Author Archive

Jesus Was Stripped for You

April 19, 2019

Jesus was stripped for you. 

In Catholic and Protestant churches across the world, people gathered on “Maundy Thursday”—the day before Good Friday—to remember that fact. At the end of the Maundy Thursday service, everything goes deathly silent. The church leaders come out wearing all black, and they begin to strip the altar, removing beautiful things in the church as a symbol of what happened to Christ. As they take away the golden candles, silver goblets, and vividly-colored cloths off the altar, we can remember all the ways Jesus was stripped and left bare for us.  

He was stripped of His Heavenly home to come and be born as a baby and live on Earth with us. He “emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men.” (Philippians 2:7) 

He let His Heavenly beauty and majesty be stripped away: “He had no beauty or majesty to attract us to him…He was despised and rejected by mankind.” (Isaiah 53:2-3)

He was stripped of His exalted, kingly status, and instead, “He was despised, and we held Him in low esteem.” (Isaiah 53:3) 

On the Thursday before His crucifixion, He stripped Himself of His robe, taking it off so He could kneel down and wash His disciples’ feet in love and service. (John 13)

After He was arrested, Jesus was stripped of His closest friends—they all deserted Him or denied Him. (Mark 14:50; Luke 22:54-62)

Leading up to His crucifixion, worship and praise was stripped away from Him, and instead He was mocked, hit, and spit on. The soldiers mockingly bowed to Jesus after putting a crown of thorns and a purple, kingly robe on Him. Then, they stripped Him of that robe and led Him away to the Place of the Skull to crucify Him. (Mark 15)

Before nailing Him to the cross, the soldiers likely stripped our Savior naked, and then gambled with each other to win His clothes. (Matthew 27:35) 

After hanging in agony on the cross, Jesus cried out and gave up His spirit (Matthew 27:50). In the ultimate sacrifice, Jesus let His very life be stripped away. 

And then…death and decay was stripped away from Jesus’ body, and He rose to life again! 

Now, all our sins, punishment, and worries can be stripped away, and we can be clothed in His righteousness. One day, all death, disease, and tears will be stripped away from us when He comes again in glory, and we too can be raised to new life. (2 Corinthians 4:14)

In Service,

Colorado Citizens Coalition

Gary Gates started the non-profit Colorado Citizens Coalition because he has a passion for individual liberty and preserving the Constitution, and it’s a fight he’s engaged in with every facet of his life. He believes a coalition is needed because it takes all of us being actively involved to move our state and country forward. We as citizens must stay informed because We the People are in charge and must hold government accountable. Gary desires to provide Colorado citizens a free resource to get useful information about state government from a conservative perspective.

Anti-life and Pro-life States are Both Preparing for the End of the Roe v. Wade Abortion Era

March 11, 2019

Brace yourselves. Bad news is coming. Unfortunately, New York’s most recent law allowing abortion up to birth and declaring abortion a “fundamental right” was just the beginning. Other States are following suit. For instance, last Thursday, the Rhode Island House of Representatives voted “yes” on a bill that mimics New York’s.

Certain States are heavily pushing pro-abortion laws because they know Roe v. Wade (the 1973 Supreme Court case that made abortion legal in all 50 States) has a good chance of being overturned by our current Supreme Court. As a New York Times headline proclaimed, “Roe v. Wade Is at Risk. Here’s How to Prepare.” The article warned that the “anti-abortion movement understands the high stakes of this moment.” It encouraged pro-abortion advocates to realize the high stakes as well. 

Well, unfortunately, they’ve realized. And they’re preparing. They’re trying to make sure State laws and constitutions declare abortion legal, so that abortion stays legal no matter what happens on a national level by the Supreme Court.

Keep in mind that if Roe v. Wade is overturned, that doesn’t mean abortion is automatically illegal in every State. It means the federal government will no longer be able to force States to make abortion legal—each State will again get to decide for itself whether abortion is allowed, as States did before 1973. 

Various States still have abortion bans included in their State laws. For instance, Rhode Island’s State law declares human life and “personhood” begins at the instant of conception, so the 14th amendment (which guarantees the right to life) applies to the unborn. New Mexico’s State law makes committing an abortion a criminal act (if it’s not a justified medical termination). 

But those laws against abortion are currently useless. Since Roe v. Wade came along and forced all 50 States to make abortion legal, the State laws banning abortion were no longer enforceable or were declared unconstitutional. However, if Roe v. Wade is overturned, the State laws banning abortion won’t be useless anymore. The abortion bans could potentially go back into effect immediately. 

