifacts, artwork, music, speakers, and a full retrospective of these heroes in much the same way Hamas glorifies its suicide bombers who after killing the infidels have gone to heaven to claim their 72 virgins.

But the biggest part of the celebration was the announcement of a $750,000 scholarship fund administered by the university to provide six separate $5,000 scholarships each year to students who are “actively engaged” in social justice.

We can only assume the scholarships are given in hopes recipients will grow up and emulate the fine careers of the domestic terrorists for which its named. These six brave martyrs were killed in Boulder in two separate car bomb explosions in 1974.

Officially, the murders are still unsolved. Unofficially, they accidentally killed themselves with their own homemade explosives while running around Boulder on a terrorist rampage. Police investigators believe the deadly explosions were caused accidentally while transporting bombs.

“The Six” were active members of the United Mexican American Students (UMAS) at CU Boulder. They were protesting what they believed negative treatment of Mexican American students as well as the perennial fan favorites of police brutality and U.S. support of the Vietnam War.

At the time of their martyrdom, UMAS activists were occupying a building on campus. I include that tidbit only to encourage college officials today to continue supporting student occupation of their campus buildings in hopes of similar teachable moments.

The University of Maryland’s Global Terrorism Database reports these same martyrs were likely involved in at least 10 other bombings in Denver and Boulder, other than the two that made them martyrs.

Two months before their own poor quality-control likely cost them their lives, they are believed to have exploded bombs in the Boulder police station as well as the courthouse, causing extensive damage but no casualties.

While statues of evil white men are being torn down across the country, enduring works of tribute have been created to glorify these terrorists. Beyond documentary films, there are permanent monuments to “The Six” on the CU campus and Boulder’s Chautauqua Park.

Now, don’t get me wrong. I’m as thrilled to see homegrown political violence as the next guy. And I can hardly wait for the permanent monuments and scholarships in memory of the Jan. 6, 2021, U.S. Capital Rioters, or as future generations will know them, “Los Alborotadores de la Capital.”

But, on some level deep down inside, there’s a little voice that says maybe, just maybe, we shouldn’t be encouraging this kind of thing, even if it is just violence against Whitey. But it could be just me.

Individually, there’s not much we can do about having our tax dollars siphoned to state-run higher education like the University of Colorado to indoctrinate the young into hate, violence, and socialism — I mean, social justice.

But you can steer your children to better schools. And those good people who wish to invest in scholarships for future generations should consider to whom they’re entrusting their wealth and what it will promote when they’re gone.

To those individuals who value freedom and free markets might I humbly suggest they consider investing in the Independence Institute Liberty Scholarship which was the brainchild of funders Bob and Elaine Collins who care deeply about helping young people get an education, not an indoctrination.

By Jon Caldara

The Hayman fire in 2002 was one of the worst in Colorado’s history. What’s more appalling is it was started by one person whose responsibility it was to make sure forest fires don’t happen in the first place.

That’s what is going on today with the one person who should have prevented our gasoline prices from spiking $0.50 to $1 per gallon, but instead made it happen.

In that remarkably dry year of 2002, there was a burn ban in the area northwest of Colorado Springs. A park ranger with the U.S. Forest Service, Terry Barton, a forestry technician, set a piece of paper on fire in an area she knew was prone to ignite.

Why? Some say it was so she could put out the fire and look like a hero, in court she claimed she was burning a letter from her estranged husband. This one person, wanting to look like a hero, lit one piece of paper and torched more than 138,000 acres across four counties, killing six people and landing her a 6-year sentence in the federal pen.

From the Declaration of Independence to a letter burned in the forest, the power of one page is tremendous.

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) tells us Colorado has an ozone problem and we are out of compliance with their standards. Therefore, gasoline in the Denver metro area will need to be reformulated to their liking, adding between $0.50 to $1 per gallon as penance.

Since society is drunk on the word “injustice,” it’s important to note Coloradans bear very little responsibility for this problem, yet are being punished. The bad air quality comes from California and often from China and blows into our high altitude, knocking us out of EPA compliance. So where are the social justice warriors on this one?

