Kenneth D. DeGraaf

Actual medical necessity for an immediate physical heart-stopping threat to the mother, and nonviability of the infant (eg, Ectopic pregnancy). The unborn child is a separate being from his/her mother, making termination of that life a feticide. There are obvious hardships to carrying any pregnancy to term, but none of them merits the unborn child effectively being tortured, then drawn, quartered & crushed, or have the surrounding amniotic fluid turned into a burning salt-bath, or forced through the trauma of a breech birth only to to be stabbed in the brain inches from the light. HB22-1279 permits all this and more because "“a fertilized egg, embryo, or fetus does not have independent or derivative rights under the laws of the state," and essentially ushers in the practice of fetal harvesting. Allowing feticide to cover a crime such as rape precludes justice against the perpetrator, and the failure of the justice system to properly prosecute such crimes cannot be justification to commit another. “Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness” are entitled to us by “the Laws of Nature, and Nature’s God.” Rights are contingent on them being endowed by our Creator; If we do not recognize Imago Dei in others, we cannot claim them for ourselves. A government refusing to secure the Rights of “the least of these” has no intentions of securing them for any other. If we surrender one, we surrender them all. Western Medicine hinges on the Hippocratic Oath: “I will not give a lethal drug to anyone if I am asked, nor will I advise such a plan; and similarly I will not give a woman a pessary to cause an abortion.” Hypocrates recognized that ending the independent life of one either pre-born or already born was the same. In 1869, Susan B Anthony wrote “No matter the motive, [whether] love of ease, or a desire to save from suffering the unborn innocent, the woman is awfully guilty who commits the deed. It will burden her conscience in life, it will burden her soul in death; But oh, thrice guilty is he who drove her to the desperation which impelled her to the crime!” Susan B Anthony knew that feticide leads to and covers for the abuse and exploitation of women. Additionally, there are long-term physical and psychological risks and traumas that the mothers are forced to endure in isolation because they are abandoned by the same ideology. Many churches have banded together to create programs for dealing with unwanted pregnancy, and with the trauma of having succumbed to the lies in moments of crisis.

Strongly Agree

True. Not one cent.

Strongly Disagree

Modern Medicine hinges on the Hippocratic Oath, "first, do no harm" --“I will not give a lethal drug to anyone if I am asked, nor will I advise such a plan...” He recognized that the healing arts were incompatible with delivering death. Previously a patient did not know if a doctor came to save or end his life. Palliative end-of-life care and cessation of treatment allow for humane treatment during the dying process, but making that process active has proven to be a dangerous slope.

It should be scrapped and replaced with a flat tax, or better, just a tax on purchases which would reward savings which creates economic growth. “Every man should eat and drink and enjoy the good of ALL his labor–it is a gift of God” (Ecc3:13. also 5:18) The “heavy progressive or graduated income tax” advocated by Marx was one of the “despotic inroads on rights of property” “to wrest, by degrees, all capital from the” middle class. It has been successful towards achieving its goal. It encourages those in lower income brackets to exercise short-sighted punitive covetousness against higher incomes, which ironically block them from achieving increased prosperity. A simplified tax code would free up energy and resources currently wasted on compliance with convoluted and contradictory edicts. Representatives should focus on the care & protection of the golden goose of the free-market instead of trying to choke out more golden eggs by oppressive taxation.

Eliminating spending outside of constitutional delineation would quickly balance the budget. If there was a driving need to know the mating habits of drug addled quail, the free-market would have identified it. Rand Paul goes through a long, but hardly comprehensive list of ridiculous spending. In-place programs should be placed on a rapid path to sunsetting. Following an immediate 33% reduction, a 5% reduction annually should be scheduled. In the meantime, annual “Mandatory Spending” increases should be ended. The current practice of increasing spending by a mandatory percentage each year creates an exponential and unsustainable path–3% annual growth results in doubling every 20ish years (1,2,4,8,16,...). Automatic adjustments for inflation must be eliminated because they force citizens to pay more money with less valuable money because of policies implemented by an unaccountable government. Less money being confiscated by the government results in increased funds in the economy. Omnibus spending bills should be illegal. All appropriations should be decided as single-issue with roll-call votes for accountability. Absences or abstentions should parenthetically be aligned with the majority vote. Increased accountability and taking more time would reduce the amount of mischief. Executive agencies like the CDC, FAA, FDA, etc need to be eliminated. They have proven they are unable to be trusted with the functions assigned to them. Their functions can be picked up more reliably by market-created agencies with legal liability for their decisions.

