Why wait until the midterms? It is time for the U.S. House to take action and start proceedings to impeach Donald Trump.
Opinion
I’m wondering why we even have an Environmental Protection Agency. If protecting human life is not the main goal of the EPA, what possible purpose could it have?
Letters
Governor Polis has cited humanitarian reasons for possibly granting clemency to convicted felon, Tina Peters. If he were to do so, his good intentions today would invite terrible outcomes for Colorado
Columnists
Why wait until the midterms? It is time for the U.S. House to take action and start proceedings to impeach Donald Trump.
OpinionRe: “President considers punitive tariffs,” Jan. 17 news story
Why wait until the midterms?
It is time for the U.S. House to take action and start proceedings to impeach Donald Trump. This nation can’t afford to wait until the midterms. Please take action before it’s too late for our country.
This latest obsession with Greenland, because he did not receive the Nobel Peace Prize (or, as Trump calls it, the “Noble” Peace Prize), is not only ridiculous but also speaks to his state of mind and to the fact that he is not fit to lead the United States of America.
Tim Fitzgerald, Denver
Donald Trump is now bullying countries to back his unpopular threat to take over Greenland or face tariffs. Stephen Miller is now calling Minnesota protesters insurrectionists, while the January 6th mobs were considered peaceful protesters and tourists. Miller is clearly laying the groundwork to invoke the Insurrection Act. The Department of Justice’s probes into contrived investigations, our taxpayer money going into a $400 million ballroom, etc.
Why are Republicans allowing this madness to escalate? Giving this administration the green light to do whatever unconstitutional thing they want only allows more of the same, even worse. Polls show a significant drop in support for how Trump is handling immigration and the economy. Congress needs to stop bowing to the king and serve the people they were elected to represent.
Marcia Murphy, Centennial
Americans are going to have to look back and come to grips with how we have allowed this administration to break the world. And credit to The Denver Post for providing truthful and accurate news; if Fox News was my only window on “reality” I might think that what is happening is good and normal.
Our democracy was forged by our rebellion against “Mad King George III” and is being destroyed by our acquiescence to “Mad King Donald.”
Peter Sanford, Englewood
Re: “President ties stance to not getting Nobel,” Jan. 20 news story
The Denver Post does a disservice to its readers by failing to post the entire letter President Trump sent to our allies. Please give them the opportunity to judge for themselves the entire content of the letter beyond the two meager sentences provided in the bowdlerized article.
I interpret it as an unhinged and dangerous threat that could lead to the dissolution of NATO. The American people and the Republican Congress need to rein in this man who would endanger American and world security just to satisfy his ego. There must be a strong authorization of the War Powers Act and a reassertion of Congress’ power of the purse at the very least.
David Schroeder, Golden
Editor’s note: Here is the text President Donald Trump sent Sunday to Jonas Gahr Store, the prime minister of Norway:
Dear Jonas: Considering your Country decided not to give me the Nobel Peace Prize for having stopped 8 Wars PLUS, I no longer feel an obligation to think purely of Peace, although it will always be predominant, but can now think about what is good and proper for the United States of America. Denmark cannot protect that land from Russia or China, and why do they have a ‘right of ownership’ anyway? There are no written documents, it’s only that a boat landed there hundreds of years ago, but we had boats landing there, also. I have done more for NATO than any other person since its founding, and now, NATO should do something for the United States. The World is not secure unless we have Complete and Total Control of Greenland. Thank you! President DJT
Re: “Food, Honestly: Is takeout too expensive?” Jan. 14 commentary
Allyson Reedy hit the nail on the head. My wife and I love to eat out, but in all honesty, the prices are starting to deter us. At our favorite sit-down burger place, a burger is $14, fries are $4, and a Happy Hour beer is $6 — $24 before taxes/fees and tip. There are myriad taxes and extra fees (Fair Labor, kitchen, recycling, composting, etc.) these days, usually averaging 10-15% of the bill. Add a 20% tip and you are over $30 for a burger and a beer. Multiply that by two, and our tab is usually just under $65.
Not to sound like my mother, but you want to know how many burgers, fries and beers I can have at home for $65? I honestly don’t know how the average family eats out these days. I’m guessing in light of all the restaurant closures that too many don’t.
Mike Conkey, Thornton
Sign up for Sound Off to get a weekly roundup of our columns, editorials and more.
To send a letter to the editor about this article, submit online or check out our guidelines for how to submit by email or mail.
I’m wondering why we even have an Environmental Protection Agency. If protecting human life is not the main goal of the EPA, what possible purpose could it have?
LettersRe: “EPA to stop considering lives saved with policy,” Jan. 13 news story
After reading the article about the EPA not considering lives saved to justify clean air rules, I’m wondering why we even have an Environmental Protection Agency. If protecting human life is not the main goal of the EPA, what possible purpose could it have?
It seems to follow closely the philosophy of the current Health and Human Services Secretary RFK Jr., who seems to value his unfounded opinions about vaccines, research and health safety over actual science. These management changes are profound and, if not reversed in short order, will have far-reaching consequences not only to those present but to subsequent generations as well.
David Thomas, Denver
The headline should be shortened to simply say, “The EPA to stop considering lives,” because that will be the impact of this policy change. This is but one more example of the Trump administration’s continuing attack on the health of all Americans, from vaccines to air quality.
