Phelps introduces himself

Open Letter to Centennial Voters in District 1: My name is Ron Phelps, and I am running for Centennial City Council. This is my invitation for you to cast your October 13th mail-in ballot vote for me. If you attend the City Council meetings, you’ve probably seen me on some of the subcommittees or at neighborhood events. Based on my observations and all that I’ve learned, I think the city’s first priority should be to ensure that your tax dollars are spent wisely. After that, I think we have an obligation to honor the original vision for our city - small, citizen-focused government, low taxes and low government intrusion in our day-to-day lives.

SMALL, LIMITED GOVERNMENT - As our city continues to grow, we’re beginning to experience some growing pains as we find the balance between individuals’ rights and thoughtful policies that benefit our entire community. Keeping Centennial’s government small and limited in its authority is important. I will fight to protect against big government.

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT - We need new, creative ideas to entice small business into our city. For example, one businessman suggested that waiving some initial startup fees might be enough to entice more growth. More growth means more jobs and a broader tax base. More business-generated tax revenue will help all of us. I will work to bring new business to Centennial.

QUALITY OF LIFE - Maintaining our quality of life includes keeping us safe and protecting our property values. The Arapahoe County Sheriff’s Department does a great job of protecting our kids, homes and neighborhoods. I will work to ensure that the city upholds its responsibility to work closely with the Sheriff to monitor the changing needs of our community.

THE BOTTOM LINE- I’m a small- and limited-government kind of guy, and a fiscal conservative. I look forward to continuing to work with residents and Centennial’s businesses to address these and other important issues (seniors’ issues, better transportation, open and transparent stewardship).

I have experience as a businessman, and am a United States Air Force veteran. I volunteer on two Centennial citizen committees: the Open Space and Parks committee, and the Land Use Southglenn Area Steering committee. Additionally, I am currently serving on the Arapahoe County Citizen Budget Committee, an appointed position, and I represent the Southglenn Civic Association at CenCON.. Together, all of my experience enables me to add value quickly in doing the business of City Council.

I am 50, a father and grandfather. I’ve enjoyed serving my country, city and neighborhood. I look forward to further serving you and the city of Centennial on City Council.

I'm Ron Phelps and I need your vote. Let’s work together to keep our government small and limited, fiscally conservative, and keep Centennial a great place to live.

Respectfully, Ron Phelps City Council Candidate Centennial – District 1 Website - www.ronphelps.com email - ron@ronphelps.com

Teacher's Desk: Rx Common Sense

Editor: Some think health policy is terribly complex. Some think all teachers lean left. Both notions are disproved by Kathy Kullback, who usually writes on education issues from her classroom vantage point, but demonstrates here how readily the health riddle yields to market logic. Don't Overthink the Health Issue

I wonder why all the people in Congress and all the White House people can’t figure the health care thing out.

Yes, health care is expensive. Yes, there is a pre-existing condition clause in most policies. Yes, most of us get our policies through our employers. And yes, our employers can only purchase from the companies allowed to do business in our state.

But do we need to revamp the entire thing? NO!

Make insurance companies compete for business by opening up markets. Allow companies and individuals to purchase from insurance companies doing business in the other 49 states. Take away the pre-existing condition clause, but in fairness, allow for a higher yet fair deductible when covering those conditions.

Cap malpractice settlements nationwide (Colorado does so already.) Pro-rate the working poor without insurance and let them buy into Medicaid.

Finally, build more medical schools opening up more seats for more prospective doctors. The field itself limits the amount of persons able to attend medical school. When the field becomes flooded, prices should fall.

If Obamacare’s public option becomes the law of the land, there will be rationing of services and doctors. Medical facilities will need to triage patient care---it could be you or a loved one that gets left out because they never planned for more doctors and licensed care-givers.

For Dems, it’s always ‘butter’ over ‘guns’

In the wake of the Obama Administration’s looming failure with its government health insurance and possibly its cap-and-trade proposals, it has made a grand splash on the international stage–at the United Nations in New York and the G-20 (formerly G-7) meeting in Pittsburgh. No one could fairly call Obama a tyrant, for he lacks a tyrant’s power, and he is certainly not acting like one (except for Honduras). When a tyrant runs into difficulties at home, he diverts attention by stirring up troubles abroad. But Obama is apparently contemplating reversing course in Afghanistan.

Like previous Democrats, President Obama’s international strategy seems rather to diminish than enlarge our world role. When he is not denigrating the previous administration or apologizing for his country, Obama is determined to build up the power and prestige of international organizations. Ostensibly aimed at curbing the aggressive designs of rogue nations like North Korea and Iran, the President’s real objective is to check the supposedly imperial ambitions of the United States.

Like failed presidential candidate George McGovern, Obama wants America to "come home" from its international responsibilities, dropped into its lap by the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941 and kept there by the Soviet Union’s drive for world domination. Liberal Democrats believe that almost all international "tensions" arise from either misunderstandings or America’s own failings.

When one puts this together with the pressures from domestic politics, we get retreat from international leadership. As liberal Democrats in Congress indicate their displeasure with Obama’s attempts to rescue its health care "reform" by reducing or masking its socialistic features, Obama may have found the tactic that will placate them.

Early on, Obama seemed to make good on his promise to give our efforts in Afghanistan the priority they have long deserved by a commitment of 40,000 troops with a new commander. However, liberal Democrats in Congress made it clear that they did not wish to continue our efforts there.

