After being banned, at least temporarily, from KLZ 560-AM last week, Tom Tancredo’s familiar voice spiced up the airwaves on KNUS 710-AM this morning, as he chatted with Peter Boyles about the (as of now) failed attempt to oust Steve House as GOP Party Chair.

Tancredo said more high-ranking Republicans want to oust Steve House than you might think, judging from the Colorado GOP’s Executive Committee’s 22-1 vote Friday to retain House as party chair.

Tancredo said he talked to members of the Executive Committee who were scared of “retribution” if they voted against House during the open vote of the committee on Friday.

Tancredo: “There was a motion, as I understand it, to make it a closed vote because people are, you know, let’s face it, the chairman is sitting right there, you’re maybe intimidated to some extent to vote openly,” Tancredo told Boyles, adding later (Listen @7:45 below), “No, truly, we talked to people afterwards who said, Hey, I just couldn’t do it, man. I was scared to do anything. Retribution.”

Boyles: No, they were afraid!

Tancredo: These fantastic jobs these people have, you know? No pay. Yet, it’s their own little bit of heaven, you know?

Republican activist Kathryn Porter, who joined Tancredo on Boyles’ show, agreed, saying:

Porter: The 22-1 vote, I don’t believe that’s how those people in that room felt for one minute. I believe that vote was a mask. It was a façade to give the impression of Party unity. And I can tell you for a fact, we do not have that.

Tancredo told Boyles that the committee refused to review the full accusations against House. Tancredo said he had “three-to-four pages” of concerns about House, with no mention of the alleged affair, ready to distribute to the executive committee, but he was not allowed to hand it out. Neither was Pueblo Country Chair Becky Mizel, who sits on the committee, Tancredo told Boyles. (Alleged tweets about the affair were detailed by Craig Silverman on KNUS Saturday.)

But one of Tancredo’s concerns is, apparently, Steve House’s attacks on former Sen. Ted Harey.

Tancredo: “These are big problems. You call say a senator, I’ve forgotten how many years Ted [Harvey] served — you go to people in the media and to the attorney general and tell them that he’s going bankrupt, that his family is leaving him, and that you’re afraid he might embezzle money. I mean this is a guy of sterling qualities. You might not agree with Ted on stuff. But the reality is he’s an honest guy with a wonderful family. All this was concocted. You say this about people, and you can get yourlself sued, get the Party sued. These were the issues we were bringing to his attention.”

Listen to KNUS 710-AM’s Peter Boyles discuss the GOP coup attempt with Tom Tancredo and Kathryn Porter June 29, 2015

On KNUS  radio show this morning, Tom Tancredo said he, along with Attorney General Cynthia Coffman and Pueblo Country GOP Chair Becky Mizel, were “selected” by fellow Republicans to demand the resignation of GOP Chair Steve House.

Though Coffman called the meeting, they acted at the “behest of a lot of people,” he told KNUS 710-AM’s Peter Boyles, adding that they were supported by “state legislators who were supportive of him at one time, who are now not.”

Tancredo told KNUS’ Dan Caplis (See transcript below.)

Tancredo: We were strong supporters, and — which is the reason why we ended up being sort of, I don’t know, — selected, asked, whatever you want to say – to confront with him and meet with him, because we wanted – they wanted to — everybody wanted to make sure he understood the seriousness of the issue. And so, I did, but certainly not because I have just a desire to step back into this kind of ugly stuff. I don’t.

Tancredo told KNUS’ Peter Boyles the same thing, in more detail:

Tancredo: I can tell you this:  that the reason that we met with Steve House was to express concerns of a lot of people.  It was not something that I, Cynthia Coffman, and Becky Mizel chose unilaterally to do.  We were asked to do that because we represented the people who were the most supportive of Steve when he ran.  And we certainly were

As you can read below, Tancredo did not specify who selected the group to confront house, nor did he say what the serious issue was, leaving a mystery that will most certainly be revealed, perhaps in multiple versions, in the days ahead.

As Tanc put it to Boyles, the reasons for demanding for his resignation “may very well all certainly come out.”

Partial Transcript of the Dan Caplis Show, June 17, 2015, with Guest Tom Tancredo

CAPLIS: You know, the question is: Okay, you’ve got this situation, now, with Steve House. You have the stories that have appeared so far. Um, how does this get fixed? You’ve been such a prominent leader in the Party for so many years, you’ve dealt with so many situations, how does this get fixed going forward?

TANCREDO: The best way, and I think perhaps the only way for it to get it, quote, fixed is for the Executive Committee of the State Party to take some action that would bring the whole issue to a vote of the Central Committee, the entire Central Committee. There is a process that is, you know, laid out in the by-laws of the state Party if there is a vacancy. But only if that vacancy occurs, can that process go forward. So, the – you know, it is to a large extent, it is up to Steve as to how he wants to handle it. And he says he wants to stay. Well, you know, that certainly can be a way to handle it. I do not know – I do not believe that is the best way, but I have no ability to change it. I’m not on the Central Committee. I’m not on any committee of the State Republican Party. But, uh –.

