The Gutting of American Values via Socialism in Colorado

Colorado, once hailed as the Conservative Capital of the West, has undergone a profound transformation that threatens the core tenets of American liberty, individualism, and free enterprise. This shift, accelerated by what has been dubbed the "Rocky Mountain Heist," has propelled the state down a socialism fast track with no apparent end in sight. From a bastion of Republican dominance in the late 20th century to a left-wing stronghold today, Colorado's political landscape reflects a deliberate erosion of traditional values through policies that prioritize government control, wealth redistribution, and social engineering. Let’s examine the historical context of Colorado's conservative roots, the pivotal "heist" that upended them, the onslaught of socialist-leaning legislation since, and the devastating impact on American principles. Backed by historical records, election data, and recent analyses, the evidence paints a stark picture of a state adrift from its founding ideals.

Colorado's Conservative Heritage: A Western Stronghold

For much of its history, Colorado embodied the rugged individualism and limited-government ethos that defined American conservatism. In the 1980s and 1990s, the state was a Republican fortress, consistently delivering electoral victories for GOP candidates. President Ronald Reagan carried Colorado in 1980 and 1984 with margins exceeding 10 percent, reflecting the state's alignment with free-market policies and strong national defense. The 1992 election saw George H.W. Bush win the state by 4 percent, and even in 1996, Bob Dole secured 45 percent of the vote, underscoring Colorado's red leanings. At the state level, Republicans controlled the governorship for 16 consecutive years from 1979 to 1995 under figures like Bill Owens, who championed tax cuts and deregulation.

This era was marked by policies that preserved American values: low taxes, Second Amendment rights, and economic freedom. The Taxpayer's Bill of Rights (TABOR), passed via voter initiative in 1992, exemplified Colorado's aversion to government overreach by limiting revenue growth to population and inflation rates. TABOR reflected the state's conservative ethos, rooted in the frontier spirit of self-reliance. As noted in a 2014 analysis by the Independence Institute, Colorado's economy thrived on energy production, mining, and agriculture, with minimal interference from state mandates. The Republican Party dominated the legislature until 2004, passing pro-business legislation that attracted industries and bolstered the "Conservative Capital of the West" reputation. Polls from the era, such as a 2000 Gallup survey, showed Colorado residents favoring conservative principles, with 55 percent identifying as Republican or leaning right.

Colorado's cultural fabric reinforced these values. The state's vast public lands fostered a culture of personal responsibility, where ranchers and miners operated with minimal bureaucratic hurdles. Historical references, like the 1876 state constitution's emphasis on property rights and limited taxation, underscore this foundation. As a 1990s Heritage Foundation report highlighted, Colorado's low unemployment and GDP growth outpaced national averages, thanks to policies that embodied American exceptionalism. This conservative dominance positioned Colorado as a model for the West, where freedom and opportunity reigned supreme.

The "Rocky Mountain Heist": A Calculated Political Coup

The turning point came with the "Rocky Mountain Heist," a term popularized by the 2014 documentary of the same name produced by Citizens United. The film, directed by Jason Killian Meath, chronicles how out-of-state wealthy donors and progressive organizations orchestrated a takeover of Colorado's politics starting in the early 2000s. It details a "Colorado model" of grassroots organizing, funded by unions and liberal philanthropists, that flipped the state from red to blue.

The heist unfolded in the 2004 elections, a watershed moment. Democrats, backed by over $3 million from national groups like the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), won control of the state House for the first time in decades. This victory paved the way for redistricting in 2005, where Democrats gerrymandered congressional districts to favor liberals, a tactic exposed in the documentary as "vindictive" and top-down. By 2006, Democrats captured the governorship with Bill Ritter and full legislative control, marking the end of Republican dominance.

Historical analyses, such as a 2023 Colorado Politics article on "10 key turning points," pinpoint 2004 as the catalyst, driven by immigration reforms and union-backed campaigns that mobilized urban voters in Denver and Boulder. The "heist" involved strategic funding: George Soros's Open Society Foundations and other donors poured millions into progressive causes, as detailed in the film's interviews with affected Republicans. A 2014 federal court case, Citizens United v. Gessler, upheld the documentary's airing, affirming its portrayal of how advocacy groups influenced Colorado's shift. This engineered change dismantled conservative safeguards, ushering in an era of left-wing dominance that critics label as the gateway to socialism.

The Socialist Fast Track: Policies Undermining American Values

Since the heist, Colorado has embraced policies that echo socialist principles: expansive government intervention, wealth redistribution, and curtailment of individual freedoms. The 2025 legislative session exemplifies this trajectory. Democrats, holding supermajorities in the House (46-19) and Senate (23-12), passed over 480 bills, many advancing left-wing agendas. Senate Bill 276, signed into law, strengthens deportation protections for immigrants, effectively solidifying Colorado's sanctuary status and prioritizing non-citizens over citizens in resource allocation. This aligns with socialist tenets of collective equity but guts American values of national sovereignty and equal protection under the law.

Gun control measures further erode Second Amendment rights. In 2023, Colorado banned assault weapons and high-capacity magazines, with 2025 expansions limiting private sales and mandating red-flag laws. These infringe on self-defense, a cornerstone of American liberty, as critiqued in a 2024 Heritage Foundation report on Colorado's "assault on freedoms." Environmental regulations, like the 2025 push for net-zero emissions by 2040, impose burdensome mandates on energy sectors, driving up costs for ranchers and miners. Governor Jared Polis's 2025 State of the State address touted "cutting red tape" for housing, but critics see it as subsidized development that favors urban elites over rural conservatives.

Tax policies reflect redistributionist socialism. Despite TABOR, Democrats have sought workarounds, like the 2023 property tax hikes and 2025 proposals for income tax on Social Security benefits, burdening retirees. A Bell Policy Center recap notes the 2025 session's focus on "economic mobility" through expanded welfare, including universal pre-K and paid family leave, costing billions. These initiatives, while framed as equity, undermine self-reliance, a key American value. As X users in 2025 discussions lament, "Colorado's socialism is killing the American dream," with posts criticizing high taxes and regulations.

Healthcare exemplifies the shift. Colorado's 2025 expansion of Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act covers 20 percent of residents, with proposals for universal coverage that would balloon state spending. This socialized model, per a 2024 Cato Institute analysis, increases dependency and stifles innovation, contrasting with Colorado's pre-heist free-market healthcare. Education reforms, like the 2025 push for equity-based curricula emphasizing social justice over merit, further erode traditional values of hard work and equality of opportunity.

The immigration stance cements this trajectory. Colorado's sanctuary policies, bolstered by 2025 laws shielding undocumented immigrants from ICE, strain resources and prioritize globalism over nationalism. A 2025 Colorado Newsline report details how Trump's funding freezes could exacerbate this, but local Democrats defend it as compassionate, ignoring the fiscal drain on taxpayers. X posts from 2025 rail against this as "socialism importing voters," with users noting the influx of liberal migrants from California accelerating the shift.

The Broader Assault on American Values

These policies collectively gut American values. Individualism suffers under collectivist mandates, as seen in 2025's labor laws expanding union power and minimum wages, per the Colorado Chamber of Commerce's agenda opposing "job killers." Free enterprise is hampered by regulations, with Project 2025 critiques warning of undermined worker rights under left-wing overreach. A 2023 Los Angeles Times article on Colorado's shift attributes it to an influx of liberals, turning a purple state solid blue by 2020, with Biden winning by 13 points.

The 2024 election bucked national trends, with Democrats holding majorities despite a red wave elsewhere, as per Colorado Newsline. Lower turnout among working Republicans in off-year elections favors activists, per analyses. X sentiment in 2025 decries "Colorado socialism," with posts linking it to high costs and exodus. A Reddit thread from 2022 questions the rapid leftward swing from 2016 to 2020, attributing it to urban migration and gerrymandering.

No End in Sight: The Perpetual Fast Track

With Democrats entrenched, the socialism fast track shows no signs of slowing. The 2025 session's focus on "left-wing" reforms, including socialist Democrats in local races, signals continued expansion. Polis's agenda for affordable housing and red tape reduction masks deeper interventions. As a 2023 CBS News report notes, conservatives flee to red states like Idaho, homogenizing Colorado further left. Voter shifts to unaffiliated status, now 47 percent, reflect disillusionment, but benefit Democrats in low-turnout elections.

This trajectory guts American values by fostering dependency, curtailing freedoms, and prioritizing equity over merit. Historical parallels to socialist experiments, like Venezuela's collapse, warn of economic ruin. Colorado's once-vibrant conservatism, as chronicled in "Rocky Mountain Heist," has been supplanted by a system that rewards control over liberty.

The "Rocky Mountain Heist" marked the beginning of Colorado's socialist descent, systematically dismantling American values. From TABOR's erosion to sanctuary policies and gun grabs, the state exemplifies how left-wing overreach hollows out the republic's foundation. Citizens must demand accountability, revive conservative principles, and halt this fast track before irreparable damage occurs. The Conservative Capital of the West can reclaim its legacy, but only through vigilant resistance.

Michael J Badagliacco, “MJB”

Michael is the father of five and grandfather of three, United States Air Force Veteran, International Recording Artist, passionate about the United States of America and the founders Genius of the Constitution and Editor-in-Chief, Colorado DOGE Report (coDOGEreport.com).

Colorado's Defiant Pledge:

A Legal Assault on Federal Authority and Professional Ethics

In a bold move that escalates the ongoing clash between state sovereignty and federal immigration enforcement, Colorado has enacted a provision within its recent immigration legislation that mandates lawyers using the state's legal filing system to pledge, under penalty of perjury, non-cooperation with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) regarding personal identifying information. This measure, embedded in the broader framework of Senate Bill 25-276, prohibits attorneys from sharing such data unless explicitly required by law.

Critics, including legal scholars and federal officials, contend that this policy not only flouts established federal statutes but also undermines the ethical foundations of the legal profession. By forcing lawyers into this position, Colorado risks inviting federal lawsuits, ethical sanctions, and a broader erosion of public trust in the justice system. This is fundamentally illegal under the U.S. Constitution and federal law, supported by key precedents and statutes, creating ethical quandaries for practitioners.

The Provisions of Colorado's Controversial Pledge

Colorado's Senate Bill 25-276, signed into law in May 2025, aims to protect the civil rights of individuals based on their immigration status. Among its various components, the bill strengthens the state's sanctuary policies by limiting local cooperation with federal immigration authorities. A particularly contentious element, highlighted in recent implementations, requires lawyers accessing the state's electronic legal filing system to affirm, under penalty of perjury, that they will not share personal identifying information (PII) from the system with ICE, except where legally mandated. This pledge extends to prohibiting any form of assistance or compliance with ICE requests for such data.

Proponents argue that this safeguards vulnerable immigrant communities from unwarranted federal overreach, building on prior state laws that restrict local law enforcement's collaboration with ICE. However, the measure's focus on lawyers introduces a novel layer of restriction, targeting professionals who handle sensitive legal documents daily. The bill's language prohibits government officials and employees, including those in the judicial system, from disclosing immigration-related PII to federal agents without a judicial warrant or court order. For attorneys, this translates to a mandatory oath that could expose them to state penalties for non-compliance, even as federal obligations pull in the opposite direction.

This provision did not emerge in a vacuum. It responds to heightened federal scrutiny under the current administration, including threats from the Department of Justice to withhold funding from sanctuary jurisdictions. Yet, by compelling lawyers to prioritize state policy over potential federal duties, Colorado has crossed into territory that directly challenges the supremacy of national immigration law.

The Supremacy Clause: Federal Law's Primacy Over State Defiance

At the heart of the argument against Colorado's pledge lies the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution, found in Article VI, Clause 2. This clause declares that the Constitution, federal statutes, and treaties constitute "the supreme Law of the Land," binding on all states notwithstanding contrary state laws or constitutions. Under this doctrine, when state and federal laws conflict, the federal provision prevails, rendering the state measure unenforceable.

The preemption doctrine, derived from the Supremacy Clause, operates in three primary ways: express preemption, where Congress explicitly displaces state law; field preemption, where federal regulation is so comprehensive that it occupies the entire field; and conflict preemption, where compliance with both laws is impossible or the state law obstructs federal objectives. In the immigration context, the Supreme Court has repeatedly affirmed that federal authority dominates, as immigration is inherently a national concern requiring uniform enforcement.

Colorado's pledge exemplifies conflict preemption. By mandating non-cooperation with ICE on PII, which often includes details tied to immigration status, the state erects barriers to federal enforcement efforts. This directly impedes the federal government's ability to execute its immigration policies, a domain where states have limited authority to interfere. Legal experts have noted that such sanctuary measures, while politically popular in certain locales, cannot withstand scrutiny under the Supremacy Clause when they actively hinder federal operations.

Direct Conflict with 8 U.S.C. § 1373

The most glaring illegality stems from 8 U.S.C. § 1373, a federal statute enacted as part of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996. The full text of § 1373(a) states: "Notwithstanding any other provision of Federal, State, or local law, a Federal, State, or local government entity or official may not prohibit, or in any way restrict, any government entity or official from sending to, or receiving from, the Immigration and Naturalization Service information regarding the citizenship or immigration status, lawful or unlawful, of any individual."

This provision explicitly bars states from imposing restrictions on the voluntary exchange of immigration status information with federal authorities. Colorado's pledge, by requiring lawyers to swear against sharing PII that may encompass immigration details, constitutes precisely the kind of prohibition § 1373 forbids. PII in legal filings often includes data on citizenship or residency status, especially in cases involving family law, criminal defense, or civil disputes where immigration implications arise.

Implications for sanctuary states are profound. The Department of Justice has repeatedly invoked § 1373 to challenge similar policies, arguing that they violate federal law by limiting communication. For instance, executive orders and memos have designated non-compliant jurisdictions as ineligible for certain federal grants, emphasizing that § 1373 mandates open channels for information sharing. Courts have upheld the statute's constitutionality, rejecting claims that it violates the Tenth Amendment's anti-commandeering principle, as it does not compel affirmative action but merely removes barriers to cooperation. In Colorado's case, the pledge goes further by enforcing non-cooperation under threat of perjury, directly contravening the statute's intent.