That’s why various States are now in a mad rush this legislative season to get rid of any abortion bans that are still on the books and add abortion as a “fundamental right” to State law: 

  • In New Mexico, a bill that repeals the State abortion ban was passed by the House and now awaits a vote from the Senate.
  • In Rhode Island, a House committee just approved a pro-abortion bill, and now the House is moving to a vote on it. Like New York’s bill, this bill will allow abortion in all stages of pregnancy to preserve the “health or life” of the pregnant individual. (Here’s the scariest part: “health” can be interpreted broadly to include “age, economic, social and emotional factors.” That could potentially mean if a woman loses her job and no longer has “economic health” the day she goes into labor, it’s legal for her to have an abortion.)
  • The bill just passed by the Vermont House is even more extreme than the other bills. The Vermont bill allows abortion up to birth for any reason at all! The bill declares there can be no restrictions on the “fundamental right…to have an abortion.” The bill awaits a Vermont Senate vote, and it’s expected to pass because of the Democrat supermajority. 
  • The proposed bill in Illinois might be the worst. The bill is being fast-tracked, so the House and Senate may vote on it by the end of this month. If passed, not only will this bill remove the ban on partial-birth abortions, but it will also get rid of the “Abortion Performance Refusal Act,” which offers protections to doctors who do not want to perform an abortion. With that protection repealed, a doctor can be sued or have his or her license revoked if the doctor refuses to do an abortion due to religious or moral beliefs! 

That’s a lot of bad news. Let’s end on a positive note, because it’s not too late for pro-life advocates to be prepared for the end of Roe v. Wade. There’s 4 states (Louisiana, Mississippi, North Dakota and South Dakota) who started preparing in the early 2000s by passing pro-life “trigger laws.” Those laws make abortion illegal and are “triggered” (as in, they become effective) the moment Roe v. Wade disappears. Fortunately, other States are now enacting trigger laws, too. For example, Arkansas passed one last month. In Kentucky, a trigger law passed the House and awaits a Senate vote. Same in Missouri. Georgia has one in the works, along with Tennessee. 

What about Colorado? Well, Colorado legalized abortion even before Roe v. Wade legalized it nationwide, so it’s pretty ingrained in Colorado law. Some are predicting Colorado could become the “abortion hub” if other surrounding States outlaw abortion. We can’t lose hope, though. We can still work to replace laws of death with laws of life. 

Together, we can be prepped and ready to go if Roe v. Wade is overruled, and Colorado will then decide for itself whether to allow abortion. When that decision becomes ours again, let’s hope our State will be one that chooses life.

In Service,

Colorado Citizens Coalition

Gary Gates started the non-profit Colorado Citizens Coalition because he has a passion for individual liberty and preserving the Constitution, and it’s a fight he’s engaged in with every facet of his life. He believes a coalition is needed because it takes all of us being actively involved to move our state and country forward. We as citizens must stay informed because We the People are in charge and must hold government accountable. Gary desires to provide Colorado citizens a free resource to get useful information about state government from a conservative perspective.

Democrats are Twisting the Facts About the Wall!

January 18, 2019
As the debate over the border wall rages on, Republicans’ beliefs about immigration are being misinterpreted and misunderstood, often intentionally.
For example, if we say, “It’s time to secure our borders by building a wall,” they ridiculously interpret us as saying, “We don’t welcome people of other races and religions. We hate immigrants.”
Or, if we say, “America first,” they hear “Only America; nobody else.”They think you voted for your own prosperity at the expense of all others. They think we don’t care in the slightest about anyone else or other countries’ plights.
They are hearing us wrong or deliberately misrepresenting the truth. It’s time to clear up the myths!
Myth 1:We hate immigrants.
Wrong. Republicans are not against immigrants in general or scared of them. We do not think all immigrants are murders, rapists, and thieves! We know that immigrants have played an important role in America since our nation’s beginning and continue to make our nation prosperous. Immigrants are not all bad or all good—they’re just people, “ranging from the truly amazing to the truly despicable,” as Joseph Mussomeli of the Imaginative Conservative expresses.
An immigrant could be our country’s next Einstein, a valued employee, or a gang member, so we need to figure out who is going to be good for our country.As President Trump said, “we need great people. But we want them to come in on a merit basis…” If people are immigrating here by choice (versus being forced out of their country as a refugee), their arrival needs to be mutually beneficial.
And here’s the thing: a wall does not mean all immigrants must stay out. Rather, more secure borders can help immigrants get in, too. For instance, if our system and resources are jammed up by those coming illegally, what about those dreaming of coming here legally? What about refugees?It makes it harder for them to get in. For the sake of immigrants, we need better border security.
Myth 2:“America first” means “Nobody else matters.”
Nope—not what we mean. First off, it makes sense for the president to say, “America first.” He’s focused on America first because that is his job as president—his first responsibility is to American citizens, not to those trying to cross our border.
Okay, but what about when a normal Republican citizen says, “America first”? He or she does not mean “me first.” It’s not about making sure America comes first so that we can afford to buy everything on our Amazon wishlist. It means we want to look after our families first and the poor under our own bridges first before reaching out to the poor in other countries.
It might mean we need to take care of our country first so that we stay strong to help other countries. Maybe it’s like what flight attendants tell us on planes: in case of an emergency, put on your own oxygen mask first before helping others around you. You can’t help others if you stop breathing!
And once we’re “breathing” better, that doesn’t necessarily mean it’s the government’s role to then reach out and put the “oxygen mask” on other countries. Perhaps the American government’s role is to always put America first, and it’s the role of private citizens to help others in need around the world.
With the American government focusing on America’s own economy, the private sector can flourish and better afford to reach out and help other countries.“America first” in that case means the American governmentputs America first, but Americansshould help others around the world.
So, all that to say, Republicans actually do care about others! How can we prevent the Left from believing the myths about us? Perhaps it’s time to change our messaging so that our true beliefs can come across better. Our rhetoric often sounds harsher than we actually are, and if we change it, Liberals might better understand that Republicans do care about our neighbors, both citizens and immigrants.

