Some have claimed Gerlach voted to “gut” the EPA and prevent it from enforcing the Clean Air Act. Others have claimed that he has “abandoned our core environmental and public heath programs.” These charges are baseless and demonstrate the lengths to which environmental activists will distort the truth to advance their goals.

Click here to read this op ed printed in The Daily Local March 22, 2011.

No other democratic society in the world permits personal freedoms to the degree of the United States of America.  American courts, especially the Supreme Court, have developed a set of legal doctrines that thoroughly protect all forms of the freedom of expression.  When it comes to evaluating the degree to which we take advantage of the opportunity to express our opinions, some members of society may be guilty of violating the bounds of the First Amendment by publicly offending others through obscenity or racism.  Americans have developed a distinct disposition toward the freedom of expression throughout history.

The First Amendment clearly voices respect towards America’s religious freedom.  It also prevents the government from “abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people to peaceably assemble and petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

Since the early history of our country, the protection of our basic freedoms has been of the utmost importance to Americans.  A poem by Langston Hughes, “Freedom,” emphasizes the struggle to enjoy the freedoms that he knows are rightfully his.  He reflects the American desire for freedom now when he says, “I do not need my freedom when I’m dead.  I cannot live on tomorrow’s bread.”  American’s recognize the need for freedom in its entirety without compromise or fear.

The American immigrants’ quest for freedom, brought them to our land, arriving with nothing but dreams and building America with the hopes of finding greater freedom or freedom for the first time.  American’s of all backgrounds work and fight together for one cause: FREEDOM.

Our First Amendment gives us the right to protest and picket, or strike, perform public speeches and hold rallies.  For instance, in March of 2000, more than a thousand community activists rallied to draft a “human” budget that put the needs of the poor and handicapped as a top priority.  Totally against the principles on which our Republic was founded, but they were not prohibited from their protest.  Rallies are an effective means for people to use their freedoms effectively to bring about change from the government.  The current rising up of Americans through the “Tea Party” rallies is a non-violent method to tell our government enough is enough.  STOP spreading the wealth.  Protect our FREEDOM.

Our Founding Fathers crafted America’s founding documents to provide us, for all time, our broad right to free speech.  We should assert our rights to free speech, to use them responsibly and boldly, to oppose racism, to oppose sexism, to oppose homophobia and bigotry, and oppose government intrusion into our daily lives, and to do so within the spirit of the First Amendment, not by creating an exception to it.”

The strong central theme of freedom of expression is the cornerstone of American government, culture and life.  The American voice on freedom has been shaped throughout the course of our history by the initial democratic notions of our immigrant’s desire to maintain the freedoms that we enjoy today.  Freedoms we fought long and hard for.

The freedom of speech has constantly been challenged and will continue to be challenged in the future.  It is important that we learn from prior tests against our Constitution, by those trying to denigrate our constitutionally protected rights, so that in the future, authority will not violate our freedoms or oppress our liberty.

The original Constitution did not contain a bill of rights because the convention delegates felt that individual rights were in no danger and would be protected by the states.  However, the lack of a bill of rights was the strongest objection to the ratification of the Constitution.  They were introduced by James Madison and Thomas Jefferson to the First United States Congress in 1789 as a series of articles, and came into effect in December 1791, when they had been ratified by three-fourths of the States.  The applications of the personal freedoms described in the Bill of Rights, particularly the freedom of speech, have been challenged repeatedly in American courts of law and elsewhere.

This freedom of speech was recognized as a vital element in a democratic republic society.  Censorship and the infringement of First Amendment rights could not and would not be tolerated.  American citizens took a firm stand against the government and its “authority” at important times when they could have yielded to oppressive violations of their rights.

We should maintain our heritage and continue to oppose any denigration of our Constitutional rights for all time.

