All Episodes
Previous Next
April 24, 2025 - Blood Money
59:16
Ken Degraaf vs Insanity in Colorado - Blood Money Episode 287
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to the latest episode of Blood Money.
Today we have Ken DeGraff, a rep from Colorado Springs in Colorado.
How are you doing, sir?
I am well, thank you.
How about yourself?
I'm good, I'm good.
But it doesn't sound like all is well in Colorado.
So let's dive right into it.
First, give us a little introduction as to who you are and what you have been working on out there in Colorado.
Well, I'm a...
Retired Air Force, active duty Air Force Reserve, Air National Guard.
I thought my community service, as it were, was done after 27 years in the Air Force Colorado politics.
I've just been elected for the second time, so this is my third year in the General Assembly.
We kind of hoped that maybe things would tone down a little bit after the overwhelming election of Donald Trump.
And it really hasn't.
They are really trying to get their agenda out as fully implemented as possible.
It has not dissuaded them at all.
In fact, they're probably more so.
So a lot of bills that are really a tax on children, they want to medically, mechanically, surgically Reaffirm any gender other than the,
I mean, for a meaningless term now, other than what the child was born with.
They want to insurance programs like 1309.
They want to have fund all of the programs that...
They just can't get enough of.
So tax, basically taxes on insurance programs.
I was just looking over $12.97, talking about subsidizing insurance and reinsurance for 80% of the population.
And on 20% and even bills like SB 25-183 that we had on Sunday, disgustingly enough, that committed Colorado to what they said were the mandates of Proposition 79,
so they want to use it to commit Colorado to...
Unlimited funding for unlimited feticide for unlimited persons because anybody in Colorado with no proof of residency.
So any proof of residency they determine is discriminatory.
Feticide? You use the term feticide.
Can you explain what that is?
Well, I use the term feticide in the same...
Manner as Susan B. Anthony, it's the murder of a fetus, the murder of a pre-born human.
Abortion is a natural procedure, a natural process of the expulsion of a non-viable pregnancy.
So it's really not accurate to call.
Feticide is just more accurate because it is the active killing.
of an unborn human and that is by in Colorado that is at any point prior to live birth by any means any chemical any any any means at any time for any reason so I think it's just I think it's better to you know make sure we're talking about what we're talking about and not euphemistically because of you know because of discomfort so Yeah,
yeah. So tell me about some of these bills.
I mean, I have them pulled up here.
In fact, I could show them on screen.
Well, that's one thing people don't realize.
They'll see a couple bills that come up, and they are, one, the bill typically, you know, what I call legislation 101 is what it says it is, it ain't.
So the title is very, you know, are very deceptive.
And then, you know, the costs are deceptive.
And then the fact that we just have hundreds of them.
We'll consider over 700 bills this year.
These are all about abortion or feticide?
No, no, no.
They're about everything.
They're about, you know, housing, HOAs, every legislator, all of the 100 representatives slash legislators are allocated five bills.
And of those five, we'll see 700 introduced and over 600 passed.
So 600 of 500 bills will pass.
Most of those will be Democrat bills.
Most of them will We'll cost quite a lot of money.
And we're getting into the crunch phase of session.
So in the final few days, that's when we'll see the governor's priority bills and the Democrats' priority bills because their priority bills, they want to make sure they have as little scrutiny as possible.
With this little time available for consideration.
Concerning protecting access to gender-affirming health care.
I'm going to guess that one is 1309, so I can bring that one up.
Yep, yep, 1309.
Yep, so 1309 is, I mean, it really gets to their priorities.
If you, let's see, bill text.
So what they do is then they'll say, well, it doesn't have a fiscal note or it has a low fiscal note because what it's doing is it's imposing the cost on everybody's insurance.
So it's requiring all insurance to...
It's requiring all insurance programs that are offered in the state to cover what it calls gender-affirming health care, which means all supplies, care, services, medical, behavioral health, mental, psychiatric, habilitative, surgical, therapeutical, you know,
hormone therapy, skin tightening, face remodeling, genital remodeling.
Rhydectomy, I don't even know what that is.
Lip lift or augmentation, mandibular angle augmentation, orbital reconstruction, rhinoplasty, laser hair removal, breast chest augmentation.
And so let me get this straight.
This is stuff that now everybody has to pay for if this bill gets through?
Yes, everybody has to pay for because it's requiring that this coverage be included.
By all insurance programs that are offered in the state.
So the only way that those insurance programs can cover that, of course, is because some of those are very expensive procedures.