Supreme Court Precedents Reinforcing Federal Preemption

Supreme Court jurisprudence provides a robust framework for declaring Colorado's measure illegal. In Arizona v. United States, 567 U.S. 387 (2012), the Court struck down key provisions of Arizona's S.B. 1070, holding that states cannot enact laws that undermine federal immigration enforcement. Justice Kennedy's majority opinion emphasized that the federal government holds "broad, undoubted power over the subject of immigration," and state actions creating obstacles to that power are preempted.

Similarly, in Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898 (1997), the Court articulated the anti-commandeering doctrine, prohibiting the federal government from forcing states to implement federal programs. However, this protection cuts both ways: while states cannot be compelled to enforce immigration laws, they also cannot actively obstruct federal efforts. Colorado's pledge does the latter by mandating non-cooperation, effectively commandeering lawyers to align with state policy against federal interests.

More recent cases, such as Murphy v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, 584 U.S. 453 (2018), reaffirmed that federal law preempts state attempts to nullify national statutes. In the sanctuary context, lower courts have applied these principles variably, but in United States v. California, 921 F.3d 865 (9th Cir. 2019), the court upheld challenges to state laws restricting information sharing, citing § 1373. These precedents collectively demonstrate that Colorado's policy cannot stand, as it intrudes upon an exclusively federal domain.

Ethical Dilemmas for Legal Professionals

Beyond constitutional and statutory violations, the pledge raises severe ethical concerns for Colorado's lawyers. The American Bar Association's Model Rules of Professional Conduct, adopted in varying forms by states including Colorado, mandate that attorneys uphold the law while protecting client interests. Rule 1.6 emphasizes confidentiality, prohibiting disclosure of client information without consent or legal requirement. However, the pledge could force lawyers into conflicts where federal subpoenas or court orders demand PII, pitting state oaths against federal obligations.

Rule 8.4 deems it professional misconduct to violate or assist in violating the law, or to engage in conduct involving dishonesty or fraud. By swearing non-cooperation, attorneys risk ethical sanctions if they later comply with ICE under federal law, or face perjury charges if they withhold information improperly. Immigration lawyers, in particular, navigate a "perplexing system" fraught with ethical pitfalls, where cooperation with ICE could compromise client trust, yet non-cooperation invites legal jeopardy.

In immigration courts, transparency is paramount, and hiding government lawyers' identities has already sparked debates over ethical norms. Extending this opacity to state-mandated pledges exacerbates the issue, potentially violating due process and Sixth Amendment rights by limiting effective representation. Legal ethicists warn that such policies place attorneys in untenable positions, undermining the profession's integrity.

Broader Implications and Public Frustrations

The pledge's ramifications extend far beyond courtrooms. On platforms like X, discussions reveal widespread frustration with Colorado's immigration handling, with users calling for federal oversight to protect vulnerable groups from unchecked state policies. Critics argue that sanctuary measures embolden illegal immigration, straining resources and public safety. Nationally, this could prompt renewed DOJ actions, including lawsuits or funding cuts, as seen in prior threats against Colorado.

Economically, the policy may deter legal professionals from practicing in the state, fearing ethical entanglements. For immigrants, it offers illusory protections, as federal enforcement persists regardless of state barriers. Public sentiment, amplified online, underscores a demand for balanced approaches that respect federal authority while addressing humanitarian concerns.

A Call for Federal Intervention and Repeal

To rectify this overreach, the federal government should swiftly challenge the pledge through litigation, invoking § 1373 and the Supremacy Clause. Precedents like Arizona v. United States provide a clear path to invalidation. Meanwhile, Colorado lawmakers must repeal this provision to avoid costly legal battles and restore harmony between state and federal systems.

In conclusion, Colorado's lawyer pledge is not merely misguided policy but a blatant violation of constitutional principles and federal law. By prioritizing ideological defiance over legal order, the state endangers its legal community and invites chaos. It is time to reaffirm the supremacy of national immigration enforcement, ensuring that no state can unilaterally obstruct justice.

Michael J Badagliacco, “MJB”

Michael is a father of five and grandfather of three, United States Air Force Veteran, International Recording Artist, passionate about the United States of America, the founders’ Genius of the Constitution and Editor-in-Chief, Colorado DOGE Report (coDOGEreport.com).

Governor Polis and Colorado Democrats:

An Epic Failure in Reining In and Cutting Taxes



In Colorado, where fiscal responsibility used to be as steadfast as the peaks themselves, Colorado finds itself in a preventable crisis. Governor Jared Polis, once hailed as a moderate Democrat with a libertarian streak, has presided over a ballooning state budget that has grown by nearly 50 percent since he took office in 2019. Now, in August 2025, the Colorado Legislature is convened in a special session to address a $1.2 Billion budget shortfall, a hole dug by years of unchecked spending rather than any external force. This session, called by Polis himself, was meant to tackle taxes, artificial intelligence regulations, and health care, but it has devolved into partisan bickering and half-measures that fail to deliver meaningful tax relief. Instead of reining in taxes and cutting them as promised, Polis and his Democratic allies in the legislature have opted for quick fixes that raid reserves, dip into taxpayer refunds under the Taxpayer's Bill of Rights (TABOR), and even propose subtle tax increases on businesses and families. This is not leadership; it is an epic failure that burdens hardworking Coloradans with the consequences of political hubris. As Republicans and fiscal conservatives have pointed out, this mess stems from a spending addiction, not a revenue shortfall, and the Democrats' refusal to address it head-on reveals a deeper incompetence in governance.

The Roots of the Crisis: Overspending, Not Revenue Shortfalls

To understand the magnitude of this failure, one must trace the origins of Colorado's budget woes. When Polis assumed office, the state budget stood at around $30 billion. By 2025, it had swelled to $44 billion, a staggering 47 percent increase that far outpaces population growth (less than 5 percent) and inflation (around 26 percent over the same period). This expansion was fueled by Democratic priorities: expanded Medicaid coverage that now enrolls nearly one in three Coloradans, free preschool programs without long-term funding plans, and a host of welfare expansions and environmental mandates that sound noble but come with hefty price tags. Critics, including the Colorado Republican Party, have repeatedly warned that this was unsustainable, labeling it a "spending problem" rather than a need for more revenue.

Democrats, however, have deflected blame onto external factors, particularly the federal "One Big Beautiful Bill" passed in July 2025 under President Trump. This legislation, which includes tax cuts on tips and overtime pay, as well as accelerated depreciation for businesses, has indeed reduced Colorado's taxable income base due to the state's automatic adoption of federal tax rules. The result? An estimated $950 million drop in corporate taxes and $460 million in individual taxes for the state. But to pin the entire shortfall on this bill is disingenuous at best and delusional at worst. As fiscal analyst Michael Fields of Advance Colorado has noted, Democrats blew through a $3.6 billion surplus in just a few years, admitting now that tax hikes are inevitable to cover their tracks. The real culprit is internal: years of reckless budgeting under one-party Democratic rule, where the legislature's general fund spending jumped 44 percent from $11.1 billion to $16 billion.

Moreover, programs like Medicaid expansion under Obamacare were expanded with full knowledge that federal matching funds would eventually decrease, straining state coffers. Polis and Democrats ignored these warning signs, choosing instead to fund pet projects such as subsidies for noncitizens' health care and environmental initiatives like wolf reintroduction, which Republicans have proposed pausing to save costs but have been shot down. TABOR, Colorado's constitutional safeguard that limits government growth and requires voter approval for tax increases, has been a thorn in their side, but rather than respect it, Democrats have sought ways to circumvent it, including raiding refunds meant for taxpayers. This is not reining in taxes; it is a betrayal of the fiscal conservatism that once defined parts of Colorado's political landscape.

Broken Promises: Polis's Tax Cut Rhetoric Falls Flat

Governor Polis entered office with promises of tax relief and efficient government, positioning himself as a business-friendly leader who understood the burdens of high taxes. He touted initiatives like property tax reductions and even signed bills in previous sessions aimed at modest cuts. Yet, under his watch, property taxes have surged 35 to 40 percent in recent years, crippling homeowners and small businesses alike. In 2025 alone, efforts to provide lasting relief have stalled, with the special session focusing more on patching holes than slashing rates.

Polis's administration has pointed to temporary measures, such as small property tax credits and adjustments to income tax rates, but these are Band-Aids on a gaping wound. Republicans like Representative Larry Don Suckla have accused Democrats of using the session as a "spending spree" to cover fiscal irresponsibility, noting that warnings about the deficit date back to spring 2025. Instead of cutting taxes, bills in the session have included proposals to raise them on small businesses, sidestepping TABOR to fund ongoing programs. Polis's own office admitted that even after nixing some business incentives, a $250 million gap would remain, leading to dips into reserves rather than structural reforms.

This pattern of overpromising and underdelivering is evident in past sessions too. In the 2025 regular session, Democrats defied Polis on some issues but aligned on expanding government, passing over 480 bills while vetoing only 11. Themes included more spending on health care and education without corresponding cuts elsewhere, leading to the current crunch. As the Libertarian Party of Colorado aptly put it, there is no revenue problem; it is a "spending fetish" that has drained a $3.6 billion surplus to a mere $431 million. Polis's rhetoric of tax cuts rings hollow when his party blocks Republican amendments for real reductions, opting instead for what House Republicans call "political theater."

The Special Session: A Microcosm of Democratic Dysfunction

The ongoing special session, now in its fourth day as of August 24, 2025, exemplifies the Democrats' failure to act decisively on taxes. Called to address the $750 to $800 million shortfall (estimates vary slightly), it has featured heated debates, with fireworks erupting over tax policies and procedural maneuvers. Democrats, holding supermajorities (43-22 in the House and 23-12 in the Senate), have pushed through bills like Senate Bill 1, which modifies the governor's authority on revenue shortfalls but does little to cut taxes outright. Instead, negotiations swirl around gutting AI regulations to appease industry while stalling on tax relief.

Republicans have offered commonsense solutions: pause costly programs like wolf reintroduction, reduce subsidies for noncitizen health care, and implement across-the-board spending cuts. These have been dismissed, with Democrats accusing the minority of obstruction while they themselves engage in filibuster-style tactics to protect their agenda. As Colorado Senate Republicans stated, the session's purpose is to "raise taxes on Coloradans" by circumventing TABOR, not to provide relief. Even Polis's allies admit the budget has grown unsustainably, yet they refuse to rein it in, preferring to blame federal policies while ignoring their own role in the mess.

The session's cost alone, estimated at $37,000 per day, adds insult to injury, especially when paired with unrelated distractions like revisiting failed bills on social issues. This is the third consecutive year of special sessions, once rare but now routine under Democratic control, signaling a systemic failure to plan ahead. Rather than emerging with tax cuts, the legislature is poised to approve modest property tax deals that provide "small cuts" at best, far short of the relief needed after years of increases.

The Human Cost: Burdening Families and Businesses

The fallout from this fiscal fiasco hits Coloradans where it hurts most: their wallets. Families already grappling with the nation's highest inflation from 2020 to 2024 now face higher property taxes, reduced TABOR refunds, and potential cuts to essential services like schools and roads if spending is not curbed. Small businesses, the backbone of Colorado's economy, are targeted with proposed tax hikes in the session, exacerbating a stagnant growth environment. As Representative Brandi Bradley highlighted, instead of cutting waste, Democrats are "doubling down on tax hikes, welfare expansions, and costly mandates," directly impacting veterans, children, and working families.

Take Medicaid as an example: Its expansion has created dependency, with costs soaring as federal matches drop. This strains resources for truly vulnerable citizens while funding coverage for those who might not qualify under stricter rules. Businesses suffer too, with accelerated depreciation benefits from the federal bill undermined by state-level clawbacks. The result? Slower economic growth, job losses, and families fleeing the state for lower-tax havens. Polis's failure to cut taxes perpetuates this cycle, turning Colorado from a beacon of opportunity into a cautionary tale of big-government overreach.

Ignored Alternatives: Republican Solutions Blocked

Amid the chaos, Republicans have not been idle. They have proposed genuine reforms: freezing hiring, eliminating wasteful programs, and prioritizing tax cuts over expansions. Figures like Gabe Evans, a congressional candidate, have called out the Democrats for banking on tax hikes that were averted by federal action, only to overspend anyway. In the session, amendments to pause non-essential spending were blocked, with Democrats using their majority to protect sacred cows like environmental subsidies.

Even procedural fairness has been compromised, with Senate Majority Leader Robert Rodriguez reassigning committee members to ensure passage of favored bills, drawing accusations of manipulation. This heavy-handed approach stifles debate and ignores viable paths to tax relief, such as rolling back recent expansions in education and health care without voter-approved funding. As Representative Max Brooks noted, the "sudden" budget problem is anything but, given a decade of Democratic control and prior deficits. By rejecting these alternatives, Polis and Democrats perpetuate a system where taxes remain high, and relief is illusory.

A Call for Accountability and Change

Colorado deserves better than this cycle of overspending, blame-shifting, and half-hearted sessions. Governor Polis and the Democrats have had ample opportunity to rein in taxes and cut them meaningfully, yet they have squandered surpluses, ignored warnings, and prioritized ideology over fiscal prudence. The special session, rather than a triumph, underscores their epic failure: a government grown too large, too fast, at the expense of its citizens.

Voters must hold them accountable. In future elections, support leaders who respect TABOR, advocate for spending restraint, and deliver real tax cuts. Only then can Colorado reclaim its status as a state of fiscal sanity and economic vitality. The mountains may endure, but without change, the burden on taxpayers will only grow heavier.

Michael J Badagliacco, "MJB"

Michael is a United States Air Force Veteran, father of five and grandfather of three, passionate about this country and the Constitution. 

Editor-In-Chief, Colorado DOGE Report

Colorado’s Legal Tyranny: How It Happened and How We Take It Back!

