I was bored. KRCC was playing some Celtic music I didn't particularly enjoy, Facebook and G-Chat were both down for "maintenance-related issues," and I don't have television.

So I meandered onto The Gazette's Web site and discovered that, not surprisingly, one of the most commented articles of the day, yet again, was a report on PrideFest. It had 288 posts. Not far behind was a piece on the progress that has been made by the GLBT community within the last year; it elicited 210 responses.

A simple click on the PrideFest story provided an instant cure for my boredom. I gorged myself on the plethora of entertaining comments. This stuff was better than Jerry Springer in his ‘90s heydey. On crack.

I laughed. I gasped. I shook my head in amazement as dozens of my fellow Gazette readers chimed in on the topic of gays.

It was nasty. There were some real zingers. Insults abounded. Several posts were removed for violating "user guidelines" (oh, to be a fly on The Gazette Web editors' wall).

There were civics lessons on the three branches of government. And the history of the California Supreme Court. There was passionate Bible rhetoric. And complaints about the activist liberal judges who are out to undermine the will of the people in a giant conspiracy to take over the world (OK, I might have exaggerated that last bit, but just read some of these posts and you'll catch the tone I'm alluding to).

There was even a poster who wondered aloud (sidenote: what's the word for "aloud" in cyberspace?) why, if every minority under the sun gets their own festival - "homo ... Koreans ... Arabs ... and blacks" - "can't white people have pride without being called racist?" (Shiver me timbers, if you're reading, I think you're missing the point on this).

Two-hundred-seventy posts later and I had gotten my fix.

But as I sat there, satiated by enough cyber-fights to last a lifetime, I couldn't help but feel disappointed, and a little ashamed, really, that these were my community neighbors.

What is it about gays that engenders such an outcry in our town? Why does our community continue to be a pillar of hate towards the GLBT population?

Sure, this was just a tiny sample and was probably not the most reliable indicator of the entire Colorado Springs population, but as a lesbian who's been here for a few years, I must admit that it was fairly consistent with my experience. It ain't easy being gay in the backyard of Ted Haggard, Focus on the Family, and other perceived contraptions of the conservative right.

It shouldn't be that way. We are your colleagues. And teammates. And friends.

Most of all, we are your fellow human beings and all we are asking for is to be treated as such, with all the rights and privileges afforded our heterosexual peers.

Freedom isn't a one-way street.

The freedom that allows you to enjoy the benefits of holy matrimony is the same freedom that should allow me to walk down the street with my girlfriend (invisible girlfriend at this point) without being hollered at with homophobic slurs or pestered with signs that proclaim "homos are godless perverts."

The parallels between the GLBT movement of today and the civil rights movement of yesteryear are stark. The lens of history will be our ultimate judge, but I can't help but bet that she'll side with those who choose to fight for, and preserve freedom for all individuals - gay or straight, black or white.

The rearview window of 2050 will paint a disappointing portrait of our present society - one of needles violence, prejudice, and discrimination against gays.

Though not as brutal, it will carry the same tone and message as the pictures I saw in my history book growing up - you know, the ones of blacks being fire-hosed by whites, photos of the Ku Klux Klan, and the separate bathrooms and water fountains.

It won't be pretty.

Which side will you be on?

-

Lynch is an advisory member of the Gazette's editorial board. Write to lynch at: opinion@gazette.com

The Gazette has carried an interesting series of articles, editorials and letters to the editor, regarding the energy "crisis", including the case for and against drilling for new oil. In particular, a July 24 piece by editorial advisory board member Kristin Lynch argued against drilling for new oil. She instead suggests we develop a "long-term energy plan". A number of Lynch's points invite rebuttal.

First, test your understanding of Aristotelian logic by considering her statement that "the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting diffierent results." The problem is not that we have been drilling over and over again, but that we have not been drilling.

Second, consider her statement, "But do we really believe that such a complex, geopolitical issue ... can be boiled down to a simple matter of supply and demand?" Well, yes, I do believe it is a matter of supply and demand. But it is not a simple matter. The wealth of information that is distilled into market price through the forces of supply and demand is quite complex. Geopolitics is no more immune from the law of supply and demand than Lynch is immune from the law of gravity.

Third, Lynch repeats the canard that it will take years before oil from new drilling would make it to market. Really? Oil companies are on record that new supplies from ofishore California would be on the market within one to two years. Further, commodities markets are forward-looking. Expectations of future supply-demand conditions are reflected in current prices. World oil prices have dropped more than $20 per barrel recently just on rumors of possible increases in future supplies.
Finally, consider her statement, "And, rather than quick fixes, we must develop a serious long-term energy plan ... It will take sacrifice, money, and time." So, long lead-times are unacceptable for drilling but just fine for government planning?
I suggest there is no energy crisis. According to the First Law of Thermodynamics, energy can neither be created nor destroyed, it can only be converted from one form into another.