The individual chapters can be downloaded from here. Some excerpts:

Increased Government Spending Prolongs Economic Slowdowns

In light of the economic crisis, many advanced economies’ governments have stepped up their direct interference in the economy with government spending. Though volumes of evidence have highlighted the negative results of massive government spending, in a time of crisis, some have tried the Keynesian policy prescription of stimulating demand with government spending. That spending, more than any market factor, has posed the greatest risk to economic dynamism. Relying on government spending in the form of various stimulus packages not only has failed to promote growth and employment, but also has seemed to prolong the crisis by hampering private-sector investment. Bloated government debt has turned the economic slowdown into a fiscal crisis in many countries, with economic stagnation fueling a long-term employment crisis. (Executive Highlights, pp. 3-4)

Countries that reduced government spending had economic growth rates almost two percentage points higher in 2009 than countries whose government spending scores worsened, and countries with the highest rates of government spending had gross domestic product (GDP) growth rates 4.5 percentage points lower on average than countries where government spending was best contained. (Chapter 1, p.13)

Economic Freedom Propels Innovation

One proven path to stimulating economic growth is to advance economic freedom by promoting policies that generate a virtuous cycle of innovation, job creation, productivity growth, and higher living standards that help create the social and economic resilience to sustain and empower individuals in a rapidly evolving economic environment. (Chapter 1, p.15)

Economic Freedom Promotes Entrepreneurial Dynamism

Many economies have managed to expand opportunities for their citizens by enhancing their economic dynamism and vitality. Economic freedom is highly correlated with societies’ openness to entrepreneurial activity that creates new jobs and increases opportunity and choice for individuals in advancing their own well-being. (Chapter 1, p.15)

Free Markets Improve the Environment

[A] command-and-control approach to “going green” is a fundamentally misguided one. It is the nations whose economies are ranked as most free that do the best to protect the environment, while the least free ones do the worst. (Chapter 4, p. 53)

Many mistakenly believe that rising wealth harms the environment as per capita usage of energy and other resources increases. Indeed, some activists and academics pursue environmentalism as if it were a crusade against materialism. However, such views are out of step with the empirical evidence. In reality, anything that jeopardizes continued economic growth likely also jeopardizes continued environmental improvement.  (Chapter 4, p. 56)

Most significantly, a well-developed system of private property rights, enforced through an effective legal system, provides for better stewardship of natural resources than is provided by a system that is characterized by no clear ownership or overwhelming government ownership. (Chapter 4, p. 57)

The full speech can be enjoyed at this link.

Selected excerpts:

On America’s role in the world, and the threats we face:

Throughout America’s adventure in free government, such basic purposes have been to keep the peace; to foster progress in human achievement, and to enhance liberty, dignity and integrity among peoples and among nations.

To strive for less would be unworthy of a free and religious people.

Any failure traceable to arrogance or our lack of comprehension or readiness to sacrifice would inflict upon us a grievous hurt, both at home and abroad.

Progress toward these noble goals is persistently threatened by the conflict now engulfing the world. It commands our whole attention, absorbs our very beings. We face a hostile ideology global in scope, atheistic in character, ruthless in purpose, and insidious in method. Unhappily the danger it poses promises to be of indefinite duration. To meet it successfully, there is called for, not so much the emotional and transitory sacrifices of crisis, but rather those which enable us to carry forward steadily, surely, and without complaint the burdens of a prolonged and complex struggle – with liberty the stake. Only thus shall we remain, despite every provocation, on our charted course toward permanent peace and human betterment.

On the balance that we must weigh:

Crises there will continue to be. In meeting them, whether foreign or domestic, great or small, there is a recurring temptation to feel that some spectacular and costly action could become the miraculous solution to all current difficulties. A huge increase in the newer elements of our defenses; development of unrealistic programs to cure every ill in agriculture; a dramatic expansion in basic and applied research – these and many other possibilities, each possibly promising in itself, may be suggested as the only way to the road we wish to travel.