CAPLIS: Tom, can the Central committee remove him?

TANCREDO: No.

CAPLIS: Wow! So, once you’re it, there’s no recall?

TANCREDO: Oh! I’m sorry! Central Committee! Yes, yes. That can happen.

CAPLIS: Yeah, okay. Okay.

TANCREDO: There is two parts. One is the Executive Committee, and it’s a, you know, a group of, I don’t know — 10 to 15, 20 or 25 people, something like that.

CAPLIS: Yeah.

TANCREDO: Um, they can take action. They can call for a vote of no confidence. That’s one thing that could happen. Um, then – but, but then, if nothing –if Steve chooses not to resign, it’s my understanding – and Danny, believe me, I – most of this – I [inaudible] have been around a long time and it is true, but not in really in Party politics – at least, in the bowels of the Republican Party, if you know what I mean.

CAPLIS: Sure.

TANCREDO: And so, the way I understand it, if he chooses not to step down, then really, there’s nothing else, I think, that could happen, except if somehow a vote of the Central Committee can be held, they can remove him. And it takes, I think, 70%.

CAPLIS: Wow! I mean –.

TANCREDO: Yeah, so, it’s kind of a convoluted process.

CAPLIS: What a situation! I’ve got to tell you, if you write a book, I’m going to buy it! I’ll be the first guy in line to buy it! I’ll be that guy at Barnes & Nobles [sic] who camps out to stand there first and buy it. Because when you think of everything you’ve been through, including trying to salvage things [clears throat] when Dan Maes wouldn’t cooperate and do the right thing and step aside, I mean, you’ve been in so many of these interesting situations, it just seems to me this is one that really does need to be fixed in a hurry, with everything going on.

TANCREDO: Oh, and with that I certainly agree with.

CAPLIS: But, uh, wow!

TANCREDO: But Danny, um, as I say, I assure you, with God as my judge, and he is, that um, this is nothing that I or anybody else wanted to do, um, or have happen.

CAPLIS: Yeah.

TANCREDO: We were strong supporters, and — which is the reason why we ended up being sort of, I don’t know, — selected, asked, whatever you want to say – to confront with him and meet with him, because we wanted – they wanted to — everybody wanted to make sure he understood the seriousness of the issue. And so, I did, but certainly not because I have just any desire to step back into this kind of ugly stuff. I don’t. Like I say, riding my motorcycle with Peter – that’s a nice day. Not this kind of stuff

CAPLIS: Mm-hmm. That would be a nice day. That would — But, you know, you have so much hard earned credibility, and clout, and influence, I’m just hoping that you’ll be able to use that, given this current mess to help clean things up, because Lord knows, it’s going to be tough enough in the ’16 cycle. And I know you know that better than anybody because you’ve been in the arena. You’ve been in these races. You’ve been in these fights. So, I’m just am, uh –.

TANCREDO: Yeah, [I] hope it’s done quickly, certainly would be the best thing for the Party. And–and I don’t know – I don’t—I mean, I don’t have a candidate. It’s not as if I –. I don’t know where it goes from now. I don’t know who gets to, you know — elected. I don’t even know who we would get into the arena. I hope that we will make better decisions than we’ve made in the past.

CAPLIS: Yeah. Wow! And, uh, I know you’re limited on what you can say this morning. I appreciate the chance to talk with you about this. And I know you’ll do everything you can do to try to make sure this ends well, and quickly, so the focus can turn back to the races.

Partial Transcript of the KNUS Peter Boyles Show, June 17, 2015, with Guest Tom Tancredo

BOYLES:  What is the truth about this Chairman Steve House story?

