In case you weren’t listening, you need to know that there have been big shakeups in the conservative talk-radio world recently, as KHOW 630-AM’s Mandy Connell replaced KOA 850-AM’s Mike Rosen, who retired, and Ross Kaminsky took over Connell’s morning show slot (which has about 60,000 weekly listeners).

It’s a major jump for Kaminsky, who’s been on the B Team in Denver radio for about 10 years, subbing here and there for the starting lineup of hosts on different stations but remaining on the sidelines with his own shows. He started in radio in 2006 as a guest and then fill-in host for former KFKA host Amy Oliver, who works at the conservative Independence Institute. Kaminsky’s KHOW job realizes his “dream of creating a second career in radio.” (He’s been a professional financial markets trader, and he writes weekly for the American Spectator.)

Politically, Kaminsky usually backs the establishment Republican position and candidate. So he’s not a Tea-Party-warrior radio host like, for example, his afternoon colleague on KHOW, Michael “Heck of a job” Brownie, or KNUS 710-AM’s Peter Boyles, who will be Kaminsky’s main morning talk-show competitor along with KLZ 560-AM’s Steve Curtis, who sits in another morning-show orbit even farther out there.

I asked Kaminsky via email how he’ll differentiate himself from other radio hosts (whether on other stations or on the same station).

Kaminsky: I don’t really spend much time thinking about that. I just do my show, my way, focusing on things that I think make a good blend of interesting, important and fun. I also think that my professional background in financial markets as well as my personal background (such as that I’ve visited more than 60 countries and all but 2 of the United States) gives me an unusual perspective. I’m not about a political “team”; I’m a registered independent, not Republican. I’m about ideas more than about parties, about outcomes more than who gets credit for them. I’m about freedom — basically an Objectivist, neither a conservative nor a liberal — though I generally have much more in common with conservatives on the issues that I care most about.

Although I’m fundamentally non-partisan I have strong opinions about which politicians and which parties are likely to be better than others.

Do you want progressives to call in?

Kaminsky: I enjoy talking to callers, especially those who disagree with me. Some of my absolute favorite conversations are with liberals/progressives, and some of my favorite moments on radio are when I can get them to open their minds to reconsidering their views, particularly on issues of economics and fundamental liberty. (I’m not a social issues conservative and find most talk radio about social issues to be tedious and unproductive unless it’s really at the top of the news such as gay marriage was for some time.)

 Will you conduct investigations and latch on to stories (e.g., Boyles on the birther issue, Caplis on Tim Tebow)? If so, what kind of stories might you chase?

Kaminsky: I don’t think you’ll see me doing investigative work, nor will I generally “bulldog” a topic for days or weeks on end unless it were something truly massive such as 9/11 — and I hope I never face a topic that horrendous. Instead, I’ll focus more on trying to make the most interesting possible discussions surrounding news and public policy along with talking about all sorts of aspects of daily life, family life, etc. My show is definitely not going to be all politics all the time. I will also endeavor to bring listeners very interesting interviews — not just interesting guests but posing questions to them that other hosts might not think of.
Any other comments?

Kaminsky: I view my new job as a tremendous opportunity but I also realize that the people who have given me this opportunity had — and will in the future have — other choices, and that I can’t take anything for granted. My goal is to bring such good content to the show that the ratings and revenue numbers leave management no reason to think about needing anyone else for the KHOW morning drive, which I believe is one of the premier talk show jobs in the state of Colorado. There couldn’t have been a better way for me to start the new year.

Rep. Mike Coffman voted again Wednesday to defund Planned Parenthood, making it seven times that he’s voted to strip funding from the women’s health organization.

So you wonder, what does Coffman have to say to the 2,200 women who would no longer be able to go to the Aurora Planned Parenthood clinic if it loses federal money?

We don’t know, because his office won’t return my calls.

You hope Coffman has thought about this, because the clinic currently offers these 2,200 women basic healthcare services like HIV and STD tests, birth control, breast and cervical cancer screenings and more, according to a Planned Parenthood Votes Colorado spokeswoman.