Such draconian policy changes are being enacted in order to benefit the wealthy industrialists and Trump benefactors who will now be able to make more money by increasing the airborne particulates and ozone gases that you and I breathe in daily.
The administration compulsively lies about the reasons why they make these adverse policy changes. In this case, the Republican administration claims, without any scientific evidence in support, that current EPA limits on pollutants are “doubtful,” and therefore they will no longer take health effects into account. Coloradans and all Americans can see through the haze of this administration’s lies.
Ralph Roberts, Roxborough
Our Colorado Symphony Orchestra is headed to New York City — first to Radio City Music Hall and then to Carnegie Hall. There, the orchestra, Music Director Peter Oundjian and acclaimed violinist Itzhak Perlman will perform the orchestra’s inaugural program on Feb. 1. (It can be previewed here on Jan. 27.)
This is a signature moment for the Colorado Symphony that will continue to inspire audiences for years to come.
John Leopold, Centennial
As a concerned citizen and member of a local faith community in Denver, I know how vital it is for us to have steady support to keep our institutions safe and congregants protected. I’m urging Congress to finally pass the bipartisan Pray Safe Act so the Jewish community and other faith-based communities can stay secure before another tragedy strikes.
I’ve felt the fear that comes when your sacred space suddenly doesn’t feel safe. Across the country and in Colorado, churches, mosques and synagogues have been vandalized. We need to know what “best practices” are, where to find guidance, or how to access federal support. We’ve been Googling security tips, calling friends, and doing our best, but it never felt like enough.
Keeping faith-based institutions secure matters more now than ever before. In 2024, ADL documented 9,354 incidents in the U.S; 18% of those incidents took place at synagogues and other Jewish institutions.
The Pray Safe Act would create a one-stop federal clearinghouse so synagogues, churches, mosques, and other faith-based organizations can easily access security best practices and learn how to apply for federal safety grants. I urge Congress to pass the Pray Safe Act.
I hope I can someday tell my grandson that every religious community can safely gather and pray without fear.
Elisa Moran, Denver
Sign up for Sound Off to get a weekly roundup of our columns, editorials and more.
To send a letter to the editor about this article, submit online or check out our guidelines for how to submit by email or mail.
Governor Polis has cited humanitarian reasons for possibly granting clemency to convicted felon, Tina Peters. If he were to do so, his good intentions today would invite terrible outcomes for Colorado
ColumnistsLast week, Gov. Jared Polis said he was considering clemency for Tina Peters, the former Mesa County Clerk serving a nine-year sentence for using her position to circumvent security protocols and grant unauthorized illegal access to the County’s voting equipment in the 2020 election. While the governor’s benevolent instincts are laudable, leniency here would only invite more lawbreaking, and ultimately, more suffering — in Colorado and beyond.
Peters, who is 70 years old, is a cause celebre among those who insist the 2020 election was stolen. President Donald Trump performatively issued her a “full pardon” — but it has no legal effect because Peters was convicted under state law. Not only has Trump repeatedly attacked the governor on social media for failing to intervene on Peters’ behalf, but he has also vetoed bipartisan legislation and tried to withhold billions in funding for Colorado’s neediest families, for clean water and for disaster relief.
Amidst this relentless pressure campaign, the governor recently expressed his view that Peters “got a sentence that was harsh. . . . And when you have people that are elderly, and we’re looking at this across a number of many people — people in their 70s or 80s in our system — how much of a threat to society are they and how do we balance that in a way that makes sure they can spend their last year few years at home.”
The governor is right to examine whether elderly inmates in our state prisons pose a continuing threat to society. The governor is likewise justified in exploring a range of options for ensuring Colorado receives the funding it needs. But here, such altruistic considerations do not justify capitulating to a lawless authoritarian in the White House.
The courts are already stepping in, freezing the president’s attempt to withhold funds for child care, food assistance, housing, and job training. And despite stark polarization, it’s clear there is real bipartisan alignment within the state’s delegation to keep fighting in Congress for other critical state priorities.
Even if clemency led the White House to dial back the ongoing efforts to punish Colorado, acquiescence today only invites future harassment. Bending to the demands of a bully does not earn goodwill – it signals that extortion and coercion are likely to pay off again. Accommodation on points of principle – justice, the rule of law, truth itself – send a troubling signal that, if enough pressure is applied, anything is up for negotiation.
Moreover, clemency for Peters would do incalculable damage to our state and our nation. Peters has never repented for her crimes, conceded the legitimacy of the 2020 election, or apologized for the untold harm she caused to fellow election officials. Clemency would open the door to more lawbreaking, inspire further attacks on the integrity of our elections, and foment deeper divisions in our state.
Trump has already shown by pardoning January 6th rioters that he can protect allies who break the law on his behalf from federal law enforcement. But state law – and the prospect of serious criminal penalties for serious criminal behavior – remains an essential deterrent. If Trump can demonstrate in such a high-profile way that he can also protect his apparatchiks from state law consequences — even in state under the stewardship of a principled, independent governor — it will be a ringing invitation to his allies to break the law on his behalf when it comes to the upcoming elections, here and around the country.
And here’s the thing: Peters is up for parole consideration in 2028. The legal system will work on its own, as it does for any ordinary person. The parole board would undoubtedly consider and give great weight to the governor’s humanitarian concerns then.