In Service,

Colorado Citizens Coalition

Gary Gates started the non-profit Colorado Citizens Coalition because he has a passion for individual liberty and preserving the Constitution, and it’s a fight he’s engaged in with every facet of his life. He believes a coalition is needed because it takes all of us being actively involved to move our state and country forward. We as citizens must stay informed because We the People are in charge and must hold government accountable. Gary desires to provide Colorado citizens a free resource to get useful information about state government from a conservative perspective.

Where in the World are Our U.S. Soldiers?

December 18, 2018

Why is war being kept out of our country? It might be because our U.S. soldiers are out of the country, fighting terrorists abroad and monitoring threats. Since we don’t see war in front of us, our U.S. Armed Forces might be “out of sight; out of mind,” but it’s time we keep them in mind. We’ve all heard about troops being deployed to the border, but do you know where the rest of our troops are deployed right now?    

President Trump recently released a report to inform Congress about deployments of United States Armed Forces. He reported that about 445 U.S. soldiers are still in Egypt as part of the Multinational Force and Observers (MFO).  The MFO is nothing new—it’s been ongoing since 1982 and exists to ensure that both Egypt and Israel keep their Treaty of Peace.

The U.S. also continues to contribute to the NATO-led Kosovo Force (again, that’s not anything new—it’s been there since 1999).  Around 530 U.S. soldiers remain in Kosovo to keep it stable, multi-ethnic, and democratic.

Troops are also present in Saudi Arabia in a non-combat role. They’re supporting Saudi Arabian forces that are combating the Houthi rebellion in Yemen.

The rest of the deployments listed are for fighting al-Qa’ida, ISIS, and associated forces. For counterterrorism purposes, troops are deployed in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Jordan, Lebanon, Turkey, Somalia, Kenya, Djibouti, Libya, Niger, Cameroon, Chad, Nigeria, Cuba, the Philippians, and Yemen.

That’s a lot of countries! Does President Trump have the authority to deploy troops to fight in those countries against ISIS and al-Qa’ida? He says that part of his authority to do so comes from Public Law 107-40 and Public Law 107-243. Wait a second…what do those laws say? To answer that question, let’s take a minute to rewind all the way back to 2001.

Pressing rewind: in 2001, Congress passed Public Law 107-40, also called the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF), which stated “the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons…”

That meant President Bush could go after Osama Bin Laden and al-Qa’ida. A year later, Congress passed Public Law 107-243, also known as the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002, which said the President could direct the Armed Forces to “defend U.S. national security against the continuing threat posed by Iraq…”

By referencing those laws in his report, President Trump is saying the authorizations from Congress to go to war in 2001 and 2002 still apply to him.

But do they still apply? Does President Trump have the authority to stay in war against ISIS?

The 2001 war authorization specifies fighting against those who committed the 2001 terrorist attacks. A group named ISIS did not commit the 2001 terrorist attacks—al-Qa’ida did. But President Trump merges the two groups when he writes, “Since August 2014, these operations have targeted the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS)… which was formerly known as al‑Qa’ida in Iraq.” President Trump thinks ISIS and al-Qa’ida are the same group, and it has just changed names. Since the 2001 authorization states the President can fight al-Qa’ida, if al-Qa’ida = ISIS, then that would mean the President could also fight ISIS.

President Obama thought the same way. He conflated ISIS and al-Qa’ida so that he could use the Authorization for Use of Military Force against al-Qa’ida as permission to also fight ISIS.