But each proposal must be weighed in light of a broader consideration; the need to maintain balance in and among national programs – balance between the private and the public economy, balance between the cost and hoped for advantages – balance between the clearly necessary and the comfortably desirable; balance between our essential requirements as a nation and the duties imposed by the nation upon the individual; balance between the actions of the moment and the national welfare of the future. Good judgment seeks balance and progress; lack of it eventually finds imbalance and frustration.

The record of many decades stands as proof that our people and their Government have, in the main, understood these truths and have responded to them well in the face of threat and stress.

But threats, new in kind or degree, constantly arise.

On our military, and guarding against its abuse:

A vital element in keeping the peace is our military establishment. Our arms must be mighty, ready for instant action, so that no potential aggressor may be tempted to risk his own destruction.

…

This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence – economic, political, even spiritual – is felt in every city, every Statehouse, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.

We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.

On the influence of the Federal government over ideas and invention:

Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers.

The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present – and is gravely to be regarded.

Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.

It is the task of statesmanship to mold, to balance, and to integrate these and other forces, new and old, within the principles of our democratic system – ever aiming toward the supreme goals of our free society.

On our responsibility towards future generations:

Another factor in maintaining balance involves the element of time. As we peer into society’s future, we – you and I, and our government – must avoid the impulse to live only for today, plundering for, for our own ease and convenience, the precious resources of tomorrow. We cannot mortgage the material assets of our grandchildren without asking the loss also of their political and spiritual heritage. We want democracy to survive for all generations to come, not to become the insolvent phantom of tomorrow.

On our optimism, and our faith, that American ideals will lead us to a peaceful and prosperous world:

You and I – my fellow citizens – need to be strong in our faith that all nations, under God, will reach the goal of peace with justice. May we be ever unswerving in devotion to principle, confident but humble with power, diligent in pursuit of the Nations’ great goals.

To all the peoples of the world, I once more give expression to America’s prayerful and continuing aspiration:

We pray that peoples of all faiths, all races, all nations, may have their great human needs satisfied; that those now denied opportunity shall come to enjoy it to the full; that all who yearn for freedom may experience its spiritual blessings; that those who have freedom will understand, also, its heavy responsibilities; that all who are insensitive to the needs of others will learn charity; that the scourges of poverty, disease and ignorance will be made to disappear from the earth, and that, in the goodness of time, all peoples will come to live together in a peace guaranteed by the binding force of mutual respect and love.

Now, on Friday noon, I am to become a private citizen. I am proud to do so. I look forward to it.

Thank you, and good night.

So, Karen Porter, saying Merry Christmas now constitutes a “constant and growing right-wing mantra?” Seems to me people have been saying Merry Christmas for a long, long time; certainly much longer than folks have said Happy Holidays. While I can’t, and choose not to, speak for every Christian on the planet, I will pass along my own thoughts.

First and foremost, I’m sure Jesus is thrilled to have you speak for Him.

I say Merry Christmas because, as a lifelong Christian myself, I happen to celebrate Christmas as the birth of Jesus. For me it IS the Christmas Season and not the holiday season. It starts Christmas Day, not Black Friday, and runs for two weeks. So no, it doesn’t end on the 26th.

I don’t take talking points from, or even listen to, Fox News or any other national news service for that matter because they are ALL biased in one way or another. Instead, I read George Will, John Stossel, Tom Sowell and Cal Thomas to get the straight story (he said with tongue planted firmly in cheek).

I happen to believe that corporate profits are a good thing. Profitable businesses hire people and I have investments.

OK, my turn now. What offends me personally is the way political correctness and diversity are jammed down my throat. To do, or not, do something because one is afraid of offending is ridiculous. Simply do the right thing and let the chips fall where they may. And the most qualified person should get the job, period. If you think that’s what’s happening now, you are not paying attention. I witnessed too many victims of corporate- and government-sponsored reverse discrimination.

I don’t need the PC police or corporate and government directors of diversity telling me how to treat someone.