Back to the power of one piece of paper. Due to this injustice, the governor signs a letter to the EPA requesting a waiver from this impossible standard. They always rubber stamp it and our gas prices don’t skyrocket.

Acting as a responsible park ranger, former Gov. John Hickenlooper did just that, saving us from inflaming fuel prices.

Then came the Terry Barton of governors.

Gov. Jared Polis, as the new governor, sent out another piece of paper to the EPA rescinding his predecessor’s request for a waiver.

Polis didn’t regret his decision. On X (formerly Twitter) he crowed, “We helped get the EPA to downgrade Colorado because of ozone levels.” He told Colorado Public Radio, “The EPA downgrade is good news.”

As I wrote in a column a few years ago, “Mr. Polis, will be the first governor not to ask for the waiver. The likely result is the EPA will require Coloradans to use a boutique mixture of fuel that will have to be created especially for us at a cost of up to a dollar more a gallon.”

But reinventing his history is an art Polis has mastered. He is now standing up to the EPA, demanding it gives us the waiver he canceled a few years back, and acting like he’s always been fighting for it.

Unbelievable.

At a meeting with the Gazette Editorial Board, Polis seemed to forget how he was proud of his sole decision on the EPA waiver saying, “Oh, they’re (the EPA) awful. Just awful. Awful, awful, awful … We’re fighting them on many fronts, but particularly now — and I say this with several exclamation points — on this insane requirement for this reformulated gas!!!”

Polis went on, “Everybody’s going to drive a few extra miles, which makes our air even worse and will add to traffic because it may be 40 (cents) to 50 cents cheaper — worth driving that extra couple of miles for. A supply crisis is likely.”

He knew there’d be a supply crisis, yet he rescinded the EPA waiver anyway?! That is political malfeasance.

He’s hoping you forget he started this colossal economic forest fire. Realizing the political and economic fallout of his bad decision, he now wants to look like the hero trying to stop it.

We all should demand that instead of rewriting his past he man-up instead and say the following: “I personally made a terrible mistake. It cost my constituents greatly. I was wrong and I am working to fix the problem I and I alone created. I am sorry.”

By Mike Rosen

The outbreak of disruptive protests by anti-Israel students on college campuses and the predictably feeble response of many school administrators and faculty leftists brought to mind the turmoil of an earlier era.

During the Vietnam War, America was sharply divided with many millions opposed to it. Anti-war protestors acted out on campus, staged massive, sometimes violent demonstrations, maligned U.S. troops — and spat on some who came home. The protestors got sympathetic coverage in the liberal media. The true test of public opinion, however, was the 1972 election. President Richard Nixon called for law and order and promised a prudent, negotiated end to the war on terms favorable to the U.S. The protestors’ hero was Democrat Sen. George McGovern, that party’s leftist peace-at-any-price nominee, who pledged an immediate U.S. withdrawal on any terms. The magnitude of Nixon’s victory reflected the views of the respectable “silent majority” who didn’t rage and protest. Nixon won in a historic landslide, carrying 49 of the 50 states. Wouldn’t it be wonderfully ironic if the havoc caused by today’s left-wing, anti-Israel campus protestors advancing Hamas’s radical Islamist cause stirred a public backlash that helped Donald Trump be elected president?

This time around, anti-Israel, pro-Palestinian, pro-Hamas, antisemitic, anti-American protestors who’ve disrupted campus life and erected tent encampments on college lawns are a very small percentage of students and the American public. The reaction of college administrators has been mixed. Some have lowered the boom, calling in police or state troopers to enforce school rules prohibiting this behavior and clearing the encampments. Too many other schools have tolerated and appeased the protestors, even going so far as cancelling classes and graduation ceremonies at the expense of the vast majority of students and their families.