Some disagree with President Obama and President Trump, though. They argue that al-Qa’ida does not= ISIS. Mainstream media says it wasn’t ISIS who committed the 2001 terrorist attacks because ISIS didn’t even exist until 2014. ISIS and al-Qa’ida are even enemies of each other! The current leader of al-Qa’ida in Afghanistan (Ayman al Zawahiri) has said they have no connection with ISIS, are not pleased with the group, and have ordered it to stop. And the spokesperson for ISIS has said ISIS “is not and has never been an offshoot of al-Qa’ida…”

The ISIS spokesperson is being misleading, though, and mainstream media that claims ISIS didn’t commit the 2001 terrorist attacks is confused. Although ISIS and al-Qa’ida are no longer working together and are now enemies, they used to work together. They’ve been bickering with each other from the start, but they were still a team. ISIS started out as “al-Qa’ida in Iraq.” Then, in 2014, “al-Qa’ida in Iraq” was kicked out of the main al-Qa’ida. (Why? It’s a long story!)

“Al-Qa’ida in Iraq” then went on to become the Islamic State, aka ISIS, led by Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi. It seems Baghdadi believes he is carrying on the legacy of Osama Bin Laden—that ISIS is the real “Bin Laden’s al’Qa’ida.” If that’s the case, then it makes perfect sense to conflate ISIS and al-Qa’ida into one.

So, the ISIS spokesperson, who said that ISIS is notan offshoot of Al-Qa’ida appears to be wrong, and President Trump, who says that ISIS was formerly known as alQa’ida in Iraq, appears to be right.

But…some people also point out that al-Qa’ida and ISIS have different goals and strategies, so they’re not the same thing. If we consider both group’s overarching goal, though, it is quite similar: both groups are trying to lead the jihadist cause throughout the Muslim world to create a global, Islamic caliphate (aka State or kingdom).

The threat both groups pose to America might be different, though. Al-Qa’ida focuses on targeting America, but ISIS is made up of Sunni Muslims who want to target Muslim “apostates” like the Shi’a Muslims. Foreign policy expert Daniel Byman argues that al-Qa’ida “and its affiliates remain a threat to the U.S. homeland, while the danger [of ISIS] is more to the stability of the Middle East and U.S. interests overseas.” If it’s true that al-Qa’ida and ISIS don’t pose the same type of threat to America, the two groups can’t be blended together as the same thing, so the President might need a new war authorization from Congress to continue battling ISIS.

If President Trump ends up needing a new war authorization, do you think Congress should grant it? Should we keep fighting ISIS overseas? Should we limit the fight to just fighting al-Qa’ida?

Phew! That was a lot of questions and history, but hopefully that gives you some more context for the current deployments overseas. Speaking of deployments…make sure to thank a soldier or veteran every chance you get!

Change the U.S. Senate? No Way! It Protects States’ Rights

November 29, 2018

Fortunately, Republicans held on to the majority in the U.S. Senate this past midterm election, but some liberals have an idea: change the structure of the Senate to favor more populous States. I think I need to put a “worst ideas ever” trash bin in my office and throw that idea in it! 

After Judge Kavanaugh’s confirmation to the Supreme Court, some liberals started complaining about how the Senate is set up. Washington Times published an article with the headline: “Senators representing less than half the U.S. are about to confirm a nominee opposed by most Americans.” CNN grumbled that the confirmation shined a “harsh spotlight on the Senate’s historic bias in favor of small states.”

NBC’s Ken Dilanian got on board the Senate-bashing train, tweeting “It may not happen in our lifetimes, but the idea that North Dakota and New York get the same representation in the Senate has to change.”

Currently, every State gets two senators, no matter the State’s population. It’s set up so that small States get just as much say in national policy as large States get. Apparently, liberal media thinks that’s an unfair system. They think the Senate should represent what the majority of people want. 

If liberals opened a history book, they’d realize the Senate is meant to instead represent the States as States, as Kyle Sammin explained in his article for the Federalist. Each State is supposed to be equally represented in D.C. 

If equal representation for States wasn’t included in the Constitution, smaller States likely never would have agreed to become the United States of America. It was quite the debate at the 1787 Constitutional Convention: some delegates were concerned that larger States would  overshadow smaller States, so they wanted each State to have one vote in Congress, as James McClellan explains in his book Liberty, Order, and Justice. 

On the other side of the debate were delegates who thought larger and wealthier States should get more votes in Congress. 

So, the Founders came up with the Great Compromise”: States with more people get more votes in the House of Representatives to represent the majority of people, but States get equal votes in the Senate.

That compromise is a check on legislation because it means no law can be passed unless a majority of people AND a majority of States agree with it, as James Madison wrote in Federalist 62.

If the Senate was changed to represent the majority of people, do you know what would happen? The States with the highest population would get to decide how the rest of the country is run, stamping on the rights of States with less people. 

If North Dakota and New York no longer had equal representation in the Senate, for instance, then urban New York would get to dictate the rules for rural North Dakota, even though their way of life can be vastly different. 