“Treat others the way you want to be treated” serves me well.

To sum up, if you want to say Happy Holidays, God bless you … feel free to do so; I really couldn’t care less. If you are offended by me saying Merry Christmas, God bless you; I really couldn’t care less. In fact, you can’t know how little I care if you are offended. Nothing personal, I just don’t care.

There … now I feel better. Have a nice day!

The events of yesterday in Arizona, in which a U.S. Congressional representative was shot in the head, with a bullet going through her brain, and a federal judge, a 9-year-old girl, a young man at the beginning of a wonderful professional career and preparing for his wedding, and, reportedly, three senior women who could have been any of us were shot and killed brings the culmination of the hate-mongering that has been building in this country for too long. We do not know yet the disturbed shooter’s motives, but we can see every day the climate that led up to his brutal acts.

We see and hear the hate speech every day on Fox “news” and hear it on “hate radio,” nationally and locally. We hear the hate speech spewing forth from the mouths of the right in an incessant drumbeat of “hate the President,” “hate Congress,” “hate the courts,” “hate your government,” “hate liberals,” “hate Democrats,” “hate immigrants,” “hate gays,” “hate environmental wackos” – HATE, HATE, HATE. We’ve seen it an teabagger rallies nationwide, we’ve seen and heard it in recent political campaigns.

We in West Chester have experienced the right’s hate-group language, visuals, and smears incessantly for three years now on the corner of High and Market every single Saturday morning at The Chester County Peace Movement’s peace vigils (now running every Saturday for 8 years). I’ve been called every vile name you can imagine, including a “Soviet.” Our own President Barack Obama has been called a Muslim, and horrible pictures defiling his image held up on posters by our local hate wackos. These people have never even tried to disguise their hate, with too many intimations of potential violence and use of weapon imagery.

Three years ago, I had to change many of my own personal habits out of threats from our own homegrown right-wing wackos – I don’t park in West Chester’s indoor parking lots any more, I cross the street if I see one of the wackos coming, I don’t take my beloved walks after dark in West Chester any more, I am on constant alert for what I know can happen at any time. (Not to worry – I’m not afraid; these days, it just comes with the turf, it’s part of life.)

We used to have many children at our peace vigils – parents don’t bring them any more because they don’t want them subjected to the hate speech and visuals, but they also don’t want them physically threatened. Many people, particularly older ones, who used to come to peace vigils, simply just don’t come any more. It’s too dangerous, they fear. We used to have more musicians, more peace music – some of our musicians also felt threatened or just didn’t want to be part of the vitriol.

So yesterday’s tragic event could have happened anywhere. We in CCPM know it could just as easily happen here. In the midst of the many “honks for peace” we hear every Saturday, we also get the angry faces, full of hate, that yell taunts and jeers at us as they speed by in their cars; we also get the middle fingers; we also get the hate-filled and hateful faces that we know could become something more at any moment. Every public official, every activist in this county faces the dangers of the hate-filled right-wing fanatics every day. It’s something we just learn to live with.

But why should we? Why should those people yesterday have been killed or wounded?

Why?  We are all  asking that this morning.

Karen Porter, Esq., Director
The Chester County Peace Movement*
Daily Local News Community Blog: http://chestercountyleftbank.tumblr.com/

Here is what I would say to Karen.

Interesting article. Do you watch Fox News everyday? If not, do you ever watch it? Can you give me some examples of these everyday occurrences of “hate speech” that you speak of? Can you give any examples of conservatives saying that we should hate immigrants, gays, environmentalist extremists, etc.? You seem to be outraged by conservative criticism of Obama but were you equally as outraged at the disgusting hatred that the far left showed toward Bush? I denounce some over the top criticism of Obama (Hitler comparisons, anything involving his race, etc.) but the truth is that the hatred directed toward Bush was arguably worse. He was called a racist, likened to Hitler, said to be worse than Saddam Hussein, and signs that said “Kill Bush” or something along those lines were not a rare sight at left wing protests. I could be wrong but I highly doubt that you denounced the despicable behavior of those on the far left. I also doubt you spoke out against Al Gore and the environmentalist extremists when a gunman, inspired by Al Gore, held hostages at the Discovery Channel headquarters because of some grievance over “global warming.” You also didn’t see conservatives using the incident en mass as a political tool to smear the left even though we knew what the motive was–which is not the case thus far for this present tragedy.