What we face is a choice of fuels to convert one form of energy, such as stored chemical energy, into another form, such as electrical energy. This is what we do when we burn oil or natural gas to create electricity. Or we can convert it into kinetic energy (the energy of motion) through an internal combustion engine. Fuel is the scarce resource, not energy itself.

Economics is the science of how people choose to allocate scarce resources, that have alternative uses, to their "best" use. Thus, the energy "crisis" boils down to a matter of economics. Crude oil is a scarce resource. How do we choose how much to produce? Once produced, how do we choose how much to allocate to gasoline, heating oil, diesel, jet fuel, and other petrochemicals? Further, if we chose to produce electricity, how much do we produce from oil, natural gas, coal, hydro, wind, biofuels or solar?

And, how do we know what is the "best" use? This is also an economic question. The answer is, "The best use is the one that provides the greatest satisfaction for the greatest number of people." But how do we achieve that best use?

In a free society we achieve that through the magic of free markets. A fundamental economic axiom is that human creativity responds to the incentive of price. In a free society, market prices tell us how much to produce, how much to consume, and how much to conserve, of our scarce resources. The alternative to market prices is command-and-control through central planning. If central planning provided a superior economic outcome, then the Soviet Union would have been the strongest economy on earth. Yet the American economy was vastly stronger. In America, by and large resources are guided by the invisible hand of the marketplace to their best use.
I submit that the major problem with energy is government interference in markets. Taxes, regulations, mandates and subsidies all distort markets and prevent the necessary price signals from allocating scarce resources to their best use.

In spite of government, high prices are starting to do their job. Recall that human ingenuity responds to the incentive of price. With high oil prices, consumers are demanding less and searching for alternatives, while producers are supplying more from existing wells and are eager to drill new wells. With high oil prices, alternative fuels and renewables become more economic for both producers and consumers.

In a free society, prices and human ingenuity will provide the optimal energy portfolio. Prices will tell us how much energy should be converted from oil, coal, natural gas, hydro, wind, biofuels or solar.

Which path we choose, markets or governments, will determine our prosperity. That choice will also determine our liberty, because economic liberty cannot be divorced from political liberty. If we choose government command-and-control over free markets, we choose less prosperity and less liberty.
|
To restate Einstein's definition of insanity, "Why do we insist on the same solution again and again - central planning - and expect a difierent result?" It is due to the same lack of economic literacy that is frequently lamented on The Gazette editorial page.
-

Prentice, of Colorado Springs, teaches free-market economics to MBA students at UCCS, and is a board member of the limited government Forum.

Voter turnout for the upcoming primaries and general elections promises to be high. Why? Americans are desperate for better leadership to steer the country into a more sound and secure future and one that will protect us from external threats without breaking the bank.

That's more reason for voters to know the visions and motivations of all the political contenders - from the presidential slate on down to those trying to become your state representatives. Do these candidates possess the background, values, leadership skills and talents to deal with the challenges facing us? And there are many: a desynchronized foreign policy, immigration reform, energy starvation, health care for more than just America's wealthy, job outsourcing, environmental changes and blatant government overspending.

When gathering data to cast that informed vote, it seems prudent to screen the candidates for two particularly disturbing trends: superficial patriotism and the misuse of psychological fear - of terrorists, crime, environmentalists, Iran, North Korea, you name it.

Most of your flag-pin-wearing breed of post- 9/11 candidates are proponents of the policies of fear to justify more government control over all of us. Of the ones who've never served, many worship military power. Others with military background are trying to entice voters with tales of military discipline and heroism. A few candidates with military background further claim to know everything about balancing civilian budgets - and nothing could be further from the truth. Despite the claims of huge budget authority, military base commanders usually don't lose their jobs for exceeding expenditure limits. Given the military's vital and continuous mission, they receive additional funds to continue operating their bases.

And then there are the flip-flopping new super-patriots among the incumbents. Many might have a decent record of supporting balanced budgets and diplomacy oriented policies but suddenly feel obligated to promise us a bigger military and many new weapons - some of which even the Pentagon doesn't want. Oh, and one or two candidates even promise to hunt down Osama bin Laden as if they'd personally lead a posse into the mountains of Afghanistan. Give me a break!

Sadly, we're all to blame for the age of the political superpatriots running pushing for power. The extreme shock of 9/11 and unfinished costly wars have transformed Americans into a state of helplessness and fear, readily exploited by countless false prophets.