At the Auraria campus in Denver, after protestors set up a tent encampment, school officials initially called in the police to clear the tents. The next day, protestors put them up again in violation of campus rules and defiantly declared their intent to defend the encampment until their demands were met. At that point, sadly, feckless Auraria administrators backed down and agreed to negotiate with the protestors.

Negotiate? This lawless rabble has no standing to negotiate, and administrators are foolish dupes for participating in 

this charade. It’s like negotiating with squatters who have occupied your home. Some of the protestors aren’t even Auraria students. Many at similar protests nationwide are paid outside agitators. For them this is guerilla theater, creating chaos and bringing attention to their cause, and they’ll draw it out for as long as they can. They love doing this stuff. To end it, how’s this? The negotiation is over, here are the terms of your surrender: If you’re not gone by tomorrow, all who are students will be expelled; outside agitators will face arrest for trespassing.

Student protestors have no standing to make “demands” about anything. They don’t have an ownership share of the school, administer it, or speak for the student body. At best they may make suggestions. They’re just education customers who are free to take their business elsewhere if they don’t like a school’s policies.

And there’s no First Amendment protection for these protestors. Freedom of speech or expression doesn’t cover trespassing, vandalism, rioting, harassing Jewish students, or violating school rules. When protestors chant “death to Israel,” “death to America,” or “we are Hamas” it’s clear where their loyalty lies — and where it doesn’t. Hamas and Palestinians who support Hamas are enemies of Israel, the United States, and Jews in general, whom radical Hamas Islamists pledge to exterminate worldwide. Hamas’s Oct 7 invasion of Israel and massacre of civilians was an act of war. Israel’s counterattack is justified, and civilian casualties are unavoidable since Hamas uses them as human shields. Palestinians who support Hamas and cheered the Oct 7 carnage are now reaping the consequences.

As for well-intentioned students among those protesting, they’re mostly idealistic, naïve, youngsters who lack wisdom that comes with experience, maturity and understanding of other viewpoints. They’re not all stupid. Some have high IQs. But they’re impressionable and have been indoctrinated by leftist educators from grade school through college. Standing up to this is difficult at their age given peer pressure and the practicality of regurgitating the propaganda their instructors have implanted and will reward on test questions and term papers.

Young leftist students are passionately drawn to political protests. It gives the them a sense of empowerment, meaning and purpose. For fun on an autumn Saturday, conservative students flock to the campus stadium to root for their football team and quaff a few brews. For the lefty kids, camping out overnight at a protest with fellow travelers discussing Marxist revolution is their idea of fun. As a bonus, this season’s anti-Israel sleepover features an official costume: a genuine Palestinian keffiyeh, you can get yours online from Amazon for only fifteen bucks. A mask, so you don’t get expelled later, is extra.

The Colorado state Capitol in Denver...

By Jon Caldara

I was that kid in high school who would wait until the night before the term paper was due to even get started, as you can tell, a practice I honor to this day with this column. Of course, it was good enough to slide through high school; the paper was always lousy.

That’s OK, coming from a sloppy high school kid. But would you trust that kid to spend $ 35 billion of your money and make the laws that govern every aspect of your life? Because, you have.

The Colorado legislative session is 120 days long and, yet again, almost all the important work was left to the last few days and done to the quality my high school teachers came to expect of me.

A 120- day session is remarkably long. Texas, for example, has a 90day session only every other year.

We have 100 legislators. Each one is allotted five different bill titles, for a total of 500. Of course, like the high school teacher who keeps allowing late assignments with no consequence, legislative leaders allow late bill status, which this year pushed the count to more than 700 bills.

Nearly 300 of those 700 bills were dealt with in the last three days of their four- month- long session! By law, it takes at least three days to pass a bill. They waited until legal night before starting their term papers.

I have an initiative to amend the state constitution working its way through the process that would reduce the legislative session from 120 days to 90 days. I now realize I made a serious error with my initiative. I should have written it to reduce the session from 120 days to three.

Decades ago, the legislature referred a measure to the people to limit their own session to 120 days. The legislators did it themselves. So why does it take an initiative now? You’d think lawmakers would be thrilled to get back to their lives sooner. 