Strongly Disagree

Absolutely not. Taxpayer funding has an inverse relationship with actual education. Federal and State Education agencies should be disbanded. They have proven themselves untrustworthy and more interested in indoctrination than education. Parents should be provided tax credits to apply to the school of their choice to encourage accountability & innovation. Because the government drove up the cost of education through guaranteed and inescapable loans, is no reason to trust it further.

Strongly Disagree

"That to secure these (Creator endowed) Rights, Governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed" The individual precedes government; government serves to secure the Rights of the governed. It is unjust for the government to compel/coerce/require anything. The only delineated “just power” is to secure the Rights of the governed, in this case those guaranteed by the First Amendment.

none. The 2-weeks of perpetuity proved that any inch given will result in miles taken. The solution is to deny the inch, not to try to define it better.

D. Taxpayer funded healthcare creates a dependence on your neighbors, and it compels an interest by your neighbors in your health. Individual Sovereignty requires Individual Responsibility, and that responsibility may not be put upon your neighbor through compulsion. You cannot be individually sovereign if dependent on another, and to compel another for your needs not only violates “the consent of the governed” in general, but the 13th amendment specifically. Additionally, government healthcare drives costs up by 500% or more. By creating contracts whereby the government pays only about 20% (?) of a billed amount, Medicare forces providers to charge 5x (500%) of the actual cost in order to not lose money on a patient. If not on Medicare, the individual is forced to pay expensive premiums for an insurer to negotiate a rate closer to that of MediCare, but then assesses a copay of 10-20%, which is equivalent to the actual cost of the procedure. Regional insurance and lack of portability mean employees are in bondage to employers. With medicines, I suspect the markup is much worse, but is easier to obscure. This is just further proof that there is no problem the government cannot make worse with a "solution."

None. A large degree of trust was allowed in this area, and that trust was betrayed. An inch was given, but many miles taken. This will occur until human nature itself changes. At the height of its "efficacy," the mRNA gene therapy provided <1% absolute risk reduction, and that was grossly inflated by making illegal the prophylactic treatment of the disease itself. Masks have no efficacy and have been shown to make the problem worse, but a coordination of government and corporate financial interests made them compulsory to participate in society. To deal with this overreach, legislators have proposed bills like CO HB22-1238 that codify all of the overreach and more into law, set into motion at the whim of the Governor.

Stop treating it as an acceptable form of expression, and simultaneously stop funding their internal wars and wars of expansion by making us energy dependent on the nations that expressly hate our values and are willing to bribe public officials into betraying their own countrymen. If a religion demands killing or enslaving everyone not submitting to it, it is wise to take them at their word.

Strongly Disagree

I do not. Israel cannot safely remove the barrier or allow the free movement of people who do not recognize its Right to exist. I suspect it is difficult to trust the intentions of people who lob mortars and rockets randomly at your citizens. We need an accurate historical understanding of this conflict. There are lots of Israeli citizens of Arabic descent. That Israel does not extend citizenship to the families of those who withdrew from Israel to facilitate the slaughter of Jews is rational.

Strongly Agree

True. A nation which does not enforce its borders cannot exist for long. There are legal processes in place that have worked. Our issue is an ideological refusal to enforce national sovereignty which in turn threatens to undermine the individual sovereignty to be protected by just governance. Phase-1 of “build back better” is “destroy it all,” and unlimited immigration is part of that plan.

"The bosom of America is open to receive not only the opulent and respectable stranger, but the oppressed and persecuted of all nations and relitions; whom we shall welcome to a participation of all our rights and privileges, if by decency and propriety of conduct they merit the enjoyment." - George Washington. On the Statue of Liberty are engraved the words, "give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free." Thus, our borders should be open to those wanting and willing to live accordingly. Controlling the border is part of ensuring entrants have such intents. "Yearning to breathe free" is a call to living unencumbered, not a willingness to encumber, or be a burden on society. Incoming families & individuals should have sponsors in order to help them integrate, and to not become a burden on society as a whole. A sponsor could be an individual or an organization. While citizens are free to help new arrivals, the government has no business in seizing and distributing funds as handouts and violates the 13th Amendment. Immigration should hinge on not just reaping the benefits of being in the United States but on the desire to contribute to the peace, prosperity and welfare of our nation. Allowing people to flood into our country into an underground, exploitable status is neither safe for us, nor compassionate for them, although it certainly it works to the advantage of those looking to profit from human trafficking. Refugees do not need to automatically become citizens to benefit from escaping their homeland. If they refuse to abide by terms as simple as respecting the Rights of their host nation, then they cannot become part of the fabric of a functional society. "No, sir, 'tis to increase the wealth and strength of the community, and those who acquire the rights of citizenship, without adding to the strength or wealth of the community, are not the people we are in want of...I should be exceeding sorry, sir, that our rule of naturalization excluded a single person of good fame, that really meant to incorporate himself into our society; on the other hand, I do not wish that any man should acquire the privilege, but who, in fact, is a real addition to the wealth or strength of the United States." - James Madison