However, the Senate protects against that and preserves States’ rights. The States weren’t meant to be consolidated into one single power. As Madison wrote, giving an equal vote to each State recognizes that a portion of political authority still belongs to each individual State. 

Our government structure helps enable States that “differ a good deal from one another or have different backgrounds to join together for common benefits, without some of the States or groups being required to obey unquestioningly whatever the largest State or group orders,” McClellan says.

Just because the Left doesn’t want a Republican majority in the Senate does not mean we should scrap the Senate’s structure! If we want States’ rights to still be a thing, equal representation in the Senate for States must be preserved. 

Do you agree? 

In Service,

Colorado Citizens Coalition

Gary Gates started the non-profit Colorado Citizens Coalition because he has a passion for individual liberty and preserving the Constitution, and it’s a fight he’s engaged in with every facet of his life. He believes a coalition is needed because it takes all of us being actively involved to move our state and country forward. We as citizens must stay informed because We the People are in charge and must hold government accountable. Gary desires to provide Colorado citizens a free resource to get useful information about state government from a conservative perspective.

Have You Read the Constitution?

October 18, 2018

“Hold on to your Constitution, for if the American Constitution shall fail there will be anarchy throughout the world.’’ ~Daniel Webster

It’s important for Conservatives to stand up for the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights. Let’s find out how many Conservatives have read these crucial documents! Have you read the entire Constitution? Take the poll below to let us know!



Abraham Lincoln called the U.S. Constitution the “only safeguard of our liberties.” If you haven’t read the U.S. Constitution yet, don’t miss out! You can find a copy of it here. Once you’ve read it, please let us know by taking the poll above.

We’ll share the final count next week on our Facebook page! Please forward this link to your family and friends so that they can read the Constitution too and join the movement of those who know what our founding document says.

“…the Constitution is the guide, which I will never abandon,” as George Washington proclaimed. However, it can only be our guide if we know what it says, so let’s do something revolutionary—let’s read it!

In Service,

Colorado Citizens Coalition

Gary Gates started the non-profit Colorado Citizens Coalition because he has a passion for individual liberty and preserving the Constitution, and it’s a fight he’s engaged in with every facet of his life. He believes a coalition is needed because it takes all of us being actively involved to move our state and country forward. We as citizens must stay informed because We the People are in charge and must hold government accountable. Gary desires to provide Colorado citizens a free resource to get useful information about state government from a conservative perspective.

Judge Kavanaugh and Dr. Ford: a non-partisan issue polluted by partisanship

October 3, 2018

This trend we’ve seen is baffling:

Even before the hearing took place, Republicans seemed to automatically believe that Judge Brett Kavanaugh is not guilty of sexual assault, and Democrats seemed to automatically believe Dr. Christine Blasey Ford was sexually assaulted by Kavanaugh when they were both in high-school.

It doesn’t make sense. A sexual allegation case is not a partisan issue. It’s not a policy issue or fiscal issue. So why is it so neatly divided between party lines? 

I think we’re seeing the dire result of severe partisanship in America: it’s making an ugly invasion on justice. It’s killing objective investigation. Severe partisanship is demolishing a bulwark principle in our country: innocent until proven guilty. 

Instead, now it appears a person is automatically guilty of a crime or lying depending on which political party they ascribe to. We’re essentially judging a person’s credibility and character based on whether they’re in the same political party as us. What a bizarre, biased measuring stick!

If this trend keeps up, will America be torn asunder by the ever-growing “us vs. them” mentality? 

Association with a certain political party does not determine someone’s guilt or innocence. Let’s return to the gold standard of innocent until proven guilty. 

That means we should believe Judge Kavanaugh’s sworn testimony that he has never sexually assaulted Dr. Ford, nor anyone else. Thus far in the process, there is not any evidence that he committed sexual assault.  

An experienced, career sex-crimes prosecutor, Rachel Mitchell, was chosen to be staff counsel for last week’s Senate Judiciary committee hearing that focused on sexual allegations against Judge Kavanaugh. During the 8+ hour hearing, Dr. Ford and Judge Kavanaugh gave their personal testimonies and were asked questions by both Mitchell and senators on the Committee. 

After independently reviewing the evidence, Mitchell said in a memorandum that “I do not think a reasonable prosecutor would bring this case based on the evidence before the Committee” and there is not evidence “sufficient to satisfy the preponderance-of evidence standard.”

Indeed, currently there is not even corroborating evidence from witnesses. Dr. Ford named three people, including her close friend Leland Keyser, who were at the gathering where the alleged sexual assault took place. All three submitted  statements and, under penalty of felony if they are lying to the Committee, said they have no knowledge of the events described by Dr. Ford. Leland Keyser said she doesn’t even know Kavanaugh. 