So when someone in the Beltway leaked to the Washington Post that the commanding general wants to ratchet up the total numbers to 100,000, the President suddenly announced that, until we have settled on our strategy and tactics, he cannot approve the request without more study. Friends, this was the "good war" that the bad Bush neglected for nation building in Iraq. Why the abrupt change?

I submit that, however forcefully Obama declared that he would prosecute the war in Afghanistan, his heart was never really in it. The truth is, the wars in both Iraq and Afghanistan were fought against the same enemy, often working in tandem with each other and always against the United States and the Western world. As Bin Laden is a terrorist without a government, Saddam Hussein was a terrorist with a government.

It was clever and useful for Obama to distinguish between the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, for it gave a patina of truth to his claim that his quarrel with Bush was tactical, not strategic. Obama needed only to accept the windup of the American campaign in Iraq, but Afghanistan turned out to be more difficult than he thought.

So now that the left wing of his political party (Obama’s wing) shows signs of restiveness over his domestic policy, that faction’s zealotry for socialism and indifference to the plight of other nations is combining to cause the biggest disaster for America since the fall of southeast Asia to Communism. That defeat, too, was a direct result of the left’s hostility to political freedom abroad and its disrespect for American honor.

Just as our retreat in Vietnam made meaningless the sacrifices of our fighting men in that long conflict, so those brave men and women who have served and continue to serve in harm’s way in Afghanistan face a similar prospect.

Lyndon Johnson was determined not to follow the example of his hero, Franklin Roosevelt, who shelved the New Deal in order to give priority to saving America from German and Japanese imperialism. The war in Vietnam was the "bitch" that Johnson felt he was cursed with but which he would not permit to delay his cherished Great Society.

Like LBJ, Obama would rather "transform" American society than attend to the common defense. Placing its faith in international organizations, this administration imagines that foreign threats will go away as long as our nation takes the socialistic course. We will pay for this folly.

What transformation means

Slated on Backbone Radio, Sept. 27 Listen every Sunday, 5-8pm on 710 KNUS, Denver... 1460 KZNT, Colorado Springs... and streaming live at 710knus.com.

For many people at this time last year, Obama's campaign theme of "transforming America" was appealing yet safely vague. We now have all too much evidence of what transformation means. It has become, as some of us feared from the start, void of appeal and anything but safe. Join us this Sunday as we explore some of the sobering implications at home and abroad.

Devon Herrick of the National Center for Policy Analysis will talk about the power grab that is health care reform. Marvin Hutchens of the Center for Threat Awareness will sum up the almost daily pullback of US world leadership by the President during this month alone.

The next invented "right" from Barack the Transformer may be free college, or who knows, free doctorates, for everyone. Here in Colorado, Dems want a revenue guarantee toward that utopia. We'll discuss it with CU Regent Tom Lucero, economist Richard Vedder, and curriculum specialist Charles Mitchell.

Plus Dan Maes, GOP candidate for Governor, and Debbie Welle-Powell, organizer of a new group for women on the right. Please be listening.

Yours for no transformation at all, JOHN ANDREWS

Maes: Institution meets revolution

Editor: The most provocative comment on current politics that I've seen from any GOP 2010 candidate is this one from Dan Maes, the Evergreen businessman and darkhorse rival for the gubernatorial nomination against heavyweights Scott McInnis and Josh Penry. Unhampered by playing the percentages as the "favorites" for Governor and Senator have to do (or think they have to), Maes in this mass email of mid-September thinks aloud about the meaning of 2009 grassroots upheavals for Republican-politics-as-usual. Congratulations on your candor and realism here, Dan. The race could get a lot more interesting before our nominees are chosen. Who Can Unify the Institution and the Revolution? By Dan Maes (dan@danmaes.com)

The harvest is ready and the workers are few. Who can get the job done?

The Democrats, liberals, progressives or whatever name they go by these days, have awakened the sleeping giant of the silent majority and a conservative revolution is upon us. In my now over 30,000 miles of campaign travel I have seen this revolution in the form of Tea Parties, new grass roots organizations like 9.12, I Caucus, ROAR America, Liberty on the Rocks, R Block Party, and others all around the state by names unique to their own region.

A clear message has been articulated and that is "Enough is Enough" of the recent and not so recent sins of our fathers in both parties. Generally speaking members of these groups want to be republicans but the sour taste of the sins is still wearing off. They want new and fresh faces in their candidates and anyone that has any similarity to a lawyer or "career politician" may as well pack their bags and go home if these folks have anything to say about it. They want common sense candidates and leadership that truly represents them and not party or special interests.

Now, enter the Republican party activists to the harvest field. Their mission is admirable and one that struggles with history that is hard to avoid. Candidates that have "carried the water" seem to get the nod whether they are really the best qualified or not. I can state first hand that state party chairman Dick Wadhams has, and continues to, made every effort to keep the candidate field open and fair. But can we as traditionalists, and a broken party of the past, break with it and move forward? We can and must!

Can we actually look to a candidate that meets the needs of both the party insitution and the conservative revolution? It will take some give and take on both sides but if it can be done it will lead to an overwhelming victory in 2010 at the state and national levels. If not, are we in for a long and ugly future of more taxes and fees, new energy job loss, and liberal agendas politically and socially?

So the question now becomes the challenge....which candidate(s) can beat Bill Ritter and all the other state and federal democrats by honoring and unifying the institution and the revolution? I am one of them.

Dan Maes Republican Candidate for Governor www.danmaes.com 303-670-2010