I urge you to count how many times you said the word hate in your article and then good luck finding such a high “hate” count in an article written by someone on the right. Your article is filled with derogatory terms such as “hate wackos,” “hate-filled right wing fanatics,” the vulgar and immature “teabagger,” and so on. I am sorry that you feel threatened and I have no way of knowing whether or not you are overstating the “danger” you face as a person with highly unpopular political views. I will say that you should not be threatened or intimidated for your views, however unpopular they may be. Our soldiers that you protest against are fighting for your right to speak freely and it is un-American to threaten or intimidate someone for their political views even if such views are perceived as anti-America. I can tell you that I have met many of the people who stand across the street from you in support of our troops and they are not hateful or violent in any way. The founder of the American Sheepdogs is a great guy. That is not to say that emotions are not going to flare when people who either served in the military themselves or have loved ones fighting now see people protesting the troops that are fighting for their very right to protest. As for the people driving by, there are some wackos that I have seen. One guy yelled out his window to “kill all the (expletive) Muslims” which was disturbing because I have a Muslim uncle and I know that there are many peaceful Muslims in the world and I don’t see how killing every member of a religion is any better than Nazism or Taliban rule. But so many cars drive by so a few crazies like him are to be expected.

You and I will probably never agree on many issues but we can and must be civilized. There is a lot of hatred in the political discourse in America and it is certainly not just those on the right that are to blame. In this article, any good points you may have are overshadowed by your dishonest attacks on Fox News, willful blindness to left wing (and Islam-inspired, for that matter) hatred, and excessive name calling of conservatives. If you want moderate folks to listen to your message you have to take this into consideration. I am happy that you are freely expressing your views because that is what America is all about and our troops are making incredible sacrifices to defend that right. The irony may escape you but that’s okay.

Sincerely,

Bill Hanrahan

“In matters of style, swim with the current; in matters of principle, stand like a rock.”- Thomas Jefferson

Oh how I wish Paris Hilton would endorse free market capitalism! It would be the “must-have” economic philosophy of the season. She has to think its cool, right? After all, her Great Great Grandfather, Conrad Hilton, amassed his fortune in the markets by envisioning, building and growing one of the largest hotel chains in the world! Five-hundred and thirty-three hotels to be exact! Three generations later (and several shades of blonde lighter), Paris has made her own name for herself. The “Paris Hilton” brand has been used for the marketing and promoting of a television series, movies, beauty products, books, music all made possible by the free market system which we, capitalists, champion so fanatically. Do you think Paris would have reached this type of ‘International Pop Culture Darling’, ‘Undisputed ‘It’ Girl’, ‘Mega-Media Mogul’ status in the Soviet Union? I think NYET! The most she could have hoped for is a life as a liberated factory proletariat, earning an extra rationing of bread from a smitten officer of the Politburo. Yuck. Sounds so drab and dreary and so not the type of environment that would bring out her eyes or brighten her complexion. But in the United States of America, Paris Hilton is the ultimate, shining capitalist on the hill; Beverly Hills! So, why is it that so many celebrities brush aside or even condemn a system which has spread wealth, prosperity and sunshine to so many people around the world, instead touting a system which has brought nothing but human suffering?