The sad fact is an increasing number of legislators want the legislature to be their life. They don’t want to be a citizen legislator and have a real job and then donate a few months to represent their constituents.

Too many legislators desire their “real” job to be “legislator.” They want to emulate the California system and have a full- time, yearlong legislature.

So, instead of working in your community, dealing with the very issues you deal with and driving on the same pot- holed streets, your representatives want to make their living from government and live mostly out of your district. You know, just like the U. S. Congress 

Their wish may come sooner than you think. Although our constitution clearly limits it to “120 calendar days,” Gov. Jared Polis, during COVID, decided the session could be broken up into pieces. The Colorado Supreme Court agreed, saying “calendar days” don’t need to be consecutive days.

Try that trick with your mortgage company sometime. “Oh, I’ll pay you in 30 calendar days, like in three or four months.”

As the elected industrial complex tries to become more like California, they could split those 120 days up and spread them throughout the year. And we can assume a healthy pay raise for legislators would come with it.

Legislators are already giving full- time benefits to their part- time workers now. So, it’s pretty clear which direction they’d like to go.

Therefore, my proposed initiative clarifies the session would be 90 consecutive calendar days. Because we have to say that now?

Legislators whine they’re not getting paid enough. By shortening the session we’d be giving them a sizable raise, the same amount of pay for a fourth less work. I’m guessing you would take that deal in a heartbeat.

Of course, there’s a political reason they wait to the last week of session to drop important deals like property tax reform, “fees” on oil and gas, and TABOR refunds. It’s so there’s not enough time to have the scrutiny of the public on these big issues.

How do constituents even digest a proposed bill when dropped with three days left to pass it and no testimony allowed?

So, let’s shorten the session to 90 days. If they still keep treating their constituents like the procrastinating high schooler treats his English teacher, let’s just shorten it to three days.

By Jon Caldara

You are going to die.

It brings me no pleasure to inform you of this. But, unless you are Keith Richards of The Rolling Stones, someday you are going to die. Which begs a question: what are you going to do about it?

We pack our lives with distractions to avoid thinking of our own mortality. Coming to grips with the fact you’ll soon be gone is spiritually torturous.

Sure, we’re aware of it enough to maybe get some life insurance and draw up a will, but do we want to leave behind some part of us that lives on to impact the world. A legacy? Have you written the Great American Novel or the like?

To feel depressed about your lack of accomplishments remember Paul McCartney was only 28 when he quit The Beatles leaving a catalog of music for the ages.

But people who have worked hard, been disciplined and used their intelligence, they have in fact created something — something impressive and powerful. It’s called their wealth, and they can leave it behind for the people or causes they love. It’s something until recently only lords and kings could do.

The United States is experiencing the largest generational transfer of wealth ever. But have those who’ve earned it really thought about what happens to it when it changes hands?

Steve Schuck has been a friend and mentor for nearly 30 years and one of the few guys that can make me look politically correct and understated by contrast.

His passion is bringing educational choice to as many families as possible. He created Parents Challenge, a private scholarship organization to provide resources and training to struggling families to send their kids to a school of their choice — public, private, home school, whatever.

But his greatest impact might happen when he’s gone. Steve and his late wife, Joyce, created a foundation, The Schuck Initiatives, to ensure their wealth goes to the causes they support for generations to come.

But a strange thing happens to your money after you’re dead. You no longer control it. At some point, people you don’t even know do.

One need only look at big foundations like the Ford Foundation to see how the donor’s intent has been forgotten. Good old Henry would be sickened to see how his money, created through free enterprise and his genius, is being used to promote socialism.

So, Schuck has spent the last several years putting legal guard rails around the Schuck Initiatives to keep his treasure going to only things he would want to support.

Schuck tells me putting together this “donor intent system” to keep his wealth from drifting has been the most challenging, hardest thing he’s ever done. And if you know him, you’d know what a big statement that is.