No doubt our Founding Fathers would cringe at the notion of the prevailing insincere patriotism. They would remind us that decisions to go to war should never be taken lightly. When they decided to flight after a lengthy political discourse, they didn't employ military power in a vacuum but leveraged diplomacy and alliances as well as economic power to achieve ultimate victory. The Founders knew that war must produce a just peace to re-establish commerce and diplomatic interaction with the world - including former enemies.

They also sensed that the biggest threat to our republic would come from the inside. Thomas Jefferson renderedfiine advice on dealing with an out-of-control government bureaucracy: "The multiplication of public offices, increases of expense beyond income, growth and entailment of a public debt, are indications soliciting the employment of the pruning knife."

Yes, we need Jefferson's pruning knife and the courage to run government like a sound business. Government can't continue to senselessly indebt future generations of Americans. Consequently, we should stay away from candidates merely running for office for the perks of power and who will ignore the will of the people and our Constitution.

When you go to the polls, remember that true patriotism and qualification for office requires more than military service, wearing flag pins and spouting poll-tested sound bites. True patriotism requires the courage to bring to open discussions the controversial topics that impact the sound existence of this nation for the long-term future. It is the individual candidate with his or her unique talents, skills and clear vision who will contribute to needed change - not just the political party.

Before I vote, I'll remember Jefferson's outright rejection of group-think: "I never submitted the whole system of my opinions to the creed of any party of men whatever in religion, in philosophy, in politics, or in anything else where I was capable of thinking for myself. Such an addiction is the last degradation of a free and moral agent. If I could not go to heaven but with a party, I would not go there at all."

Now that's a candidate I could vote for!

-

Zimmermann is a former tank battalion commander and decorated Desert Storm veteran. He writes and speaks on diverse military, leadership and international affairs topics. His e-mail is r6zimm@earthlink.net.

   When I ran for Congress two years ago, I did so because I believed we needed a leader in Washington who would best represent the interests and goals of the 5th Congressional District. As the mayor of Colorado Springs, I have seen what it takes to run a city and bring prosperity to our region. With five military bases in our district, I believe that in order to be our most effective representative a candidate needs to have an inherent capacity to lead, a track record of accomplishment and a background that includes military service. That is why after much careful consideration, I have chosen to support Bentley Rayburn for Congress.

   Rayburn's track record of accomplishments speaks volumes about his leadership ability. After 31 years of service to our country, Rayburn retired from the Air Force as a major general. His military career provided him with a background that will be especially useful in Washington - especially when one realizes that the number of members of Congress who have any military experience is at its lowest level since WWII.

   He is fiscally well prepared, having managed a budget the same size as Colorado's ($17 billion). While commanding a base in Saudi Arabia, Rayburn managed what was essentially a small city. Having secured a 70-mile boundary around a military base in a hostile region, Rayburn knows how to use limited resources to enforce border security. Rayburn has experience working in the Pentagon and with legislators on Capitol Hill, and understands how to work to get things done for our district. He is prepared for the job on day one.

   The importance of having a representative with military experience cannot be understated. Approximately 38 percent of our local economy is tied to the military and defense industry. With flve military bases and multiple missions, including NORAD/Northern Command and Air Force Space Command, the demand for aerospace, defense, space, national intelligence and cyberspace technology is huge. Many of these high-tech companies are led by former military oficers. I know from experience that personal relationships play a signiflcant role in getting things done at every level of government.

   As a former Army oficer I also understand the bonds that exist between veterans. If we want a leader who possesses the key relationships needed to grow our economy, then there is no doubt that we need Bentley Rayburn as our congressman. He already has a solid foundation with many of these industry leaders and once in Washington he will be able to foster new relationships and work as a liaison between the business community and federal government.

   As we fight the war on terror, thousands of men and women continue to be deployed from Fort Carson. It is important for our leaders to understand the many issues that face these men and women and their families. The proposed expansion of the Army's training area at Piñon Canyon is just one such issue. Unfortunately, our current congressman has ceded the leadership on this issue to other members of the Colorado delegation, and we currently have a limited voice at the federal level for this critical program.

   Once our soldiers retire and settle down in this community they will face a host of new issues as veterans. Our representative must know how to make sure their needs are taken care of. Deployed while on active duty and now living here as a veteran, Rayburn has flrst-hand knowledge of these issues. He is a member of The Home Front Cares, a local charity that assists deployed servicemen and women and their families. As the chairman of the Southern Colorado National Veterans Cemetery Committee, Rayburn has taken the lead in getting a final resting place established for our local heroes. No other candidate is prepared for the task of leading in Washington more than Bentley Rayburn.

   If we elect Rayburn, we will have a leader who will protect the conservative principles so important to our district. Rayburn stands out because of his lifetime of military experience. He will be a strong advocate for our business leaders and grow our economy by working to bring more high-tech, high-income jobs to our region. He will work to make sure that our veterans' needs are looked after and provide a much needed vision in Washington. Join me in voting for Bentley Rayburn. You'll be glad you did. 