By Sean M. Pond

Colorado did not fall because of one bad election or one bad governor. It fell because a handful of people figured out how to take over a state legally. They did it quietly, methodically, and permanently. By the time most Coloradans noticed, it was already too late.

This is not theory. It is documented history and political strategy. If we do not face it head on, Colorado will become the model for how the rest of America loses its freedom without a single shot being fired.

In the early 2000s, four ultra-wealthy progressives, Jared Polis, Tim Gill, Rutt Bridges, and Pat Stryker, launched a plan called The Blueprint. Their goal was to flip Colorado from red to blue and lock it down for good. They did not just focus on big elections. They targeted small local races, poured millions into “nonpartisan” nonprofits that were actually Democrat recruitment machines, and built a web of think tanks, activist groups, and friendly media outlets to control the narrative year round.

By 2008, they controlled the state legislature. From there, they rewrote the rules to make sure they never had to give it back.

The Blueprint takeover began in small local races. That is exactly where we will begin taking it back.

Here is the truth the establishment will not say out loud: Denver, Boulder, and increasingly parts of Colorado Springs have enough population to control statewide elections by themselves. Rural counties can vote ninety percent against something and still lose. Urban voters who have never set foot on a ranch, mine, or logging site now decide the fate of industries they do not understand.

Once they had power, they changed the rules:

• Universal mail-in ballots sent to every registered voter

• Automatic voter registration at the DMV, inflating the rolls

• Loosened residency rules, making it easier for people without deep ties to sway elections

• Ballot-harvesting loopholes, allowing political operatives to collect and submit other people’s ballots

All of this went through the legislature, was signed by the governor, and upheld by the courts. It is legal on paper even if it destroys the fairness of the process.

The courts are no help. Judges are appointed or retained under systems controlled by progressives. The Colorado Supreme Court leans far left. By the time one lawsuit is resolved, three more bad laws have taken root.

I have seen firsthand that there are far more of us than they want you to believe, and the movement to restore liberty in Colorado is already underway.

Every overreach is sold with a feel-good slogan:

• “For the children” means more state control over parenting, education, and health

• “Protect the planet” means land grabs, water restrictions, and shutting down traditional energy

• “Save lives” means gutting the Second Amendment and letting criminals out early

It is propaganda designed to make opponents look heartless.

Our Constitution runs on the consent of the governed. But when the media only tells one side, when voting rules are rewritten to benefit one party, and when courts are stacked with like-minded appointees, you can manufacture that consent. The system still looks legitimate but functions like a machine built to keep the same ideology in power no matter how badly it performs.

That is why I call it legal tyranny. Oppression with paperwork.

The Founders warned about this in 1787. They said liberty survives only when the people defend it. They said a majority can destroy freedom just as fast as a king. They said once power is concentrated, it will not give itself back willingly.

Colorado is now a test lab for progressive America. What works here gets exported to other states. If we do not break this machine, the rest of the country will follow.

This fight will not be won in Washington. It will be won in our towns, our counties, and our school boards, and I am already in that fight.

The fix will not come from Washington or the courts. It will come from us, the people of Colorado, standing up at the local level where this takeover began. We must take back school boards, city councils, and county commissions. We must build a permanent conservative ground game that operates year-round. We must expose their machine for what it is so people can see that this is not progress, it is control.

I have been in communities across Colorado, meeting face to face with the people who refuse to surrender our land, our liberty, and our future, and we are far stronger than they want you to believe.

The good news is that it can be done. The Blueprint takeover began in small local races and local organizations. That is exactly where we can begin taking it back. We can show up at every meeting, from school boards to county commissions. We can recruit and support candidates who will defend the Constitution. We can work year-round instead of waking up six months before an election. We can educate our neighbors, share the truth, and refuse to be intimidated into silence.

If you are reading this, you are part of a growing movement. Together we can restore freedom in Colorado. I know the road is not easy, but I also know we have the strength, the numbers, and the will to do it. And as long as I have a voice, I will be using it to fight for our land, our liberty, and the future of our state.

Colorado is not lost yet. But we must fight now, together, or we will be remembered as the generation that let freedom slip away.

About the Author:

Sean M. Pond is a Montrose County Commissioner for District 3, a U.S. Navy veteran who served in the Persian Gulf including during Operation Desert Shield, and a fifth-generation Colorado native. He has stood on stages across the state defending constitutional freedoms, protecting rural Colorado, and fighting back against government overreach. Sean travels regularly to communities across Colorado to meet with local leaders, grassroots groups, and everyday citizens, building a movement to restore liberty in the state.

Congressman Jeff Hurd

A Record of

Deceit / Betrayal / Petty Politics / Phony Conservative

The Congressman’s record includes:

1. Refusing to return MULTIPLE phone calls by the Montrose County Party Chairman.  This is petty, non-professional, and essentially giving the County Chairman the middle finger.  Hurd has been invited multiple times to attend at least one of the County Party’s monthly meetings, so he can share his record in Congress.  Neither he or his staff could be courteous and professional by returning the Party leader’s many phone calls.

2. Hurd does not feel obligated to be accessible to his constituents.  After all, he won the election without ever participating in any debate during the campaign.  Why explain your platform if you can rely on a postcard campaign promoting your phony conservative values.  He felt entitled and was anointed, so god forbid he should ever have to face his constituents now regarding his record (except those who blindly follow him) let alone a County Party Chairman and the County’s Central Committee members.

3. Hurd had a photo-op near one of the many fire zones in his District.  Nothing wrong with this except for the fact he invited only one of Montrose County Commissioners - an independent* rather than invite the other Commissioners who are Republicans - to his photo-op.  It was so deceitful how this photo-op took place.   The so-called independent commissioner excused herself from a public Commissioners meeting without notifying her colleagues she was running out to join Hurd’s photo-op.

4. The non-Republican Commissioner solely invited by Hurd is aligned with Colorado’s far left U.S. Senators John Hickenlooper and Michael Bennett in their latest land grab attempt.  So, why would Hurd invite only the non-Republican commissioner rather than the two conservative Montrose County Republican Commissioners?  Answer:  Hurd is not a real Republican or a true conservative, but a real RINO!

5. Hurd has not been clear if he supports Open Borders or the President’s Border Control policy, because he has been on both sides of the fence.  This is another example of him playing politician.  Why commit when you can get away with it.  After all, during the Primary and General Election he never fully committed to being a Trump supporter, yet did not mind of course of riding on Trump’s coat tails to assure his election last November.  CD-3 needs a real leader, not another typical politician.

6. Last week, Hope Scheppelman, who is Hurd’s only 2026 Primary opponent at this time, came out swinging against the Congressman.  Our DOGE Report issue headlined “Predator in Our Backyard: Silence from Congressman Jeff Hurd”.  Some may have viewed it as overdramatic by an opponent seeking his office, so was it appropriate for DOGE Report to report or repeat Scheppelman’s press release?  Well, we viewed it and still do as a disturbing pattern by Congressman Hurd when it comes to ignoring or condoning abominable treatment of children.

7. Last year during the early stages of the CD-3 Primary, Hurd received the endorsement of a former State Senator with a despicable record of sponsoring radical Democrat legislation that resulted in SEXUAL EXPLOITATION of CHILDREN especially under the age of 11.

Hurd had plenty of respectable endorsements, so why would he so willing to accept this former Senator’s endorsement who betrayed

Children, Parents, Conservatives, GOP, and Law Enforcement?

Hurd was asked to reject the endorsement, but he refused even after he was provided details of the said Senator’s disgraceful record that included:

● HB 19-1032 - so-called sex education bill that resulted in the infamous Sex survey presented to school children as young as TEN (10) years of age. 

The survey asked students, for example, if they had "anal sex".

● SB 21-067 - so-called Civics Education bill that mandates teaching young children diverse sexual lifestyles.

● SB 20-217 so-called Enhanced Law Enforcement Integrity bill that threw law enforcement under the bus by removing "qualified immunity". 

Part of the DEFUND the police agenda by radical Democrats.

● Former State Senator did not sponsor, but did vote with the Democrats HB 19-1263 to “decriminalize” DRUG DEALERS and "FENTANYL".

8. Jeff Hurd has willfully demonstrated he does not deserve to be re-elected in 2026.  He has betrayed and deceived Republican voters just as his friend/endorser the former disgraced State Senator betrayed and deceived Republican voters.  Hurd is just another typical politician who embraces petty politics, and he is a phony conservative - a true RINO!!!  We need true and honest leaders to represent us, and promote and defend our great Constitutional Republic!!!!

*  An independent who also betrayed the Republican Party.  She resigned from the Party without giving notice to the County Chair even though she was supported by the Party.

The Republican Big Tent, The Inclusive Coalition for All Americans,

While Democrats Embrace Elitism

A Profound Political Shift

In the landscape of American politics, a profound shift has occurred. The Republican Party, once caricatured as rigid and exclusionary, has transformed into a true "big tent" party. It welcomes a diverse array of voices, from blue-collar workers to tech innovators, former Democrats, and minority communities seeking economic opportunity and security. Meanwhile, the Democratic Party has devolved into a narrow enclave of coastal elites and self-righteous snobs. These individuals prioritize virtue-signaling over practical solutions, alienating the very working-class voters they once claimed to champion. This evolution is not mere rhetoric. It is evident in election results, policy priorities, and cultural attitudes. As we navigate the post-2024 era, with Donald Trump's coalition proving resilient and expansive, it is clear that Republicans are building a party for the future, while Democrats risk irrelevance through their condescending exclusivity.

The Essence of the Republican Big Tent

The concept of a "big tent" party refers to one that accommodates a broad spectrum of beliefs and backgrounds, fostering unity around core principles without demanding ideological purity. Historically, the Republican Party has embraced this model at various points. For instance, during Ronald Reagan's era, the GOP united conservatives, moderates, and even some disaffected Democrats under themes of economic freedom and national strength. Today, under Trump's influence, this tent has grown even larger. Trump's 2024 victory showcased a coalition that included MAGA loyalists, tech entrepreneurs like Elon Musk, and working-class voters from diverse ethnic groups. This expansion is staggering. Trump increased the Republican share of the presidential vote in nearly half of America's counties across three elections, a feat that reshaped the electoral map.

Diverse Voices and Alliances in the GOP

Consider the Republican National Convention in 2024. It featured speakers from varied walks of life, including union leaders, minority entrepreneurs, and former Democrats like Tulsi Gabbard, who highlighted her departure from a party she viewed as out of touch. Gabbard, speaking at a Trump rally, described how the Democratic Party had become intolerant, pushing her toward the GOP's more inclusive fold. This is not isolated. The GOP now includes nationalists, Christian conservatives, gay Republicans through groups like Log Cabin Republicans, and even Muslims wary of endless foreign wars. On platforms like X, users celebrate this diversity, noting how Trump's leadership has created a "multiracial, working-class party" that appeals to everyone from teamsters to tech bros. Even figures like RFK Jr. found common ground with Republicans on issues like vaccine skepticism and environmental realism, underscoring the party's willingness to embrace unconventional allies.

Policy Inclusivity: Broad Appeal Through Practical Solutions

This big tent is not just about personalities. It reflects policy inclusivity. Republicans advocate for border security that protects American jobs, tax cuts that benefit middle-class families, and energy independence that lowers costs for everyday people. These are issues that resonate across demographics. For example, Trump's gains among Hispanic and Black voters in 2024 were historic, driven by economic concerns rather than identity politics. In counties from New York City to Honolulu, Republican vote shares surged, even in traditionally blue areas, as voters sought practical governance over ideological lectures. The party's evolution under Trump has made it a home for those alienated by the left's extremism, including independents and former Democrats who prioritize results over rhetoric.

The Democratic Devolution: From Champions to Elites

In stark contrast, the Democratic Party has shrunk into a club for elites and snobs, disconnected from the heartland's realities. Once the self-proclaimed champions of the working class, Democrats now cater primarily to college-educated urbanites, Hollywood celebrities, and tech oligarchs. This devolution is evident in polling and analysis. A New York Times piece detailed how Democrats expanded their vote share in only 57 counties over recent elections, compared to Republicans' gains in over 1,400. The reason? Democrats have become the party of "coastal elites and college-educated snobs," alienating working-class voters of all races. This snobbery manifests in condescending attitudes toward everyday Americans, dismissing their concerns about inflation, crime, and borders as backward or bigoted.

Snobbery Manifested: Attitudes, Policies, and Cultural Disconnect

Critics within and outside the party acknowledge this. Former Democratic strategist James Carville has lamented the party's focus on "preachy females" and cultural scolds who alienate male voters. Even David Hogg, a prominent gun control activist, admitted on Bill Maher's show that Democrats have flipped roles with Republicans. Young men, he said, now see Democrats as judgmental snobs who make them "walk on eggshells," preferring Trump's unfiltered approach despite policy disagreements. This judgmentalism extends to policies. Democrats push radical agendas like the Green New Deal, which burdens working families with higher energy costs, while ignoring kitchen-table issues. Their obsession with identity politics, from pronouns to reparations, comes across as elitist virtue-signaling, irrelevant to Americans struggling with rising groceries and unsafe streets.

Historical Echoes and Funding Influences

Historical echoes reinforce this. In 1969, Vice President Spiro Agnew criticized media elites as an "effete corps of impudent snobs," a label that now fits Democratic leadership. Today's Democrats, funded by Silicon Valley billionaires and Hollywood moguls, embody this snobbery. Figures like Joe Biden, Kamala Harris, and Gavin Newsom lecture from ivory towers, while their policies favor global corporations over American workers. Polls confirm the shift: Democrats are increasingly seen as the party of the wealthy and over-educated, with support eroding among non-college graduates and minorities. In states like New York, even urban counties trended Republican as voters rejected this elitism.

Exclusionary Practices and Electoral Consequences

This elitism breeds exclusion. Democrats demand conformity on issues like climate alarmism and gender ideology, ostracizing dissenters. Their media allies amplify this, portraying non-elites as deplorables. On X, users decry Democrats as "snobs who lost their edge," prioritizing donor interests over voter needs. This contrasts sharply with the GOP's openness. While Republicans debate internally—from paleo-conservatives to libertarians—they unite around shared goals like prosperity and security. Democrats, however, purge moderates, as seen in their treatment of figures like Joe Manchin or Tulsi Gabbard, who dared question the orthodoxy.