And when you look at it and when you look at the ongoing medical coverage that's required, you're looking at hundreds of thousands of dollars per person.
Now, they say, well, that won't really add too much to your policy because You know, of the very, you know, what they say is a very small number of people that will do that.
Although I would imagine that if the state is picking up the tab, we'll have a large number of, we'll have an influx of people from other states that, you know, want the surgery for, want all these procedures for free.
But either way, it's a tax on the people of Colorado.
It's a government mandate, so that cost is assigned to the people of Colorado.
So it's a way to evade the Taxpayer Bill of Rights, and it also assigns special privileges to a minority or to any group, whether it's minority or majority, the Constitution forbids.
Special treatment.
So this is taking money specifically from one group and then giving it to another group and giving them preferential treatment because nobody else gets that coverage for free.
It's only for what they call gender-affirming health care.
So, of course...
I've read a lot of articles about how other countries that have done this sort of thing, they've realized it's an absolute failure.
There's no such thing as switching your gender.
It's a temporary fix.
Often it leads to...
Horrible repercussions in the long run.
But tell me, what do you know about the background of this sort of, quote-unquote, CARE, and how does it apply to what they're trying to do in the Colorado legislature now?
Well, we've had several bills on this with CARE.
One of my bills was House Bill...
25-1254.
And you're right.
The CAS study, which was, I think it was like 29,000 outcomes they tracked.
It wasn't really, it was just to set, it was a study to look at, you know, what the outcomes of these surgeries were, either, you know, the transition, social, medical, hormonal, and...
Because a lot of countries were farther ahead of us.
I don't want to say ahead of us.
They were deeper in the hole than we were.
And they tracked the outcomes and have realized that most of this is going horribly wrong.
You know, the Debiopath, which is not a medical organization whatsoever.
They do have some medical people in it.
But they came up and they said, well, you know, they made nominally some medical standards, which were cited by other people that, and then you just have this circle.
But even they recognized that 30% in climbing of people who have gone through the transition in one way, shape, or form, especially surgical, regret it.
And so if you look at regret as failure, I think over 10% would be considered extreme risk in any surgery.
So if you have 30% risk of failure, then you're at an extremely extreme, extreme risk of failure for this.
But instead of backing away from this, they double down.
You can go to Reddit.
I found there's a Reddit thread, and it's got 50,000 to 60,000 members on it.
I don't know if they're all detransitioners, but they're all people with tragic stories about how they were rushed, at least the ones that are sharing their stories, are how they were rushed into either hormone therapy, genital mutilation,
or even social conversion.
And social conversion generally leads to hormones.
Hormones lead to surgery.
And then, you know, 30%, at least, according to the Debiopath, who's an advocate for it, at least 30% of them lead to regret.
And, you know, there's no undoing it.
There's no undoing the damage from hormone blockers.
There's no undoing the damage from surgery.
And they're really tragic stories to listen to.
My bill for House Bill 25-1254 was not to make it illegal because that's a bridge too far.
They are committed to making sure this happens more and more.
But it was to add some accountability, some accountability through liability to make these providers for this care More cautious as to who they are transitioning.
So, you know, if 30%, say, let's just hold it at 30%.
If 30% is a failure, you want to limit the surgeries to those 70%.
And those 30% could probably be weeded out by some psychological intervention because we know that 95% plus, you know, nearly 100% of the kids.
Who have this gender dysphoria or body dysmorphia.
I mean, it's just a form of body dysmorphia.
You could feel like you're too fat and be skinny.
You could feel like you're too skinny and be fat.
There's also dysmorphia where you feel like your arm doesn't belong to you or your whole body doesn't belong to you.
But we don't cut off somebody's arm in order to make them feel...
In order to make them feel whole, we would put them through a lot of medical intervention to avoid that harm.
So the attempt to even add accountability through liability of the medical process was not just voted down, but it was absolutely mocked by the Democrats.
So they don't want any slowing of the...
Of the genital mutilation process, of what they call affirmation.
They don't want any slowing by that.
That 30% and plus of the kids feel regret almost immediately, or they become lifelong medical experiments.
We had some testimonies on that.
Absolutely tragic.
Doesn't slow them down at all, so they want no accountability.
And in fact, there's bills.
If you go to, I don't know if you've ever heard the website or looked at the resources on ratedbooks.org.
Ratedbooks is like one continuous word,.org.
They show the grooming porn, the predatory porn that's kept in, that's been put in school libraries, the books that parents are trying to get out.
And we had a bill last year for SB 24-216 to keep Make sure that those books were kept in school systems.