   Rivera is the mayor of Colorado Springs.

  I have agreed with The Gazette about many subjects, including the proper balance between security and civil liberties, immigration reform, and even the course of our war in Iraq.
   But I must respectfully reject the accusation in a long-winded and overheated editorial of July 8 that my recent letter to the Bureau of Reclamation about its study of the Southern Delivery System (SDS) amounted to favoring Pueblo at the expense of Colorado Springs because Colorado Springs "mostly votes Republican."
   Serving on the Armed Services Committee and as Chairman of the Science Committee's Space and Aeronautics Subcommittee, I have worked to support the military and aerospace community in Colorado Springs. Suggesting I don't care about the "economic welfare" of Colorado is offensive and ignores my record of active leadership on behalf of Fort Carson, Schriever and Peterson Air Force bases, NORAD and the Air Force Academy.
   Gazette readers deserve a more accurate explanation of my letter to Reclamation.
   I urged Reclamation to proceed deliberately so that public comments and concerns can be seriously considered, a request I think is entirely appropriate because Reclamation has often been tonedeaf to the concerns of small towns and rural areas. The Gazette attacked this as trying to stop SDS altogether, and implied I was acting on behalf of my "powerful friend" Bob Rawlings, publisher of the Pueblo Chieftain.
   But nowhere did a 1,196-word editorial mention my clearly-stated rationale, namely, to promote cooperation and reduce the chance of time-consuming and expensive litigation.
   I do regard Rawlings as a friend, but I neither discussed my letter with him nor did I request that his comments be given special weight. On the contrary, I urged that all comments and criticisms of the project be fully and carefully addressed, citing his detailed submission as an example. The variety and extent of such comments was reported by the Gazette itself in a July 6 story headlined "400 comments are full of sharp criticism for proposed pipeline."
   The Gazette accused me of hypocrisy because my letter mentioned "implications" the SDS analysis might have for legislation Sen. Ken Salazar and I have introduced authorizing a study of the feasibility of a water storage facility on Fountain Creek. Our bills do expressly say the study is to be done without regard to SDS and other projects, but that doesn't mean Reclamation's SDS analysis could not have negative impacts on the Fountain Creek study. If Reclamation mishandles the analysis or allows its bureaucratic timetable to impede a collaborative resolution, the result could be poisoned regional relations and costly litigation - things that obviously could disrupt passage of the Fountain Creek bill.
   Finally, The Gazette claimed my actions were done for purely partisan reasons. But whatever reason The Gazette may have to pin a partisan label on me, water should not be one. In Colorado, water is not a partisan issue. Coloradans need clean and accessible water and debates about water reflect geography, not party affiliations.
   The most serious conflicts focus on urban growth and rural survival - and cities like Denver, Aurora, and Colorado Springs need to recognize that the stakes are especially high for smaller, rural communities. While cities have armies of water lawyers and engineers, small communities often feel that in a water struggle they only bring knives to a gunfight.
   I'm not saying growing cities like Colorado Springs should abandon their legal rights to water. I would never advocate that. But I believe thoughtful and creative collaboration should be given every chance before there is resort to the courts.
   From communication between my office and staff of Colorado Springs Utilities, I know the city's engineers and water experts are thoughtful and care about these issues. And sensitivity about the survival of rural communities is important to urban voters (in both parties), as shown by their rejection of the infamous AWDI proposal and Referendum A.
   So, I'd like to see Reclamation encourage discussions and negotiations rather than allow a rigid timetable for a final EIS to drive litigation. That strikes me as common sense. It also has nothing to do with a "Red" Colorado Springs or a "Blue" Pueblo.
   And by the way, I think my "powerful friend" is a registered Republican. 

<i>Udall represents Colorado's 2nd District in the U.S. House of Representatives and is the Democratic candidate for the U.S. Senate.</i>

Why has President Bush agreed to reduce our emissions by only 50 percent by 2050? I've spent the past three years researching what the average citizen needs to know about the energy situation, and what can be done about it.

My research shows there are four main areas that can be improved upon to reduce emissions, and by my calculations, it can be done much more quickly than 50 percent by 2020. Here's how:

Let's say consumers focus on reducing their energy consumption.

That means both businesses and households turnoff lights when they're not in use, buy energy efficient bulbs, turn thermostats up or down to minimize energy use, etc. It might mean taking baths and showers less often, cutting lawns less often.

However it's achieved, though, every household and business would set a goal of reducing its energy consumption by 20 percent.