TANCREDO:  Well, I can tell you this:  that the reason that we met with Steve House was to express concerns of a lot of people.  It was not something that I, Cynthia Coffman, and Becky Mizel chose unilaterally to do.  We were asked to do that because we represented the people who were the most supportive of Steve when he ran.  And we certainly were.  Cynthia, the Attorney General, was of course, you know, his—she made the nominating speech.  She was an incredibly gutsy—and is an incredibly gutsy person, to stand up when a lot of people would think that it’s not the right thing – or it’s a scary thing for an incumbent.  But, she did.  And we all believed that we had something better than we were dealing with in the form of Ryan Call.  And the issues that we had to bring to Steve’s attention were serious, and were such –were of such a nature that, um, a meeting of this sort was necessary.  What was not necessary was for it to become, uh, a public discussion of things that are untoward.  Uh, he could have done, and stayed with the course which he set out on, which was to resign. Ten minutes after our meeting, he sent out an email to that effect.  And that would have pretty much ended it.  It would have been a quiet and um, — and certainly a less ugly situation than we now face.  But all I’m telling you is that there was nothing that – you know, the three of us weren’t sitting around one day and say, “Hey! I know what!  Let’s go and tell Steve that he’s got to quit!”  This came about as a result of lots of folks, including state legislators who were supportive of him at one time, who are now not.  And they are not for reasons that may very well all certainly come out.  But, certainly – you know, it’s one of those things — I hate to say it just because it sounds so legalese, but things may end up in court.  You’d better– we have to be very, very careful how we proceed in this nature.  We are not saying – you know, all of these things that are in the paper are his allegations about what happened.  They’re his.  I mean, he is making the statements.  We are not.  All I’m telling you is that, um, I, like you, supported him, wanted him to succeed. It is certainly apparent to us that we may have made the wrong choice.  But anyway, we’ll see where it goes.  I don’t know – I mean, we did what we had to do, um, and as I say, at the behest of a lot of people.  It certainly wasn’t just us.  I want to reiterate that, because that’s the way it’s being portrayed, that either I, or Becky Mizel who’s the state chair in Pu—I mean, the county chair in Pueblo–.

BOYLES: Who we—We like her a lot. We like [inaudible]. 

TANCREDO:  Oh, my gosh!  She is absolutely the best.  And Cynthia Coffman, you know?  Um, I got a text message from Channel 9 news last night saying – the allegation was from Steve, that Cynthia wanted to meet with him, and that Becky and I crashed his – this meeting [chuckling] for the purpose of, quote, blackmailing him.  Well, I mean, it was Becky—it was – excuse me, Cynthia who called the meeting.  And she did so because, as I say, we were — the three of us were his primary supporters.  And so we wanted to impress upon him the concerns of a lot of people, and the fact that this was serious, and that um, the best thing – we believed—for him to do was resign.  And he agreed. And, I mean, he did so by, as I say, ten minutes afterward.  Then, whatever happened happened, and he chose to renege.  So, it’s a – it’s—it just didn’t have to be this way, but what can you do?  Um, the — the issues are serious, and that’s really all I can say about them.  They certainly are not things that, you know, are trivial in nature, or – or have anything to do, by the way, with, um, personalities or, uh, motives that are, um, of the highest order.  Nobody is looking to be – [starts to laugh]  I don’t intend to be Chairman of the Republican Party!  I guarantee—somebody said to me, “Why don’t you do that?  You’re a unifier! You unify everybody against you!”

BOYLES:  Ha!  Yeah, sure!  [laughing]  That guy in Lebanon said, “Forever – for ever —whatever you do, don’t help us!”

TANCREDO:  [laughing]  Right!

BOYLES:  Ha! That was a great line!  “Whatever you do, for God’s sake, don’t help us!”

TANCREDO:  I mean, there are no ulterior motives, here.  What in the world would Cynthia Coffman, who is – I mean, her credibility, her reputation.  I mean, do you think it would be easy for her, especially?  She is the Attorney General of the state of Colorado.  She was his nominating speech!  And do you think it is an easy thing to do to then have to take this step – meet with him to discuss these kinds of issues? You think anybody wanted to do that?  I assure you, and I told him when we were there, “I would rather be almost anywhere than here, tonight, to do this!” And so, I don’t know how it will play out.  I certainly have no idea.  This –now it is essentially up to the executive committee of the state Republican Party to take whatever action they wish to take, if any.  I mean, they could do nothing.

BOYLES:  I mean, like I said, and I know we’re on a time frame.  Danny [Caplis] is standing by.  But, when we first met Steve, he came in the studio, spent time with us, we supported him.  And his dumping Ryan Call, I was jazzed, I thought his move –

TANCREDO:  Yeah, me too!

BOYLES:  –with the Log Cabin Republicans, to get them to the Western Conservative [Summit], I thought it was Kissinger, Machiavellian, brilliant move.

TANCREDO:  Yeah, we talked about it.

BOYLES:  Yeah!  I thought that was just great!  And now this!  And if everything that John Ransom has said is true is true, and others have said is true is true, if he is start, stop the story now, and walk away.  And, Steve, with all the respect in the world,  I’m sure you on the – listening to us now,– walk away because, it’s almost like that crazy woman who keeps trying to insist she’s black, and she keeps the story alive by saying crazier things the next day.  And all she has to do to stop all of this right now – and she did some weird Obama thing, “No one saw me born.”  There’s a weird birth certificate.  I’m thinking, “Oh, my God!”

TANCREDO:  [laughing]

BOYLES:  I mean, it’s like Barack Obama story stuff! And so, as I told you, the only thing the Lebanese asked me, “Is he a Muslim?”