Regardless of Gov. Polis’ best intentions and just motives, gubernatorial clemency would be proof that you can break the law and get away with it as long as you do it for Donald Trump.
Max Potter was the senior media adviser to former Colorado Gov. John HIckenlooper and is now a writer/editor with Protect Democracy. Beau Tremitiere resides in Boulder County and is a counsel at Protect Democracy, where he leads programs to defend the rule of law.
Sign up for Sound Off to get a weekly roundup of our columns, editorials and more.
To send a letter to the editor about this article, submit online or check out our guidelines for how to submit by email or mail.
“It’s a win-win situation with Trump getting Peters pardoned and Polis getting all federal government funding restored to make Colorado great again.” — Michael May, Lakewood
LettersRe: “Tina Peters: Polis calls sentence ‘harsh’,” Jan. 10 news story
I was distressed to read that Gov. Jared Polis is considering “revisiting” the prison sentence against former Mesa County Clerk Tina Peters. At a time when our right to vote is under threat more than at any time in recent history, this absolutely sends the wrong message to those who are attempting to limit our voting rights.
Since the assault on our Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, our systems providing all citizens the right to vote have been under attack. Recent articles have identified the concerns of Colorado county clerks about possible attacks on our elections in 2026. Tina Peters’ case could be the poster child for that very threat.
Notwithstanding all the arguments to be made against commuting or pardoning her sentence, the fact is that, as the judge noted, she shows a total lack of remorse for her actions. She has continued to contend that her actions were appropriate, and I have no doubt that she would not hesitate to do them again (or if released, to support anyone else who would do the same).
I urge the governor to let the judge’s sentence stand, to protect our right to vote in Colorado, and as an example of the importance of this constitutional liberty.
Brad Buckner, Littleton
Gov. Jared Polis should pardon Tina Peters.
Seeing that Polis is open to pardoning convicted felon Peters, he should leverage that pardon with President Donald Trump. Polis should have Trump agree to restore all funding for NCAR, NREL, education, children’s health care and low-income food assistance, and Trump should allow the Craig coal-fired power plant to be closed and Space Command be permanently located in Colorado Springs. It has to be all or nothing.
It’s a win-win situation with Trump getting Peters pardoned and Polis getting all federal government funding restored to make Colorado great again.
Michael May, Lakewood
If Gov. Jared Polis commutes the sentence for Tina Peters, he is basically rubber-stamping the Trump policy of favoritism. She was rightfully convicted by a jury of her peers. She did her best to undermine the basic tenets of our democracy and was found guilty for doing so.
The harm done by her will be equaled or surpassed by the governor if he chooses to allow her to forgo the consequences. He will have undermined any chance of anyone believing in the integrity of our voting system, and/ or our justice system.
Eileen Lorimer, Denver
Re: “What readers saw: The killing of driver in Minneapolis,” Jan. 9 letters to the editor
The Post published four letters from readers regarding the recent incident in which a woman in Minnesota was shot and killed by an ICE agent who felt his life was threatened. I appreciate the editors’ decision to post an equal number and quality of letters representing opposing views. In our divided country, the media has to walk the high wire of perceived bias, and way too many members have fallen off to the right or the left, and/or missed the net entirely.
As a person with a strong bias myself, I may not agree with most of the opinions expressed by two of the writers, but I did get some insight into the reasoning behind their beliefs.
Cindy Clearman, Arvada
I found The Open Forum highly provocative. Four readers weighed in. One is justifiably outraged and scared. Another calls upon his experience with his citizen review board to argue that ICE lacks proper training and judgment. Two others, however, have chosen to dismiss the video evidence of ICE malfeasance and ineptitude, in lock step with President Donald Trump and his band of sycophants.
Our society is sadly and profoundly divided. How do we ever bridge this frightening chasm?
Barry Sharcot, Denver
Sign up for Sound Off to get a weekly roundup of our columns, editorials and more.
To send a letter to the editor about this article, submit online or check out our guidelines for how to submit by email or mail.
Supporters of the repeal dismissed the vendor fee as insignificant, claiming it averaged just $60 to $100 per month and insisting that the money belonged to the state anyway. That framing could not be
OpinionAs the 2026 Colorado legislative session approaches, the General Assembly must make one thing clear: small businesses are not the enemy.
Because time and again, state policy treats them as if they are.
In an increasingly hostile regulatory environment, with a cooling economy and rising costs across the board, Colorado’s small businesses need relief, not another squeeze. Mom and pop shops are still digging out from the damage of the pandemic nearly six years later. Many never recovered. Others are barely hanging on.
At the same time, Colorado continues to rank among the most heavily regulated states in the nation. According to a study by the Colorado Chamber of Commerce, our state ranks sixth overall for regulatory burden, driven largely by environmental and labor mandates.
For large corporations, these costs can be absorbed. For small businesses, they are often the difference between survival and closure. Every new rule brings administrative costs, licensing fees, compliance requirements, and legal expenses. These are not abstract concerns. They are real dollars that small business owners must pay before they can hire another employee, expand their operation, or even take a paycheck themselves.
Yet when these costs inevitably show up in higher prices, some in the legislature accuse small businesses of price gouging. That argument ignores basic economics. Businesses cannot operate at a loss and stay open.