Secondarily, let's say consumers focus on reducing their emissions. That means buying products that have lower emissions, such as electric lawn mowers, solar energy products, low-emissions cars, alternative fuels, etc. Let's give them a goal of 20 percent reduction in emissions.

Now consider the energy suppliers. Let's look at their emissions. We'll give all energy suppliers the goal of reducing emissions by 20 percent through the use of clean energy. Austin Energy has recently raised its goal from 20 percent to 30 percent clean energy by 2020 - much sooner than 2050.

The remaining component is reducing the amount of energy that energy suppliers must produce to meet the demand. This means improving efficiency and reducing waste. Energy is wasted if it is produced but not used. This is where the global grids, smart grids and energy storage come into play. We'll set a goal of 20 percent for energy suppliers to increase efficiency.

If we reduce each of these four components by just 20 percent, that means we could cut emissions by more than half. To understand this, consider this example. Say you go to a store where they have 100 marbles. You buy 80 percent of them. That's 80 marbles.

When you get them home, you notice that 20 percent of them are flawed in some way so you keep only 80 percent of them. That means 64 are good.

Now let's say 20 percent of the remaining marbles are an unappealing color, and you decide not to use them. So you use 80 percent of the 64 marbles, which is 51.

But then you discover the box you want to store them in can hold only 80 percent of the remaining marbles, leaving you with 41.

In the same way, if we combine these four areas of improvement (80 percent of the current consumer energy usage x 80 percent of the emissions coming from the products that consumers use x 80 percent of the emissions as compared to the emissions from current energy production sources x 80 percent due to efficiency gains in production, storage and distribution) we can get to 41 percent of the emissions we're currently producing.

Stated differently, these improvements would reduce emissions by almost 60 percent, or more than half of what we would otherwise produce.

It doesn't need to take 42 years to accomplish this. In fact, we might be surprised at how quickly we can succeed.

-

Meredith is founder and co-owner of HumanExcel, a corporate educational firm based in Austin, Texas. An engineer with expertise in business process improvement, she helps organizations reduce wastes, improve efficiencies and save energy. For more information visit www.HumanExcel.com.

   When I met Jeff Crank, he was 23 years old and applying for a job in my Washington office. A congressman receives tons of applications, but Crank's leaped off the stack.

   A couple years before, I had seen him on national news confronting a group of radical students, grabbing their burning American flag, and blowing out the flame. I felt certain that this young man would grow into a conservative leader, and I was pleased to think people would associate his name with my office.

   It's almost 19 years later, and I am happy to have the opportunity to endorse Jeff Crank to represent the 5th Congressional District in Congress.

   The eight years he spent in my offce bore out my initial impressions: he was smart, persuasive, bold, principled and energetic. In short, Crank proved to be that rare man capable of changing Washington for the better.

   I have no doubt that Crank will cast the right votes. He was a conservative patriot when he was a college student, and that hasn't has changed.

   But just as importantly, he possesses the strength of character that will allow him to stand up to party bosses when they're not acting like real conservatives - the strength of character capable of shaking up Washington from the inside.

   Crank has concrete plans for ending the abuse of mass franked mailers, joining John McCain in his war on earmarks, cutting federal spending by 20 percent over the course of the next 10 years, and placing an expiration date on every federal program.

   These are exactly the kinds of courageous stands I expected from that young man I had watched protecting the American flag.

   It's also worth noting that neither of Crank's opponents is promising these bold, conservative stands.

   Crank is the only candidate to sign a pledge placing a self-imposed moratorium on earmarks, and he's also promised never to exploit the congressional franking privilege to send out mass, unsolicited, selfpromoting campaign ads on the taxpayer dime.

   Conservative think tanks rate congressmen on their voting records and proposed legislation. But certain practices, like the abuse of mass frank mailers, fall under the radar.

   Crank has committed himself to taking conservative positions, both when conservative groups are looking and when they are not.

   When it comes to legislative experience, Crank is better prepared to run a congressional offce than I was when I entered Congress, even though I had served 10 years in the state Legislature.

   Crank worked for eight years in Washington, DC and rose to the position of administrative director, running my Washington office.

   In addition, he served as the key liaison to the Armed Services Committee and stood with me and the community in our battle to save Fort Carson from closure. Colorado Springs military installations are more secure today because of Crank's service in Washington.

   I seldom endorse candidates, but I make an exception for Jeff Crank.

   The 5th Congressional District is one of the most conservative in the country, and its congressman should be one of the country's most notable conservatives. I have known Jeff all his adult life, and in my heart of hearts I know, and have always known, that he will rise to the occasion. 

Hefley represented the 5th Congressional District in the U.S. House of Representatives for 20 years.

   Rush Limbaugh often says the media have a template through which they construct their stories on subjects like Christianity and conservatism. It is hard to argue with him after reading The Gazette's front-page piece documenting the supposed death throes of evangelicalism ("Evangelism may be losing its sway," June 29).