TANCREDO:  [laughs]

BOYLES:  Sure!  Why not?  But, I’m saying the same thing. It’s like, um, walk away.  And um, we’ll see.  I know that the beat goes on.

TANCREDO:  Yeah, [inaudible] I don’t know where it goes from here.  But we did what we could do.

BOYLES: I’ll give you a call.  Since I can’t sleep, maybe we’ll go ride motorcycles!

TANCREDO:  Yeah!  Believe me, it was such a nice day yesterday

BOYLES:  Yeah, it was great!

TANCREDO:  And to ride afterwards, after all this crap, it was very therapeutic.

BOYLES:  All right.  I’ll give you a call!  We’ll go ride this afternoon.  They want to talk to you on hold.

TANCREDO:  All right.

BOYLES:  I love you!  Allright!  Congressman – former Congressman –.

TANCREDO:  Take care, bud!

Conservative talk-radio hosts present themselves as fiscal conservatives, until they land on something they want to mindlessly throw money at.

So Colorado’s newbie Congressman, Ken Buck, was right at home on the radio last week when he disclosed that a bill will be introduced by House Republicans “doubling or tripling” the amount of money to be spent on securing the U.S.-Mexico border.

The current border-security budget is about $12 billion, if you just count border patrol, fencing, surveillance, and ports of entry, according to Marc Rosenblum Deputy Director of the U.S. Immigration Policy Program at the Migration Policy Institute.

“We’ll leave that up to the experts,” Buck told Kafer, explaining how the additional border-security money will be spent and adding that there are “certainly a number of miles of fence have not been built.”

The fact that Buck had no clue what would be done with $12 to$24 billion in additional border security funding, doubling or tripling the current border-security budget, didn’t bother KNUS 710-AM’s Krista Kaffer, a proud fiscal hawk.

Such fiscal prudence!

For what, all these billions of dollars? “There’s very little evidence that the border is out of control,” Rosenblum told me, explaining that if you exclude the recent surge of child migrants, apprehensions at the southwest border have plummeted in recent years to a 40-year low.

Still, in addition to more fence, there are drones, more agents, radios, and more that have been proposed in the past.

Buck disclosed that a “number of bills” will come before the House Judiciary Committee during the next “month, month-and-a-half,” including the border-security measure, “a temporary farm worker program, another guest-worker program,” and a “high-tech visa program.”

“We are considering a border-security bill that will double or triple the amount of money to be spent on border security on our southern border,” Buck told Kafer. “There are certainly a number of miles of fence that have not been built. There’s a question over what’s the most efficient way to secure the border, and I think we leave that up to the experts. But the funding will be there for border security and the guest worker program. And I think the two of them go hand-in-hand.”

“We don’t trust the government,” said Buck explaining why Republicans like him oppose comprehensive immigration reform and want to focus on border security. “If we solve the problem of what to do with the 11 million people who are here illegally, then the government will not have border security and a guest-worker program that works.”

But, in reality, if you only focus on border security and guest workers, you’ll get nothing, because comprehensive immigration reform unites enough Democrats and Republicans to actually pass a bill. Remember the Senate’s comprehensive bill passed last year, only to die in the border-security-crazed House, where Colorado’s Republicans, including Rep. Mike Coffman, opposed the Senate’s comprehensive reform.

So keep trying to throw money at border security, Ken Buck, and see where that takes us.

It’s not for everybody, but if you’re me, you can’t help but be curious about a guy who asks Azucar Bakery, on Broadway in Denver, to make cakes shaped like an open Bible with the these messages:

One cake: God Hates Sin, Psalm 45-7. Homosexuality Is a Detestable Sin, Leviticus 18-22.

The other cake: God Loves Sinners. While We Were Yet Sinners, God Died for Us. Romans 5-8.

It turns out that Bill Jack, the man who placed this cake order, is also a sometime talk-show host, which gives a radio aficionado an opening to find out more about him.

After listening to a few hours of his shows on “Generations Radio,” a fundamentalist Christian outlet, and talking with him on the phone, I would describe him as a deeply religious individual who feels so besieged and alienated by cultural norms that he has to carve out an extreme path to function in everyday society.  His path has an internal logic to it, but to the rest of us, it can be hateful and discriminatory.

For example, on a podcasted “Generations Radio” show in January (below), Jack and co-host Steve Vaughan got angry about Planned Parenthood teaching sex-education in public school.

They read an article alleging that a student felt “pressured to have sex” by the lessons. This led to some harsh words about Planned Parenthood and public school education.

Vaughan: (@23:45 below): “The reason why, especially with Planned Parenthood, tthe more sex these kids have, the more business [Planned Parenthood] has in aborting the babies.

Jack: It’s conflict of interest [for Planned Parenthood to be teaching sex education], I would think.”