I think it all boils down to marketing. Let’s face it, socialism sells. Whether you are watching the ‘Live Aid’ concert, or window shopping at a Gap retail store or just skimming the pages of an ‘US Magazine’, helping the poor, the starving and the weak is the ‘trendy’ thing to do. Finding the most efficient way to create the environment where there are no poor, starving or weak is rarely discussed and capitalism is outright demonized. When capitalists reject the notion of a hand-out culture (giving a fish rather than teaching to fish), they are labelled as cold-hearted and greedy.

Admittedly, listening to Bono belt out ‘In the Name of Love’ as images of emaciated young children float in the background, their bellies protruding with hunger, is a powerful call to arms. And yes the idealistic fantasy of changing the world by condemning the wealthy might sell t-shirts. But we cannot afford wait for the inevitable harsh reality of socialism to kick in before we start educating the young. Someone has to make the case for free market capitalism in a way that grabs their attention. Lets see…giant buckets of popcorn at the movie theatre, new Nike shoes and ipods versus bread rationing and dreary attire. Tricky….very tricky. Ask a college freshman if they can imagine the whole country being run by the government. Tell them to ponder this: every part of their lives being run like the DMV. The lines, the terrible service, the forms – then watch them curl into the fetal position. They would probably ask for a root canal instead.

In a perfect world, we wouldn’t even need to think about re-branding freedom. You would think that ‘freedom’ would be a product that sells itself, much like the Chia Pet. After all, I imagine that most people will tell you that it was the desire for freedom that jump-started the American engine and brought this country to life. But what freedom is exactly, continues to remain sort of, umm, muzzy. Its definition has been stretched and ‘silly puttied’ to include all things ‘free’; free health-care, free homes, free education, free money for Pete’s sake. When the founding fathers used the word “free” they meant “personal liberty and rights,” they didn’t mean “without cost.” There is sort of a MEGA difference there.

And so, over the years, the seemingly impregnable walls of liberty have been eroded by the greedy, idealistic or, oftentimes, just plain ignorant and uninformed hands of the masses. But why is freedom failing in the war of ideas? Why is this ‘given,’ this ‘obvious,’ this ‘fragile absolute’, slipping from our hands like a soapy baby? To put it bluntly, our PR machine has failed miserably! We have allowed capitalism to be branded and re-branded for us, like a Hollywood relationship thrown to the paparazzi piranhas. Capitalism’s rep has been viciously chewed up, morphed, twisted and then spat onto the front page of every tabloid in town. We are no longer seen as the progressive, freedom-fighting rebels who freed the slaves and defend the most revolutionary document in the history of the world. Instead, we are the selfish, gun-clinging, bible preaching, homosexual-hating, anti-woman and minority, war-loving, environment-hating, anti-education, backwards, stupid, bigoted, evil but nerdy traditionalists who tout a failed system and will stop at nothing to prevent society from changing and moving forward.

How in the world did that happen? Why and how and when did free market capitalism start to sound so… disgustingly grotesque! Take the word capitalism, for instance. Capitalism was a word coined by Karl Marx to give the free market system a bad name. So, of course, we adopted it! Or the word, ‘liberal.’ That was our word before it was snatched from under our noses along with the sheep’s clothing! So, there you have it. Why is capitalism losing out in the war of ideas? Because we are allowing it to!

Capitalism is losing in the war of ideas primarily because proponents of the philosophy are not branding and promoting these ideas correctly and, more importantly, are allowing others to brand it for them. We must come to grips with the reality that we do live in a branding and image age and if we don’t, if we continue to opt for sweater sets and pearls, pocket protectors and suspenders, “IBM blue” suits and briefcases, our philosophy will continue to be the last one picked for the team. It will join ‘Judy’s’ and ‘Napster’ in the pile of brands that I swear were popular at one point! But I think that if Steve Jobs can resuscitate the dying ‘Apple’ Brand and turn it into the powerhouse it is today, we can do the same for capitalism. After all, this cryptic philosophy is actually one of the most revolutionary, rebellious and forward-thinking concepts of all. A very sell-able product!