The consequences are clear. In 2024, Trump's big tent delivered victories in swing states, flipping working-class strongholds. Democrats, mired in snobbery, lost ground everywhere except affluent suburbs. This trend continues into 2025, with unions like the Teamsters shifting donations to Republicans, recognizing the GOP as the true working-class party. As one X user noted, "Trump’s Republican Party is a big tent, multiracial, working-class party, and Americans notice."

Republican Hope Versus Democratic Isolation

Looking ahead, the Republican big tent offers hope for a unified America. It invites all who value freedom, opportunity, and common sense, regardless of background. Policies like school choice empower parents, deregulation boosts innovation, and strong borders protect communities. This inclusivity fosters real progress, not divisive lectures.

Democrats, conversely, risk further isolation. Their snobbery—evident in mocking rural voters or prioritizing global elites—repels the diverse electorate they need. To recover, they must shed this elitism and reconnect with everyday Americans. Until then, they remain a shrinking party, out of touch and outmatched.

Embracing the Big Tent for a United Future

The Republican Party's big tent represents the vibrant, pluralistic spirit of America. It is a coalition built on shared aspirations, not enforced conformity. Democrats, trapped in their echo chamber of elites and snobs, have lost their way. Voters have noticed, and the results speak for themselves. For a stronger, more united nation, the choice is clear: join the big tent.

Michael J Badagliacco, “MJB”

Michael is a United States Air Force Veteran, father of five and grandfather of three, passionate about this country and the Constitution. 

Editor-in-Chief, Colorado DOGE Report.

Will the real Colorado, please stand up…

please stand up…please stand up!

Colorado, the 38th state of our Union. Many moons ago as I arrived at these shores Colorado was looked upon as idyllic, with an almost resort style type of living. With her mountains offering excellent skiing in the Winter, only to support superb hiking and other outdoor activities during her Autumn, Spring and Summer. The communities were looked upon as quiet, peaceful, where the harmony of a pleasant family atmosphere met fun and safe nightlife.

Fast forward to today. Ramped drug use, illegal immigration running wild, social disorder, and horrific violence putting everyone on notice each and every day. How did things go so wrong? When did things go so wrong? It began in the early 2000’s with some wealthy progressives launched “The Blueprint” initiative. By manipulating local elections and voter registration they managed to take control of the state legislature. As a direct result Colorado ended up with more left leaning electorate, and it has only been downhill from then on.

Colorado’s issues today are many and significant. Some of them are, but not limited to:

- Cost of living: Housing, food, and fuel prices are all highly contributing factors to what is causing people in Colorado issues.

- Affordable housing: For 67%, or 2/3 of all people in Colorado, this is the issue that is causing them sleepless nights.

- Government and politics: The direction of the state, the choices made of the state’s leaders, are very concerning to a great many.

- Homelessness: A continuously growing problem because of very lazy drug laws, the lack of drug prevention, and holding those who distribute responsible.

- Public safety/Street violence: Crime is out of control, and no one does anything about it. We are no longer safe, we no longer feel safe. We no longer have the level safety and comfortability one expects from one’s community.

Many if not most of these issues are directly related to the failed politics of the Democrats. Playing footsie with illegal immigration, being soft on crime, and being more than lenient on drugs plays a very big part in the societal regression. By reversing course on these three problems alone will be a huge step in Colorado getting back on track.

The left has nothing invested emotionally in Colorado. It is nothing more or less than a political hit job, where they seek power and control only. Most of these clowns don’t even live in our state, and they couldn’t care less about your state of being here either. It is simply not important to them and their agenda.

So how exactly do we go about this? How do we get our Colorado back? A lot of hard work and commitment. It is going to take us all, and it won’t happen overnight. We must stay vigilant and even more importantly: together. Voting is always good and important, but on its own won’t make enough of a dent to matter.

In addition to the need of supporting our current representatives we also need new, creative, and positive leaders to surface. Contact your local representatives and ask how you can contribute/volunteer. Search for local groups and other likeminded individuals. In addition, I strongly recommend social media. There are more of us out there than you can imagine, and we all want the same thing. The only reason you don’t see or hear more from us, or out of us, is because of all these years living under these conditions. Many have become subdued by the feeling of hopelessness and despair, but no more. No longer.

Women and Men in Blue: you want your streets back? Would you like the opportunity to perform the duties you were train to do and asked the people of Colorado to perform? Well, let’s do it then. Let’s reverse this madness and once more allow for our citizens to be able to enjoy a fresh cup of joe at one of our street café’s without running the risk of being blown up by some strung out freak. You with us?

Finally, I am reaching out to all of our glorious Veterans out there. You didn’t put on and wear that uniform, retire and move to Colorado, to end up with all this crap in your backyard. Bonaparte and I will have your back, but we are also asking that you have our when time comes. Bonaparte himself as well as his children are all Veterans, and this is a cause very close to his heart. Stay strong and stay ready, brave ones; we are coming.

Now when you know where to find me feel free to also reach out to me. I will do all I can to aid you and get you going in the right direction. If our boy in Washington is willing to take two bullets for us, I believe it is only fair that we are willing to send an email or two and/or make a couple of phone calls on behalf of the greater good and Colorado.

So, will the real Colorado, please stand up…please stand up…please stand up.

Fight! Fight! Fight!

Thank Heaven for 47 and for Colorado.

Visit me on X @ShortSkinnyBaldGuy

“Indivisible's” Misguided Crusade:
How a Local Activist Group Betrays America's Founding Principles as a Constitutional Republic

In the quiet town of Montrose, Colorado, a group called Montrose & Ouray Counties Indivisible (MOC Indivisible) has emerged as a vocal force in local politics. Billing themselves as champions of "inclusive democracy," they organize protests, rallies, and advocacy campaigns against what they perceive as right-wing threats, from union-busting to authoritarianism. Led by figures like Holly Speaks, a psychotherapist and disabled advocate, and supported by contacts such as Heather Christin Toth, the group aligns with the national Indivisible movement, which arose in 2016 to resist Donald Trump's presidency. Other notable members include none other than Colorado’s Governor Jerod Polis himself. Their activities, ranging from May Day protests decrying billionaire influence, to events opposing federal policies like the "Big Beautiful Bill," sound noble on the surface. Their resistance to Donald Trump, whom they paint as a right-wing extremist, is particularly ironic given that Trump is not even right-wing ideologically; rather, he is a centrist, in fact, probably the most pragmatic centrist President that we have seen in this country in the last 100 years. But a closer examination reveals a profound disconnect: Indivisible's relentless push for "democracy" ignores the fact that the United States was deliberately founded not as a democracy, but as a Constitutional Republic. This misunderstanding isn't just academic; it underscores how far-left organizations like “Indivisible” undermine the very Constitution they claim to defend, favoring fluid interpretations rooted in socialist ideals that history has repeatedly shown to fail.

The Founders' Rejection of Democracy

The founders of our nation were explicit in their rejection of democracy, viewing it as a volatile system prone to mob rule, tyranny of the majority, and instability. James Madison, often called the "Father of the Constitution," articulated this in Federalist No. 10, where he warned that democracies "have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths." Madison distinguished a republic from a democracy by emphasizing delegation: in a republic, government is entrusted to a small number of representatives, allowing for refined decision-making and protection of minority rights. This wasn't mere rhetoric; it was a deliberate design to avoid the pitfalls of ancient democracies like Athens, where direct rule by the people often led to hasty decisions and persecution of dissenters.

Key Insights from the Federalist Papers

Alexander Hamilton echoed this sentiment in Federalist No. 9, arguing that a republican form could mitigate the "tempestuous waves of sedition and party rage" inherent in democracies. In Federalist No. 14, Madison further clarified: "In a democracy, the people meet and exercise the government in person; in a republic, they assemble and administer it by their representatives and agents." These papers, written to persuade ratification of the Constitution, make clear that the founders sought a system where elected officials, bound by law, would govern, not the unfiltered will of the masses. Thomas Jefferson reinforced this, stating, "The republican is the only form of government which is not eternally at open or secret war with the rights of mankind." Even Benjamin Franklin, when asked what the Constitutional Convention had created, famously replied, "A republic, if you can keep it."

This distinction is not semantic nitpicking; it's foundational. The U.S. Constitution itself guarantees "to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government" in Article IV, Section 4, without mentioning "democracy" once.

Insights from Benedict D. LaRosa and Other Sources

As historian Benedict D. LaRosa explains in his seminal work "Democracy or Republic? Which is it?", the founders drew from classical thinkers like Aristotle and Polybius, who saw pure democracy as devolving into anarchy or tyranny. LaRosa argues that America's system is a republic because it emphasizes rule of law over majority whim, protecting individual liberties through checks and balances. He contrasts this with democracy, where "the majority can vote away the rights of the minority," citing historical examples like the French Revolution's Reign of Terror as cautionary tales. LaRosa's analysis underscores that “those who conflate the two are wholly misinformed," failing to grasp how republics safeguard against the very factions Madison feared.

Other authoritative sources affirm this. The Heritage Foundation's report "America Is a Republic, Not a Democracy" details how the founders, influenced by Enlightenment philosophers like Montesquieu, designed a system to prevent the "extremes of democracy." John Adams warned, "Democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide." Fisher Ames, a contemporary, called democracy "a government of the passions," prone to "the madness of the many." These views weren't outliers; they shaped the Electoral College, bicameral legislature, and independent judiciary, all mechanisms to temper direct democracy.

Indivisible's Misguided Approach and Constitutional Misinterpretation

Yet, groups like Indivisible persist in promoting "democracy" as if it's synonymous with American governance. Their mission statement emphasizes "building an inclusive democracy" through direct actions like voter drives and protests, often framing opposition as threats to democratic norms. This rhetoric betrays a fundamental misunderstanding or willful ignorance of the republic's design. By advocating for unchecked majority rule under the guise of inclusivity, they risk the very minority protections the founders prized. Moreover, Indivisible's national guide, "Indivisible: A Practical Guide to Democracy on the Ground," calls for resisting "petty tyrants" through mass mobilization, echoing tactics that could veer into the mob dynamics Madison decried.

This isn't just theoretical; Indivisible's far-left orientation reveals a deeper antipathy toward the Constitution's fixed principles. Rooted in Left-Wing activism, the organization collaborates with groups like the League of Women Voters and pushes agendas aligned with socialist ideals, such as workers' rights expansions and opposition to capitalist influences. They view the Constitution not as a timeless document rooted in enduring truths like natural rights and limited government but as a "living and breathing" entity that evolves with societal whims. This perspective, popularized by modern liberals, allows for reinterpretations that erode original intent, such as expanding federal power beyond enumerated limits or prioritizing collective equity over individual liberty. Indivisible's focus on "unrigging the courts" and expanding democratic access implies a belief that the judiciary should bend to popular will, not uphold constitutional constraints.

Such views stem from socialist and communistic theories, which history has proven unsustainable. Socialism promises equality through state control, but it inevitably leads to economic stagnation, loss of freedoms, and authoritarianism.

The Failures of Socialist and Communistic Theories

The Soviet Union, once hailed as a workers' paradise, collapsed in 1991 after decades of famines, gulags, and inefficiencies that killed tens of millions. Under Stalin, collectivization caused the Holodomor, starving millions in Ukraine. Mao's China saw the Great Leap Forward result in 45 million deaths from famine and purges. Cuba, under Castro, promised equality but delivered poverty and repression, with thousands fleeing on rafts. Venezuela, once South America's richest nation, adopted socialist policies under Chávez and Maduro, leading to hyperinflation, food shortages, and mass exodus of over 7 million refugees by 2023.

Even "democratic socialism" experiments falter. In the 1970s, Britain's Labour government nationalized industries, resulting in strikes, inflation, and the "Winter of Discontent." Sweden and Denmark, often cited as successes, rejected full socialism in the 1990s, embracing market reforms to avoid collapse. As economist Ludwig von Mises predicted in 1922, socialism fails because it lacks price signals for efficient resource allocation, leading to waste and coercion. The Black Book of Communism estimates 100 million deaths under communist regimes, dwarfing other ideologies.

Indivisible's advocacy for policies echoing these, stronger unions, wealth redistribution, and expanded government, ignores these lessons. Their protests against "billionaires and what Donald Trump is doing" frame capitalism as the enemy, yet it's free markets that lifted billions from poverty, while socialism entrenches elites in power. By treating the Constitution as malleable, they open the door to amendments or interpretations that could dismantle republican safeguards, like abolishing the Electoral College for pure popular vote, a direct democracy move that would amplify urban majorities over rural voices.

Impact on Local Communities

This out-of-touch stance harms communities like Montrose. In a conservative-leaning area, Indivisible's far-left activism alienates residents who value the republic's stability. Their calls for "action by action, day by day" might mobilize a vocal minority, but they risk the turbulence the founders warned against. True patriotism lies in upholding the Constitution's original principles: limited government, individual rights, and republican representation.

Indivisible Montrose exemplifies how misinformed zeal for "democracy" erodes America's republican foundation. The founders, through the Federalist Papers and their actions, rejected democracy's dangers, opting for a republic to ensure liberty's endurance. As LaRosa and others affirm, conflating the two betrays ignorance of profound differences. Worse, Indivisible's socialist leanings peddle failed ideologies that history condemns. It's time to reaffirm our constitutional republic, not as a living suggestion, but as a solid bulwark against tyranny. Only then can we honor the founders' vision and "keep" the republic Franklin entrusted to us.

Michael J Badagliacco, “MJB”

Michael is a United States Air Force Veteran, father of five and grandfather of three, passionate about this country and the Constitution. 

He is also the Editor-in-Chief of the Colorado DOGE Report.

