Last week, the National Review posted a collection of anti-Trump opinion pieces written by conservatives, like Commentary Editor John Podhoretz, who hammered Trump’s “repellent assertion that the first black president needed to prove to Trump’s satisfaction that he was actually an American.”

Podhoretz: The cultural signposts Trump brandished in the years preceding his presidential bid are all manifestations of the American id—his steak business, his casino business, his green-marble-and-chrome architecture, his love life minutely detailed in the columns of Cindy Adams, his involvement with Vince McMahon’s wrestling empire, and his reality-TV persona as the immensely rich guy who treats people like garbage but has no fancy airs. This id found its truest voice in his repellent assertion that the first black president needed to prove to Trump’s satisfaction that he was actually an American.

In any integrated personality, the id is supposed to be balanced by an ego and a superego—by a sense of self that gravitates toward behaving in a mature and responsible way when it comes to serious matters, and, failing that, has a sense of shame about transgressing norms and common decencies. Trump is an unbalanced force. He is the politicized American id.

When Podhoretz is done hitting Trump, he should turn to Rep. Mike Coffman, who infamously wondered in 2012 whether Obama is an American. Coffman’s id was apparently speaking when he said:

Coffman: “I don’t know whether Barack Obama was born in the United States of America. I don’t know that. But I do know this, that in his heart, he’s not an American. He’s just not an American.”

And then, demonstrating Coffman’s absence of a developed superego, in Podhoretz formulation, Coffman didn’t feel shame for his birther moment in a “mature and responsible way,” offering a scripted and unapologitic apology to 9News Kyle Clark five times in a row.

But, look, it gets worse because Coffman’s id still dominates to this day. This isn’t simply a rehash of one of the stranger apologies in Colorado politics.

Just a couple weeks ago Coffman called Obama a “recruting tool” for terrorists. That’s on the same continuum as his birther comments, which he apologized for.

Coffman: “President Obama wants to close GTMO because he thinks it’s a recruiting tool for terrorists – the real recruiting tool is a President who seems more concerned about protecting the rights of terrorists rather than defeating them and protecting the American people.”

Colffman’s “sense of self” lacks the “sense of shame about transgressing norms and common decencies” that Podhoretz finds absent in Trump.

Nate Marshall, a former Republican state house candidate who was found to have ties to white-supremacy groups, has acccepted an offer from Colorado Springs County Commissioner Peggy Littleton to back her possible U.S. Senate run against Democrat Michael Bennet.

In response to Littleton’s Jan. 3 Facebook comment about an article on a “24-Year-Old RINO Hunter on a Mission to Purge the GOP of Moderates,” Marshall wrote to Littleton, “Now run against Bennet!”

Littleton replied with, “Join my team and make a pledge.”

“I’m in!” Marshall responded.

Marshall, an outspoken right-wing conservative, recently referred to the Planned Parenthood terrorist, who killed three people last year, as a “hero.”

Before his aborted 2014 run for Colorado House District 23, Marshall reportedly founded a white supremecist group on the web called “The Aryan Storm.”

Recalled Jeffco School Board member Julie Williams lashed out at Jeffco voters and others last month, writing on Facebook:

Williams: “Liars and Cheats and the majority of the people believed the rhetoric.”

Williams’ sour-grapes comment came after state data was released on the amount of money spent by state groups to recall Williams and other conservative school board members from office, prompting Williams to write, “Infuriating that being exposed does not mean anything.”

The data did not include figures for how much was spent by organizations that are exempt from disclosure and campaigned indirectly to try to keep Williams in office, despite her repeated gaffes and substantive flaws that even infuriated fellow conservatives.

Correction: This post initially stated that Americans for Prosperity did not disclose campaign spending. Some spending was disclosed.

Some Colorado Republicans aren’t happy about the state vice chair’s request that fellow Republicans stop publicly dissecting the work of State Chair Steve House “word-by-word, line-by-line in an effort to demonstrate his incompetence (at best) or corruptness (at worst).”