Strongly Agree

Since the Colorado Constitution precludes appropriating money to any entity “not under the absolute control of the state,” tax credits should be applied in support of a child’s education, which is not the same as providing “aid of any church ...or to help support or sustain any school, academy, seminary, college, university...controlled by any church...whatsoever.” Set tax credits at 80% of current per-pupil cost to improve education and set cost on downward trend.

Strongly Agree

True. “It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions, but on the gospel of Jesus Christ!” - Patrick Henry. “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” -John Adams. “The secret to my success? It is simple. It is found in the Bible, “in all thy ways acknowledge Him and He shall direct thy paths.” -George Washington Carver

Strongly Disagree

No. In addition to violating “created equal,” and that the “just powers” of government are for securing our Rights, not undermining them for the preferential treatment of another, this would be a violation of Colorado’s Constitution, Article 2, sections 1,4,10&30b. "all government of right, originates from the people, is founded upon their will only, and is instituted solely for the good of the whole", “No Protected Status Based on Homosexual, Lesbian or Bisexual Orientation...”

Strongly Agree

True. Marriage between a man and woman is part of the immutable “Laws of Nature, (prescribed by) Nature’s God.” Spending some time outside this spring will provide ample evidence.

Strongly Disagree

I reject all forms of “white supremacy,” including Critical Race Theory. The Declaration of Independence, the foundational document of our Republic specifically recognizes that “all men are created equal.” This was recognized by Frederick Douglass to be the seed of the end of slavery. The ilk of race hustlers like CRT proponents is not new. “There is a certain class of race-problem solvers who don’t want the patient to get well..." - Booker T Washington

God is eternal, sovereign & triune. God is omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent. Humanity is created to bear the image of the Sovereign God (Imago Dei). God’s purpose is revealed in both the moral and natural law (“the laws of Nature and Nature’s God”). The Bible is historically true and spiritually true, with lessons equally applicable now as then. Our souls are eternal and will be judged by how we live our lives, but redemption from sin comes through Jesus Christ--"I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life: no one comes to the Father, except by me." (John 114:6) I believe in accordance with the Declaration of Independence–that all men are created equal, endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights. We are Created “Imago Dei”--in the image of a sovereign God, and given dominion over God’s creation, not as tyrants but as stewards. Our Rights are entitled to us by “the Laws of Nature and Nature’s God,” and that the just purpose of Government is to secure as Rights the individual agency required for us to manifest God’s purpose in our lives. I agree with John Adams that “The Ten Commandments and the Sermon on the Mount contain my religion.” Of the Ten Commandments, God said “Obey my commandments and Live!” and the directive to “do unto others as you would have them do unto you...sums up the Law and the Prophets.” "Let us with caution indulge the supposition, that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure; reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle." - George Washington.

Strongly Disagree

Voting is how we indicate confidence in who will represent us as citizens. If voting is not secure and restricted to citizens, the power and money wielded by government will be usurped by those who we do not trust, and who do not have our best interests in mind.

If it can be hacked, it will be hacked, and all computers can be hacked. Electronic voting cannot be made secure, so that cannot be an option. With the exception of absentee ballots on a limited basis (military), paper ballots, in person, hand counted with the thumb dipped in indelible ink. None of these are impervious to fraud, but they limit it significantly.

Those that want to destroy our country know that they must first divide it. Fractionalizing our population by superfluous characteristics is their means to their desired goal. "United we stand; divided we fall." "We must all hang together, or most assuredly we shall all hang separately." People promoting the concept of "Race," promulgate the idea that there are fundamental differences between people on the basis of the melanin content of skin. This is an ingrained part of the teaching of evolution. It was an idea that helped perpetuate slavery and is baseless now as it was then. Although once considered the "scientific consensus," racism is not only baseless, but it is dangerous as it paved the way for the pseudo-science of Eugenics, and eventually to the Holocaust, all in the name of social evolution. By rejecting "Imago Dei", the Left can only see human relationships as a series of power struggles for which a strong and intrusive government is the solution--in "freeing" themselves from God, they enslaved themselves to man. These power struggles are seen based on group identity and thus the doctrine that people are defined by their physical characteristics. Their goal of continual conflict between the factions is to be able to present themselves as the solution, promising peace for the mere price of Liberty. So, while racism itself is a ridiculous, the proponents behind it possess dangerous ideations and intents.