Vaughan (at @26:15 below): “If you are a Christian, you should not have your kids in public school anyway. This is not a place for them to be witnessing to other people. Bad company corrupts good morals. And your children are going to be the ones to get changed. If you hug a pig, the pig doesn’t get cleaner. Your kid gets dirty. [Laughs]

Jack: I never heard that one before. [Laughs] But everybody needs a hug. But this is what Planned Parenthood does. They want your children to be pigs.

Vaughan: Yeah.

Jack: They want them to wallow in the muck. And what we need to is, we as Christians need to expose evil…Shine the light of truth and grace on such activities. And so I urge you, as home schooling parents, to investigate what’s being taught in the public schools.

I told Jack that my kids go to public school, and even though rats were discovered at East High School in Denver this year, the place is full of beautiful kids. Why call my kid a pig?

Jack: That’s an illustration. It’s an analogy, and the analogy is fairly succinct and pithy, and makes it clear. You don’t want to entrust your student to someone who has an opposing worldview. That’s not as pithy, as punchy.

Salzman: But it’s mean. Would you agree?

Jack: No. it’s not mean. It’s a statement of fact.

Salzman: I take it as mean. I respect what you just said about not sending your kid to public school. That’s your right. But you’re telling me my kid is dirty?

Jack: No. I didn’t say your kid’s dirtier. Your kid gets polluted by a secular worldview.

Jack’s war against the “secular worldview” is key to understanding where he’s coming from.

“For a Christian, your faith dictates your economics, you view of science, of art, of education,” said Jack, who’s a founder of Worldview Academy, which “trains Christians to think and live in accord with a biblical worldview.”  “It’s not compartmentalized.”

Jack has produced a video, showing one way he applies this thinking. It’s titled, “Biblically Correct Tour of The Denver Zoo, The Denver Museum of Nature and Science, The Denver Museum of Art, Law and Order at the Colorado State Capitol, and Dinosaur Ridge outside Denver.”

Which brings us back to Jack’s cake order, with the anti-gay message.

When we spoke, Jack was upset that The Denver Post characterized what he’d asked the baker to write on the cake as “gay slurs” and “hateful words.”

I told Jack I agreed with The Post’s decision to report, in a news story, that the phrase “homosexuality is detestable sin” is a slur, even if it’s in the Bible. Our laws and cultural values affirm this, and so did Colorado’s Civil Rights Division when it rejected Jack’s complaint that his civil rights had been violated when Azucar Bakery refused his order for a cake emblazoned with “homosexuality is a detestable sin” and other phrases.

But Jack believes the “the Civil Rights Commission is acting like the Nazis. They are acting like those who want to re-educate the public.”

It’s a bible verse, Jack has said in numerous interviews about homosexuality being a sin. He emphasized that if the Civil Rights Division is going to force one baker not to discriminate against gays who request cakes for their weddings, then it should force another baker not to discriminate against Christians who request an anti-gay Bible verse on another cake.

“So the Bible is an illegal, immoral book to be censored from the public arena?” he says. “That is offensive. It’s censorship. It’s tyranny. You either believe in the First Amendment or you believe in tyranny.  My bottom line is that this is an effort to censor God from the public square.”

But there are competing rights, I told Jack. Colorado’s public accommodation law bars businesses from discriminating based on sexual orientation and religion, among other things. Even Colorado Republican John Suthers agreed that, under Colorado law, a baker must serve gay costumers. Or it’s discrimination.

But, under the law, a baker isn’t discriminating against a Christian if he or she refuses to make a cake with slurs on it. Civil society can reject the hateful words in the Bible, and still protect Christians from legitimate discrimination.

“We are gutting the First Amendment,” Jack said. “I’m talking about Bible verses, and suddenly they are being labeled gay slurs.”

So for Jack, his religion, his practice of strict adherence to the Bible, no matter how archaic and out-of-step with how most people practice Christianity, is the trump card, his license to do things that most people—as well as Colorado law—see as hateful and discriminatory.

It’s also the reason why he thinks my public-school-attending children are dirty, polluted by a secular worldview. It’s part of the same continuum.

One wonders if the conservative-run Leadership of the Rockies Program, which schooled GOP operative Lisa Pinto, needs to add a class on how to gracefully ignore anonymous tweets.

In her job as Chief Communications Officer for the Jefferson Country  School District, Pinto has massively more important problems on her plate than complaining tweets directed at her. Yet, she’s wasting time on conservative talk radio whining about her tweets.

You’d any right-leaning talk radio program, normally home base for the get-over-it approach to personal problems, would boot her off the show, but KNUS host Krista Kafer wrapped Pinto in a warm blanket, introducing a April 3 segment on the tweets:

Kafer: “So there are these people out there. I don’t know. Do they not work? Do they not have a hobby? Do they not garden? I don’t know, but apparently they have a lot of extra time just to be mean. I guess being mean is a hobby.”