In a sharp response to GOP Vice Chair Derrick Wilburn’s Dec. 28 open letter, longtime Republican activist Marilyn Marks asked Wilburn for specifics about why her scrutiny of House should be curtailed.

“My over-riding question here—Did I write something inaccurate, or untrue?” asked Marks in a letter to Wilburn. “Or are you objecting to my writing true statements that the party does not like seeing published?”

Marks: “I see party officers here acting with irrational emotion because they are criticized for false financial reporting, financial mismanagement, flawed election processes, disparate application/violation of bylaws, and poor personnel decisions. If the criticism is unfounded, then answer it with facts. If the criticism is valid, then remedy the problem—don’t attempt to just shoot the messenger. If I am wrong, tell me where I’m wrong on the facts I allege. I make plenty of mistakes. I’ll correct errors immediately if you point them out.”

After being challenged on Facebook by Marks and others, Wilburn wrote in another post:

Wilburn: “Steve House is our boy. Whether I like it, you like it, Juan Valdez or Pope Francis likes it or not is moot. He’s carrying the baton on the final lap of this race. Watching closely is fine and good, but for Republicans to be actively sticking our feet out in an effort to trip him, I would argue, is counter-productive. When we show up at his speeches, record them, then post onto the internet with commentary that’s something we’d expect from ColoradoPols – we’re doing COPols’ job for them. The old ‘with friends like this who needs enemies?’ comes to mind. This is not helpful.”

Wilburn’s comments come after years of upheaval within the Colorado Republican Party, as it has slowly lost power in the state, as chronicled not just by liberal ColoradoPols but all media outlets in the Colorado.

Grassroots GOP activists claim that Republican Party mismanagement, in addition to unprincipled candidates, backed by powerful but clueless establishment interests, are the root cause of the GOP’s problems.

Other Republicans argue that GOP activists and GOP base voters in Colorado, who take ardent conservative stands on an array of issues, are out of touch with mainstream Colorado opinion. These so-called liberty activists, they argue, scare off the swing voting bocs, like Hispanics and women, needed to win elections in this state.

After a surreal year of GOP infighting in Colorado, including a failed coup led by Cynthia Coffman, Tom Tancredo and others, the vice chair of the Colorado Republican Party is pleading with fellow Republicans to stop obsessing on state party leader Steve House–and to lay off attacking each other.

Calling the behavior of his fellow Republicans “beyond dysfunctional,” Wilburn bemoaned in a Facebook post that “Chairman House can no longer give a speech, send an email or letter to the ExComm and/or SCC without his words immediately being blared onto social media in full view of the entire political universe, both friendly and ‘other’.”

“His words are then dissected –again, in full view— word-by-word, line-by-line in an effort to demonstrate his incompetence (at best) or corruptness (at worst), by members of our own party,” wrote Wilburn. “When he speaks someone (a Republican) is recording with the intent of using his words against him. When he sends an internal memo, when we file with a compliance agency, when he emails county leadership, it’s all posted to Facebook within minutes and used likewise.”

Wilburn wrote that such scrutiny will not force House to resign, and if he is forced out, the party will suffer.

“Having some nine months of up-close & personal observation I can attest this much – Chairman House is not incompetent,” wrote Wilburn prior to describing House’s activities as state chair.

“Don’t get me wrong, watch dog activity brings with it accountability. Questioning is a good thing,” wrote Wilburn. “But there’s a line. When we (Republicans) are the ones helping HuffPo, Colorado Pols and the rest fill up their libraries with talking points and things they can use against us in the future, it’s time to question whether we’re holding people accountable or doing more damage than good…”

“If you have issues the way to handle them is set an appointment, come into the office for a face-to-face and get your questions satisfactorily answered; not blast them onto social media for two days of point/counter-point that end up as screen captures on ColoradoPols.”

“We have a nation in need,” wrote Wilburn.

Here’s Wilburn’s Dec. 28 Facebook post:

Fellow Republicans,

Imagine you’re head of an organization, be it a corporate, political or other. And further, that every time you communicate to others in the organization your words are immediately ceased, posted to social media and used in an effort to somehow, some way bring you down. These are the conditions the Colorado GOP leadership currently finds itself in and its beyond unhealthy and dysfunctional.