And this year we had, no, I'm sorry, SB24-216 kept those, made sure that those books would not be removed from public libraries.
And this year we had SB25-063 that makes sure that those books stay in school library, in public school libraries.
And I tried to read from A couple books.
They're rated zero through five.
I tried reading from a book that was level four and was shut down and was shut down for reading a level five book because the room full of adults were uncomfortable with the content, but they want these books in public libraries.
When you say shut down, you're talking about you're in the legislature, you're trying to read these books that children are allowed to read and they wouldn't let you read it?
Correct. I mean, we are You know, it's the rules.
It's the parliamentary rules.
And the chair has the authority in this case to make sure that, you know, that what you're talking about is germane to the subject.
And they also have, so when I would read passages from the books, because that, you know, ratedbooks.org has these books broken down and they have the The harmful content highlighted in the sponsor of the bill,
House Bill 25-063, specifically mentioned books that were particularly edifying, she thought, like The Kite Runner.
And so I pulled up The Kite Runner and pulled out passages from The Kite Runner and read about the, you know, I just picked some random scenes, very uncomfortable reading because it's about, it's...
It's about the rape of a minor.
And, you know, you read like one passage from the pages of passages that are in this book and they, you know, they shut you down.
So when I, you know, another time when I tried reading a couple passages from a level three book, in fact, so stepping down a little bit and the adults in the room were uncomfortable.
So the chair gavels you down, you go to a recess, they don't allow you to come back and speak.
It's just the parliamentary rules of the House, but it's telling that they won't allow you to read even books that they said were specifically uplifting and beneficial for kids, but they won't let you read the content.
So yeah, and the really,
Bad thing about these books, those two bills, 24-216 and 25-063, where that they're made to look like they are giving parental rights, parental authority to have those books removed from the library.
And through twists and wording, they actually do the opposite.
So if you're just reading through the bill, you think, oh, well, this is what we need to give parents the authority to get this material out of schools, when in fact it's giving the legal backing for these librarians to ensure that these materials cannot be removed from the library.
So, okay, parents, I mean, are...
Are parents in an uproar?
I mean, I would imagine 10 out of 10 parents would be in an uproar for something like this.
I mean, what does that look like?
How are they able to, I guess, are there parents that are fine with this sort of thing?
Hence, there's not the sort of uproar that's making them take out these books?
I mean, what does the landscape look like?
Well, one of the sponsors of the bill is a parent, a young child.
And lots of people in the room are parents and grandparents, but they will vote consistently, and they will vote consistently and make sure that those books stay.
A lot of them will just not be in the room, and they want to, they don't like me reading, they don't want to hear what the passages in the book are, because they want to, they just, you know, the Democrats, the Policites, they want to be, they want to have some level of,
You know, plausible deniability that, you know, that they'll just say, well, these are just crazy people that want to remove these books.
But when you remove, when you read from a, you know, a rape scene of a, you know, a grown man, you know, a young boy and that his two friends are holding him down.
That is...
You know, they don't want to hear that, even though it's a book that they said was particularly uplifting.
And you see these videos on...
We're talking about the books.
You see them on the videos where parents go to school boards and such and read the passages and the school board gets upset and bans them from speaking.
Well, it's the exact same thing that's in the House of Representatives.
They want to keep these materials in the school.
And if you read...
I recommend Kara Dansky's book, The Reckoning, if anybody wants to understand, you know, because this pornography, it's predatory.
I mean, when you have a book like that, it forces the child to put themselves mentally into situations where they're not ready for, either as the victim or as the perpetrator.
And we know from reading books like Doidge's The brain that changes itself, brain plasticity, highly recommend that to anybody who's dealing with these things, that it causes physical changes in the brain.
It basically creates, it sets up an addiction loop to dopamine because kids are being exposed to, you know, very primal biological Motivators.
I mean, your brain is wired for sex.
I mean, it's ultimately your biological purpose.
So it's triggering these thoughts.
It's triggering emotions.
And it really destroys kids' ability to have relationships in the future.
It destroys their...
Idea about sex.
You know, we know from previous conversations in this that kids are going to the hospital because they're trying out things that they're reading in books that are in libraries because, you know, it's trusted adults that are putting these materials in libraries.
So kids, you know, they're not prepared to question and say, well, you know, these trusted adults in my life are really predators.
Let me ask you, I mean, this seems like blatant child abuse.
This seems as though these people should be arrested immediately.
And I'm talking about anybody that's pushing it, including parents.
That just seems like logic and common sense.
I mean, what's going on there?
Well, if you were to go get one of those books and give it to your neighbor kid, you would probably be arrested.