Granted, at times, Kavanaugh wouldn’t give direct answers, like when he was questioned about his drinking habits and whether he’s blacked out before. Is that a sign of guilt and cover-up? Or is it a sign of being careful about what he says because he’s worried about people jumping to conclusions or the media spinning his words? Some have suggested he also told small lies throughout the hearing, such as lying about what some sayings in his high-school yearbook meant, but that’s open to debate. Regardless, although that could be perjury, it does not make him guilty of sexual assault.  

Since there’s no evidence except for Dr. Ford’s testimony, I have a new nickname for those who believe Judge Kavanaugh is guilty: how does Potiphar sound? In Genesis, Potiphar’s wife tried to seduce Joseph, and when Joseph refused and ran away, Potiphar’s wife told Potiphar that Joseph had attacked her. Potiphar unjustly threw Joseph in prison for years. 

Do we really want our truth-seeking investigation to be done by “Potiphars”? It’s time we let evidence make up our mind instead of making up our mind before we’ve even seen a lick of evidence. 

Same goes for how we should view Dr. Ford. When people said Dr. Ford is lying, even before listening to her, they’re accusing her of the crime of defamation or perjury. They’ve made her guilty until proven innocent. But it first should be assumed that Dr. Ford is telling the truth about being sexually assaulted, unless there is evidence she is lying or not remembering correctly.

Any person who comes forward with allegations of sexual assault must be taken seriously at first. We shouldn’t always expect there to be corroborating witnesses for sexual assault cases. For instance, in Dr. Ford’s case, one of the witnesses, Mark Judge, is someone also being accused, so he would have incentive to lie if the assault did happen. And if others were there downstairs, unaware of an assault happening, they would not likely remember an insignificant gathering of a few friends from decades ago. It’s unrealistic to expect they could corroborate such a gathering.

What about the timing of the allegation—doesn’t it seem politically motivated, meant to delay Judge Kavanaugh’s confirmation? Yes, but such suspicion is not evidence that Dr. Ford is lying. Someone can be politically motivated and still be telling the truth.

It might be evidence that she is being taken advantage of for a political game, though. On July 6, before Judge Kavanaugh was chosen as the Supreme Court nominee, Dr. Ford contacted her local government representative and sent a tip to the Washington Post. In late July, she sent a confidential letter to the ranking Democrat of the Committee, Senator Dianne Feinstein. For some reason, it was not until someone leaked part of the story to the press in September that Feinstein finally told federal investigative authorities about the contents of Dr. Ford’s letter. 

It’s true that Feinstein promised confidentiality to Dr. Ford, but Feinstein could have handled the matter confidentially. Throughout this confirmation process, Feinstein had a one-on-one with Judge Kavanaugh, there was a closed session with Judge Kavanaugh for discussing sensitive information, and Feinstein’s staff had questioned Judge Kavanaugh about other confidential background information.  Yet, Feinstein never brought up Dr. Ford’s allegations. 

Why didn’t Senator Feinstein bring it up? Is it because she was saving this in her back pocket to delay the hearings on the eve of Judge Kavanaugh’s confirmation? Or is it because she did not believe Dr. Ford’s story nor take it seriously? 

It’s quite maddening that the allegation did not come out until right now, and it’s true that now the Democrats can try to delay until the midterm elections. It should have been brought forward earlier. We have a right to be angry about that. But we don’t have a right to be angry at Dr. Ford, who says she believes she is doing her civic duty by sharing her story. She is not guilty of political conspiracy, acting, lying, or forgetting…unless there’s evidence that proves she is. Again, people are innocent until proven guilty—no matter what side of the political aisle they’re on. 

All that to say, let’s stop making our decisions based on party lines and start examining evidence. Otherwise, severe political partisanship will continue to attack and occupy every part of culture and society.

In Service,

Colorado Citizens Coalition

Gary Gates started the non-profit Colorado Citizens Coalition because he has a passion for individual liberty and preserving the Constitution, and it’s a fight he’s engaged in with every facet of his life. He believes a coalition is needed because it takes all of us being actively involved to move our state and country forward. We as citizens must stay informed because We the People are in charge and must hold government accountable. Gary desires to provide Colorado citizens a free resource to get useful information about state government from a conservative perspective.

Who is behind Colorado Citizens Coalition?

September 26, 2018

You’ve likely been receiving emails from Colorado Citizens Coalition, and perhaps you’re curious about who is behind our non-profit. We thought we would take a minute to introduce you to our founder and president, Gary Gates.

Gary is active in the Crested Butte, Colorado community and local church, Republican clubs, and the Conservative movement. He’s served as a board member for a Pregnancy Resource Center and is a supporter of Crested Butte Adaptive Sports and the Crested Butte Center for the Arts. 