Steve House, Brandi Meek & I were elected in March by our fellow Republicans to guide the state party. We (mostly Chairman House) now find ourselves facing a very serious handicap that’s hurting the party, state, and cause of liberty and could quite possibly cost the entire nation depending how things shake out in the 2016 general election.

Chairman House can no longer give a speech, send an email or letter to the ExComm and/or SCC without his words immediately being blared onto social media in full view of the entire political universe, both friendly and ‘other’. His words are then dissected –again, in full view— word-by-word, line-by-line in an effort to demonstrate his incompetence (at best) or corruptness (at worst), by members of our own party. When he speaks someone (a Republican) is recording with the intent of using his words against him. When he sends an internal memo, when we file with a compliance agency, when he emails county leadership, it’s all posted to Facebook within minutes and used likewise.

In whatever station of life you occupy imagine trying to operate under such conditions. It’s time for us all to examine our motives.

What is the motive of this constant hounding of Chairman House? If the goal is to force him to resign, it ain’t happen’n. I have personally asked him about this on multiple occasions and the Chairman has made it crystal clear, “I was elected to do a job by a vote of 60% of the electorate and I’m going to do it. I’m not going to be forced out by 5 or 6 people who want me gone and thereby turn my back on the hundreds who placed their confidence in me.”

If the goal (of some individuals) is to force the Chairman out, let’s think about that. What is the the on-the-ground reality?

If House were to resign that’d leave me as the interim Chair until a special election could be held and a new Chair voted in. In an election year that would mean that in the midst of caucuses, state assembly, choosing delegates, RNC, et. al, we’d be attempting to hold a special election to elect our third Chair in ten’ish months. In addition to the obvious issues of staff, getting up to speed on everything, etc., the new Chair would also have to face donors. S/he will somehow have to convince them to continue to support the party and state candidates; that this changing of jockeys mid-race will have no adverse effects and convince them to please continue writing checks. Good luck with that.

Having some nine months of up-close & personal observation I can attest this much – Chairman House is not incompetent. Have there been zero missteps, is our administration 100% error free? Of course not. No one is going to be liked by everyone including you and me, but this isn’t a popularity contest. In the real world of “does this guy know what he’s doing?” I am confident in casting my “yes” vote.

In addition, Chairman House has rescinded the previous Chair’s (rather cushy) salary and for the most part does not submit expense reports. The man is putting in 60, 70, 80-hour weeks on a volunteer basis. Drives all over our quite large state in his own car and mostly covers his own meals, hotel, incidentals. That’s another $150,000+ he’s not sucking up and is therefore available to candidates and infrastructure. Should he go byebye would his replacement do the same?

Don’t get me wrong, watch dog activity brings with it accountability. Questioning is a good thing. But there’s a line. When we (Republicans) are the ones helping HuffPo, Colorado Pols and the rest fill up their libraries with talking points and things they can use against us in the future, it’s time to question whether we’re holding people accountable or doing more damage than good.

The Colorado GOP is currently being handcuffed – by the Colorado GOP. We are not perfect, far from it. But we’re three people more dedicated and committed to victory you’ll never meet. The job in front of us is colossal and will require a massive team effort. We need all in the boat to have an oar and be rowing the same direction. Going out of our way to sabotage the person in front of you slows and misdirects the entire vessel. And to what point? To what end?

If you have issues the way to handle them is set an appointment, come into the office for a face-to-face and get your questions satisfactorily answered; not blast them onto social media for two days of point/counter-point that end up as screen captures on ColoradoPols. Let’s all realize who the true opposition is and cease sabotaging ALL of our opportunities for success though endless rounds of back-biting and passing of notes in study hall. We have a nation in need.

I hope all had a wonderful Christmas and are enjoying a fantastically blessed holiday season.