You could probably be arrested.
But somehow, when we do this...
In the setting of a library, in the setting of a trusted system, then it's protected.
And if you look at a bill like 1312, it goes completely awry because it classifies Even questioning anything about,
let's say you have two parents, and one of them, and you see this, it's a version of Munchausers by proxy.
It's called, you know, in the community, it's called Transhausens by proxy, where, you know, it's typically an attention-seeking mom will have You know,
we'll essentially groom their, and there were examples that were given where, you know, moms basically, or a parent, let's just say, grooms their kid into becoming, into questioning their sexuality, and their, you know, the kid doesn't even know what sexuality is,
and then, you know, the mom's got them, you know, cross-dressing, and...
There's an example of this, by the way.
A gentleman by the name of Jeff Younger, whose child was two years old when the mom started transitioning the child.
Texas, apparently he said that that shouldn't happen.
Mom kidnapped and trafficked the child to California, where this child wasn't even in puberty to understand his own sexual identity.
But yet the mom, I mean, given almost godlike powers against the father's will to do whatever she wants, basically.
Oh yeah, that's what Colorado's House Bill 25-1312 does.
It sets it up and says, so...
Say in this case, a parent, you know, they start transitioning the child like that happened to Erin Lee's daughter.
And you can read about, you can see that they have that documentary called Art Club where they transitioned or socially, the teachers transitioned or socially behind the parents back.
Well, now let's say that kid comes home and then using that child's birth name.
Is now considered coercive control.
So referring to a child that, you know, of whom you've been a parent and of whom you have the, you know, the fiduciary responsibility that you, and most of the times as the parent,
you have the...
The best interest of that child at heart, except for, you know, cases like Menchhauser's by proxy or Transhauser's by proxy, that speech is now considered coercive control, and that coercive control is considered abusive behavior and has actually been criminalized in,
I think, about eight to ten states.
So I wouldn't be surprised now, with this bill going through, that even in the waning hours, that there'll be a bill that actually criminalizes Criminalizes using birth name of somebody who's in the throes of body dysmorphia,
that using their birth name would be considered coercive control and then become a crime.
And that becomes a factor when you look in a case like Troxel.
Troxel said that the court needs to start with the assumption that both parents are fit parents.
Well, both parents are fit parents unless one is engaging in recognized abusive behavior or criminal behavior.
And then the other parent, of course, has a leg up.
So, you know, they'll say, well, this is not a criminal thing.
Well, yet.
And, you know, it's just like they've brought in the regulation of even toy guns by civil action.
And creating penalties that way.
So they're using these civil actions to say, well, it's not an actual crime where your life, liberty, or property would be deprived through due process.
It's setting up a biased civil process against a parent.
So they would say, well, the parent's not really being considered for a crime, but the parent could have custodial rights taken away from them, which is...
I don't know how that's better.
These two bills that you're talking about are 1312 and 1309.
These are actually going to pass?
I would expect so.
I think 1312, from what I've heard, is kind of...
You know, in this limbo status, and it's a good indication of, you know, what people need to do.
They need to be aware.
They need to be aware, and they need to put, you know, pressure on their legislators.
Now, SB, you know, 25-003, you know, that actually, that does literally criminalize toy guns.
I mean, I know it sounds like hyperbole, but I would never ever in a million years use hyperbole, but it actually does criminalize toy guns, and you can be held civilly.
Again, it's not criminally liable for responsible, but you could be sued for having a toy gun at a political event.
So the governor actually, you know, he waited for a long time and then signed off on it.
So 1312 is kind of being held off.
So I suspect it will be brought, I think it will be brought forward with the, you know, the onslaught of legislation in the waning hours so that it can, you know, where, you know, when people aren't paying attention, when people are fatigued from all,
you know, the onslaught of bills that they will.
That they'll push it through in the Senate in the waning hours when there's little time to debate it.
And then it'll just go in.
And then people will find out when all of a sudden there's custody.
Because it's also, I mean, it's one of these things where you look in 1312 and it's custody between, it's posited as custody between two parents.
But I think it's ultimately beyond that.
And it's custody where the state would pull custody from.
So both parents could actually be in opposition to this.
Both parents could be charged with coercive control, and then the state would do that.
So I have a constituent here, and his daughter was basically taking custody in Tennessee for having a mental break and could have been in custody.
Should have been no more than a medical hold for 48 hours.
And that 48 hours expired two years ago and that child is still in Tennessee being kept in basically a foster facility, you know, in jail essentially.
And the parents can't get the custody returned and the state of Colorado won't help.