Jeff Hurd, a Betrayal of Trust in Colorado’s 3rd Congressional District

A Slap in the Face to Conservative Voters

Colorado’s 3rd Congressional District has long been a bastion of conservative values, a place where hardworking folks from the Western Slope to Pueblo and beyond expect their representatives to stand firm on principles like limited government, strong borders, energy independence, and Second Amendment rights. But Jeff Hurd, our so-called Republican congressman, has turned his back on all that. Since taking office in January 2025, Hurd has veered sharply to the left, cozying up to the radical agendas of Colorado’s Democratic senators, Michael Bennett and John Hickenlooper. These two are the loudest left-wing voices from our state in Washington, pushing everything from open borders to climate hysteria that kills jobs in our rural communities. Hurd’s betrayal is not just disappointing. It is a slap in the face to every conservative voter who put him in office, thinking he would carry the torch after Lauren Boebert’s departure.

Let us be clear right from the start. CD3 is not some swing district where moderates can play both sides and get away with it. History proves it has a deep conservative bias, rooted in the values of independence, self-reliance, and distrust of big government overreach. Hurd claims he wants to be our congressman for a long time. I have news for you Jeff, you will not do it by alienating the conservative base. In fact, when you piss the conservatives off in CD3, you can kiss your CD3 political future goodbye. Do not believe me, just keep it up, or as many leftists are finding out, FAFO, I dare you.

The Conservative Roots of CD3

To understand the depth of Hurd’s betrayal, we must first examine the historical voting patterns that underscore CD3’s conservative bias. This district, encompassing vast rural areas, has consistently leaned Republican in recent decades, with only a brief Democratic interlude in the mid-2000s. The Partisan Voter Index rates CD3 as R+7, meaning it performs about seven points more Republican than the national average. This rating reflects a electorate that prioritizes fiscal responsibility, energy production, and traditional values over progressive experiments.

Looking back, the district flipped to Democrat John Salazar in 2004, when he won with 51 percent against Republican Greg Walcher’s 47 percent. Salazar held the seat comfortably in 2006 with 62 percent and in 2008 with another 62 percent, capitalizing on a national Democratic wave and local issues like agriculture. But conservatives regrouped, and in 2010, amid the Tea Party movement and opposition to Obamacare, Republican Scott Tipton reclaimed the district with 50 percent to Salazar’s 46 percent. This marked the beginning of a Republican dominance that has defined CD3 ever since.

Tipton built on that momentum. In 2012, he secured 53 percent against Democrat Sal Pace’s 41 percent. By 2014, his margin expanded to 58 percent over Democrat Abel Tapia’s 36 percent, as voters rewarded his focus on energy jobs and limited government. In 2016, Tipton won with 54.6 percent to Democrat Gail Schwartz’s 40.35 percent, even as the national landscape grew more divisive. The 2018 midterm, often called a blue wave, saw Tipton hold on with 51.52 percent against Democrat Diane Mitsch Bush’s 43.55 percent.

The trend of narrow but consistent Republican wins continued into the 2020s. In 2020, Lauren Boebert, a staunch conservative, defeated Mitsch Bush with 51.27 percent to 45.41 percent, despite pandemic disruptions and expanded mail-in voting that typically favor Democrats. Boebert’s 2022 re-election was the closest yet, edging out Democrat Adam Frisch 50.08 percent to 49.92 percent in what was the nation’s tightest House race. This razor-thin victory highlighted the district’s competitiveness but also the power of the conservative base to turn out when motivated by a fighter.

In 2024, after Boebert switched to the safer 4th District due to personal challenges, Jeff Hurd stepped in as the Republican nominee. He defeated Frisch with 50.80 percent of the vote, a margin that reflected the district’s underlying Republican lean without Boebert’s controversies. Analysts like the Cook Political Report rated the seat as Likely Republican, underscoring the conservative bias.

Presidential voting patterns reinforce this. In 2020, Donald Trump carried CD3 with about 52 percent to Joe Biden’s 46 percent. Similar margins held in 2016 and likely in 2024, showing voters’ preference for conservative policies on borders, taxes, and energy. Over the last 14 years (2010-2024), the average Republican vote share in CD3 general elections has been around 52.5 percent, with dips only when candidates fail to energize the base. Unaffiliated voters, a large bloc in the district, often break right on key issues like gun rights and economic freedom, but they demand authenticity.

These statistics paint a clear picture: CD3 rewards conservatives who stick to principles and punishes those who stray. The brief Democratic hold from 2004-2010 was an anomaly, ended by a unified conservative push. Hurd’s win in 2024 was not a mandate for moderation but a trust in the Republican brand to deliver conservative results.

Hurd's Hard Turn to the Left: From Campaign Promises to Washington Surrender

It does not really come as any surprise that Hurd has shifted left. He was billed as a moderate during the 2024 campaign, emphasizing bipartisanship over bold conservative stands, at a time when Boebert was chased out because of her own antics within her personal life. We have all been there, but Boebert at least fought unapologetically for CD3 values. Hurd, however, has done more to alienate the conservative base than nearly any congressman looking to be reelected.

Since being sworn in, Hurd’s voting record reveals a pattern of compromise that smells like surrender. On GovTrack, Hurd has a moderate conservatism score, voting yea on bills like the Great Lakes Mass Marking Program Act and the GENIUS Act, but his alliances tell a different story. He has missed only 1.8 percent of votes, but quantity does not equal quality when those votes align with left-wing priorities.

Hurd has supported expansions of federal programs under the guise of bipartisanship, such as joining Democrats on infrastructure deals loaded with debt and green mandates. In a district reliant on fossil fuels, his waffling on energy regulations is unforgivable. He has voted against hardline measures to defund environmental overreach, instead opting for compromises that hurt miners and ranchers.

Aligning with Radical Democrats: Embracing Bennett and Hickenlooper's Agenda

The most damning evidence of Hurd’s leftward drift is his cozy relationship with Senators Michael Bennett and John Hickenlooper, Colorado’s radical left-wing mouthpieces. Bennett pushes amnesty for illegals, massive climate spending, and tax hikes to fund big government. Hickenlooper, the ex-governor who turned Colorado into a left-wing playground, echoes the same: sanctuary policies, gun control, and job-killing green deals.

Hurd has joined them on multiple fronts. In February 2025, he introduced “bipartisan” legislation with Bennett and Hickenlooper to compensate communities affected by the Gold King Mine disaster, a move that expands federal payouts without addressing root causes like EPA incompetence. In May, Hurd led the GORP Act alongside Bennett and Hickenlooper, a public lands bill that conservatives criticize for prioritizing environmental restrictions over local control and energy development. This bill reflects strong local input, Hurd claims, but it aligns with Democrat priorities on conservation that often hinder rural economies.

More recently, in August 2025, Hurd united with the entire Colorado delegation, including Bennett and Hickenlooper, to urge the Trump administration to release $140 million for Colorado River crisis funding. While water is vital, this push for federal dollars smacks of big government dependency, not conservative self-reliance. Hurd has also cosponsored bills on judicial reforms and entrepreneur visas that blur party lines, voting yea on measures like the No Rogue Rulings Act and American Entrepreneurs First Act.

On immigration, Hurd has supported extensions for Dreamers without demanding wall funding or enforcement, mirroring Bennett’s amnesty stance. His gun policy waffling includes backing background check tweaks, chipping at Second Amendment rights cherished in CD3’s hunting communities. This is not conservatism. It is RINO politics at its worst.

Alienating the Base: The Consequences of Betrayal

Hurd has alienated the conservative base more than any recent congressman. His bipartisan romances have sparked backlash, with former Colorado GOP vice chair Hope Scheppelman announcing a 2026 primary challenge in July 2025, explicitly criticizing Hurd’s GORP Act collaboration with Democrats as not conservative enough. Scheppelman’s entry signals growing discontent among grassroots Republicans who see Hurd as too moderate. If that is Scheppelman or someone else, because there will be more that announce their bid.

Historical trends warn of danger. When Tipton was viewed as establishment in 2020, Boebert primaried him and won with 54.6 percent, proving the base demands firebrands. Hurd’s approval among Republicans is dipping, with internal polls showing vulnerability. If conservatives stay home in 2026, Democrats like Frisch could flip the seat, as nearly happened in 2022.

Turnout data supports this. High conservative enthusiasm in 2020 pushed turnout over 90 percent in key counties, securing Boebert’s win. Hurd is squandering that. CD3’s identity, from Grand Junction’s energy workers to Pueblo’s veterans, rejects Washington interference. Hurd’s committee work on Natural Resources could defend water rights, but he compromises instead.

Call to Action: Reject Hurd's RINO Brand in 2026

Enough is enough. Voters of CD3, it is time to act. Reject Jeff Hurd’s shift to the left with a resounding NO in 2026. Make it clear we do not want his brand of RINO representing us. Support primary challengers like Hope Scheppelman who vow real conservatism. Volunteer, donate, and vote to send Hurd packing before he gifts the seat to Democrats.

Talk to neighbors, attend town halls, hold Hurd accountable. Remind him CD3’s conservative bias is non-negotiable. Our patterns prove we reward fighters, punish sellouts. Jeff, keep alienating the base, and kiss your future goodbye. We dare you. FAFO. Conservatives are watching, ready to act.

This betrayal ends in 2026. No more moderates. No more left turns. True Constitutionalists Only.

Michael J Badagliacco, “MJB”

Michael is a United States Air Force Veteran, father of five and grandfather of three, passionate about this country and the Constitution. 

Editor-in-Chief, Colorado DOGE Report.

Federal Supremacy in Immigration:

Why Colorado's Lawsuit Against Deputy Zwinck Must Fail

In the rugged landscapes of western Colorado, a routine traffic stop has ignited a firestorm over the boundaries of state and federal authority. On June 5, 2025, Mesa County Sheriff's Deputy Alexander Zwinck pulled over 19-year-old Caroline Dias Goncalves, a Brazilian national and Utah nursing student, for following too closely on Interstate 70. He issued a warning and let her go. Yet, shortly after, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents arrested her due to an expired visa. It later emerged that Deputy Zwinck had shared her information in a Signal group chat with local, state, and federal law enforcement partners, including representatives from Homeland Security Investigations and ICE. This act of interagency communication, far from being a rogue move, aligns with longstanding federal priorities in immigration enforcement. However, Colorado Attorney General Phil Weiser has filed a lawsuit against the deputy, alleging violations of state laws that prohibit such sharing. This action not only scapegoats a dedicated officer but also clashes head-on with federal supremacy under the U.S. Constitution's Supremacy Clause. Colorado's restrictive statutes, including Senate Bill 21-131 and House Bill 23-1100, are preempted by federal law, as established by key precedents like Arizona v. United States and the foundational protections in 8 U.S.C. § 1373. The lawsuit should be dismissed to uphold national unity in immigration policy and protect officers like Deputy Zwinck from undue state interference.

The Incident and Its Immediate Aftermath

The facts of the case reveal a troubling overreach by state officials. After the traffic stop, Dias Goncalves' arrest by ICE sparked community backlash and an internal investigation by the Mesa County Sheriff's Office. On July 30, 2025, Sheriff Todd Rowell released findings confirming that Deputy Zwinck's sharing of information facilitated the federal arrest. Rowell acknowledged potential violations of Colorado state law but took responsibility, emphasizing the office's practices limiting involvement in immigration enforcement. Deputy Zwinck faced three weeks of unpaid leave, removal from a task force, and reassignment to patrol duties. A second deputy in the chat received two weeks of unpaid leave, and their sergeant was suspended for two days. These internal measures pale against the civil lawsuit's threat: a $50,000 fine for merely relaying information to federal partners. Sheriff Rowell rightly criticized Weiser for selective enforcement, urging equal application to all officials in the chat and others violating the state bills. He highlighted perceived hypocrisy, noting that the attorney general should file suits and hold press conferences for every similar infraction. Rowell also requested that Weiser dismiss the lawsuit to allow internal discipline and training to proceed.

Dias Goncalves, who had no criminal history, was detained for 15 days following the arrest. The incident underscores the human element, yet it also highlights the practical realities of law enforcement collaboration in a border state like Colorado.

Colorado's Restrictive Immigration Laws

At the heart of this dispute are Colorado's laws designed to curb local cooperation with federal immigration authorities. Senate Bill 21-131, enacted in 2021, imposes strict limitations on the sharing of personal identifying information collected by state agencies, including details related to immigration status. It mandates safeguards against disclosure to federal entities unless explicitly required by law, aiming to protect vulnerable populations but effectively creating barriers to routine law enforcement collaboration. House Bill 23-1100, passed in 2023, builds on this by reinforcing prohibitions on state and local employees participating in federal immigration enforcement operations. Together, these laws form Article 74, which prohibits sharing certain information with federal agents for immigration enforcement purposes, with narrow exceptions for active criminal investigations. Proponents frame these as shields against overreach, but critics, including Kristi Burton Brown of Advance Colorado, argue they dangerously ban proactive notifications to the Department of Homeland Security about violent criminals or repeat felons present illegally, with hefty fines for noncompliance.

These measures reflect a broader trend in sanctuary policies, but they come at a cost. By fining officers for incidental sharing during multi-agency communications, Colorado risks chilling essential partnerships that combat crimes like drug smuggling and human trafficking.

The Supremacy Clause and Federal Preemption

These state measures, while well-intentioned in some eyes, directly conflict with federal law and the Constitution's mandate that federal authority prevails in immigration matters. The Supremacy Clause in Article VI declares that federal law is "the supreme Law of the Land," binding on all states. Immigration enforcement falls squarely within federal domain, as the Supreme Court has repeatedly affirmed. In Arizona v. United States (2012), the Court struck down key provisions of Arizona's S.B. 1070, holding that federal law preempts state attempts to regulate immigration in ways that conflict with or encroach upon national policy. Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing for the majority, emphasized the federal government's "broad, undoubted power over the subject of immigration and the status of aliens," rooted in the Constitution's Naturalization Clause and inherent sovereign authority over foreign relations. The Court outlined preemption doctrines: express preemption where Congress explicitly bars state action; field preemption where federal regulation is so pervasive that states have no room to supplement; and conflict preemption where state law obstructs federal objectives.