This opened the floodgates from Pinto, who emphasized that she took time on vacation to discuss the tweets on KNUS 710 AM, not on the taxpayer dime. (Listen below.)

“Thanks for taking up this really important topic,” Pinto told Kafer. “It’s really crazy that this is going on in this day an age in Colorado.”

Really important? Crazy in this day and age?  She’s a communications pro? Maybe she’s under the spell of the Independence Institute, which found recent tweets about Jeffco-School topics so important that it established a website, MeanGirlz.org, to promote them. Read more about this in Westword.

Anyway, Pinto went on for the next 20 minutes or so, making me wonder if she knew anything at all about the content of Twitter.

Pinto: “It’s so personal…I’m a staff member. I’m being paid to do my job. I show up. Sometimes I work 50 hours a week…It’s really hurtful. From day one, I kept hearing this. Unqualified. Had no experience. And if you think back to the civil rights struggle, this is what they always said….Not to brag, but I’m a Yale grad. I’m a lawyer, admitted in the state of New York. I’ve been a veteran prosecutor. I’ve hosted cable TV shows…I’m here for the children…Why don’t we join in doing what’s good for the children, which is modeling mature, kind, spiritual behavior. And when I said spiritual, I don’t mean religious. I mean a path of kindness and tolerance…I marched against injustices in college. I served women and children as a prosecutor advocating for domestic violence victims and children who have been sexually abused. And they don’t know any of that about me, and they don’t seem to care…It’s hurtful. Coming from the east coast, we were really unprepared for this type of name calling…It’s shocking…I have a terrific boss, who’s very supportive…And you know a reporter came up on this, and the tone of outrage in her article, it really made me realize I’m not alone on an island…

Kafer: Racism, to me, is so grotesque, as well as sexism, is so grotesque that when I run into it, which is rare, it’s like running into a dinosaur.

 Pinto: …So that, I guess, would be my ask today. Everyone who sees this stuff say. ‘That is not okay.’ Direct message the site…Unfriend. Direct message. Make your statement. Say it’s not appropriate. That ends the discourse right there.”

Bottom line: These are anonymous tweets! I’ve reviewed the tweets, and I can’t believe Pinto doesn’t have better things to focus on.

As for Kafer, there’s just gotta be better ways to advance the conservative agenda on talk radio than holding the hand of Lisa Pinto.

In a KNUS 710-AM radio interview yesterday, Colorado Senate President Bill Cadman said he’s “really hoping” to get a fetal homicide bill introduced “by the end of the week.”

KNUS radio host Dan Caplis, who’s a deep-red social conservative, urged Cadman to push for a law like California’s, which establishes a fetus as a potential victim of a crime.

Cadman replied that the California law is “definitely one of the models that we’re looking at.”

Pro-choice advocates, however, say the California law undermines civil rights protections of pregnant women, allowing for criminal investigations of pregnant women based on the legal rights of the fetus. They say any fetal homicide measure is unnecessary, as Colorado’s Crimes Against Pregnant Women Act is the gold standard insofar as it mandates severe penalties for perpetrators of crimes like the Longmont attack, while protecting abortion rights and the civil rights of pregnant women.

The Longmont attacker faces charges that could result in a 100-year prison term.

And if history is our guide, it’s unlikely that the anti-choice members of Cadman’s Republican caucus will go along with anything short of the California model.

In 2011, bipartisan support for a bill allowing for criminal prosecution for reckless crimes against pregnant women unraveled after attacks by anti-choice activists.

They were angry about language in the bill specifically stating that the legislation did “not confer the status of ‘person’ upon a human embryo, fetus, or unborn child at any stage of development prior to live birth.”

The Republican sponsor of the 2011 bill, Rep. Mark Waller, pulled his own legislation in frustration over the dispute about whether anti-personhood should be part of the language of the bill, telling journalists in 2011, “The right to life folks bring up a valid point when they said that this is a criminal justice provision. Why does this language need to be in there?”

Anti-choice forces in 2011 insisted on legislation modeled on California’s fetal homicide law, as they appear to be doing this year. As the Colorado Independent reported at the time:

Father Bill Carmody said he had met with Waller for close to an hour to express his concerns about the bill and had advocated for California style fetal homicide legislation.  He said he was concerned that though abortion had been decriminalized since 1967, the bill’s removal of the criminal statute would take Colorado back a step “if and when the Supreme Court overturns Roe v Wade.”

“The other problem is that other than in the title, there is no mention of the word child in the bill. It goes out of its way to say it is not a person. It goes out of its way to say it is not anything human, so bring manslaughter charges if it is not human.”

When Democrats got control of the state legislature 2013, they passed a law similar to the failed 2011 legislation.

Last year, Colorado Democrats passed another law allowing civil penalties to be filed against perpetrators of crimes against pregnant women.