In any way, shape, or form.
So there's a huge industry out there for warehousing these kids and basically trafficking these kids.
Tennis, you know, again, you know, I can't get any help out of the state of Tennessee to deal with that.
So I think ultimately 1312 is about, not so much about parent, you know, custody disputes between parents, but the custody disputes between parents and state.
And you can look at that last year, the state mandated that all foster parents actively participate and really celebrate the transition.
So if they put a kid with them in their care for their, you know, that they have to participate in the, you know, in the surgery, not, I mean, they're not going to participate, but in taking them for.
Therapy. They have to reaffirm their pronouns.
They have to reaffirm their names.
They have to make sure they stay in contact with the grooming entities.
So it's a continual war.
It does not let up even ever.
It does not let up ever.
And I think it will get worse as we get towards the end of session.
Let's look at, so, persons' rights related to children.
I'm looking at this 1003.
Could you talk a little bit about that?
1003. You're talking about House Concurrent Resolution 1003.
That is my parental rights bill, and it just adds to the Constitution.
It would be something that would be voted on by the people.
So this would just put it on the ballot.
Do we want to add these words?
I have to pull it up to make sure I don't say the words incorrectly.
But it's, yeah, it's just adding that to ensure that, let me see.
So it would change the Constitution for all persons have certain natural, essentially, and inalienable rights, among which may be reckoned the right of enjoying and defending their lives and liberties of acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and then adding of directing the upbringing,
education, and care of their children, and seeking and obtaining their safety and happiness.
So it would be adding to our Constitution that an inalienable right is directing upbringing.
The upbringing, education, and care of their children.
So that would be something that typically nobody would ever think that you would have to add to the Constitution, but we're at that point where we do.
So it'll be an interesting thing to see if the Democrats in the Colorado House of Representatives are willing for the people of Colorado to vote on whether they think they should...
That their natural rights under the Constitution of Colorado should include the direction and upbringing, education, and care of their children.
I mean, that seems like a given, isn't it?
So, I mean, constitutionally, aren't children considered the property of the parents?
Question one.
And if they're considered a property of parents, I mean, doesn't the Constitution already give them the right to do everything that you just talked about?
Oh, that's an area where they'll flip out if you say something like that, that children aren't property and you can't do that.
Now, we talked about earlier in the case of the unlimited feticide that children are considered property.
They're considered the property of the mother, and the mother can dispose of it, sell it, whatever she wants.
So we have that.
Now, as soon as the child is born, really, I'd say the Democrats view that child as property of the state.
And so, you know, in the terms of parental responsibility.
But you're right.
Basically, the law has upheld that, you know, to say that the children are property, but the parents have the responsibility.
They have the fiduciary right to That's something that constitutionally has never been questioned.
That would fall under the laws of nature and nature's God as evidenced by...
So it's clearly in our founding documents.
It's clearly in the basis of our law, but it's been so undermined by the left that wants to strip the children from parents We're to the point of saying,
all right, we need to put this in there.
But you're right.
It shouldn't be a question.
And if we were living in a land of logic and reason and constitutionality, it would never be needed.
But we're not in that land.
I mean, what happened to this country?
Like, what happened to this country where...
I mean, these topics we're talking about in terms of, you know, when I was growing up, for example, you know, you kind of came of age and our version of wanting to find out about, you know, sex and naked bodies and all that kind of stuff was that, you know,
you're a kid that's 13 to 15 years old.
You sneak into the section of the bookstore where they have Playboys.
And this is this seemed like kind of like a normal.
Of course, for a young man, you know.
Now, we're talking about kids that haven't even gone through puberty.
And, you know, I remember, you know, being an eight-year-old, not knowing anything about sex.
But we're allowing the targeting of these minors.
And on surface value alone, this just sounds like complete insanity.
What happened in this country where this is even a topic of discussion?
Well, Vigilance is the price of liberty.
Slavery is the price of apathy.
We were apathetic.
We've been apathetic.
We took it for granted that people that wanted to work with children had the best interest of children at heart.
And that's probably certainly the case for the majority, but it also attracts...
Predators. And we were not careful for that.
You know, we have a government system that, you know, we thought was locked in.
You know, our legislators are required to act.
You know, they take an oath to, you know, acting constitutionally.
And, you know...
To secure these rights, governments are instituted among men deriving their just power from the consent of the governed.
We should not be imposing mandates.
We should not be imposing our will.
But then these same legislators put into law, basically, that anything they pass is considered constitutional until proven otherwise in a court of law.
Now, against these kids, we have...