One of the clearest examples of the legislature’s misplaced priorities is the repeal of the vendor fee during the special session last August. The vendor fee was not a loophole. It was not a handout. It was a partial reimbursement for the administrative burden the state places on businesses by requiring them to collect and remit sales taxes on its behalf.
In other words, the vendor fee paid to businesses acknowledged that small businesses are acting as unpaid tax collectors for the state. Supporters of the repeal dismissed the vendor fee as insignificant, claiming it averaged just $60 to $100 per month and insisting that the money belonged to the state anyway.
That framing could not be further from the truth. I heard directly from small business owners who relied on that deduction and who saved as much as $600 per month because of it. For a large corporation, that amount might be negligible. For a family-owned business operating on thin margins, it pays an electric bill, or covers payroll taxes.
Worse still, many business owners did not even realize the vendor fee had been repealed until they went to file their taxes. The legislature made a significant policy change with real consequences, and the people most affected were often the last to know. We were told sacrifices had to be made. Yet instead of meaningful budget reforms, the state quietly raised the tax burden on small businesses that are already struggling to stay afloat. That is not shared sacrifice. That is bad governance.
My perspective on this issue is shaped by experience. During the pandemic, I worked as a banker. I watched PPP funds disappear in a matter of hours. I saw small business owners in tears, desperate to keep their employees paid and their doors open. Many were more worried about their workers than themselves. I also saw how larger corporations, with teams of lawyers and accountants, were able to secure relief that many true small businesses never received.
That experience stays with you. It is impossible to forget the feeling of knowing help exists but being unable to get it to the people who need it most. Since then, state policy has only made things harder.
Energy mandates are another example. As Colorado pushes toward aggressive clean energy goals, the cost of compliance for small businesses is staggering. Electrification, new equipment requirements, and infrastructure upgrades come with massive price tags. Policymakers often talk about these transitions as if they are simple switches to flip. They are not.
A strong economy depends on affordable, reliable energy and a regulatory environment that allows businesses to plan, invest, and grow. When lawmakers accelerate timelines and pile on mandates, small businesses are the first casualties.
I urge my colleagues to reconsider the path we are on. As a member of the House Business Affairs and Labor Committee, I will continue to fight for meaningful relief for small businesses. That includes revisiting the repeal of the vendor fee and pushing back against policies that treat small business owners as a convenient revenue source.
The reality is this: many Coloradans are focused on federal politics while missing what is happening much closer to home. It is state policy, not Washington headlines, that is hitting families and businesses the hardest. If we truly care about affordability, community stability, and economic opportunity, we must stop attacking the very businesses that keep our communities alive.
Ryan Gonzalez is the representative for Colorado’s State House District 50. He is the son of Mexican immigrants and a first-generation American.
Sign up for Sound Off to get a weekly roundup of our columns, editorials and more.
To send a letter to the editor about this article, submit online or check out our guidelines for how to submit by email or mail.
The president’s eleventh hour executive order to keep the coal-fired Unit 1 at the Craig Station in operation is the combination of this administration’s signature way of governing: disregard for
OpinionThe president’s eleventh hour executive order to keep the coal-fired Unit 1 at the Craig Station in operation is the combination of this administration’s signature way of governing: disregard for science, climate change denial, dismissal of economic impact to rate-payers, misunderstanding of history, attempts to roll back progress, and overall imperiousness.
Unit 1 was on track to cease operations at the end of 2025. While this was a win for the public health and the environment, the five utilities that own it had decided in 2016 that the cheapest option was to retire and replace the aging plant. In the decade since utilities decided to retire Craig 1, they have been busy building new resources to replace the plant. Our Colorado health and safety, as well as affordability of power for consumers, is dependent on making steady progress towards our clean energy goals: retiring dirty and expensive coal plants and moving towards a clean, breathable future.
Colorado has transition plans in place that have been negotiated with our utilities, environmental advocates, workers, and residents. The Public Utilities Commission’s decisions and the energy-generation plans of our utilities are carefully considered to take into account the costs to rate-payers, just transitions for workers, and the necessary steps towards a clean energy future.
The Trump Administration doesn’t appear to care about any of that. As with the recent similarly ill-conceived and heavy-handed veto of the Arkansas Valley Conduit clean water project funding, Trump prioritizes superficial, punitive, Executive actions.
All of us suffer from his callousness and idiocy whether our Congresspeople are from his party or not, whether we voted for him or not. Our beautiful Colorado air, land and water must be protected. Our children don’t deserve record asthma rates, our residents deserve clean drinking water, and our outdoor enthusiasts deserve safe recreation.
Trump’s actions are not well thought-out, careful policy decisions. From dismantling scientific research institutions in Colorado to increasing our utility rates, his revenge tour will have real impacts on people’s lives, including those who voted for him.
It is worth noting that Venezuelan crude oil will not lower energy costs. We are years away from having the capacity to refine this very heavy, dirty petroleum and we do not use oil to power our electric grid.
Our environmental organizations have sought legal recourse and will continue to do so. As Legislators we will also continue to protect our State from his disastrous whims.
Meg Froelich is a state represenative in the Colorado Genearl Assembly and Mike Weissman is a state senator.
Sign up for Sound Off to get a weekly roundup of our columns, editorials and more.