He owns and operates his own business, providing jobs for more than 500 people. With a strong belief in capitalism and a commitment to entrepreneurship, he started and built Gatesco Inc. from the ground up, beginning back in 1986. This business remains today as a family-owned real estate investment company with operations in the Gulf Coast region of Texas. He has extensive experience in the housing industry: he now manages over 7000 apartment units.

Gary lives about half his time in Crested Butte, Colorado. He is currently attempting to build and manage affordable housing there. Hundreds of employees who keep Crested Butte alive and running have been priced out of the town. The lack of workforce housing sends a negative message to the backbone of the town: “you can work here, but you can’t sleep here.” Gary has a free-market solution to the housing crisis—he has a plan to provide housing for locals without using tax dollars. Unfortunately, government is getting in the way. The Crested Butte local government is resisting the free-market solution; instead, they want control of all workforce housing, and they want to fix the problem through substantial taxpayer funds. Nonetheless, Gary is still pushing through the resistance and red tape because he knows housing is one of the most pressing needs in the area, and he wants to make a difference in the community.

Gary is also a loving husband and proud father. He has been married to his wonderful wife, Melissa, for thirty-six years, and together they have thirteen children, eleven of whom are adopted.

Gary started the non-profit Colorado Citizens Coalition because he has a passion for individual liberty and preserving the Constitution, and it’s a fight he’s engaged in with every facet of his life. He believes a coalition is needed because it takes all of us being actively involved to move our state and country forward. Simply voting every two years and sending elected officials to Denver or D.C. is not enough. We as citizens must stay informed because We the People are in charge and must hold government accountable. Gary desires to provide Colorado citizens a free resource to get useful information about state government from a common sense, conservative perspective.

We’d love to hear about you and your involvement in the conservative movement, too! Please feel free to shoot us an email to introduce yourself.

In Service,

Colorado Citizens Coalition

Gary Gates started the non-profit Colorado Citizens Coalition because he has a passion for individual liberty and preserving the Constitution, and it’s a fight he’s engaged in with every facet of his life. He believes a coalition is needed because it takes all of us being actively involved to move our state and country forward. We as citizens must stay informed because We the People are in charge and must hold government accountable. Gary desires to provide Colorado citizens a free resource to get useful information about state government from a conservative perspective.

What’s on Your Reading List?

September 6, 2018

What are the best books you’ve ever read on America, conservatism, and the United States Constitution? We’d love to hear your recommendations! We thought we’d take a minute to share some of our favorites with you too. Have you read any of the books listed below? If not, hopefully you’ll add these books to your must-read list and crack them open soon! These books are full of treasures.

1) Democracy in America by Alexis de Tocqueville:

While visiting America in 1831, the Frenchman Alexis de Tocqueville wrote down his brilliant observations, comparing and contrasting America with the European aristocratic systems. He presents sage advice on how to reap the benefits of democracy, while avoiding its pitfalls. He also gives a stellar game plan to prevent tyranny from arising in America. Buy Now from Amazon.

2) Roots of American Order by Russell Kirk: 

Buckle up for a ride through Jerusalem, Athens, Rome, and London, as Russell Kirk shows how those cities influenced the documents drafted in Philadelphia at America’s founding. The American Founders drew from the divine revelation, moral framework, and faith of biblical Jerusalem, and adopted some of the philosophy of ancient Athens. They leaned on ancient Rome’s system of political order and law as well as London’s common law tradition. If you want to know the history of Western Civilization that formed our nation, then this book is for you. Buy Now from Amazon.

3) Liberty, Order, and Justice by James McClellan:

This book is not for the faint of heart—you’ll need to brew a strong cup of coffee to get through this 629-page book! However, it’s worth the long journey through this book. We often talk about how unique and vital our Constitution is, but many of us don’t even know what is actually in it, the meanings behind the words, and how challenging it was to bring about such a remarkable and free system of Constitutional government. This book gives a deeper understanding of each article in the Constitution and makes the strong case for Federalism and separation of powers. It lays out the defining debates that took place at our country’s founding and the struggles for Constitutional liberty. Buy Now from Amazon.

4) The Conservative Mind by Russel Kirk:

American conservativism owes a great debt of gratitude to this book: it helped revitalize conservativism in the 1950s. If you are conservative yet have not read this book, it’s almost like being a Christian who hasn’t read the Bible! Russell Kirk clarifies in this book what it really means to be a conservative, and he traces conservative thought back to the 18th century, when it started with Edmund Burke. From there, he outlines all the major players who have shaped conservative thought. If you’re a conservative, this book will reveal your “family tree” and heritage. Buy Now from Amazon.

Well, there you have it—four great books to get started on. Do you only have time to read a few chapters in each of these books? Then shoot us an email, and we’d be happy to recommend the most important chapters to read.