Republican gubernatorial candidate Bob Beauprez appeared on KNUS’ Craig Silverman Show Saturday and blamed, among other things, the Republican Governors’ Association (RGA) for his November loss to Democrat John Hickenlooper.

“We would have liked to have had a little more backing from some of our friends,” Beauprez told Silverman. “Notably the Republican Governors Association went dark for three weeks right during the middle of the campaign. That one hurt quite a little bit.”

Beauprez’s opponents would wail at the irony of it, of course, because it was an RGA-funded campaign that arguably allowed Beauprez to prevail against his opponent Tom Tancredo during the Republican gubernatorial primary last year.

Beauprez has rejected accusations, from former Rep. Tom Tancredo and others, that he had any knowledge of the RGA’s surreptitious campaign against Tancredo. But Tanc is so mad about it, he’s started a Stop Chris Christie PAC to fight Christie.

“But didn’t you get in bed with Chris Christie, and then he ultimately rolled over and squished ya,” asked Silverman, in a flashback to the kind of edgy questioning he used to deploy on some Republicans during KHOW’s Caplis and Silverman Show. “I hate to use that kind of imagery. But Chris Christie is a bed you got in, and he ended up betraying you.”

“Getting in bed with Chris Christie, I do reject that metaphor, that analogy, the use of that kind of phrase” responded Beauprez on air. “I’m not a Chris Christie supporter in this election right now. And I had some issues with Chris Christie, but the reality was, he was the chairman of the Republican Governors Association. So was I going to accept the help of the Republican Governors Association, just as John Hickenlooper accepted massive amounts, massive amounts, of money from the Democratic Governors Association? Of course I’m going to do that. So the presumption that I was in lockstep with Chris Christie on everything he ever said or would do or say in the future, that’s simply not fair.”

Beauprez rejected Silverman’s assertion that Beauprez’s opposition to marijuana legalization hurt him in the election.

Beauprez said he didn’t take a position against pot, per se, but instead simply said the future governor would have to deal with the law as passed.

Beauprez also rejected KNUS talk-show host Peter Boyles’ accusation, repeated to Beauprez by Silverman, that Beauprez backed off his suggestion that Colorado should send troops to the Mexican border to help stop illegal immigration.

In the race for chair of the Colorado Republican Party, activists who led recall efforts against Democrats in 2013 have been on the talk-radio circuit dredging up their attacks on the current GOP Chair, Ryan Call, who’s facing a serious challenge from former gubernatorial candidate Steve House.

On Monday, for example, Mike McAlpine (who led recall efforts against Sen. Evie Hudak) and Victor Head (who helped spearhead the recall against Sen. Angela Giron) were on KLZ 560-AM trashing Ryan Call in no uncertain terms. The pair was also on KNUS’ Peter Boyles Show.

Both activists were responding to Call’s assertions Saturday on a KNUS radio show that he’d backed recall campaigns in Pueblo and Colorado Springs to the tune of $140,000, plus other support.

“Let me start by saying that he objected and opposed to the recalls every step of the way,” McAlpine said on KLZ. ” And only with this $140,000 after a Republican candidate was selected and it was officially Ryan’s job, as state Chair to get someone elected, did he come up with some money.

“This is a man who did not support the grassroots in Colorado,” McAlpine continued. ” And for him to step out now and paint himself as a person who did, as a leader, and to take credit for all the hard work of the volunteers, of the independent Republicans who came down, the independent Independents, the Unaffiliateds is wrong!  It is just wrong!”

“The elections went through,” Pueblo’s Victor Head told the KLZ radio audience, agreeing with McAlpine. “We won. Everyone was happy.  [Ryan Call] is out there taking credit, you know, waving at everybody, saying, ‘Look what we did!’  And we’re standing there like, ‘Well, yeah, we’ve still got this huge bill.’ And there were just regular guys like me who got stuck with it.  And so we eventually had to have this press conference and say, ‘Hey, Ryan basically lied to us, and said he was going to help and he never came through.’ And It was only after we basically dragged him out, kicking and screaming, that he said, ‘Oh, okay.  I’ll go ahead and make good on that promise, and I’ll cover the legal fees — or well, the Party will.’  And you know, that’s just the type of person he is.  He’s not there to really help empower the grassroots of the Party.  He really is in this simply to self-serve, as far as I can see.”

“Now, the local party stepped up, in the face of Ryan,” continued Head. “Ryan actually threatened our county chair down here in Pueblo and said, ‘Don’t you dare help those recall people!’ And she defied him, and of course, you know, the rest is history. We won.  And it’s all grand and happy.  But, that was the big thing we had, was, why are you actually coming out saying what we’re doing is actually a bad idea?  That’s where it really stung.

Appearing on KNUS 710-AM’s Jimmy Sengenberger Show Saturday, Colorado GOP Chair Ryan Call emphasized his support for Colorado’s 2013 recall campaigns, when, in fact, Call flat out opposed at least one recall effort.