Strongly Disagree

Frederick Douglass said "what I ask for the Negro is not benevolence, not pity, not sympathy but simply justice...Do nothing with us!...All I ask is, give him a chance to stand on his own legs! Let him alone..." There is no way to repair history. The slave trade into the colonies was minor compared to slavery in Africa and throughout the middle east. How to account for the slavery of the barbary pirates?Or that the King mandated slavery in the colonies and it took the revolutionary war to leave?

Being a good steward of the environment requires the cost of not damaging the environment--it costs what it costs. Our Forestry Service once did a great job both preserving and promoting lumber as a resource (which also sequesters CO2), but "environmentalists" have taken to protesting that industry into bankruptcy while setting forest fires to prove the veracity of the dangers of global warming they decry. A) Misguided environmental regulations are not only costly, but damaging. CO2 is a trace gas that reacts to low-energy infrared radiation, radiated from the ground. Water is at least 100x as prevalent as CO2 and responds to high-energy IR from the sun. Global evaporation removes the heat of global hydrocarbon burn in less than 30 seconds every day. CO2 is what grows plants, and is out-gassed by vegetation that release over 10x as much CO2 daily as do automobiles; of course they eventually pull it back in to form their structures and sugars via photosynthesis. The planet is warming because shortly before the industrial revolution the sun began increasing in intensity. The CO2-cult has fixated on removing a result of a warming, (CO2) because they cannot do anything about the sun. Their vaunted 280ppm taken from never-calibrated or even verifiable proxy-data is on the verge of the 200ppm where photosynthesis effectively stops--life stops. Their same proxy-data shows periods of much higher ppm with no real correlation with temperature. The models they create require massive numbers of allowances and assumptions that make their predictions essentially useless. Even to comprehensively know all the data about the state of the earth, MIT scientists estimate a top-end weather prediction would be two weeks. Ironically, they'll tell you the climate is easier to predict in 100 years, but they hedge their guesses with maximum probabilities of medium to low, which will then be conveyed as factual prognostications. Throwing away money after CO2 will not help alleviate any problems, although it has made many people very rich through otherwise cost-prohibitive tech like solar and wind power. The people most harmed by these schemes are the poor. Joe Biden's energy policy of forcing up the cost of hydrocarbons is not only an attack on our Liberty, but the only means of making the highly inefficient "renewable" energy schemes seem cost effective. Of course in order to accomplish this, those products must be made in China where they happily burn all the coal they can with little to no environmental considerations. China's commitment under the Paris accords was to build as many coal fired plants as they could up until 2030, then think about slowing the pace. Our "green energy" advocates thought that was wonderful.

Strongly Agree

Fracking has been shown to be safe, and occurs well below the water-table. Gas will take the path or least resistance out of a high pressure underground which will be via the bore-hole. Eliminating the pressure & quantity underground lessens the possibility of coming up somewhere unwanted. Natural Gas is very clean-burning, oxidizing into the CO2 and H2O that make plants grow.

"to secure these Rights (Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness), Governments' are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed." Certain functions were ceded to government out of efficiency and convenience, but they were weaponized against our populous.

Very Conservative

a caveat is that "conservative" carries leftist connotations since from the communist manifesto it essentially means "not revolutionary enough," or just wanting to hold on to the current power structure. The Declaration of Independence, however, sparked a revolution because the concepts were revolutionary--Rights as endowed by a Creator, and equality among men. I think a more accurate scale than "liberal vs conservative" runs between "individual sovereignty" & "state sovereignty"