Left, and in a large part, you know, I blame the church.
You know, I mean, I blame myself, too.
I mean, my dad was involved in all, you know, all things, you know, with school board, and I was annoyed by that because I wanted him to be home, but, you know, school board, church board, all these boards, and then, you know, but you don't realize that,
you know, how quickly these things slip away, and, you know, if we look at, you know, say the We are leaving these positions of power and money, which attracts people attracted to power and money.
We're leaving those positions open to people who don't have the moral grounding, that don't have the integrity to be in those positions.
So we leave those positions too often open to those who are looking to benefit themselves.
And they know full well what the words to say, how to act, how to convince you that they're doing, you know, that they're working on your behalf while working in, you know, complete contradiction to that.
So we've left.
One thing that I say about, you know, Republicans is a great thing about Republicans is that we don't want to be involved in government.
We don't see the solution.
We see that.
There's no problem.
The government can't make worse with the solution.
So we don't look to solve our problems with government.
So we don't look to get involved in government.
Well, that leaves government open to other people.
That leaves it open to Democrats who worship government.
And see government as the solution to everything.
And they can't, you know, it's like Bastiat talks about it, the social engineers.
They can't wait to be in positions of power so they can impose their good intentions on you.
So, you know, we've left all these, you know, we've left these positions open to people who are using that.
And they also lack the integrity and they lack the moral basis.
And, you know, they fall into the, you know, and we've left it unfortunately open to You know, people who obviously at some level have a proclivity to prey on children or at least are willing to look aside or enable the predatory behavior against children.
Or worse, they feel they have been convinced somehow that what they're doing is in favor of children.
I mean, there are people that go up there and they just think that the genital mutilation is the best thing in the world for these children.
And then they move on to the next kid.
So it's bizarre.
It's bizarre being in this position.
I know that people can't believe that it's happening.
I worked in the Capitol and I have a hard time believing that it's happening.
So I certainly can understand how people outside the Capitol can have a hard time believing it's happening.
It's wild, man.
It's really wild.
Now, let's talk a little bit about, you know, is there anything else you wanted to say regarding these bills before we go on to our next topic?
Well, I recognize that it's really hard for people to be involved in them because, again, there's, you know, we have roughly 100 days and there's going to be, you know, 700 bills presented, 600 bills passed.
So there's a level of fatigue in there.
One of the, you know, there's a lot of really good benefit for the people of Colorado and even for the people outside of Colorado.
You know, one of Colorado's main exports now is really bad ideas.
We used to be, you know, primarily an importer of bad ideas out of California.
And, you know, now, you know, I guess they've graduated and we're exporting bad ideas.
So, you know, people watching this.
You know, watching what's going on with the legislation can follow the bills and can testify on these bills.
And, you know, it does feel like it's an exercise in futility.
But, you know, it is a two to three minute opportunity to insert some level of truth.
And, you know, one two to three minute testimony is not going to have, you know, maybe it has all the impact that it needs.
You never know.
You know, if you have 20 or 30 or 100 people testifying and giving the truth and telling, you know, and trying to correct the lies that are being spread, you know, it does have an impact.
There are, you know, discussions that are happening on the floor that, you know, there is some impact.
So what citizens need to realize is that they need to be involved in politics, you know.
Poly, many ticks, many parasites.
It's very true that they need to be involved in politics because we have a system of self-governance.
We're not supposed to just leave our government to some elected officials.
We are supposed to be involved and holding them accountable.
Let's talk a little bit about Tina Peters.
At the America Happens Network, we've done a lot of different pieces about Tina Peters, including documentaries prior to her being placed in prison.
From our reading of it, you have something incredibly corrupt and tragic there that this lady was simply doing her job.
And she's a gold star mom, lost her son to our, what I would say is our military-industrial complex.
I mean, and now she's, what, like in jail for the next, or prison for the next 10 years?
Because she backed the voting machines?
I mean, tell me, is anything I said incorrect there?
And could you shed some light into, you know, what's going to happen with Miss Tina Peters?
I don't know what's going to happen with Tina Peters.
She is a, I think, I mean, Gold Star mom, but she, I mean, she's just a, you know, a Gold Star, certainly by status, but a Gold Star individual.
She is held to her ground against, and she was kangarooed into prison by Phil Weiser.
And, you know, and that, you know, they are counting on the people of Colorado, the people of the United States to...
You should just kind of forget about that.
Jenna Griswold passed through the Democrat House.
It was before I was there.
I think it was 22-153 from my dealing with it earlier.