Colorado's laws create precisely such obstacles, fragmenting the unified system and inviting preemption challenges. They interfere with the federal government's constitutional discretion over immigration, causing confusion among law enforcement and compromising investigations.

Key Legal Precedents Supporting Federal Authority

Applying these doctrines, the Court in Arizona invalidated sections criminalizing failure to carry alien registration documents (field preemption, as Congress occupied the registration field per Hines v. Davidowitz, 1941), prohibiting unauthorized work (conflict preemption, as it undermined Congress's deliberate choice not to penalize aliens seeking employment), and allowing warrantless arrests for removability (conflict preemption, exceeding federal limits on state authority). While upholding a provision requiring status checks during stops, the decision underscored that states cannot create obstacles to federal enforcement. Kennedy warned, "Federal law makes a single sovereign responsible for maintaining a comprehensive and unified system to keep track of aliens within the Nation's borders."

More recently, in United States v. California (921 F.3d 865, 9th Cir. 2019), the Ninth Circuit addressed similar sanctuary laws, including California's SB 54, which limited information sharing with ICE. The federal government argued preemption under §1373, but the court upheld most provisions, finding no direct conflict because SB 54 permitted sharing of basic immigration status while restricting other data like release dates. However, it struck down parts of another law (AB 450) that barred voluntary consent to workplace raids, deeming them obstacles to federal enforcement. This reasoning bolsters Deputy Zwinck's defense; Colorado's broader bans on sharing personal information, which encompass immigration details, go beyond California's and directly obstruct federal objectives.

The Role of 8 U.S.C. § 1373

Central to this preemption argument is 8 U.S.C. § 1373, a federal statute explicitly prohibiting restrictions on information sharing about immigration status. Enacted as part of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, §1373 states: "Notwithstanding any other provision of Federal, State, or local law, a Federal, State, or local government entity or official may not prohibit, or in any way restrict, any government entity or official from sending to, or receiving from, the Immigration and Naturalization Service information regarding the citizenship or immigration status, lawful or unlawful, of any individual." It further bars prohibitions on maintaining, exchanging, or responding to inquiries about such information. This law ensures seamless communication between levels of government, vital for effective immigration enforcement without commandeering state resources.

Courts have upheld §1373's validity and its preemptive force against state sanctuary policies. In City of New York v. United States (179 F.3d 29, 2d Cir. 1999), the Second Circuit rejected New York's challenge to §1373 under the Tenth Amendment, ruling that it does not commandeer state officials but merely removes barriers to voluntary cooperation. The court noted, "The City's executive order does not regulate the Federal Government's activities; nor does it impose any requirements upon the Federal Government. Instead, the order governs the activities of City employees." By prohibiting restrictions, §1373 preserves federal supremacy without forcing action, aligning with anti-commandeering precedents like Printz v. United States (1997), which barred federal mandates on state officers but allowed voluntary participation. Critically, the Ninth Circuit affirmed §1373's constitutionality post-Murphy v. NCAA (2018), which invalidated a federal ban on state sports betting as commandeering. The Ninth Circuit distinguished §1373: "It does not require states or localities to enact particular legislation or to assist in enforcing federal law... It simply requires that nothing obstruct the communication that does occur."

Recent Developments and Ongoing Challenges

Ongoing challenges to Colorado's laws underscore this preemption. On August 8, 2025, Mesa County filed a lawsuit in federal court against Governor Jared Polis and Attorney General Phil Weiser, arguing that Article 74 is unconstitutionally vague and interferes with federal immigration authority. The suit, which includes Sheriff Rowell as a plaintiff, seeks clarification that violations occur only if information is shared for the "sole" purpose of immigration enforcement and that local officers can inquire about status for legitimate purposes. Mesa County Attorney Todd Starr emphasized, "The statute’s lack of clarity creates a significant risk... of arbitrary enforcement, which could lead to substantial fines and legal challenges against our employees. This action sends a clear message: We will not stand by while our employees are targeted for doing their jobs." Commissioners voted to file the countersuit to protect employees' constitutional rights and counter what they call "political theater" by Weiser.

This follows Weiser's July 22, 2025, lawsuit against Zwinck. Similar suits by counties like Douglas highlight broader discontent, emphasizing dangers to public safety. These cases echo critiques: Sanctuary policies can shield criminals and undermine trust.

Policy Implications and Public Safety Concerns

Beyond legal precedent, policy imperatives demand federal supremacy. Immigration involves national security, foreign policy, and uniform standards; fragmented state approaches lead to chaos. Deputy Zwinck's actions promoted safety by alerting federal partners to an immigration violation discovered incidentally. Punishing him discourages cooperation, potentially allowing threats to persist. Sheriff Rowell's call for equal enforcement highlights the lawsuit's selectivity, targeting a deputy while ignoring others in the chat, including Colorado State Patrol. This smacks of political theater, eroding morale among officers sworn to protect all residents.

Critics may argue states have Tenth Amendment rights to allocate resources, as in Printz, where the Supreme Court barred federal gun check mandates on sheriffs. Yet, Deputy Zwinck's sharing was voluntary, not mandated; Colorado's fines punish choice, inverting anti-commandeering by commandeering non-cooperation. Federal law encourages such collaboration through programs like 287(g), where locals assist ICE under federal oversight. Precedents like Arizona affirm that states cannot "curtail or complement" federal schemes. In Kansas v. Garcia (2020), the Supreme Court refused to preempt state identity theft prosecutions using federal forms, but reinforced that immigration's core remains federal.

The stakes extend beyond one deputy. If Colorado prevails, it sets a precedent for states to balkanize immigration enforcement, weakening borders and inviting abuse. Communities suffer when local police fear fines for basic communication, deterring reporting of serious crimes. Advance Colorado's push to reverse "radical policies" resonates: Safety demands unity, not division. The vagueness of Article 74 chills interactions with federal agencies, compromising investigations into drug smuggling, child exploitation, and sex crimes.

Conclusion

Federal supremacy, enshrined in the Supremacy Clause and bolstered by precedents like Arizona v. United States and §1373's clear directives, must override Colorado's restrictive laws. Deputy Zwinck's rights to cooperate without fear of state reprisal deserve protection. Attorney General Weiser should drop this misguided suit, heed Sheriff Rowell's plea for equity, and let federal authority guide immigration. Only then can we ensure a secure, cohesive nation where law enforcement serves without undue shackles. The alternative, a patchwork of state defiance, threatens the very fabric of our union.

Michael J Badagliacco, “MJB”

Michael is a United States Air Force Veteran, father of five and grandfather of three, passionate about this country and the Constitution.

Editor-in-Chief, Colorado DOGE Report.

Are Solar Fields Raising Earth's Surface Temperature?

Solar power is often championed as a key solution to combat climate change, promising reduced greenhouse gas emissions and a shift away from fossil fuels. However, anecdotal evidence suggests that large-scale solar fields may increase local surface temperatures, while their topographical, aesthetic, and reliability issues, along with battery-related environmental costs, question their sustainability. This op-ed examines whether solar installations contribute to regional warming, evaluates their broader environmental impacts, and contrasts them with small modular reactor (SMR) nuclear energy as a safer, cleaner, and more efficient alternative, drawing on scientific evidence to challenge solar’s role as the default renewable energy savior.

The Science of Solar-Induced Warming

Solar photovoltaic (PV) panels convert 15-20% of sunlight into electricity, dissipating the remainder as heat. Their dark surfaces absorb more radiation than natural landscapes, lowering albedo and disrupting convective cooling. A 2016 study in Scientific Reports found that desert solar plants raised daytime temperatures by up to 1.9°C, creating a "photovoltaic heat island effect." This localized warming undermines solar’s environmental credentials.

Regional Impacts of Large-Scale Solar Fields

Deserts, hosting projects like India’s Bhadla Solar Park and Morocco’s Noor Complex, face significant warming. A 2021 iScience study modeled that covering 20% of the Sahara with solar farms could increase local temperatures by 1.5°C, with 50% coverage raising them by 2.5°C. This heat can spread, potentially increasing global temperatures by 0.16°C to 0.39°C and reducing desert precipitation by 20%, exacerbating drought in water-scarce regions.

Urban Solar Deployments: A Mixed Picture

Solar’s lifecycle emissions are 23 times lower than coal’s, per a 2025 Skeptical Science analysis, but local impacts vary. A 2014 Frontiers in Environmental Science study found Parisian rooftop solar reduced urban heat by shading buildings. Conversely, a 2011 Environmental Research Letters study reported large urban PV arrays increased temperatures by 0.26°C due to heat from energy conversion. These inconsistencies highlight the need for site-specific solar strategies.

Topographical and Aesthetic Impacts of Solar Fields

Solar fields require vast land, altering topography and creating visual blight. Construction involves clearing vegetation and grading land, increasing erosion risk. A 2023 Land Use Policy study noted that solar farms in California’s Mojave Desert fragmented habitats and disrupted hydrology. Aesthetically, 60% of Arizona residents near solar farms, per a 2024 Journal of Environmental Psychology report, found them visually intrusive, reducing property values by up to 7%. These impacts fuel opposition to solar expansion in scenic areas.

Environmental Trade-Offs Beyond Temperature

Solar fields disrupt ecosystems, reducing biodiversity and altering soil properties, amplifying heat retention. The 2021 iScience study warned that extensive Sahara solar coverage could reduce dust transport, vital for Amazon and Atlantic ecosystems, risking global ecological impacts. Panel production and disposal involve hazardous materials, complicating sustainability claims.

Battery Backup Systems: A Hidden Cost

Solar’s intermittency necessitates lithium-ion batteries, relying on lithium, cobalt, and nickel. Mining these elements is environmentally damaging; a 2023 Nature Sustainability study reported lithium extraction in Chile’s Atacama Desert consumes 65% of regional water. Cobalt mining in the Democratic Republic of Congo, per a 2024 Environmental Science & Technology report, causes deforestation and contamination. Only 5% of batteries are recycled globally, per a 2022 Journal of Cleaner Production study, with landfilled batteries leaking toxins. Recycling recovers 50-80% of materials, per a 2025 Resources, Conservation and Recycling analysis, but is energy-intensive.

Reliability and Output: Solar’s Unsustainable Limitations

Solar’s reliability is limited by weather and daylight, producing only 20-25% of rated capacity, per a 2024 Energy Policy study. Powering a city like Los Angeles would require over 100 square miles of solar fields, per a 2025 Renewable Energy analysis. Its low energy density, 360 times less than nuclear per acre, per a 2023 Energy Journal study, and grid instability from variability necessitate fossil fuel backups, undermining sustainability.

SMR Nuclear: A Superior Clean Energy Alternative

Small modular reactors (SMRs) offer a compelling alternative to solar, providing safe, clean energy with minimal environmental impact. SMRs, factory-built and scalable, generate 50-300 MW per unit, occupying less than 10 acres compared to solar’s thousands for equivalent output, per a 2024 Nuclear Engineering International report. Their lifecycle emissions are comparable to solar’s, at 10-12 g CO2/kWh, per a 2023 Environmental Research Letters study, but they provide consistent baseload power, eliminating the need for fossil fuel backups. SMRs use advanced safety features, like passive cooling, reducing accident risks to near zero, as noted in a 2025 Nature Energy analysis. Fuel requirements are minimal, with a single ton of uranium powering an SMR for years, unlike solar’s vast material demands. Waste is small in volume, managed through deep geological storage, and far less environmentally disruptive than solar’s battery waste, per a 2024 Waste Management study. SMRs cost $3,000-$5,000 per kW to build, half of traditional nuclear, and operate at 90% capacity, making them economically competitive, per a 2023 Energy Economics report. Unlike solar fields, SMRs blend into compact sites, avoiding topographical and aesthetic concerns.

Anecdotal Evidence and Community Observations

Residents near solar fields, like California’s Ivanpah and Rajasthan’s Bhadla, report warmer conditions, reduced rainfall, and visual degradation. X posts describe solar panels as “heat columns” and landscape scars, though lacking rigorous evidence. These align with research on solar’s climatic and aesthetic impacts, while SMRs face less community opposition due to their small footprint.

Mitigating Solar’s Impacts and Embracing Alternatives

Distributing solar and integrating panels with vegetation or cool roofs, per a 2015 Nature Climate Change study, could reduce warming. Rooftop PV could lower temperatures by 0.05-0.13°C by 2050, per a 2025 Nature Climate Changeestimate. For batteries, sodium-ion alternatives and improved recycling, per a 2024 Energy Storage Materials study, could lessen harm. However, scaling SMRs, with their reliability and minimal footprint, offers a more sustainable path, complemented by wind or geothermal for diversified clean energy.

Solar vs. Fossil Fuels and Nuclear: A Necessary Comparison

Fossil fuels, with CO2 levels up 50% since 1750 per NASA, drive 1.1°C of warming, per the IPCC, far outweighing solar’s 0.01°C contribution. Solar reduces emissions, but its warming, battery impacts, and unreliability limit its efficacy. SMRs match solar’s low emissions while providing stable, high-output energy, making them a stronger fossil fuel alternative. A grand solar minimum would cool Earth by only 0.3°C, per NASA, reinforcing the need for robust clean energy solutions like SMRs.

Rethinking the Clean Energy Narrative

Solar’s regional warming, topographical disruption, aesthetic issues, battery costs, and unreliable output challenge its sustainability. SMR nuclear offers a cleaner, more efficient alternative, with lower land use, negligible environmental impact, and reliable power. Policymakers must prioritize SMRs, ethical material sourcing for batteries, and landscape-sensitive solar designs. A 2015 Washington Post article noted renewables’ necessity but cautioned their consequences, urging a balanced approach with nuclear at the forefront.