He has gone to extravagant lengths to preserve his intent for those entrusted to spend his fortune. He has even created a series of videos where he is speaking directly to the future staff and board of his organization telling them exactly what they are to fund and more importantly what they are not to fund.

Had Henry Ford done this his wealthy offspring wouldn’t be using his money to destroy the very free market system that helped create it.

That’s one of the reasons Steve has made it clear family members will not be on the staff or board. It’s not because he can’t trust his own kids, he just doesn’t know what his grandkids’ kids will value.

To be on the board of The Schuck Initiatives you will have to be in line with the values he carefully laid out.

He has put together a list of “thou shall not” mandates of what his money should never go to. For him that means it won’t go to building buildings, buying tables at gala fundraisers, supporting woke causes, anything that supports the growth of government, and more.

Rich people can do with their money what they like. But history shows giving it away with only the best of intentions works against what they believe.

To those of us without much money this all seems like mere intellectual exercise. But if you hope to leave something to loved ones or causes, you should think about how it will be spent. Watch my interview with Schuck at: https://t.ly/E22ad.

Jon Caldara is president of the Independence Institute in Denver and hosts “The Devil’s Advocate with Jon Caldara” on Colorado Public Television Channel 12. His column appears Sundays in Colorado Politics.

By Pam Benigno

One of the most, if not the most, reprehensible anti-charter bills ever introduced in Colorado, House Bill 24-1363, was soundly killed in the House Education Committee. Five Democrats and all three Republicans voted against the bill, while three Democrats voted in support.

This 55-page bill contained provisions aimed to weaken or even eliminate Colorado’s more than 260 charter schools, which are autonomous public schools. Both bill sponsors stated the bill was not about closing charter schools but about accountability and transparency. While listening to the hearing, one had to wonder if they read their own bill or understood Colorado charter school law.

If the bill was adopted, it would have granted a public school district with declining enrollment the power to revoke a charter school’s charter. This is a significant concern, considering declining enrollment is a prevalent trend in Colorado and nationwide. Almost a third of all charter schools are in districts with declining enrollment, potentially putting them at risk.

The legislation would have removed the second charter appeal to the Colorado Board of Education, leaving the final decision to school districts if new charter schools open or if they renew current school contracts. In 1993, Gov. Roy Romer (D) said during the House and Senate conference committee he was pleased the committee preserved the state Board’s authority to override local school board decisions on charter school establishment.

Interestingly, the bill sponsors seemed unaware of what is already legally required of charter schools. One sponsor claimed charter schools don’t have accountability committees, despite being legally required to have one. Another provision in the legislation mandated charter schools post their state law waivers on their website, a requirement that already exists. Furthermore, one of the sponsors incorrectly claimed charter schools are not obligated to be financially transparent, a statement that simply is not true.

HB 1363 wasn’t the first significant assault on charter schools and won’t be the last. The initiators of this bill, which appear to be primarily former anti-charter school legislators, are steadfast in their mission to eradicate charter schools as a viable public-school alternative to traditional public schools. This fervor may stem from the fact Colorado’s charter schools are not unionized, and teachers are not mandated to hold a state-approved teaching license. In 2007, one of these former legislators wrote to another, “There must be a special place in hell for these Privatizers, Charterizers and Voucherizers. They deserve it!”

There is a divide between Democrats who don’t support charter schools and those who do. Charter schools are public schools that must meet academic standards and administer state assessments. The socialist Democrats and the old Union Guard take a different view on public school choice than many other Democrats.

When the Colorado charter school legislation passed in 1993, it was a testament to bipartisan cooperation. Then-Republican Sen. Bill Owens and the late Democratic Rep. Peggy Kerns sponsored the bill. Democratic Gov. Romer supported the legislation and deserves significant credit for its passage. He understood school districts wouldn’t like the idea of charter schools, but he knew the public education system needed reform, and creating autonomous public schools was a worthy risk.

Independence Institute’s co-founder, the late David D’Evelyn, was also crucial in passing the charter legislation. David was passionate about providing families with more educational choices and offered the intellectual ammunition to support policy changes. Independence Institute continues David’s unwavering commitment to public charter schools and parental choice.