   The template at work here was built after the 2006 midterm elections, which did not turn out well for Republicans, and goes roughly like this: Socially conservative Christians are out of touch with today's young believers, leaving men like Dr. James Dobson irrelevant as a "fresh" crop of evangelical leaders takes center stage with issues other than abortion and the protection of marriage at the top of their agendas.

   One problem, though. The facts don't fit the template.

   Take the notion that Dobson is a Republican puppet. The truth? Until his recent comments about Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama's views on the Bible and the role of faith in the public square, Dobson had not publicly expressed his concern about the Illinois senator. He had, however, criticized Sen. John McCain and congressional big spenders in both parties. During the presidential primaries, in statements that got wide media coverage, he explained he could not support then-candidates Rudy Giuliani or Fred Thompson, either, while detailing his problems with McCain's record - support of embryonic stem-cell research and failure to back a federal marriage amendment among them.

   In fact, one could argue Dobson's remarks about Obama grabbed so many national headlines because it was the first time in more than a year and a half he expressed his disagreements with a presidential candidate who didn't sit on the GOP side of the aisle.

   And what of the substance of Dobson's comments about Obama's views on religion? Another telltale sign of the conservative-evangelicals-as-dinosaurs story template is that it often allows for only a drive-by characterization of what people like Dobson say.

   The Gazette offered just five words - placed in unfortunately little context from Dobson's reaction to the 2006 speech Obama gave about the intersection of faith and politics. But there was deeper cause for his alarm: Obama proclaimed that "the religiously motivated" must "translate their concerns into universal, rather than religion-specific values" when advocating policy positions. To oppose abortion, he maintained, one must "explain why abortion violates some principle that is accessible to all faiths, including those with no faith at all."

   Dobson disagrees vehemently - and he's not alone. Pat Buchanan, who has had numerous policy disagreements with Dobson through the years, dismissed Obama's grasp of Scripture and its role in policymaking as "kumbaya Christianity." Dr. Albert Mohler, president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, wrote when the speech was delivered that the senator was embracing "secularism with a smile."

   "He seems to believe in the myth of a universal reason and rationality that will be compelling to all persons of all faiths, including those of no faith at all," Mohler noted. "Such principles do not exist in any specific form usable for the making of public policy on, for example, matters of life and death like abortion and human embryo research."

   It's always hard to disprove a negative, but the Religious-Right-era-is-over template has one fatal flaw: This is the third time in just the past 20 years that the evangelical movement's death has been predicted.

   The first was 1988, when Pat Robertson lost his bid for the presidency; then came the late 1990s, when the Christian Coalition all but collapsed after Ralph Reed's departure. In both instances, as our continuing presence proves, the predictions proved profoundly inaccurate.

   Evangelicalism has never been about "sway," as The Gazette headline put it. It's been about biblical principles and truth. And with men like Focus on the Family President Jim Daly and Family Research Council President Tony Perkins, both in their 40s, reaching for the baton being passed to them by Dobson and others of his generation, those principles and that truth are in good hands for years to come. 

Minnery is senior vice president of government and public policy for Focus on the Family Action.

The Limited Government Forum has a dream for Colorado Springs we would like to share in response to the editorial and news story promoting the visioning project called Dream City 2020. It's a vision of a great American city that, through a conscious choice to blaze a new and different path, steers clear of the big government pitfalls that plague so many other large American cities.

The city today teeters on a tipping point. We can trudge along the well-worn ruts carved by other cities, embracing everexpanding bureaucracy, central planning and the creation of a burdensome tax and regulatory climate. Or we can create what will be known as the "Colorado Springs Model," premised on the idea that greatness, economic vitality and opportunity don't come through government, but by reducing government's influence and unleashing the freedom, creativity and civic-mindedness of average people.

TWe already have the solid foundations for such a city now, thanks to the budget discipline required by self-reliant citizens who expect local government to stick to the basics. All that's needed is that we preserve and enhance the things that already make Colorado Springs such a great place to live.

The Colorado Springs Model calls for modest, efficient and innovative government, whose activities are supplanted by highly effective private institutions, including charities, nonprofit organizations and the business community. We in Colorado Springs will look first to the private sector to deal with most problems, by working consciously toward a renewal of what once was called civil society. Most of the pieces of this mosaic already exist; we're blessed with many good philanthropic organizations and a strong spirit of volunteerism. Now we must fit all the pieces together in a way that makes the whole stronger than its parts.

As our civic institutions become more effective and residents take personal and collective responsibility for addressing these issues, government will become the problem-solver of last resort.