https://www.justinamerican.com/justin-american-podcast-episodes/discussion-with-ken-skin-degraaf-canddidate-for-co-house-of-representatives /// My testimony for HB22-1033: Constitutional Carry, 8 Feb 2022 “Ma’dam Chair, I am Ken DeGraaf, a resident of ElPaso County and 27 year Air Force veteran. Because we’re condemned to either learn from history or relive it, I would like to speak from history. It is clear that our founders felt the right to keep and bear arms was essential for not only protecting our lives and property, but our Republic itself. First, I’ll speak to the current web of laws: As Alexis d’Tocqueville observed “After having thus successively taken each member of the community in its powerful grasp and fashioned him at will, the (government) then extends its arm over the whole community. It covers the surface of society with a network of small, complicated rules, minute and uniform, through which the most original minds and the most energetic characters cannot penetrate, to rise above the crowd. The will of man is not shattered, but softened, bent, and guided; men seldom forced by it to act, but they are constantly restrained from acting. Such a power does not destroy, but it prevents existence; it does not tyrannize, but it compresses, enervates, extinguishes, and stupefies a people, till each nation is reduced to nothing better than a flock of timid and industrious animals, of which the government is the shepherd. The current conglomeration of laws is reminiscent of Stalin’s head of Secret police who directed, “show me the man, and I’ll show you the crime.” From the United States Bill of Rights, Amendment II, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” “Shall not be infringed” seems pretty clear, as unrestricted arms are the means by which we remain a “FREE STATE”. The Colorado Bill of Rights, Article II, section 3 addresses personal protection: “All persons have certain natural, ESSENTIAL, 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 of seeking and obtaining their SAFETY and happiness.” For the individual to Defend, Protect, and ensure the Safety of their person and property is considered ESSENTIAL, and INALIENABLE. It is troubling that our current legislation is a de-facto declaration that what our constitutions’ declare as inalienable rights, are not viewed as such by our legislators who are ostensibly sworn to secure them. continuing: Section 7 states: “the people shall be secure in their persons, papers, homes and effects, from unreasonable searches and seizures, and no warrant to search any place or seize any person or thing shall issue without describing the place to be searched, or the person or thing to be seized, as near as may be, nor without probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation reduced to writing” As a sovereign citizen of a sovereign state, there is no reason to be questioned by a Peace officer, charged with securing the Rights of all to intrude on my person or property without probable cause. Attested to by Section 13. “Right to bear arms. The right of no person to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person and property, or in aid of the civil power when thereto legally summoned, shall be called in question; but nothing herein contained shall be construed to justify the practice of carrying concealed weapons.” As Samual Adames explained, “the Constitution should be never construed to authorize congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the united states, who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms.” Why citizens need to be armed is perhaps best answered by George Mason in 1788 that “to disarm the people...was the best and most effectual way to enslave them,” whether that is by government or the criminal cartels as we see with our neighbors to the south.”

no.

If we want to get politics out of our lives, we need to get involved in politics. The overwhelming number of current legislators is doing government TO us, not FOR us. Our legislators have fallen into a frenzy of passing laws, or more properly "edicts" with little thought at the cumulative effect of usurpation of our liberty and the continual but cumulative assumption of government power over our lives. That must not only stop, but reverse--we need legislators who will begin the difficult task of excising bad legislation. We need voters to pay attention to ALL of the bills and provide positive feedback when legislators roll back government power in favor of individual Liberty, instead of waiting until something egregious is making its way to becoming law. We need to focus on removing bad laws and securing our Rights, and not praising our representatives for "bringing home the bacon"--the largesse and spoils from other states or counties. In terms of business growth, we don't need the know-nothings to "help more," as much as to "hinder less." To protect our Right to the protection of our individual sovereignty, we need to scrutinize the medical and mental health bills that often contain covert gun grabs.

Strongly Agree

As long as the policies are consistent with our founding documents, since enforcing such an edict/law would be illegal. Supporting or enforcing unconstitutional edicts is a violation of the oath and a negation of the authority extended by "the consent of the governed."

Strongly Disagree

it seems these units are already underfunded, so cuts would be better made from the largess of other agencies. Peace Officers need to have their roles realigned with constitutional security of Rights, not enforcement of niggling edicts.

"shall not be infringed," shall not be ignored. This is a part of living in dangerous liberty vs safe servitude. An armed society is a polite society. Violence is not a result of guns, but the result of an ideology that reduces individuals to obstacles to be overcome by power. Unfortunately, "reasonable restrictions" are just a foot in the door for more intrusion later, thus none. Maintaining/defending individual sovereignty is the purpose of the 2A. That cannot be accomplished by being reliant on any form of government.

Strongly Disagree

A gun is a tool, and access to that tool is protected under 2A. It is the user of the tool who is responsible. While this would eliminate the manufacture of new firearms and pave the way for the Left's desired authoritarianism ("for the greater good"...which never is), they would in short order be applied to hammers, knives, baseball bats and any other sharp or blunt object used to in a murder. The problem is human nature, not tools. Leftist ideology thinks it can overcome human nature by force.