Charter school supporters must remain on guard, strengthen the troops and stay alert because this war will never end. Parents must realize the fragility of school options and keep that in mind whenever they sit down to mark their ballots.

Written and read by Mike Rosen

The clinical definition of “phobia” is a psychiatric disorder related to “an irrational, excessive, and persistent fear of some particular thing or situation.” Examples are Acrophobia: a fear of heights, Claustrophobia: fear of confined spaces, Octophobia: fear of the figure 8, Cyberphobia: fear of computers, Ablutophobia: fear of bathing, Hippopotomonstrosesquipedaliophobia: fear of long words, and Phobophobia: fear of phobias. (I’m not making this up.)

A second definition is a fear or hatred of someone or something, that may not be a psychosis. It’s used as a suffix, “phobe.” A Francophobe is one who fears or hates France or its people. (A Francophile loves France or the French.)

The key points here are “irrational,” “fear,” and “hatred.” You can dislike or disapprove of someone or something but not irrationally or hatefully. Although fear can also be rational and justified, as can hatred. This column isn’t just about semantics (the meaning of language), it’s mostly about the shrewd and manipulative use of contrived phobias as a tool of political propaganda.

First, some history. In 1969, a police raid on the Stonewall Inn, a gay club in New York City, triggered the Stonewall Riot, a protest that fired up the modern gay rights movement. Our culture has come a long way since then. For the most part, but not universally, it accepts and respects gays, along with same-sex marriage. But that’s not my issue here. I’m just analyzing political tactics. Stonewall is where I mark the start of the political weaponizing of the words “phobia” and “phobe” by the gay rights movement, later adopted by activists in other political movements.

In the 1950s, the American Psychiatric Association listed homosexuality as a mental disorder. Undoubtedly there were many who hated gays and could accurately be described as homophobes. But there were also many who simply disapproved of homosexuality for deeply held moral and religious beliefs while not fearing or hating gays. Nonetheless, gay activists lumped together everyone who opposed their cause by equating devout disapproval with irrational hate and fear. Then they unfairly branded all of them as homophobes, afflicted with homophobia in the sense of a psychosis. This was semantic malpractice, to be sure, but very effective politics, especially when aided and abetted by liberal media “journalists” who enthusiastically adopted that language and still do to this day for other causes they favor. Now that LGBs —less so for the more recent alphabetical additions— are part of the respectable establishment, clinical homophobia accurately applies to far fewer.

Another example is the contrived term “Islamophobia.” There’s nothing irrational about fearing or hating the terrorism of Islamist fanatics like Iran, Hamas, Hezbollah, ISIS, the Taliban, al Qaeda, and others of their ilk. It’s certainly not an imaginary, phobic fear. Their barbaric acts are all too real and often. All believers in Islam are not fanatical Islamists who pledge that the world’s more than 7 billion non-Islamists must be subjugated or slaughtered. Many Muslims oppose the abuse of women under Sharia Law. It would be irrational, as well as suicidal, if the rest of us of us weren’t Islamistphobes.

But the top prize for contrived phobias goes to the most recent scam: Transphobia. Better described as absurdity along with the whole notion of transsexualism. Fortunately, I’m not an employee of some politically-correct corporation or a student who’s compelled to accept this nonsense and memorize a glossary of a hundred made-up pronouns by which individual trans people demand to be referred. And grammatically, I could never say something like, “Who do they think they is?”

I just don’t buy it. Males have a penis; Females have a uterus. Biology and anatomy trump everything. You may desire to change your birth gender, but you can’t. And gender isn’t “non-binary” or “fluid” to be changed at whim by your mood of the day. Even with surgery, a male can’t birth a baby.