Respectfully submitted,

Derrick Wilburn, Vice Chairman

Libertarian Elliot Fladen asked uncompromising anti-choicers yesterday, if you’re using holocaust-like inflammatory rhetoric to talk about Planned Parenthood and abortion, and you really think it’s mass murder, at what point do you have an obligation to break the law to stop it, using nonviolent or violent civil disobedience?

This turns out to be an unusual way of reinforcing the point progressives and Gov. Hickenlooper have made to tone down the rhetoric on this issue. The inflammatory anti-choice language, often inaccurate and undergirded by an alleged life-and-death holocaust-like moral imperative, can have an overwhelming power, Fladen argues, above pitched rhetoric on other topics, to push people to violence.

Fladen’s Facebook posts unleashed a long thread of responses, including a couple from state Rep. Gordon Klingenschmitt, who was one of the legislators named by progressives yesterday for his “extreme” language. They pointed to Dr. Chaps, saying, for example, that Planned Parenthood is “filled with the demonic spirit of murder.” Rep. Mike Coffman’s statement that Planned Parenthood’s practices “fly in the face of human dignity” and Tim Neville’s statement that Planned Parenthood is “cutting to pieces and selling unborn baby parts” were other examples.

Fladen: …Given that this abortion=mass murder rhetoric is much more persuasive than the drivel coming out of NARAL, it is easily foreseeable that at least a few people will be persuaded by the rhetoric comparing abortionist to Nazis but unpersuaded by the proposed solution of non-violence as that may appear to be akin to a “Nuremberg Defense”. As such, violence against abortion providers is so predictable that a federal law had to be passed protecting them some years ago.

In these circumstances I will agree that there is a selective argument that political rhetoric leads to violence. But I hope you will agree that it is entirely appropriate to selectively focus on the peculiar nature of abortion related rhetoric used by the extreme pro-life movement. NOTE: I am NOT suggesting that this rhetoric be banned. Just that the people engaged in it own up to what they are doing.

Here are a few of Klingenschmitt’s thoughts on the topic, in response to Fladen’s, but you should check out the whole thread on Fladen’s Facebook page:

Klingenschmitt: The leftist rhetoric that blames pro-lifers (who pray for an end of the violence) for causing the violence is illogical. Here’s my statement today.

Fladen:  if you think abortion is not only wrong, not only mass murder, but also mass murder that is not going to be stopped legally for the foreseeable future, why wouldn’t you have an ethical obligation to use extra-legal force to stop it?

Klingenschmitt: Elliot Fladen, the government has an obligation to stop violence, and has authority to use force in defense of life. As private citizens we do not have such authority. Vigilantes are not heroes, they are murderers, because they are not ordained by God through legitimate government. Soldiers and policemen are not murderers when they use force, because they are ordained by God through the government.

Fladen: that sounds an awful lot like a Nuremberg Defense. If abortionists are Nazis backed up by the government in their murdering, wouldn’t your sitting on the sideline be just like those who sat on the sideline in Germany during the Holocaust and did nothing while Jews died?

Klingenschmitt: When the Nazis ceased to be a legitimate government, (right around 1938, I’m guessing), their soldiers no longer had authority to use force. So Christians like Dietrich Bonhoeffer (who tried to blow up Hitler in 1944) were not vigilantes, and neither were our founding fathers, rather they were agents of God trying to remove illegitimate tyrants.

Fladen: Is a country’s willingness to engage in mass murder of millions of its defenseless children a factor for determining whether the government is legitimate in your mind? If so, how big of a factor? Is it a dispositive factor?

Klingenschmitt: Clearly not yet, in my mind, since I’m still running for office and working to change the system from the inside. But here is my training for political activists working from the outside, and notice “violence” is not listed as a solution: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-5Y7HkxjPQc

On Facebook Monday, Rep. Scott Tipton posted the apparent misinformation that “one of the bombers involved in the Paris attacks had a Syrian refugee passport.”

This is almost certainly wrong, apparently a so-called false flag, yet the statement remains on Tipton’s official Facebook page.

Newsweek reported: “Serbian officials told The Guardian that they think both the passport found in Paris and on the man they arrested are fake. A source investigating the case told the AFP that the passport belongs to a Syrian soldier who was killed earlier this year. Officials have not made any public statements on the passport confirming or denying its authenticity.”