It's what I call the Get Tina Act, which is basically an ex post facto creation of law that was used to, like I said, kangaroo Tina Peters into prison.
Creating a law after the fact to prosecute a whistleblower who should have federal whistleblower protections is unconscionable.
And then you consider that Jenna Griswold, you consider that Jenna Griswold, so one of the, you know, there's many things.
So they'll say, well, Tina Peters, you know, backed up, you know, had somebody look at the, you know, the...
Well, it was after an election, and she didn't, I mean, there was no process for doing it.
So she did the best that she could, and she had the machines backed up.
And then, you know, the Democrats will talk about how criminal that is.
And then in a documentary where they were, you know, there was a, not during an active election, there was part of a BIOS password displayed.
And, you know, Jenna Griswold, who doesn't know what she's doing, she just, she's...
She's a puppet in that position.
And she went on to say how dangerous that was that even a partial BIOS password was exposed to the public, not during an active election.
Well, Jenna Griswold, her office, the office of hers, I don't think she does anything, but Her office published on an unsecure website, attached to an unsecure server,
basically all of the BIOS passwords of at least 600 machines in Colorado.
So I don't know how many machines we have, but I know at least 600 BIOS passwords were compromised.
In the trial, the Libertarians took her to court to sue to shut down the use of the machines in the election.
Phil Weiser's team testified that the keys to the kingdom, as they referred to it, were not compromised because you needed to.
Well, that's not true.
If you have the BIOS password, you only need the BIOS password.
And we know they have wireless capacity because when...
When Rod Bakkenfeld tried to pass a bill to remove wireless capacity from these machines, the Secretary of State said it would cost $150,000 to remove the wireless capacity that she said didn't exist.
So now they'll say, well, we buy machines that don't have wireless capacity.
Well, typically that and the way you verify that is you can't because you can't open the machine.
So most likely.
The machines have Wi-Fi cards in them, wireless cards, that are just not recognized by the BIOS system.
Well, if you have the BIOS password, you can activate those BIOS cards and you can hide them.
We had DOD experts in cyber.
I mean, I go back to, you know, I stood up a top secret vault for my flying unit.
I can't believe the complete lack of security procedures, but on the military side, they said if there's a BIOS compromise, the only thing that they can do is destroy the computer because there's no way to...
There's no way to go into the system and figure out.
Now, I mean, there's hardware components and all that, but, you know, anything that requires that, they just have to destroy it because it's not cost effective to go in there and try to figure out everything that the BIOS could do.
Well, you know, how did they solve it?
Well, Jared sends a team of insider threats, exemplifying that, bypasses all security, and during an active election, Has the team reset the BIOS if they were compromised?
Well, if they were compromised, they're a crime scene.
And the fact that he tapped into them was a crime scene.
So it's just absolutely incredible.
uh and and that and it's a federal election so i don't you know i i keep hoping that uh you know that pam bondy will come in and uh say you know you tampered with uh federal election systems during a federal election during an active federal election and you know it's a crime i i went through the uh the the regulations i have about eight pages of of things that i'm still waiting for answers on on what on how they how they're Not in compliance with FSMA standards
or controlled unclassified information standards for the passwords, how they are, you know, how they're maintaining custody of control through the postal system when there is no chain of custody.
So, yeah, it's a completely compromised system.
Jenna, I mean, Tina Peters is a hero for, and interesting is she's, you know, she was a firm believer in it until she saw it firsthand and then couldn't unsee it.
And, you know, absolutely commendable for her to stick to her guns.
I think she's a national hero myself.
We're spending $560,000.
It's at least $70,000 a year, plus whatever special treatment they're giving her.
So it's at least $70,000 per year that the governor of Colorado is keeping a political prisoner on behest of Jenna Griswold, who wants to be the attorney general, and placed in jail by the current attorney general who would like to be governor.
It's a really despicable system that we have here in Colorado.
And of course, they threaten anybody who speaks against it.
They've got an investigation going against me for a website I'm mentioned on because it's just a harassment thing to try to shut me up.
Is the federal government and the Trump administration doing enough to address some of these issues?
I mean, what I'm seeing from both these major issues right now, whether it's Tina Peters or the sexualization of children, is that there's gross constitutional violations.
There's people that should be put under arrest, you know, in the case of these bills.
For blatant child abuse, sexualizing children seems like blatant child abuse.
I think anybody logical that's not, you know, a mom that's trying to get like points on social media about transitioning their child would agree that anybody that hasn't hit puberty should not be sexualized, you know?
It seems as though the same thing could be said about federal elections, the idea that Tina Peters is a political prisoner right now.