Happy reading!

In Service,

Colorado Citizens Coalition

Gary Gates started the non-profit Colorado Citizens Coalition because he has a passion for individual liberty and preserving the Constitution, and it’s a fight he’s engaged in with every facet of his life. He believes a coalition is needed because it takes all of us being actively involved to move our state and country forward. We as citizens must stay informed because We the People are in charge and must hold government accountable. Gary desires to provide Colorado citizens a free resource to get useful information about state government from a conservative perspective.

Republicans Aren’t Stingy—They Just Believe in Self-Sufficiency and Human Dignity

August 14, 2018

When Republicans call for a decrease in government welfare, the Left yells that we must hate poor people. Case in point, President Trump recently signed an Executive Order that called for increased work requirements for those on welfare, and the Left called it “punishing the poor.” According to some, the Trump Administration is done waging the War on Poverty and is instead waging the “War on Poor People.” Contrary to such flamboyant rhetoric, Republicans are not trying to punish poor people — they’re trying to clear a path to self – sufficiency and build local community.

To promote self – sufficiency, President Trump’s Executive Order (EO) calls for agencies to better enforce the work requirements for welfare eligibility and introduce new work requirements for non – cash programs like food stamps and Medicaid. His plan is similar to one enacted by the Clinton Administration in the 1990s.

After the media outcry over Trump’s EO, the White House released a statement last week saying, “Expecting non – disabled working – age adults to work shouldn’t be controversial.”

Good point. But to be fair to the other side, the controversy is not over expecting healthy adults to work. What the Left is really saying is that there’s not enough opportunities for the poor to get a stable job, so it’s unfair to expect the poor to have a job in order to receive essential needs like food. Plus, the Left is upset over welfare funding being reduced, because they claim the poor are indeed working, but their job doesn’t pay a living wage. So, according to the Left, the issue is not that people are lazy and need motivation to work: the issue is that the poor cannot get work, especially if they’re uneducated and unskilled, discriminated against, don’t have access to affordable child care, etcetera.

However, if the Left would’ve actually read the EO instead of outrageously claiming that Republicans are demonizing the poor, they would’ve seen that the EO acknowledges their concerns. It states the government needs to provide opportunities for work and invest in programs that effectively move people into the workforce and out of poverty. It admits that there’s some populations that particularly struggle to find and maintain employment, and that challenge will need to be addressed in any proposed plan. The EO calls for an investment in programs that equip people with necessary skills for employment.

Perhaps one of the best features of the EO is its call to promote “strong social networks as a way of sustainably escaping poverty…” and to empower “the private sector, as well as local communities, to develop and apply locally based soluti ons to poverty.” Wait — wasn’t the point of the EO to promote self – sufficiency? Yes, but self – sufficiency does not rule out getting help from your social network. Self – sufficiency does not equal isolation. As Genesis 2 says, it’s not good for someone to be alone. We need strong social bonds and community commitments — life is not a Do – It – Yourself project. There’s nothing wrong with humbling yourself and reaching out to your neighbors for help, and then helping them when their crisis comes. Small communities ca n fulfill Christ’s command to “Give to the one who begs from you.” When you reach out for help to your neighbor, that doesn’t give them power over you.

In contrast, wh en you reach out to government for help, it must create a new program and hire more bureaucrats, which expands its power over you. That’s the problem: over – reliance on government, which gives it access to run your life. And they run your life without ever needing to know your name, face, and personal challenges.

One of the most cruel consequences of government welfare is people becoming isolated and alone. We’ve seen people on welfare who hardly ever leave their home. Their check comes in the mail from a faceless bureaucrat, and they never have to engage with the outside world. It’s d evastating to see — they are lonely, depressed, and purposeless. Work helps put people in community. Work is a way of serving our neighbor, and it enhances human dignity and self – confidence. Work is not a punishment. After all, work existed before the Fall: God told Adam and Eve to work to subdue and fill the earth. Yes, work became “thorny” after Adam and Eve disobeyed (God told Adam the ground would be filled with thorns and thistles), but work in and of itself was not a punishment — it’s part of the created order of things.

So, when Republicans want increased work requirements for the poor, it’s not because we want to punish or demonize the poor. It’s because we believe work is a good thing, and we want to see people thriving in community, being self – sufficient, and living with dignified purpose.

In Service,

Colorado Citizens Coalition

Gary Gates started the non-profit Colorado Citizens Coalition because he has a passion for individual liberty and preserving the Constitution, and it’s a fight he’s engaged in with every facet of his life. He believes a coalition is needed because it takes all of us being actively involved to move our state and country forward. We as citizens must stay informed because We the People are in charge and must hold government accountable. Gary desires to provide Colorado citizens a free resource to get useful information about state government from a conservative perspective.

Connect With Us