To send a letter to the editor about this article, submit online or check out our guidelines for how to submit by email or mail.
In this case, a life was lost by not complying with law enforcement. One can contest law enforcement in court, but not adjudicate from behind the wheel of a motor vehicle. — Steven D. Kalavity, Fort
LettersRe: “ICE officer kills driver,” Jan. 8 news story
On Wednesday, a 37-year-old citizen was shot by agents with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. We don’t know why she was where she was; that will come out in the days ahead. And there is plenty of video. So Homeland Secretary Kristi Noem, Vice President JD Vance, and even President Donald Trump can spin their lies, but we will know what occurred.
What’s disturbing is the rush to cover their asses and disparage the victim. Makes me want to throw up. This is what our nation has to face daily: an administration of liars and an agency that appears to believe they can do whatever they want and face no accountability. What’s next?
Deborah Harvey, Thornton
I am writing to express serious concern about recent public attacks on Immigration and Customs Enforcement following an incident where a woman attempted to use her vehicle to strike an ICE agent and completely disobeyed law enforcement instructions. Regardless of immigration policy views, attempting to injure or kill law enforcement is a grave act of violence and must be unequivocally condemned.
What is troubling is the rhetoric from some Democratic officials and commentators appearing to excuse violent conduct directed at ICE personnel. This is deeply problematic. The rule of law depends on consistent moral standards: violence and attempted homicide are unacceptable regardless of the identity of the victim or the political controversy surrounding their role. Clearly the vehicle was driven toward the agent.
Social science research on political violence and moral disengagement shows sustained rhetorical delegitimization of institutions increases the likelihood of real-world harm. When elected officials frame federal agents as inherently illegitimate or malicious, it erodes public trust and lowers social inhibitions against attacking them. This dynamic has historically preceded escalations in political violence, domestically and internationally.
Criticism of federal agencies is legitimate in a democratic society. However, ethical leadership requires a clear boundary between policy disagreement and the normalization — or tacit justification — of violence.
I urge our society to publicly affirm attempted vehicular assault against any law-enforcement officer is indefensible, and to encourage responsible rhetoric that does not endanger public servants or the public at large.
Silence or equivocation in moments like this is itself consequential. Clear moral leadership matters.
Kriss Perras, Colorado Springs
As a former member and chair of our city’s police Citizen Review Board, I am sharing thoughts on the Minneapolis ICE shooting videos I have watched. It did not appear to me that the ICE agents were in any physical danger unless they placed themselves in it.
I did not hear any commands from the agents to the driver who was killed. There were no de-escalation tactics, instead they escalated to the lethal use of force.
There are rules for the Department of Homeland Security and other law enforcement agencies that direct officers not to pursue fleeing cars unless life is in danger or similar.
The assessments from the president and his administration do not comport with the evidence I have seen.
To me, this was an unnecessary escalation of the use of force that resulted in an unnecessary death.
As to the protesters who were maced, if you impede the legal actions of law enforcement, you can be arrested, or they can use non-lethal means such as mace.
The killing leaves me wondering whether ICE agents have been trained properly and I suspect there will be civil and criminal litigation to sort out officer immunity issues.
John W. Thomas, Fort Collins
Interfering with a federal ICE agent is a serious federal felony that can result in substantial fines and imprisonment. Assuming that the Colorado resident driver had a Colorado state driver’s license, the recommended actions when stopped by law enforcement are to stay calm, keep hands visible, provide your physical license, registration, and insurance when asked, but politely decline searches and self-incriminating answers. Comply with exiting the vehicle if ordered, but do not argue; dispute violations later in court. This AI-Gemini generated advice does not recommend trying to run the officer down!
The Colorado resident, nice as they might have been, made a fatal error in judgment.
No one should be defending activists who engage in the most foolish and dangerous actions! These activists would be much wiser to write letters to the editor of local papers or to relevant federal and state legislatures and officials. Officials should not be supporting kinetic protestors at all!
Take note of successful non-violent protests that worked (i.e., Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr.). Once violence is initiated by the protester, much of the argument is lost.
In this case, a life was lost by not complying with law enforcement. One can contest law enforcement in court, but not adjudicate from behind the wheel of a motor vehicle. To support such actions is irreverent and, for an elected official, malicious.
Steven D. Kalavity, Fort Collins
Sign up for Sound Off to get a weekly roundup of our columns, editorials and more.
To send a letter to the editor about this article, submit online or check out our guidelines for how to submit by email or mail.
Strikes on drug smuggling boats in international waters have caused some to question the legality and morality of such killings. Are they bleeding heart liberals or moral patriots?
LettersRe: “Second-strike scrutiny obscures larger question on boat strikes,” Dec. 7 news analysis
Almost all war crimes are “executed” by personnel well below the top of the command structure. War crime prevention usually requires almost instantaneous moral action. Waiting for appeals up the command chain will almost assuredly be hopelessly too late to stop atrocities such as the Vietnam My Lai massacre.
It is crucial in both military and civilian organizations for personnel to refuse illegal orders forcefully and immediately. Rep. Jason Crow, Sen. Mark Kelly, and others who have courageously spoken to defend resistance to illegal orders are moral patriots. Our military, perhaps the best in the world, is stronger when it disseminates strong moral values to personnel and inhibits blind obedience to illegal orders so often found in dictatorships.