“From a tactical perspective, frankly, the worst thing that I could do is to get to the head of the column and say that this is a Republican initiative,” Call told Sengenberger Saturday, explaining why he didn’t take an earlier or higher profile stance in the recall campaigns and pointing out that Republicans would have had a harder time winning over Democrats and independents if the recall campaigns were perceived as GOP-led.

This contrasts with what Call told Fox 31 Denver at the time about his decision not to support the recall campaign of Democratic Sen. Evie Hudak:

Call: “This recall election would undermine our efforts in the governor’s race, the U.S. Senate race and to win a senate majority if voters perceive that Republicans are trying to win a majority through recalls.”

“The job of the Republican Party is to get Republicans elected when there are regular elections,” said Colorado GOP Chairman Ryan Call. “And there are already a lot of things competing for our time, attention and resources. [BigMedia emphasis]

Hudak recall organizer Laura Woods, now a state senator who went by the name “Laura Waters” at the time, told KNUS radio host Peter Boyles that Call obstructed their efforts.

In a similar vein, shortly after his victory in a Colorado Springs recall election, newly elected State Sen. George Rivera said Ryan Call put “a little cold water on our parade” during recall campaign. Rivera is a Republican.

But at the time, and in his KNUS interview Saturday, Call also said that he supported recall campaigns once a Republican candidate was in place, and he spent state-party resources to support Republican candidates in their recall campaigns.

“The principled purpose and objective of the Republican Party is to support Republicans in elections,” Call said in 2013.

Republicans will decide whether to retain Call as State GOP Chair March 14. He’s being challenged by former GOP gubernatorial candidate Steve House.

Excerpt of comments by Ryan Call on KNUS’ Jimmy Sengenberger Show Feb. 28, 2015. Begins one hour into the show.

Call: Generally speaking, recalls are reserved for fraud or embezzlement or a serious abdication of a lawmaker’s constitutional duties, but it’s important that those recalls, if initiated, be initiated by the citizens and not be driven simply out of a partisan interest. Our job from the party, as I saw it, and this was not my decision alone. This was discussed at length by our state party’s executive committee, and we determined that rather than set the precedent that the state party, as a partisan objective would go out there and try to foment or start recalls, our job was to support the citizens if the recall went forward. And that’s what we did. But there is always a concern. And what we found also, for example, in the work that was done in the recalls of Scott Walker in Wisconsin. When voters believed it was a grassroots-initiated citizen-originated recall election, they were successful. But if there was a perception in the public that this was simply a partisan power grab, that this was done by Republicans in an effort to win back seats or to try to obtain a majority, then Democrats and unaffiliated voters who are so critical if we are going to be successful—support among those key demographics and segments of the electorate completely collapsed. It was important that the strength of the recalls was led by the grassroots, supported by the party as one of many groups and individuals that were out there supporting it. From a tactical perspective, frankly, the worst thing that I could do is to get to the head of the column and say that this is a Republican initiative.

Sengenberger: But I heard some people say that you were actively trying to prevent these recalls from happening. Is there any truth to that?

Call: Not true. Not true. I was actually in very close contact with representatives from the Liberty Call committee…. Think about it, in a county like Pueblo, where Republicans are outnumbered two-to-one by Democrats, if was perceived to be a Republican initiative…

 

In standing with House Speaker John Boehner on Friday to avert the shutdown, albeit temporary, of the Department of Homeland Security, Colorado’s new Republican Congressman Ken Buck has apparently had second thoughts about his pledge to shut down DHS if necessary to stop Obama from allowing some immigrants to avoid deportation.

Asked by KLZ’s Randy Corporon in January whether he would resist “public pressure and media assaults” and refuse to fund DHS along with Obama’s immigration program, Buck said:

Buck: “I can tell you this: Ken Buck will. I will make the case, and I will make sure that we are not funding those portions of his executive action that are so repugnant.”

In another interview, delivered to KFKA guest host Nancy Rumfelt in January, Buck pledged stand firm against any moderating winds that might emanate from House Speaker John Boehner:

Buck: “Speaker and the leadership team know that they cannot count on me when they move to the middle, that I will be voting against leadership’s efforts in certain areas, especially is true when it comes to the fiscal issues, the appropriations bills and the regulatory issues. And I include Obamacare in that. But absolutely. The people in the 4th Congressional District can count on Ken Buck to be with the conservative votes when it comes to the bills that are coming up in the future.” 

Colorado Springs’ Doug Lamborn did what Buck said he’d do, when Lamborn voted against temporary funds for DHS.

Lamborn: “I cannot support funding, even for a short period of time, the President’s unlawful executive action that violates the Constitution,” Lamborn said in a statement, reported by The Denver Post.