Gender dysphoria is a psychosis that comes from your brain, which often thinks of strange things — like some of your dreams. You argue in your brain when making decisions. Even if you convince your brain you’re a woman, you’ll still be a man and a part of your brain will always know that. So, compromise and wear women’s clothing or watch Oprah and The View. That’s fine with me. But don’t exploit your physiological advantage to invade girls sports. I don’t hate or fear you, so I’m not a Transphobe. My rejection of your delusion isn’t irrational, so I don’t have Transphobia. And I’m not sorry if my opinion offends you.

Among all protections throughout human existence for political minorities, none greater was ever created before the First Amendment.

For the better part of my life, it was classic liberals and the political left who fought for the right of dissent, guaranteeing government shall not abridge speech.

It was the cultural warriors of my childhood through school, media and Hollywood who drilled into us themes like: “innocent until proven guilty”; “the ends don’t justify the means”; “I disagree with what you say, but defend your right to say it”; and “dissent is patriotic.”

Why? Because the political majority needs no protection for its self-expression. The political minority does.

It was Jewish lawyers at the ACLU who fought for the right of Neo-Nazis (who’d like to see Jews exterminated) to parade in Skokie, Illinois.

Progressive icon Noam Chomsky preached, “If you’re in favor of freedom of speech, that means you’re in favor of freedom of speech precisely for views you despise.”

Without the ability for political minorities to speak freely without fear of censorship, retribution, cancellation, job loss or the ending of their quest for higher education, democracy quickly withers.

We are watching democracy withering in the halls of our own state Capitol.

The super-majority Democrats put out a list of words of dissent not allowed to be uttered in their tyrannical building. The list includes the following words and terms — alien, illegal, fresh-off-the-boat and undocumented immigrant.

At the well of the House floor state Rep. Ron Weinberg described himself as an “illegal alien,” because, well, that’s what he was. For that utterance legislative business was stalled for his public scolding.

First, there’s nothing offensive about the term. There are aliens (a governmental term to begin with) who are here legally and aliens who are here illegally.

Rep. Weinberg was told he was censored because his speech could hurt someone’s feelings. Odd, isn’t it? Only the feelings of one side of political debate count. And the feelings of people who wish to speak don’t? 

Sensitivity of the political minority is sacrificed for “sensitivity” of the majority.

Or maybe it’s not about sensitivity at all? Maybe it’s about expediency. Just maybe it’s about disempowering one’s opponents. Maybe censorship is really about keeping those in power, well, in power.

If the constituents of Rep. Weinberg are offended by his speech, they will express themselves at the next election, assuming he’s allowed to be heard in the first place.

Rich Guggenheim, from Gays Against Groomers, testified against a bill to allow felons to change their names when they “transition” gender. He committed two thought crimes — “misgendering” a person via pronoun choice and “deadnaming” a person (using that person’s pre-transition name).

For these sins against the state, he was gaveled down, told to leave and his testimony was stricken from the audio record of the Legislature.

They scrubbed the official records of his testimony! That is terrifying. Let’s ask how we would feel if former President Donald Trump could delete testimony he didn’t like. Imagine the screams of “threat to democracy” that would rightfully echo.

Deleting official testimony and altering records is simply tyrannical. Something we’d see in Soviet Russia or North Korea. But not new here in Colorado.

Somehow our leaders made “adjusting” official records acceptable by making changing one’s birth certificate like changing one’s address. This may not seem like a big deal, but it’s huge. Government records, truthful at the time created, shouldn’t be tampered with, unless you don’t mind the same treatment for other records like people’s age or the deed to your property.

The state forcing citizens to use someone else’s preferred pronoun is compelled speech. It’s ugly. We should have no patience for the state coercing any witness testifying to refer to a biological male as female.

From the point of the witness, in Mr. Guggenheim’s perspective, government is mandating he lie in an official proceeding and on the official record.

This behavior is by far the most clear-cut assault on minority rights and free speech I have ever seen at the Colorado Capitol. The state is abridging free speech.

And where is the left to stop it as they once did?

We shouldn’t just fear, we should be terrified of a government that uses its authority to silence dissent.

And for those doing it, I ask again: If Trump were doing these very same things, you’d have to support it, right?