Ronald L. Puening, Centennial
Re: “Death for smugglers, freedom for kingpins — Hegseth and the Department of War (crimes) prove Jason Crow right,” Dec. 7 commentary
All of this uproar about air strikes on speedboats laden with lethal drugs racing towards our shores to kill tens of thousands of Americans is just another case where bleeding heart liberals put those who want to do America harm above those who seek to protect American lives, aka President Donald Trump and the Department of War. They cry about the flood of guns into our cities, yet are perfectly fine with smugglers ferreting deadly drugs to our shores. Where were the cries about war crimes when Obama dropped bombs on a wedding in Yemen?
Trump likes results; Democrats want chaos.
This can all be summed up by what Pete Hegseth said when asked about continuing strikes on drug-laden speedboats racing towards our shores: Strikes will continue if they can find any more boats. “It’s hard to find boats to strike right now.”
The drug kingpins got the message loud and clear.
Scotty Gardner, Aurora
Re: “Crow should be charged with treason,” Dec. 7 letter to the editor
The letter writer owes Rep. Jason Crow a sincere apology for her five-paragraph, fact-free, vitriolic personal attack, and you owe him an apology for printing it. While the writer feels there have been “no illegal orders given,” killing civilians and ensuring there are no survivors (all without proof of the military’s justification of “drug smuggling”) certainly seems illegal.
We are not at war with Venezuela. Their civilians did not fire on our military. Killing civilians under these circumstances is murder, not a war crime.
Murder is still illegal, isn’t it, no matter how much people like the letter writer attempt to deflect and place blame elsewhere?
Nicolett Darling, Kersey
Try as I might to simply ignore outrageous letters that appear in The Post, I cannot allow the letter to go unanswered. Treason may be punishable by the death penalty. Congressman Jason Crow is a hero and a patriot. He risked his life during tours of duty as an Army Ranger and paratrooper. He courageously helped his fellow representatives escape to safety during the Jan.6, 2021, insurrection. He was elected to Congress with 55% of the vote in a previously Republican district.
A treason conviction means he could be put to death for saying out loud that our men and women in the armed forces should refuse to follow illegal orders. Calling for such a conviction takes shame to a new level.
Richard Strauss, Centennial
Re: “Democrats’ video did the military a disservice,” Dec. 7 commentary
An interesting contrast of opinions in last Sunday’s Perspective section:
Ted Diadiun’s op-ed chided the Democrats’ political strategy when they published, with additional commentary, a video of their members of Congress advising military personnel that they must not obey illegal orders. Yet Diadiun did affirm that their advice was, in fact, spot-on.
A letter writer asserted that the Democrats’ advice that the military obey the law was actually suggesting that they “violate the chain of command, the U.S. Constitution, and their military oath.”
So, whom are we to believe? On one hand, the members of Congress with military and intelligence experience and a columnist whose article demonstrated his non-partisan outlook, or, on the other hand, a letter writer drawing the opposite conclusion from the same set of facts?
I think that The Post printed the letter only to try to uphold a journalistic mandate to represent all points of view, regardless of how ridiculous some of them may be.
David Wolf, Lakewood

Re: “DIA seeks to lower noise across airport,” Dec. 7 news story
In 2005, we traveled through Hong Kong’s new airport. The first thing we noticed when entering was the peaceful silence. At the check-in counter, there was a sign informing the traveler of how long it took the average person to walk to their gate. The noise level in the whole airport was truly more like a library. Thus, if there was an announcement made, people listened, because it was truly important.
Kudos to Denver International Airport for finally realizing the obvious: the more noise, the more announcements, the more passengers will try to tune out the noise. Already many are using earbuds to lower the noise level for themselves.
Perhaps the airlines can collectively find a way to convince TSA that less is better. The constant nag over the loudspeakers is about as effective as a parent nagging a teenager.
One challenge will be to encourage seniors like me to feel comfortable using our phones for airport information, but that would be a good thing because we don’t understand half of what comes over the cloud speakers anyway.
Thanks in advance, DIA.
A. Lynn Buschhoff, Denver
Re: “Safety an issue on buses, trains,” Dec. 6 news story
In a 5-year period, from January 2016 until July 2021, I was without a car, and an Eco Pass from my employer and the convenience of RTD buses and light rail made my life much easier.
In the earlier days after the pandemic ended, I witnessed a lot of drug abuse on the light rail. However, RTD stepped up to the plate and made the needed changes.
First, by hiring many more security officers to place on the trains and to patrol stations with elevators, the drug users virtually disappeared.
Second, when I use the light rail, I go to the Sheridan Station for the W line. When the elevator stops on a floor, the door stays open until the elevator is used again. This keeps the elevator from being used as a shelter.
Keep up the good work, RTD!
Mike Filion, Lakewood
You have to sympathize with RTD. Ridership is down more than 40%, and not even adding a burgeoning security force to deal with drug users, vagrants and troublemakers who are prevalent on buses and trains (at a cost of $50 million) can make up for it. But RTD thinks that if more people decide to ride the buses, safety in numbers will make things better. And so will Bus Rapid Transit (BRT), which has devastated businesses on East Colfax and most likely will result in RTD’s unsavory passengers getting from place to place faster.