Tipton: The risks posed to our national security by admitting tens of thousands of refugees from a war-torn region that is currently the global hotbed for terrorist activity are very real. The U.S. should immediately stop accepting Syrian refugees…

Tipton’s post incited these ugly comments, which is another reason he should remove it ASAP.

Esther Scaman: Keep up the good work Scott! Keep all those bastards out of our country! I say pack n carry at all times! And for those opposing you I’ll thank you for them since they are like their president putting America in harms way and won’t accept the truth if it slapped them in the face!!!

Patricia R. Lang: Much like it was in Viet Nam, one can not tell the refugee from the terrorist bent on destroying our country and our way of life. It is sad but all Syrian refugees much be stopped from entering the United States of America

Tipton was on KVOR’s Richard Randall show Tuesday, talking about this topic, but he did not refer to the Syrian passport. Another guest on the show, Andy Pico, a GOP Colorado Springs City Councilman, spread the same apparent falsehood that the Paris attacker was a Syrian refugee. (Listen here.)

Pico, along with Tipton, should walk this comment back in some public venue–because it poisons reasonable debate about the refugees. And reasonableness regarding poor Syrian refugees is under severe attack.

After State Sen. Ray Scott’s name was floated on Facebook as a possible candidate to take on Sen. Michael Bennet, Rep. Justin Everett of Littleton stood up for his guy, Sen. Tim Neville.

“I don’t see anyone beating Tim in the primary, and I don’t see Ray as a threat,” wrote Everett. “Especially because Sonnenberg will probably get in as well, and they’d probably be competing with each other for the rural vote.”

To which, Ray Scott replied, “Tunnel vision only applies when you’re in a tunnel.”

Everett then wrote: “Reality based on 20 years political experience from being paid staff on state-wide campaigns, tight with consultant class, to doing high dollar fundraising for the RNC [Republican National Committee]. I got creds.”

“I’m friends with Ray and Jerry, but the fact is, this is a battle. If you are going to take on Michael Bennet, you have to have a proven candidate,” Everett told me when asked about the Facebook post.

But how does he know Sonnenberg is even likely to run?

“I call it the rule of three. I’ve heard from three people  that Jerry flat-out said he would run,” said Everett, adding that the three people are from different groups.

In a telephone interview, Sonnenberg told me that, in fact, he had not yet decided to enter the Senate race.

He confirmed that he’s been “looking at” running for “several months” but was waiting on “George Brauchler’s decision” before deciding whether to enter the race himself.

“I’ve spent the past week meeting with a number of people in Denver,” he said, adding that he anticipates “having a decision by the first of next week.”

“Michael Bennet’s numbers look worse than Mark Udall’s did a year out,” he said. “I see that as an opportunity to have two Republican Senators from Colorado.”

As for Scott, Everett says he’s heard from other sources that Scott is serious about the race, and Everett points to the fact that Scott himself “chimed in” during the Facebook exchange as further confirmation of this.

Scott did not return a call for comment. I’ll update this blog post if he does.

In response to a commenter who called Ray a “good candidate,” Everett wrote on Facebook: “Performance matters. Ray hasn’t raised money from anyone or PACS. Tim has… My horse [Neville] knows how to win a race and is battle tested. Ray has never had a competitive race. Tim Neville, no better horse out there.”

Everett told me Neville can win based on the “Ken Buck Model of 2010 when he beat Jane Norton.” Buck went on to nearly defeat Bennet in the general, despite mistakes by national Republicans, he told me.

“There’s a path for victory for Tim, not only in the primary, but in the general,” said Everett, adding that Buck was way outspent by Norton and still won.

“Tim is smart enough to get good people behind him and raise money,” continued Everett. “He knows how to do direct mail, micro-targeting, voter ID. They know how to run campaigns, and they’ve been successful in primaries. He’ll work his butt off. He’s authentic. He’s in an excellent position to win the primary. Is this a battle Republicans want to fight? Or should they coalesce around Tim?”

