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 n...

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 questio...

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.

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.

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.’”

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 vi...

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.

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.

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...

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 b...

As any parent of a toddler can attest, it takes an act of bravery or a momentary lapse of judgement to give an open-ended question with no restraints to a toddler. What do you want for dinner is promptly met with what everyone would expect of limitless options: cake, ice cream, popcorn, and all the delights that most certainly do not make for the most nutritious of meals. This also extends to the delightfully imaginative as well. Where do you want to go today? To the Moon! What should we do today? Nothing and everything! While we blame toddlers for not fully understanding how to appropriately embrace their freedom, sadly that concept is also directly applicable to adults as well. When given the ability and right to do something, far too many take that liberty as an indictment that they must. Dwight Eisenhower noted “Freedom has been defined as the opportunity for self-discipline.” True freedom expands our choices but without self-restraint and discipline, that freedom can devolve into extreme distrust or invite coercion. As the freest nation in the world, we must begin from the individual up to exercise that core civic virtue of self-restraint. As individuals and communities, this example of self-restraint should carry its natural progression to the governments which bind us together.

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 h...

Colorado’s three-day waiting period is built on a presumption of guilt. It assumes that every law-abiding buyer who passes a background check is a potential threat to themselves or others, and so the state imposes a blanket delay before a constitutionally protected arm may be delivered. That premise is not only offensive to due process and common sense, it fails the Supreme Court’s Bruen test and the 10th Circuit’s own fresh guidance. This week, a 10th Circuit panel blocked New Mexico’s seven-day waiting period as likely unconstitutional, holding that “cooling-off periods” do not fit within any historically grounded exception to the right to keep and bear arms. If a seven-day delay cannot survive in our circuit, Colorado’s three-day delay stands on the same shaky ground.

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.

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 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.

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...

In 2022, I wrote Protecting Senior Citizens from Asset Theft by Collusion of Doctors and Judges and this is Part Two. This theft occurs when a doctor declares that a person does not have the mental capacity to make medical decisions and then colludes with a judge to appoint a court ordered guardian. The guardian then takes control of all assets of the victim who is placed in a conspiring facility, and the victim is usually heavily sedated and disconnected from contact with family members. I was contacted by a woman who read my original article, and she provided a 90-minute interview about how this asset theft was orchestrated in the life of her 93-year-old father in 2024.

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 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.

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.

...