Now, is what I'm saying correct in drawing those constitutional parallels?
And if so, is the Trump administration, Pan Bondi, doing enough to address these issues?
Well, I don't know.
I don't know what's going on behind, I don't know what's going on behind the scenes.
I know that, you know, so I hope, I hope they are.
For the sake of Colorado, these, the Polis scourge has to be removed.
And, you know, people will say, well, these things are unconstitutional.
It's like, well, you have Phil Weiser.
You have Jenna Griswold controlling the elections and you have Jared Polis.
You know, you have this trifecta of corruption that is, you know, you have criminals that are, you know, if they're breaking the law, you have this trifecta of people breaking the law and enforcing the law.
So what, you know, that's what you're going to get.
You're not going to...
You know, it's difficult to break out from.
Now, fortunately, you know, we had, you know, some break out from, like on the election system, like on the election, you know, there were, if you look at the election of the district right across the, you know, a mile from mine, is,
you know, they discovered three votes, probably of many votes, that were They counted for the Democrat that had been crossed through as a protest vote.
I am specifically not voting for that person, but they counted them for that person.
So the election system is kind of...
So I think you're absolutely right.
There's a lot of unconstitutional stuff going on in Colorado.
Unfortunately, it's people that are unconstitutional that are enforcing it, and they're piling more on in order to protect themselves by the law.
So we just had another bill that we debated on Monday, and it was about...
Diverting $4 million from our Infrastructure and Jobs Act, either federal or the money that we allocated to the state, to defend the administration against the revocation of any federal funds because they've been diverted for other purposes.
So the threat to Colorado and the loss of funds is because Colorado has used them for...
Circumventing the immigration process and propping up undocumented voters unprotected by documentation so that they're in a permanently exploitable and expendable status.
And spending millions, if not hundreds of millions of dollars in that endeavor.
And so now the federal government is stepping in and saying, well...
If you're misusing those funds, then we're going to take them away.
And ironically, they want to misallocate money out of our infrastructure and jobs into defending the misallocation of money, including the possible criminal misallocation of money.
So they're taking money from the taxpayers to defend potential criminal activity.
It's just bizarre.
Like I said, it's hard.
I understand why it's hard for people outside of Colorado to believe what's going on, because I'm in a seat working with these people, and I have a hard time believing what's going on.
Yeah, yeah.
I mean, it's not just Colorado, though.
I mean, this is nationwide, where you have individuals like the Jenna Griswolds of the world that are elected officials, they blatantly commit crimes, and...
They're never held accountable.
That's a thing that is pretty obvious at this point.
And I'm hoping that the Trump administration actually does something federally because, you know, you guys are out there on a statewide level.
And the things you've identified are an epidemic across this country.
It seems to be that in order to put a full stop to this nonsense, something federally has to occur that doesn't even allow these bills to get proposed.
That's the issue, I would think, and how to fix it holistically throughout the nation.
Well, more than that, what we need is local intervention.
You know, people will ask me and say, well, you know, what made you want to get into politics?
And I can assure you, nothing made me want to get into politics.
I was quite happy being retired and, you know, not being in politics.
So nothing makes me want to be in politics.
It's not on my bucket list of things to do.
It's not on my desired list of things to do.
It's just something I can do.
And we need to save the country.
People need to get out of their comfort zones.
I think, you know, things really change.
We can't, you know, we did this on the last time.
We thought that Donald Trump was in office and he was going to clean up the swamp.
Well, everybody needs to look down because you're at least ankle deep, if not knee deep in the swamp.
These things are your school board.
They're your church board.
They're your county commission.
They're your, you know, it's everywhere.
And the primary...
Thing that we're doing is that people of integrity, the church is complicit in this, in that we are leaving these positions open for people that lack integrity.
And people will say, well, I'm not qualified.
Well, you know, I'm not qualified to be in this position.
You know, I'm an engineer and a pilot.
I thought that exempted me from politics.
But we need, I mean, first and foremost, What we need in those seats, in any of these seats of self-government, we need people of integrity and character.
You know, that government is best which governs least.
So if nothing else, nothing gets done, which is much better than the bad stuff that gets done.
So, you know, when we have people that lack integrity, we're going in the wrong direction.
If we have people of integrity, but just, you know, maybe we just don't go anywhere, but not going anywhere is better than going in the wrong direction.
Thank you, sir.
Thank you.
For the viewers out there, thank you for joining us for this Blood Money episode.
Make sure you check out AmericaHappens.com where we have a lot of our highlights from past episodes posted.
▲
Export Selection