In addition to Neville, businessman Robert Blaha, El Paso County Commissioner Darryl Glenn and former Parker mayor Greg Lopez have already announced their intention to seek the GOP spot against Bennet. Attorney Dan Caplis is “very serious” about a run, and Larimer County Sheriff Justin Smith is thinking about entering the race.

 UPDATE: The first version of this blog did not include a response from Sonnenberg. It is now included.

It’s widely known that Donald Trump’s angry comments about Mexican immigrants bringing drugs, crime, and rape to America are false. Recent immigrants, including undocumented ones, are actually factually less likely to commit crimes than native-born Americans.

But the facts did not stop Trump, and, closer to him, they didn’t stop Derrick Wilburn, the elected vice chair of the Colorado Republican Party, from polluting his Facebook page with mean bigoted comments about Hispanics.

Earlier this month, Wilburn suggested that his Facebook friends “take a look” at Los Angeles’ “Most Wanted” list, so they can see all the Hispanics.

Wilburn: Ann Coulter and Geraldo just got into it on “The Kelly File.” Ann told Geraldo to look at the LA “Most Wanted” and say illegals don’t commit most of the crimes. Here is the LA “Most Wanted” …take a look for yourself…I had a hard time finding one name that wasn’t Hispanic.

Who cares about real crime data when you can look at the “Most Wanted” list in Los Angeles, find people who appear to be Hispanic, and then apparently agree with Ann Coulter that undocumented immigrants commit most of the crimes?

Wilburn’s post continues: Granted we don’t know which if any of those are illegal, but, combine this with the beautiful young woman who was walking along with her family on a pier in San Francisco yesterday when a (Hispanic) man comes up behind her and SHOOTS HER IN THE BACK! In broad daylight. She was with her family, her father desperately tried to revive & save her life but was unsuccessful.
http://abc7news.com/…/sfpd-make-arrest-in-pier-14-f…/824358/

No matter where you are on the Obama supporter/Obama detractor spectrum – why do we want this? How does this president’s determination to reward any & everyone illegally in our nation with full citizenship status (not to mention access to welfare, IRS tax ‘refunds’ [even tho they’ve paid no income taxes], cell phones, housing credits, medical care, etc., etc.) benefit the American citizens? And if it doesn’t, then why does our chief elected *representative* want to do it so badly?

To Wilburn’s credit, he’ll usually discuss his outrageous Facebook posts with me, but this time family obligations understandably prevented him from talking to me. So we have to let his Facebook post speak for itself in this case.

And what it says is, “I’m mad, and I’m going to act like a bigot. And I don’t really care.” If you can find some other way of interpreting Wilburn’s post, please let me know.

Correction: This post originally stated that Coulter was referring to most crimes in America. Wilburn believes she was referring to most crimes in LA County.

Embattled Jeffco School Board member Julie Williams hopped on her Facebook page July 14 and shared a link titled, “How did the Nazis control education?”

“Controlling education was a way of taking over the minds of children from kindergarten to university,” reads the article, published by Yad Vesham The Holocaust Martyrs’ and Heroes’ Remembrance Authority. “Education was a major tool by which the Nazis’ racial policies were promoted and implemented. “In Nazi Germany, no one was allowed to think for themselves,” states the piece.

The post is shocking and confusing, which might explain why no one commented on it.

I tried calling Williams so she could explain why she posted it, and to confirm, but I haven’t heard back yet.

Is Williams trying to say that the teachers, students, and others who’ve opposed the Jeffco School Board’s reforms are Nazis, because they’re getting involved and expressing their views about education?

Is Williams implying that the folks trying to remove her from the Jeffco School Board are Nazis, or at least acting like them, because they want different education policies than the ones Williams has backed?

Is Williams trying to say that the Common Core curriculum is backed by Nazis or leading somehow to Fascism?

No matter what she’s trying to say by posting the Nazi article, it’s deep-sigh inappropriate and gross. You don’t accuse your opponents of acting like Nazis unless, well, they’re actually factually acting like Nazis. And obviously no none is doing so on either side of this debate.