Maybe it’s time for RTD to reassess the wisdom on doing BRT on Colorado Boulevard. Doesn’t it make sense to see if BRT achieves its desired effect on Colfax — and whether RTD can solve its ridership challenges — before engaging in another massive project that seems to have so little chance of success, and will create so much hardship for Colorado Boulevard businesses?
Dan Danbom, Denver
Re: “Protect high school athletes and focus on coaches,” Dec. 7 editorial
You hit the nail on the head! Coaches should be held accountable, and punitive measures should be taken when evidence of cheating is proven. This is a step in protecting the have-nots from the elitist, those above the law.
Kent Morgan, Big Timber, Mont.
Re: “Welcome to Pondbank,” Dec. 7 feature story
It’s amazing to me that there are people so narcissistic and out of touch as to write a book bragging about their tacky, multi-million dollar mansion. As if that isn’t offensive enough, imagine the chutzpah it takes to then further brag in an ego-stroking newspaper article with no news value.
It’s shameful to see an article like this in The Denver Post when the majority of Denver residents are struggling just to afford housing and basic necessities.
Let the one percenters stroke their ego somewhere else and focus on the news, please.
Jeremiah LaRocco, Boulder
Last night I had the strangest dream. I was at a roundabout and there were four different exits I could choose. I woke up this morning and thought, maybe I’m losing my mind. Then it hit me: I have four different ways that I can handle the current state of affairs in our country.
1. I could choose not to read the news or listen to news channels, bury my head in the sand and not see the horrors going on in our country.
2. I could accept that even if I chose to read and listen to the news, I could try and block out the hardships and hatred happening.
3. I could open my mind and heart and hope that change would be coming soon, just wait for things to get better.
4. I could reach a helping hand to those in need, help to provide food, reach out to organizations working to help with housing and utilities. Be a helping hand and fight back against hatred and prejudice. Be a voice for everyday, hardworking Americans.
Most Americans are descendants of immigrants. Why do so many turn their back on what is happening?
Too many people do not have a home, a place to call their own, food, health care, and someone speaking out for them. We are much better than this. Let’s work together.
Nita Schissell, Loveland
Sign up for Sound Off to get a weekly roundup of our columns, editorials and more.
To send a letter to the editor about this article, submit online or check out our guidelines for how to submit by email or mail.
Gov. Jared Polis’ and Rep. Lauren Boebert’s responses to Trump give us hope that Americans can unite after Trump leaves office, as required by the U.S. Constitution, in January 2029.
OpinionPresident Donald Trump would like Coloradans to know this holiday season that he wants our governor to “rot in hell” and that he wishes Mesa County’s district attorney, Dan Rubenstein, “only the worst.” All that anger directed at Coloradans is because our justice system is refusing to release a woman who was tried and convicted of fraud in relation to Trump’s illegal attempt to remain in office in 2020.
Trump’s embarrassing temper tantrums would be tolerable if they didn’t also come with real-world actions that hurt Coloradans — costing them their livelihoods, and yes, access to clean drinking water.
Gov. Jared Polis’ and Rep. Lauren Boebert’s responses to Trump give us hope that Americans can unite after Trump leaves office, as required by the U.S. Constitution, in January 2029. Trump will not succeed in his effort to divide Coloradans who love one another despite our political differences.
Trump is hurting our more liberal-minded residents in Boulder County with his decision to first cut dozens of jobs at the National Center for Atmospheric Research and then his pledge to dismantle the headquarters entirely.
And now Trump will hurt more conservative-minded Coloradans with his veto of $1.2 billion in federal funding for a clean-drinking water pipeline to residents in eastern Pueblo County who have been advised for years not to drink well water because of contamination.
Gov. Jared Polis’ response to all of this has been calm, dignified and dedicated to preserving the integrity of our justice system.
“I hope the President’s resolution this year is to spend less time online talking about me and more on making America more affordable by stopping his disastrous tariffs and fixing rising health care costs. Finally, I wish all Americans, including the President and all the wonderful people across the political spectrum, a happy, healthy and productive New Year,” Polis said Wednesday.
Boebert shot back at Trump’s veto of her bill, telling 9News that: “If this administration wants to make its legacy blocking projects that deliver water to rural Americans, that’s on them … Americans deserve leadership that puts people over politics.”
Before the New Year, Trump ordered his administration to move the work at the National Center for Atmospheric Research from Boulder to “another entity or location.”
The administration attempted to blame the move on NCAR’s work studying climate change. The White House issued a statement to The Denver Post calling NCAR “the premier research stronghold for left-wing climate lunacy.”
We disagree strongly with both of the assertions in that statement. First, the global climate is warming, and a vast amount of scientific research indicates that the trend is being driven in large part by the increase in greenhouse gases (carbon dioxide and methane, among others) in our atmosphere.
Second, NCAR’s work is professional, scientifically based and doesn’t carry a hint of the “alarmism” that we see from many politicians who talk about an extinction-level event occurring in a few years.
But we also don’t believe for a moment that “climate change alarmism” is the real reason behind Trump’s decision to dismantle NCAR — a federal agency we must remind the president that was created by Congress and funded by Congress and protected from unilateral termination by the executive branch.