By 2020, Colorado Springs will have pared local government down by outsourcing inherently nongovernmental functions. City Council members won't have to oversee far-flung enterprises that are better managed by private sector professionals. Proceeds from the sale of enterprises, prudently re-invested, will put the city on a sound financial footing, help improve its infrastructure and mute the constant calls for higher taxes.

Colorado Springs in 2020 will boast a business and regulatory climate that doesn't depend on bribing companies to come or to stay, but creates the ideal conditions for the entrepreneurial spirit to flourish, building its economy from the ground up. Lower taxes, less regulation, a much-improved public school system and modernized infrastructure will produce an opportunity-oriented atmosphere. That, combined with many natural and recreational amenities, will make the city a desirable place to start or relocate a business.

We'll opt-out of the bidding wars other communities engage in, welcoming outside companies but concentrating on growing and strengthening businesses already here. We'll politely tell outside corporations that we would love to have them move here but that part of being a good corporate citizen in Colorado Springs means paying your own way.

Rather than embracing "smart growth" strategies that tend to drive affordable housing out and the cost of living up, Colorado Springs will be a city where the American dream remains within reach of average people. There's a place for reasonable planning. But we won't hand professional planners and anti-development activists the power to tell our residents how and where they should live. We'll put the emphasis on opportunity and affordability, rather than regimentation; on personal creativity and consumer choice, rather than command and control. This will make us a magnet for people and companies that share these values.

We'll build the Colorado Springs Model by treating all our local institutions - city and county government, the charitable sector, public school districts, UCCS and PPPC - as incubators for new ideas, fostering a city-wide enthusiasm for embracing new paradigms. Rather than thinking of this as an anti-government agenda, we think of it as a pro-people, pro-opportunity, pro-self reliance agenda. Government will always have its place. But confining it to its core functions will leave more money and control in the hands of average people, which they can use to support their families, build businesses, contribute to the causes and charities that strengthen civil society.

Our dream is that Colorado Springs in 2020 serves as a national model for the truly voluntary, truly entrepreneurial city. We invite those who share this vision, and those who aren't sure, as well as those who oppose it, to join us in an open-minded discussion about the possibilities. It's not enough to dream about the Colorado Springs Model. We must build it methodically, step by step, through the choices we make moving forward.

-

Paige is executive director of The Limited Government Forum. Write him at Sean@limitedgovforum.org.

   Today we celebrate our declaration of independence as a sovereign country, fought for and defended over the past 232 years with the blood of patriots. We celebrate personal freedoms and liberty of which much of the world can only dream. History has shown and will show again that the United States of America is not only great for her wealth, and her global power, she is great because of the resolve, ingenuity, generosity and strength of her citizens. We must pass on this proud heritage to our children if we expect them to pass on freedom and liberty to the generations yet to come.

   Every generation has been tested - from our own revolution to today's battle against radical Islam - and every generation has had to guard and protect our individual liberties and make sacrifices. Our generation is no different.

   I had the great privilege to serve our country in uniform for 31 years. The first half of my career was focused on the threat from totalitarian communist states. The threat was clear and well defined. The contrast was never clearer than in Berlin where a wall divided East and West.

   But now we face a different set of threats, not so clear and well defined. I spent the second half of my career focused on a determined enemy who would like to see their version of Islam dominate the world. They are supremely dedicated to their cause. They will not be defeated easily.

   Our soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines in Iraq and Afghanistan continue to pay a high price as they fight to spread liberty and make our lives here at home secure. Like our Founding Fathers, the people of Iraq and Afghanistan are engaged in a struggle against tyranny. With the help of America's finest men and women, the Iraqis and Afghanis will earn their freedom, and we will sustain ours.

   From food to fuel, the cost of living is on the rise. The average family is making cutbacks in order to manage their budgets and pay the bills. There is some anxiety concerning the course our nation is on, and speculation fills the airwaves as the media reports stories that feed the frenzy rather than aid in finding a solution. We can no longer rest our heads on a pillow of credit, but instead must rise up to a responsible economic position and spend no more than what we earn. We must explore energy alternatives and increase domestic production of oil in order to loosen the grip of foreign influence on our economy. We must rely on the genius of the free market and release the creative power of the American people.

   From our president to our congressional representatives, we need capable leaders who understand the situation and have real solutions that will help move our nation forward. During this critical time in our nation's history we cannot be hindered by incompetence or mediocrity, and as Americans we have the right to expect only the best from our elected officials. We need experts and leaders from every profession to step up and represent the citizens of the United States. We need doctors, engineers, executives, scientists, teachers and others to lend their knowledge. Even more importantly we need representatives who have worn the uniform of our nation, people who understand national security and have experience in international affairs. It is a crisis that during this time of war fewer than 20 percent of our congressional representatives have any military experience.