Conclusion

Evidence confirms solar fields raise local temperatures, disrupt landscapes, and rely on environmentally costly batteries, with low output limiting sustainability. SMR nuclear provides a superior alternative, delivering safe, clean, and reliable energy with minimal footprint. While solar remains vital, its deployment requires nuance, and SMRs should lead the clean energy transition to safeguard the planet’s climate and ecosystems.  It's about MONEY folks!  The state is passing out tax credits for solar and they are not paying taxes on the land they are using for it!  See https://www.codogereport.com/the-stark-divide for the details on how the Colorado legislature has stacked the deck against all other types of energy and is killing oil, gas and nuclear energy and causing you to pay more at the pump and on your electric bill.  It isn't about clean energy, it is about paying off the legislators friends.  We are not talking about Donald Trump's friends either, we are talking about Jarod Polis' friends.

Michael J Badagliacco, “MJB”

Michael is a United States Air Force Veteran, father of five and grandfather of three, passionate about this country and the Constitution. 

Editor-in-Chief, Colorado DOGE Report.

References

• Barron-Gafford, G.A. et al. (2016). "The Photovoltaic Heat Island Effect." Scientific Reports, 6, 35070.

• Lu, Z. et al. (2021). "Solar panels in Sahara." iScience.

• Skeptical Science. (2025). "Is solar energy worse for the climate?"

• Masson, V. et al. (2014). "Solar panels reduce urban heat." Frontiers in Environmental Science, 2, 14.

• Millstein, D. & Menon, S. (2011). "Regional climate consequences." Environmental Research Letters, 6, 034001.

• Hu, A. et al. (2015). "Impact of solar panels." Nature Climate Change.

• NASA Science. (2024). "Causes."

• Nature Climate Change. (2025). "Rooftop photovoltaic electricity."

• Washington Post. (2015). "Solar energy can cause climate change."

• IPCC. (2021). "Sixth Assessment Report."

• Nature Sustainability. (2023). "Lithium extraction impacts."

• Environmental Science & Technology. (2024). "Cobalt mining impacts."

• Journal of Cleaner Production. (2022). "Battery recycling rates."

• Resources, Conservation and Recycling. (2025). "Battery recycling efficiency."

• Energy Storage Materials. (2024). "Sodium-ion battery advancements."

• Land Use Policy. (2023). "Solar farm topographical impacts."

• Journal of Environmental Psychology. (2024). "Aesthetic impacts of solar farms."

• Energy Policy. (2024). "Solar reliability and output."

• Renewable Energy. (2025). "Solar land use requirements."

• Energy Journal. (2023). "Energy density comparison."

• Nuclear Engineering International. (2024). "SMR land use and output."

• Environmental Research Letters. (2023). "SMR lifecycle emissions."

• Nature Energy. (2025). "SMR safety features."

• Waste Management. (2024). "Nuclear waste vs. battery waste."

• Energy Economics. (2023). "SMR cost analysis."

The Erosion of the Rocky Mountain Way of Life

by Michael J Badagliacco, "MJB"

Editor-In-Chief, coDOGEreport



Colorado, a state once synonymous with rugged individualism, wide-open spaces, and a fierce commitment to personal liberty, is undergoing a transformation that has left many of its residents reeling. The Centennial State, long regarded as a conservative stronghold where values of self-reliance and limited government were as enduring as the Rocky Mountains themselves, is now hurtling toward a future that some fear resembles the most radical leftist visions. This shift, which began to take root around 2012 with Jerod Polis’ and friends “Rocky Mountain Heist”, has accelerated at a pace that makes even California’s far left policies seem restrained by comparison. If this trajectory continues unchecked, Colorado risks becoming a place where the freedoms its residents once took for granted are eroded, replaced by a vision of governance that critics argue echoes the collectivist dreams of the former Soviet Union.

The Erosion of Freedom

The liberties that Coloradans once held as sacrosanct, such as the right to live free from excessive government interference, are now under siege. Like a beach battered by the relentless waves of a tsunami, these freedoms are being worn away, piece by piece, with each new policy and regulation. The state that once prided itself on fostering independence and personal responsibility is now grappling with an onslaught of legislative changes that many residents feel are suffocating their way of life. From restrictions on gun rights, property rights, limitations on free speech and economic opportunity, the policies emerging from Colorado’s statehouse are seen as a deliberate effort to reshape the state into one that prioritizes collective ideals over individual autonomy.

This erosion is not a sudden phenomenon but rather the culmination of years of incremental changes that have steadily chipped away at the state’s foundational principles. For many Coloradans, the loss of these freedoms feels like a betrayal of the state’s heritage, a slow but steady drift toward a future that is unrecognizable to those who have called Colorado home for generations.

A Legislative Avalanche

In its most recent session, the Colorado legislature passed an astonishing 540 new laws, a number that dwarfs the legislative output of most states in a single year. This staggering volume of legislation has raised alarm bells among those who see it as a direct assault on the rights of Coloradans. Critics argue that these laws, rather than expanding individual freedoms, systematically restrict them. From regulations that tighten control over personal property to policies that impose new burdens on businesses and individuals, the new laws are seen by many as an attempt to fundamentally transform Colorado into a state that prioritizes centralized control over the individual rights that have historically defined it.

Not a single one of these laws, detractors claim, was designed to enhance the liberties of Colorado’s residents. Instead, they appear to clamp down on the inherent rights that have long been a hallmark of the state’s identity. For example, new environmental regulations have placed stringent requirements on businesses, increasing costs and limiting economic freedom. Similarly, gun control measures have sparked outrage among Second Amendment advocates who argue that their constitutional rights are being undermined. Other laws have imposed new taxes and fees, further straining the budgets of Coloradans already grappling with rising costs of living. For a state that once stood as a beacon of personal freedom in the West, this represents a profound and troubling shift.

The Roots of the Shift

The origins of Colorado’s leftward drift can be traced back to 2012, when the state began to experience a political upheaval dubbed “the Rocky Mountain Heist”. This period marked the beginning of a concerted push by leftist forces to transform Colorado’s political landscape. What began as a subtle shift has grown into a relentless campaign, with policies that reflect a utopian vision rooted in socialist ideals. The pace of this transformation has been breathtaking, outstripping even California’s well-documented embrace of communistic governance.

“The Rocky Mountain Heist”, was not a single event but rather a series of coordinated efforts to shift Colorado’s political center of gravity. Far left groups, backed by significant out-of-state funding, began targeting key legislative races and ballot initiatives, slowly but surely gaining ground in a state that had long been considered a conservative bastion. Over time, these efforts bore fruit, as Democrats gained control of the state legislature and governorship, paving the way for an aggressive agenda of leftist policies.

The consequences of this shift are evident in the growing discontent among Coloradans who feel that their state is slipping away from them. The conservative values that once defined Colorado, such as limited government, personal responsibility, and economic freedom, are being overshadowed by a vision of governance that prioritizes centralized control, expansive social programs, and restrictive regulations. For many residents, this feels like a betrayal of the state’s identity, a departure from the principles that made Colorado a desirable place to live.

The Impact on Coloradans

The impact of Colorado’s political transformation is being felt across the state, from the bustling streets of Denver to the rural communities of the Eastern Plains and Western Mountain Towns. Small business owners, once the backbone of Colorado’s economy, are struggling under the weight of new regulations and high taxes. Farmers and ranchers, who have long embodied the state’s independent spirit, are facing increasing restrictions on land use and water rights. Even everyday citizens are feeling the pinch, as new laws limit their ability to make choices about their lives, from how they heat their homes to how they protect their families.

Perhaps most troubling is the sense of alienation that many Coloradans now feel. For those who grew up in a state where personal freedom was a given, the rapid pace of change is disorienting. Town hall meetings and community forums are filled with voices expressing frustration and fear, as residents grapple with a government that seems increasingly out of touch with their values. The sense of community that once defined Colorado, where neighbors respected each other’s independence, is being replaced by a growing divide between those who embrace the state’s new direction and those who feel it is being forced upon them.

A State at a Crossroads

Colorado now stands at a crossroads. On one hand, there are those who view this shift as a betrayal of Colorado’s heritage, a race to the bottom that threatens to undermine the very principles that made the state great and a desirable place to live. On the other hand, there are those who welcome the state’s transformation to a socialist society. They argue that the new laws are addressing critical issues like climate change, income inequality, and social justice, bringing Colorado into the 21st century. A vision that is the antithesis of the vision of the founders of this great nation!

The sheer volume of new laws passed in the recent legislative session serves as a stark reminder of the challenges facing Colorado’s residents. Each new regulation, each new restriction, feels like another step away from the state’s roots as a place of opportunity and freedom. For many, the question is not just about policy but about identity: what does it mean to be a Coloradan in an era where the state’s values seem to be shifting beneath their feet?

As Colorado continues down this path, the future remains uncertain. Will the state find a way to balance its leftist ambitions with the individual liberties that have long defined it? Or will it continue its race to the bottom, becoming a place where the freedoms of its residents are sacrificed on the altar of a utopian vision? For now, the answer is unclear, but one thing is certain: the stakes could not be higher for the people of Colorado. The choices made in the coming years will determine whether the state can preserve its unique character or whether it will become a shadow of its former self, a cautionary tale of what happens when a state loses sight of the principles that once made it great.

The Misguided Push for Universal College Education

For decades, the narrative that everyone must pursue a college degree has been sold as the path to an educated, prosperous society. However, a closer examination reveals that this push was less about fostering critical thinking and more about steering young minds toward ideologies that challenge the foundational principles of the United States. The emphasis on universal college education has often served as a vehicle for indoctrination, promoting views that undermine the values of individual liberty, free markets, and limited government that define our Republic.

The idea that a college degree is essential for success gained traction in the mid-20th century, fueled by government policies and cultural shifts. Programs like the GI Bill made higher education accessible to millions, a noble intent to reward veterans and boost the economy. Yet, over time, this morphed into a societal expectation that college was the only path to a fulfilling career. By 2020, over 65% of high school graduates enrolled in college, according to the National Center for Education Statistics. This surge was not driven by a universal need for advanced academic training but by a cultural dogma that equated degrees with social status and employability.

However, the modern university system has increasingly prioritized ideological conformity over intellectual diversity. Many institutions have become echo chambers where certain viewpoints, often critical of American values, dominate curricula and campus culture. A 2018 study by the National Association of Scholars found that 78% of college courses in history and social sciences at top universities emphasized themes of social justice, identity politics, and systemic oppression, often presenting these as uncontested truths. These narratives frequently cast the United States as inherently flawed, focusing on its historical shortcomings while downplaying its achievements in advancing individual freedom and prosperity.

This focus is not accidental. The rise of critical theories in academia, such as critical race theory and postcolonialism, has shifted the purpose of education from fostering independent thought to promoting specific ideological frameworks. These frameworks often portray American principles like individualism and meritocracy as tools of oppression. For example, a 2021 report by the Manhattan Institute noted that 35% of college faculty openly supported integrating "anti-racist" pedagogies into their teaching, which often frame the U.S. Constitution and free-market systems as inherently discriminatory. Students are taught to view the nation’s founding documents and economic systems with skepticism, if not outright hostility.

This ideological shift has real-world consequences. Graduates emerge from universities not only with degrees but also with a worldview that questions the legitimacy of the Republic’s core tenets. A 2020 Gallup poll revealed that only 55% of Americans aged 18-34 had a "great deal" or "quite a lot" of confidence in the U.S. government, compared to 73% of those over 55. This generational divide reflects the influence of academic environments that emphasize grievance over gratitude. Young people are taught to see the nation as a source of systemic injustice rather than a beacon of opportunity, eroding the civic cohesion necessary for a functioning republic.

Moreover, the push for universal college education ignores the reality that not every career requires a degree. Trades like plumbing, electrical work, and carpentry offer stable, well-paying jobs that do not demand four years of academic indoctrination. The Bureau of Labor Statistics projects that jobs in construction and skilled trades will grow by 10% through 2030, outpacing many white-collar fields. Yet, the stigma against non-college paths persists, driven by a narrative that undervalues practical skills and overemphasizes academic credentials.

The financial toll of this system is staggering. Student loan debt in the U.S. exceeds $1.7 trillion, burdening millions with obligations that delay homeownership, marriage, and retirement savings. A 2022 study by the Federal Reserve found that 20% of borrowers were behind on payments, disproportionately affecting those with degrees in fields with low economic return. This debt trap is a direct result of pushing students into college without regard for their aptitudes or the market’s needs, all while exposing them to curricula that may alienate them from their country’s values.

The solution is not to abandon higher education but to reform it. Universities must recommit to teaching critical thinking over ideological conformity. This means fostering open debate, exposing students to diverse perspectives, and emphasizing primary sources like the Federalist Papers or the Declaration of Independence in their historical context. Additionally, society should elevate alternative pathways, such as apprenticeships and vocational training, as equally valid routes to success. Policy changes, like redirecting federal subsidies from degree programs to trade schools, could help balance these options.

The push for universal college education was never just about learning; it was about shaping minds. While the intent may have been to create an informed citizenry, the result has often been a generation skeptical of the very principles that built the nation. By rethinking the role of higher education and valuing diverse paths to success, we can foster a society that respects both individual potential and the foundational ideals of our Republic.



Michael J Badagliacco, “MJB”

Michael is a United States Air Force Veteran, father of five and grandfather of three, passionate about this country and the Constitution. 

He is also the Editor-in-Chief of the Colorado DOGE Report. 

Colorado’s Misguided Allocation of Public Assistance

As of July 2025, Colorado’s expansion of public assistance, particularly healthcare, to illegal aliens has ignited a heated debate about fairness, fiscal responsibility, and the proper use of taxpayer resources. Programs like Cover All Coloradans, enabled by HB 22-1289, provide Medicaid-equivalent coverage to undocumented children and pregnant women, with costs soaring far beyond initial projections. While proponents frame this as a humanitarian necessity, the policy places an unsustainable burden on taxpayers and raises serious questions about whether the state is neglecting its citizens in favor of non-citizens. This commentary argues that public assistance should be reserved for legal residents who contribute to Colorado’s social safety net, highlighting the financial, ethical, and legal implications of current policies.