It is so much richer and more engaging than many people realize but that has gotten lost, as the ‘instant gratification’ generation opts for Celebrity tabloids over the books of leading free market minds like, Milton Friedman, Adam Smith, Alexis Di Tocqueville, Edmund Burke, Ayn Rand, Ludwig von Mises, or Friedrich Hayek. For many people, particularly those in fashionable, ‘image-oriented’ urban centers, it is much safer and cooler to be liberal. It’s a socially acceptable brand name. MoveOn.org, Rock The Vote and countless celebrities and organizations have been instrumental in furthering the cause, employing innovative marketing campaigns, repeating simple messages accompanied by music, imagery and fashion to prevent capitalism from infiltrating the daily conversations of America’s youth. Unless, of course, it is to back-stab it and than by all means, chatter away!

This is my attempt at making capitalism cool again. I want capitalism embraced rather than rejected by younger generations. My goal is to lay out my plan to get these ideas represented in the tabloid pages…to get free market principles endorsed by mainstream celebrities! To get young urbanites to wear “Mises” t-shirts instead of Che Guevara t-shirts! To get Sean Penn to say “I’m a freedom-loving capitalist!” the next time he wins an Oscar.

I am a woman on a mission and if I have to dress up like Cuban dictator, Fidel Castro or shake my tail feather like the flirtatious Whig salonniere, Georgina Spencer, to make a point than so be it! If I have to beg and plead on my hands and knees to get Puff Daddy to Rock the ‘Republic’ rather than the ‘Vote’ I am not too proud! OK, so shaving my head and starting an underground rebel force may be too extreme and I will just keep the trusty hunger strike as an ace in my back pocket. But this is about marketing. This is about fighting fire with fire.

It will take nothing short of a full-fledged, Apple-like marketing campaign, which is ferociously smart, loudly aggressive, sparklingly enlightening, wickedly witty, refreshingly stylish and bursting with powerful, rebellious energy, to re-introduce America to the philosophy on which she was founded on and with which she became the most prosperous and moral nation the world has ever know. As our country continues to follow the path of Rome, replacing freedom for socialism, high taxation, inflation and a treasury that has become a free for all, it is more crucial than ever to educate younger people about the principles which made America great; the same ones that could make her great again. In a nutshell, my goal is to prove that capitalism is ‘way hotter’ than socialism.

In this well-intended document, protecting clean water is and should be a big priority. The Constitution of Pennsylvania specifies that people have a right to clean water. No one of sound mind can argue against  protecting water, as it should be a priority of every citizen, and this process must be carried out within all other laws of Pennsylvania.

The USDA Forest Service defines a riparian buffer as:

Streams, rivers, lakes, and bays and their adjacent side channels, floodplain, and wetlands. In specific cases, the riparian buffer may also include a portion of the hillslope that directly serves as streamside habitats for wildlife.

To a homeowner with a stream running through his property, ordinances on riparian buffers may present a costly situation from something as simple as mowing weeds. Cutting weeds on a bank could reduce a stream’s filtration characteristics and allow poisons to leach into the waterways. This means that those weeds will need to be replaced, of course under township supervision and with an engineer’s report, thus assuming there are no fines, mowing the wrong weeds could result in hundreds or even thousands of dollars to the homeowner.

This is not a hypothetical situation – if you live in Chester County, your municipality has enacted legislation “protecting” riparian buffers on private property. Every municipality must create a comprehensive plan to outline growth controls as mandated by Chester County via a document called Landscapes. This utopian guide sets priorities which municipalities are instructed to enact through their Planning Commissions. Specifics included in Landscapes are items such as “creating affordable housing” and strict regulations around riparian buffers.

Having created a Riparian Buffer ordinance for my municipality I have uncovered many of the legalities of water legislation at the local, state and federal levels. In the quest to “do something”, mandates coming from the county level are little more than feel-good ordinances that put unreasonable restrictions on landowners. Riparian ordinances often end up creating ever larger buffers, so large that a homeowner’s property becomes untouchable, and at the same time not addressing the primary sources of water pollution: agriculture, industry, and waste treatment.