Trump’s decision came rapidly after Colorado officials refused Trump’s demand that Tina Peters be released from jail. Peters, a former clerk and recorder from Mesa County, was convicted of using fraudulent means to give a random man access to the county’s voting equipment. Peters believed Trump’s lies that the 2020 election had been stolen. She stole credentials from one of her employees and brought a man into a secure area where he accessed data from vote-counting machines. Later, she tried to cover up her actions.
The data did not show any evidence of voter fraud.
But that hasn’t prevented Trump from trying to pardon her and now from retaliating against Colorado officials who are merely upholding the work of a jury of Peter’s peers who found her guilty.
Hundreds of federal workers in Colorado have already lost their jobs as a result of Trump’s policies. Then those employees who remained suffered under the federal shutdown. Now, Trump is coming again for federal workers, claiming he is trying to reduce the federal debt and deficit. But Trump’s One Big Beautiful Bill added more to the federal deficit than what he has cut so far.
Which brings us to Trump’s most recent retaliatory action against Colorado, which he says was done in the name of cutting the federal budget and “restoring fiscal sanity.”
We cannot argue with Trump that the $1.3 billion price tag to bring clean drinking water to 50,000 residents is steep. But it is not wasteful. This is a necessary and long-awaited public infrastructure project. The project has been thoroughly vetted and is shovel-ready.
Trump’s veto is a black eye on his administration, and his outlandish words and actions only underline why he is wholly unfit to serve as president of the United States of America.
Sign up for Sound Off to get a weekly roundup of our columns, editorials and more.
To send a letter to the editor about this article, submit online or check out our guidelines for how to submit by email or mail.
2025 was the year of remedial education for the Colorado General Assembly.
Columnists2025 was the year of remedial education for the Colorado General Assembly.
Since legislators in the majority just can’t seem to understand the First Amendment, they got schooled by the courts on multiple occasions.
Constitution 101: the First Amendment forbids government agencies, federal, state or local, from enacting a law or regulation “respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech.”
The government cannot quash or coerce speech, establish religion or prevent its exercise. If state legislators and regulators learn these principles, taxpayers will not have to foot the bill for yet another needless trip to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Lesson one: Agencies cannot abridge free speech by forcing people to parrot the government’s ideological message. That’s called coerced speech. A week ago, a Biden-appointed federal judge blocked Colorado from enforcing a 2025 law, House Bill 1161, that requires cigarette pack-style health warnings on gas stoves and imposes a fine of up to $20,000 per violation if they don’t.
The judge agreed with the plaintiffs, the Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers, that the law likely infringes on their First Amendment freedoms. “The court disagrees that the labeling requirement merely enables customers to access information — the only reason customers can access this information is because the State compels peddlers of gas stoves to speak it,” the court ruled. “Further … whether the information is truthful and accurate is subject to substantial disagreement within the scientific community.”
In addition to familiarizing themselves with the Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers v. Weiser decision, legislators will want to read the Supreme Court’s 2023 decision in the Colorado case 303 Creative LLC vs Elenis and the cases it cites as homework.
Lesson two: The government cannot abridge free speech by censoring it. Earlier this year, Kaley Chiles, a licensed professional counselor, defended her First Amendment rights to the Supreme Court. A 2019 law prohibits counselors from helping clients come to terms with their biological sex through talk therapy. The law threatens counselors with thousands of dollars in fines and a potential loss of license unless they stick to government-approved speech. Based on the justices’ questions during oral argument, the Colorado law is likely to be struck down.
In addition to familiarizing themselves with the Chiles v. Salazar case, legislators will want to read Riley v. National Federation of the Blind of N.C., Inc. and the National Institute of Family & Life Advocates. v. Becerra decisions as homework.
Lesson three: The government cannot establish religion, or prohibit its exercise. Laws must be neutral toward religion neither advancing nor hindering its practice, and the government cannot discriminate against people for their beliefs. Earlier this month, the Supreme Court received 19 friend-of-the-court briefs from 22 states, numerous representatives from policy and law think tanks and various faith traditions, and Colorado families urging the Supreme Court to hear St. Mary Catholic Parish v. Roy, a suit brought by the Archdiocese of Denver, two Catholic parishes, and two parents of preschool-age children. Colorado has been excluding Catholic preschool providers from its “universal” state preschool program for upholding church doctrines. Catholic families seeking a preschool education that aligns with their faith must pay out of pocket while other families get 15 hours of preschool education for free. That’s not fair or consistent with the First Amendment.
The state should have learned this lesson earlier this year when it settled a lawsuit brought by Camp IdRaHaJe, a Christian summer camp. The camp can continue to operate its summer programming without compromising its policies regarding biological sex. The state agreed to update its guidelines and website to clarify that “churches, synagogues, mosques, or any other place that is principally used for religious purposes” are exempt from state dictates that force licensed resident camps to permit campers to use dorms and restrooms of the opposite sex.
In addition to familiarizing themselves with Camp IdRaHaJe Association v. Roy, legislators will want to read the Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission decision as homework.
While it’s a heavy reading list, once completed, legislators and regulators can be confident that they will start the new year equipped to establish laws and regulations that are actually consistent with First Amendment rights.
Krista Kafer is a Sunday Denver Post columnist.
Sign up for Sound Off to get a weekly roundup of our columns, editorials and more.
To send a letter to the editor about this article, submit online or check out our guidelines for how to submit by email or mail.