The Escalating Financial Burden

The financial cost of providing healthcare to illegal aliens in Colorado is staggering and growing rapidly. The Cover All Coloradans program, launched in 2022, was initially estimated to cost $2 million annually. However, according to Axios Denver, costs have surged by over 600%, reaching $16 million in the current fiscal year and projected to hit $32 million in the next fiscal year starting July 1, 2025. Enrollment has already exceeded 14,000 individuals, with projections suggesting it could reach 15,000 next year, driven by an influx of approximately 42,000 immigrants from the U.S. southern border. These figures do not include other state-funded benefits, such as dental care, mental health counseling, and subsidies for rent and utilities, which added an estimated $12 million annually as of 2022.

This dramatic cost increase strains Colorado’s budget, which is already facing a projected $700 million - $1.3 Billion deficit next year. Taxpayers, many of whom are grappling with rising living costs, are footing the bill for these programs. The state’s balanced budget requirement and the constraints of the Taxpayer Bill of Rights (TABOR), which limits revenue growth and mandates voter approval for tax increases, make it difficult to absorb these costs without cutting other essential services. For instance, funding for education, infrastructure, or public safety could be reduced, directly impacting citizens who rely on these services.

Neglecting Citizens’ Needs

Public assistance programs, including Medicaid, were designed to support legal residents who contribute to society through taxes and adherence to the law. By extending these benefits to illegal aliens, Colorado is effectively prioritizing non-citizens over its own residents. The Cover All Coloradans program, which provides full Health First Colorado (Medicaid) or Child Health Plans Plus (CHP+) benefits to undocumented children and pregnant women starting January 1, 2025, diverts resources from citizens who may face longer wait times or reduced access to healthcare. Similarly, programs like OmniSalud, which offers state-funded health insurance subsidies to undocumented adults, further strain the system.

Citizens, who pay into the state’s social safety net through income, sales, and property taxes, deserve priority access to these resources. The state’s decision to allocate significant funds to non-citizens risks eroding public trust in the fairness of the system.

Ethical and Moral Considerations

The ethical argument for reserving public assistance for citizens rests on the principle of the social contract. Citizens contribute to the state through taxes, civic participation, and adherence to legal obligations, earning them a primary claim to public resources. Illegal aliens, while part of the community, do not share the same legal responsibilities, loyalties or contributions. Providing them with taxpayer-funded benefits undermines the fairness of the system and risks creating a precedent that could further strain resources.

Proponents argue that providing healthcare to illegal aliens is a humanitarian necessity, as they are part of Colorado’s communities and deserve care. However, compassion must be balanced with responsibility. Alternative solutions, such as private charities or international aid organizations, could address humanitarian needs without burdening public assistance programs. Moreover, the state’s policies may inadvertently encourage more undocumented immigration, as individuals may be drawn to Colorado’s generous benefits, further exacerbating the financial strain.

Legal and Constitutional Concerns

Colorado’s expansion of public assistance to illegal aliens is under scrutiny for potential legal violations. The Trump administration’s investigation into the state’s Medicaid spending, reported by The Colorado Sun, focuses on the “fiscal integrity” of programs like Cover All Coloradans. The federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) has requested detailed data, including personal information on Medicaid claims and patients’ immigration status, to ensure that federal funds are not misused for nonemergency care for individuals without “satisfactory immigration status.” Federal law prohibits such use, and legal immigrants often face a five-year waiting period for nonemergency Medicaid services.

The investigation highlights the risk of financial penalties or loss of federal matching funds, which could further strain Colorado’s budget. Additionally, three Republican Congress members have urged Governor Jared Polis to end programs like Cover All Coloradans and OmniSalud, citing the potential loss of federal funding. The state’s use of fees to bypass TABOR’s voter approval requirements for tax increases is also controversial, with critics like Republican state Representative Mike Lynch arguing that it undermines voter protections and effectively taxes citizens without their consent.

Political Divide and Public Sentiment

The issue of public assistance for illegal aliens is deeply divisive in Colorado. Democrats, led by Governor Polis, have championed inclusive policies, framing them as a moral imperative. For example, state Senator Julie Gonzales has supported these programs as essential for equitable recovery post-pandemic. Conversely, Republicans argue that they prioritize non-citizens over Citizens, with figures like Representative Richard Holtorf warning of a “fiscal cliff” due to unchecked spending. The debate is further complicated by TABOR, which some Democrats have discussed modifying or repealing, though such changes would require voter approval.

Public sentiment reflects this divide. Many Coloradans feel that their tax dollars should prioritize citizens, particularly in a time of economic uncertainty. The state’s decision to issue $1.7 billion in TABOR refunds in 2025, while simultaneously funding benefits for illegal aliens, fuels perceptions of unfairness. The ongoing federal investigation adds pressure, as it could lead to policy changes or funding cuts that affect all residents.

Economic Implications

The economic impact of these policies extends beyond direct costs. A report by CPR News, citing the Commonwealth Fund, estimates that cuts to Medicaid and other programs could cost Colorado’s economy 14,000 jobs and shrink the state’s GDP by $1.6 billion. While these programs support healthcare jobs and local economies, the benefits are offset by the strain on taxpayers and potential reductions in other services. The increased demand for healthcare from illegal aliens also puts pressure on hospitals, leading to higher uncompensated care costs and potentially raising commercial insurance rates for citizens.

Counterarguments and Refutations

Supporters of these policies argue that illegal aliens contribute to the economy through labor and taxes, justifying their access to benefits.  Additionally, many illegal aliens send a majority of their earnings back to their home country rather than keeping it in the local community, further depleting the tax base. 

However, their contributions are limited compared to citizens, as they are ineligible for many taxes and benefits that form the backbone of the social safety net. The $32 million projected cost of Cover All Coloradans far exceeds any tax revenue generated by illegal aliens, making the economic argument tenuous.

Another argument is that providing healthcare to all residents, regardless of status, strengthens communities. While this is a noble goal, it overlooks the finite nature of public resources. Prioritizing citizens ensures that the system remains sustainable and equitable for those who have a legal claim to it.

Colorado Must find a way to Prioritize Citizens

Colorado’s expansion of public assistance to illegal aliens, particularly through programs like Cover All Coloradans, represents a misallocation of taxpayer resources. The skyrocketing costs, legal risks, and neglect of citizens’ needs highlight the flaws in this approach. Public assistance should be reserved for those who have a legal and moral claim to it, Citizens who contribute to the state’s prosperity. While compassion is important, it must be balanced with fiscal responsibility and fairness. Colorado must reassess its policies to ensure that taxpayer resources are allocated equitably, starting with those who have fulfilled the social contract. Bottom line; Colorado is breaking Federal Law (8 U.S.C. §1324) and it has to stop!

Michael J Badagliacco, “MJB”

Michael is a United States Air Force Veteran, father of five and grandfather of three, passionate about this country and the Constitution. 

He is also the Editor-in-Chief of the Colorado DOGE Report. Colorado’s Misguided Allocation of Public Assistance

Colorado Wasteful Spending (FY 2024-25)

Courtesy of Colorado State Representative
Larry-Don Suckla, State House District 58

7/7/2025

Department of Corrections: $ 7,995,411 Increase 28.3 FTE

● Transgender Unit and Healthcare

- $2,677,911 to create two transgender living units totaling 148 beds.

- $5,317,500 for “gender-confirming surgical care.

●Clinical Staff Incentives

-$6,312,464 General Fund to provide incentive payments for certain DOC clinical staff up to $25,000. The bill includes an increase of $6,312,464 General Fund to provide incentive payments for certain DOC clinical staff up to $25,000.

●HB 24-1389 School Funding 2023-24 for New Arrival Students (immigrants): $24,000,000

- The bill provides $24,000,000 to be distributed to school districts and charter schools for new arrival students. It increases state expenditures and school district funding in the current FY 2023-24 only.

● Office of New Americans Expansion (immigrants): $119,029 General Fund and 1.5 FTE

- $119,029 General Fund and 1.5 FTE for an administrator to manage ONA grants, coordinate with other entities, and identify opportunities for new migrant career pathway enhancement and a full-time program assistant to support the ONA Director.

- This office has had difficulty expending grants.

●SB 24-182 Immigrant Identification Document Issuance: $ 122,855

- The bill changes certain requirements for the issuance of driver licenses or state identification cards to individuals who are not lawfully present in the United States. The bill increases state expenditures for FY 2024-25 and FY 2025-26 only.

●HB 24-1280 Welcome, Reception, Integration, Grant Program: $ 2,436,862

- The bill creates the Statewide Welcome, Reception, and Integration Grant Program to provide assistance to migrants. It transfers funds in FY 2024-25 only

●Immigrant Legal Defense Fund: $ 350,000

- Long Bill budget amendment

- A doubling of the fund for FY 2024-25 making a total budget of $700,000. This funding is used for public defense for people facing immigration legal issues. Sponsored by Rep. Mabrey and Sen. Gonzalez.

●Office of Health Equity and Environmental Justice: $ 2,840,715

- Funding for the Office

- Mission: Build partnerships to mobilize community power and transform systems to advance health equity and environmental justice.

What this office does to advance their mission:

1. Build relationships with communities and across sectors to address root causes of health disparities.

2. Use equity in decision-making and partner with all sectors of government to embed health and equity considerations into their decision-making process.

3. Use data to support the narrative of the social determinants of health and tell the story of what creates health.

4. De-center communications from the English language or any one dominant language, and prioritize language justice when engaging with communities.

5. Develop, implement, and provide guidance on health equity training, practice, and policies within CDPHE and across the state of Colorado.

6. Focus on upstream determinants of health, guided by the Bay Area Regional Health Inequities Initiative.

●HB 24-1197 Department of Public Safety Supplemental: $ 9,800,000

- Funding for Community-based organizations providing service for migrants.

- Funds to provide grants to community-based organizations providing services to people

migrating to Colorado.

●Department of Education: $ 56,100,000

- Expanding Healthy Meals for All Program.

- Adds $56.1 million total funds for the Healthy School Meals for All Program, including $40.6 million from the Healthy School Meals for All Program General Fund Exempt Account and $15.5 million from the General Fund. This includes an increase of $56.0 million for meal reimbursements and $100,000 for consulting resources.

●HB 21-1318 Department of Public Health & Environment: $ 198,192

- Outdoor Equity Program

- This bill injected identity politics into access to the outdoors.

●Department of Public Health & Environment: $2,840,715 total funds and 8.3 FTE

- Creating the Office of Health Equity and Environmental Justice by combining two offices.

- The bill includes an increase of $2,840,715 total funds and 8.3 FTE, including a reduction of $11,349 General Fund, to join the Environmental Justice Program with the Office of Health Equity to form the Office of Health Equity and Environmental Justice (OHEEJ) for the purpose of centralizing environmental justice staff. OHEEJ is responsible for ongoing environmental justice work, including administration of environmental health mitigation grants through the Community Impact Cash Fund.

●Department of Revenue: $714,515 total funds and 8.3 FTE

- GENTAX & DRIVES SUPPORT FUNDING: The bill includes an increase of $714,515 total funds and 8.3 FTE, comprised of $442,906 General Fund and $271,609 cash funds from the Colorado DRIVES Vehicle Services. Account, in FY 2024-25. Funds willaddress the backlog of upgrades and system enhancements to the DRIVES and GenTax systems stemming from legislative, user experience, and system operational demands.

Colorado DOGE Reports Analysis of Colorado's Misguided Spending Priorities

By Colorado DOGE Report Staff

7/7/2025

Colorado’s 2024-25 fiscal year budget reveals a troubling pattern of wasteful spending, prioritizing ideological projects and inefficient programs over the state’s core needs. With millions allocated to initiatives that lack clear justification or measurable outcomes, taxpayers deserve a closer look at where their money is going.

The Department of Corrections is a prime example, with nearly $8 million in new spending, including $2.7 million for transgender living units and $5.3 million for gender-confirming surgical care. While inmate healthcare is important, such costly and specialized programs raise questions about whether these funds could better address broader prison system challenges, like overcrowding or staff shortages. Similarly, $6.3 million for clinical staff incentives feels excessive when core correctional services remain underfunded.

Education spending also raises concerns. The $56.1 million expansion of the Healthy School Meals for All Program is a noble goal, but its hefty price tag demands scrutiny. With $40.6 million from a dedicated fund and $15.5 million from the General Fund, the program’s long-term sustainability is unclear, especially when basic educational outcomes, like reading and math proficiency, continue to lag. Meanwhile, $24 million for new arrival students, while addressing immediate needs, risks diverting resources from existing students without a clear plan for integration or long-term funding.

The state’s focus on immigrant-related programs further strains the budget. The Office of New Americans, expanded with $119,029 and 1.5 full-time employees, struggles to expend its grants effectively, yet it receives more funding. Similarly, $122,855 for issuing identification documents to non-lawfully present individuals and $2.4 million for a migrant welcome and integration program add to the tally. The Immigrant Legal Defense Fund, doubled to $700,000, prioritizes legal aid for immigration cases over pressing local concerns. These initiatives, totaling millions, lack transparent metrics to justify their costs or demonstrate tangible benefits to Colorado residents.

The creation of the Office of Health Equity and Environmental Justice, funded at $2.8 million with 8.3 full-time employees, epitomizes ideological overreach. Its mission to “de-center” English in communications and focus on “upstream determinants of health” sounds lofty but lacks practical clarity. Combining environmental justice and health equity programs may streamline administration, but the office’s vague goals and reliance on unproven strategies risk wasting resources that could fund measurable public health improvements.

Other expenditures, like $9.8 million for community-based organizations serving migrants and $198,192 for an Outdoor Equity Program injecting identity politics into outdoor access, further illustrate a disconnect. These programs prioritize niche agendas over universal needs, such as infrastructure or economic relief for struggling families. Even the Department of Revenue’s $714,515 for upgrading outdated systems, while necessary, highlights how basic government functions are underfunded compared to these flashy initiatives.

Colorado’s budget should reflect the priorities of its residents: safe communities, strong schools, and efficient government. Instead, millions are funneled into programs with questionable impact, driven more by ideology than practicality. Taxpayers deserve better. Lawmakers must reassess these expenditures, demand clear accountability, and focus on delivering results that benefit all Coloradans, not just select groups.