Despite their failings, Planning Commissions are typically representative of and reactive to the will of the people, and if not they are easily replaced. Unfortunately, there is now Federal legislation, introduced on April 2, 2009 by U.S. Senator Russ Feingold allegedly intended to restore protections for waterways throughout the country.  Feingold’s Clean Water Restoration Act (CWRA) would ensure protections for rivers, streams and wetlands, which were long protected under the Clean Water Act (CWA), but are now in jeopardy of losing protections as a result of two recent Supreme Court cases.

Specifically, legislation S. 787, fundamentally changes the definition of “water” under control of the federal government:

The term ‘waters of the United States’ means all waters subject to the ebb and flow of the tide, the territorial seas, and all interstate and intrastate waters and their tributaries, including lakes, rivers, streams (including intermittent streams), mudflats, sandflats, wetlands, sloughs, prairie potholes, wet meadows, playa lakes, natural ponds, and all impoundments of the foregoing, to the fullest extent that these waters, or activities affecting these waters, are subject to the legislative power of Congress under the Constitution.

No longer is there a requirement for the waters to be navigable, and includes a vast component of “activities affecting these waters”. This essentially grants vast new control of land, via all waterways and riparian buffers, to the Federal government. Ominously, the entire text of S787 has no mention whatsoever of “just compensation”, meaning that the Federal government will be able to dismantle use of land without the consequence of paying for it. This is perhaps the greatest heist ever conceived by government, turning over perhaps our most precious asset to the special interests controlling Washington DC.

We are already burdened by state and local ordinances, often passed with little or no awareness by those affected. The proposed CWRA adds a Federal component to this already tricky area. It is a matter of our inherent right through the Pennsylvania Constitution, yet that document is constrained by the other rights it specifies and laws it establishes. As we continually and typically see from our Federal government, they are not so constrained. We ignore this legislation at our own peril.

By Mr. Right

Conservatives frequently come under fire for being “anti-environment.” Their accusers “conveniently” forget that the environmental movement was started by conservatives. In his speech at Osawatomie in 1910, Theodore Roosevelt, who is widely hailed as the first modern Republican, outlined his policy of conservation, stating, “Conservation means development as much as it does protection. I recognize the right and duty of this generation to develop and use the natural resources of our land but I do not recognize the right to waste them, or to rob, by wasteful use, the generations that come after us. I ask nothing of the nation except that it so behave as each farmer here behaves with reference to his own children. That farmer is a poor creature who skins the land and leaves it worthless to his children. The farmer is a good farmer who, having enabled the land to support himself and to provide for the education of his children, leaves it to them a little better than he found it himself.

I believe the same thing of a nation.” When boiled down, Roosevelt’s position of conservation means that while we should make use of the resources our nation has been blessed with, we should not needlessly squander or abuse them. This is a philosophy with biblical underpinnings; in Genesis, God gives Adam (and all mankind) stewardship over the earth. The terms of man’s stewardship are that while man is allowed to use the resources of the earth, he must ensure that those resources are responsibly cared for and that they are replenished for use by future generations. This creates a system which when followed will ensure that man is able to work in harmony with nature.

Conversely, the majority of liberals embrace a system known as preservation. Preservation calls for man to simply leave nature alone. It is easy to see why this is a foolish system; if man leaves nature alone he is neither able to use the land nor to ensure its future existence. Conservation, the system embraced by the majority of conservatives, is the only viable environmental policy. Under conservation, the country would be allowed and/or continue to be allowed to drill in Alaska, provide recreational forests for the public use, continue to harvest lobster and other sea creatures, and much, much more. All of these things can be accomplished through the responsible system of conservation, a conservative principle which is, not surprisingly, superior to the corresponding liberal principle.

Mr. Right is a senior at a local high school.