And that’s just the Aurora clinic, located in the womb of Coffman’s own district. Across Colorado, if the Aurora Republican has his way, about 80,000 women, men, and young people would lose access to Planned Parenthood health services they rely on if federal funding were lost, says Planned Parenthood in a news release yesterday.

“In his first vote of the year, Rep. Coffman voted to roll back care for millions of patients in this country who rely on compassionate care at Planned Parenthood’s health centers,” said Sarah Taylor-Nanista, PPVC Vice President of Public Affairs in a statement, referring to Coffman’s latest vote for a bill to defund Planned Parenthood, which was vetoed by Obama today. “We need our elected officials to put the health and well being of their constituents first, not sideline good policy for the sake of politics.”

Maybe Coffman has another option in mind for these low-income women on Medicaid and a federal cancer-screening program? Maybe some of them could find alternative to Planned Parenthood? But all of them? And where? How far would they have to travel?

In any case, what’s Coffman’s plan for these women in his district? What does he have to offer them? Or would he prefer to cover up the fact that they exist? Or does he just figure Obama will veto any bill that defunds Planned Parenthood, so Coffman doesn’t have to worry about real-life alternatives?

And will Coffman run his plans, if he has any, by the 2,200 women who now attend the Aurora Planned Parenthood clinic to see how they feel about it?

Coffman won’t tell me. But maybe he’ll take a call from another reporter.

NARAL Pro-Choice Colorado issued a report yesterday exposing the legislative influence in Colorado of two national anti-choice organizations, Americans United for Life (AUL) and Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), as well as the state-wide network of “crisis pregnancy centers.”

During the last legislative session, five bills and one resolution were modeled on AUL draft legislation, and AUL staff testified at numerous committee hearings, according to the report, titled “Against Our Will: How National Anti-Choice Groups are Targeting the Pro-Choice Majority in Colorado.”

None of these bills had much chance of becoming law, as pro-choice Democrats control the governor’s office and state house.

But two of the proposed laws generated serious media attention: a measure requiring women to have an ultrasound prior to obtaining an abotion and a “fetal personhood” bill giving legal rights to a fetus, potentially threatening abortion rights, and allowing prosecutors to bring murder charges if a fetus is destroyed during criminal acts.

These two bills  were co-sponsored by key Republicans in the state, including the leading GOP candidate for U.S. Senate, State Sen. Tim Neville, and Westminster State Sen., Laura Woods, whose race next year will likely determine control of the state senate.

The AUL legislation was backed in Colorado by ADF, which frequently dispatched senior consel Mike Norton, husband of failed U.S. Senate candidate Jane Norton, to the state Capitol to testify, according to the report.

AUL and ADF did not retrun my calls seeking comment for a post I wrote on this topic today for RH Reality Check.

One AUL resolution that cleared the Colorado Senate last session indicated support for government assistence to pregnancy resource centers–though such entities currently receive no state funding.

“They are a national network of generally unlicensed, unregulated anti-choice organizations posing as clinics,” the report stated. “Not only do they try to discourage women from getting an abortion with medically-inaccurate information, they use misleading advertising about their intent to get them in the door.”

The 60 CPCs in Colorado outnumber abortion providers in the state by approximately three to one, according to the report.

The largest affiliate of CPCs, Care Net, describes itself welcoming women “facing unplanned pregnancies with life-affirming compassion, hope, and help. Every year about 30,000 people volunteer at these pregnancy centers. And since 2009, there has been a 20 percent growth in the number of Care Net centers providing free ultrasounds to their clients.”

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

For perspectivce this New Year’s Eve, here are some statistics on tragedies of the past year.

Number of people killed in San Bernardino terrorist attack: 14

Number of prisoners executed in America each year: 28

Number of people killed in Paris terrorist attack: 130

Number of American teens who die in car crashes each year: 2,000

Number of Americans killed in car crashes each year: 35,000

Number of people killed in Planned Parenthood terrorist attack in Colorado Springs: 3

Number of Americans who commit suicide with a gun each year: 21,000

Number of women who die during pregnancy and childbith: 300,000

Number of malaria deaths worldwide, mostly in impoverished countries, yearly: 435,000

Number of children under 5 who die worldwide due to poor nutrition, yearly: 3.1 million

In honor of Denver talk-radio host Mike Rosen’s last regular show (today at noon), I thought I’d offer you some jokes Rosen told in April on air. He said he wanted to give “equal time” to women.