   We are in need of representatives who understand war and the volatile situation in the Middle East, representatives who also know how to work within the structures of the Washington establishment to take care of the needs of our veterans. Most importantly, our representatives should be prepared for every possible situation and must be ready to lead on day one. It is my passion to serve and I would be honored to represent you in Congress.

   This Fourth of July is an opportunity for us to celebrate our liberty and to give thanks for the sacrifices that have been made on its behalf. Let us rededicate ourselves to the principles that made our country free and strong. We owe it to those who will follow. 

Retired major general Rayburn is a Republican candidate for the 5th Congressional District of Colorado.

   The City Council opposes tax relief. Surprise, surprise.

   What is shocking, even scary, is their incompetence with basic numbers. They can't add. No wonder they always claim a fiscal crisis, year after year.

   They hysterically attacked both reform petitions, for which we filed 50 percent more signatures than required. They proved yet again they will say and do anything to deceive citizens into voting against any modest proposal for fiscal discipline.

   EXAMPLE 1: Apart from the overtly illegal stormwater tax ended by these petitions, the city collects a secret tax of $27 million on our utility bills. Our petition phases out that hidden tax in 10 equal yearly steps. That saves us $2.7 million in 2009, $5.4 million in 2010, $8.1 million in 2011, etc. All savings go to utility customer accounts in equal dollar amounts. Compare that gradual approach to current scheming for a $72 million instant tax increase.

   The city said the "cut" is $35 million, because they added $8 million that cityowned enterprises now pay the city for lawyers, accountants, and other overhead. Wrong! As payments phase out, city services to enterprises will also. The net loss to the city is not $8 million, but zero. An $8 million "mistake."

   EXAMPLE 2: Even if we accept their crazy, inflated $35 million figure, the city said the first of 10 equal cuts would be $3.5 million, but the 10th year loss is $40.5 million. Wrong again. The petition requires all 10 steps be equal, and 10 x 3.5 equals 35, not 40.5. Their $5.5 million "mistake" in multiplication gets them an "F" in third-grade math. CSAP tests, anyone?

   EXAMPLE 3: When you add their (false) cumulative figures of $3.5 million in 2009, $7 million in 2010, $10.5 million in 2011, etc., the 10-year total is $192.5 million. The city claimed $212 million, another $19.5 million "mistake." Remember, the real numbers are an added $2.7 million yearly for a total utility customer savings of $148.5 million spread over 10 years. The council's bogus $212 million figure is another $63.5 million "mistake."

   That $148.5 million still sounds like a lot of money, but put it in perspective. City budgets historically grow over 5 percent. This year's is $360 million, up $12 million from 2007. Apply only this year's 3.44 percent increase, compounded over the next 10 years. The 10th year budget would be $505 million, not this year's $360 million. Over 10 years, the $148.5 million total savings is only 3.4 percent of total city revenue of $4.36 billion. Yet they dare say this 3.4 percent tax cut phased in over 10 years is "crushing!"

   Remember, their revenue still grows every year. We are only slowing the rate of increase temporarily. Also, their budget includes only part of city revenue, not tens of millions in yearly RTA taxes spent on city roads, nor their other tricks, like misuse of hospital and utility "enterprise" resources.

   They also claim spending $15 million yearly in stormwater taxes will solve the alleged $300 million-plus "backlog" (wish list) of drainage projects the council intentionally neglected for decades to justify this tax increase. Wrong again. If yearly construction costs rise only 5 percent, the city will make no progress. If they rise 6 percent, we fall behind. That doesn't count wasteful city enterprise overhead that does not fix one drainage channel.

   The only sensible solutions are to make drainage spending a true priority within the ever-growing city budget, and to sell off surplus city property. Putting back on the tax rolls assets like parking lots, shopping centers, golf courses, ice rinks, hospitals, tennis courts, utilities, etc. would pay for all needed drainage work, with many hundreds of millions left over.

   Their most absurd claim is that we must pay the stormwater tax to control water runoffi fffecting Pueblo. Why? So Pueblo will feel better about our taking water from the reservoir to pipe up here. Utility rates now pay for new water lines, and higher water rates are coming. Why? Subsidizing new subdivisions adds to profits of the land speculators and developers who own the City Council (and oppose me). Is that how you want your taxes wasted?

   Disgusted by the council's bogus figures? By their ordering the city manager to invent gloom-and-doom "scenarios" to scare voters? By their threats of floods, death, and seizure of your home, just to keep their stupid rain tax? Then visit www.CityReforms.com to learn more, and volunteer to help pass the two city tax relief petitions. You owe it to your family, your finances, and your future. 

Bruce is the state representative from House District 15 and the author of the two reform petitions. Contact him at taxcutter@msn.com.