Rosen: “There are the old clichéd blond jokes and other techniques at taking pot shots at women. This falls into the heading of equal time. Here’s a woman fighting back with some personal experiences.

He said to me, ‘I don’t know why you wear a bra. You’ve got nothing to put in it.’

I said to him, ‘You wear pants, don’t you?’ [pause]

He said to me, ‘Shall we try swapping positions tonight?’

I said to him, ‘That’s a good idea. You stand by the stove and sink, while I sit on the sofa and do nothing but fart.’ [pause]

He said to me, ‘What have you been doing with all the grocery money I gave you?’

I said to him, ‘Why don’t you look sideways and look in the mirror?”  [pause]

He said to me, ‘Why don’t women blink during foreplay?”

I said to him, ‘They don’t have time.’  [pause]

He said to me, ‘How many men does it take to change a roll of toilet paper?’

I said to him, ‘I don’t know. I don’t know. It’s never happened.’  [pause]

He said to me, ‘Why is it difficult to find men who are sensitive, caring, and good looking.’

I said to him, ‘They already have boyfriends’  [pause]

He said to me, ‘What do you call a woman who knows where her husband is every night?’

I said to him, “A widow.”  [pause]

He said to me, ‘Why are married women heavier than single women?’

I said to him, ‘Single women come home, see what’s in the fridge and go to bed. Married women come home, see what’s in bed, and go to the fridge.”  [pause]

Equal time for women.

Obviously, most of these jokes are sexist against women, so presenting them as “equal time for women” makes no sense.

But that’s how Rosen was for about 30 years on KOA. You could disagree with him, or think he was rude or crazy or manipulative, but his facts were usually right. He was prepared and obviously worked hard on his show, which addressed serious policy issues day after day. He was provocative and smart, even if he was a partisan Republican.

And he was able to tone it done and be respectful during his monthly interviews over decades with Democratic and Republican governors and Denver mayors, who took questions from everyday listeners. This was a public service that everyone benefited from.

I’ll miss Rosen, and it will be good to hear him subbing every now and then when the regular hosts are gone.

With Hanukkah behind me, and fresh from celebrating the solstice (and looking forward to Christmas), I saw this Facebook post by Derrick Wilburn, Vice Chair of the Colorado Republican Party.

Wilburn: For what its worth, not one of the Democrat candidates in last night’s debate mentioned or invoked “God” at any point, not even closing statements. The Republican candidates, at the very least, would end their closing statements with “God bless America” or similar. As close as any of the three last night came was Hilary who closed with, “And may the force be with you.”

Is it relevant? To some yes, to some no, but this much is inarguable – from removing of “God” from the wording of it’s 2012 platform (then subsequently adding Him back in via a rigged vote resulting in God Himself being boo’d on the convention floor) to last night’s complete snubbing, the Democrat Party is marching toward a wholly secular existence at neck-breaking speed. Some may think that’s a good thing some may not, but neither side can dispute that it is truth.

Obviously religion is important in America, but how long will Republicans promote themselves, even in a veiled manner as Wilburn does, as the party of God and Country? While taking jabs at secularism? It can’t last, with the country going in the opposite direction? Well…

More Facebook viewing turned up this post, by State Rep. Gordon Klingenschmitt (R-Colorado Springs), in which he goes further than Wilburn. He tells us who, among the believers, are the heretics and who aren’t .

“This graph separates the non-Christian, heretical, apostate churches from the true Christian churches in our generation,” wrote Klingenschmitt on Facebook, pointing to data showing that members of many Protestant denominations are now more accepting of homosexuality.

You don’t have to say “Thank God” to appreciate that trend, especially around Christmas.