And global warming continues to make the news. First comes a story about a comment made by NASA administrator Michael Griffin in an interview with NPR’s Steve Inskeep. Inskeep asked Griffin whether he was concerned about global warming.

“I have no doubt that a trend of global warming exists,” Griffin told Inskeep. “I am not sure that it is fair to say that it is a problem we must wrestle with.”

“To assume that it is a problem is to assume that the state of Earth’s climate today is the optimal climate, the best climate that we could have or ever have had and that we need to take steps to make sure that it doesn’t change,” Griffin said. “I guess I would ask which human beings — where and when — are to be accorded the privilege of deciding that this particular climate that we have right here today, right now is the best climate for all other human beings. I think that’s a rather arrogant position for people to take.”

Griffin’s comments immediately drew stunned reaction from James Hansen, NASA’s top climate scientist at the Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York.

“It’s an incredibly arrogant and ignorant statement,” Hansen told ABC News. “It indicates a complete ignorance of understanding the implications of climate change.”

Can you hear Hanson’s cry of “Heretic!” at Griffin? I sure can! And what exactly are the “implications of climate change” that Hanson is frothing over? Humans have experienced hotter overall temperatures than the ones we are currently experiencing, most recently during the Medieval Warm Period of the 10th – 14th centuries. But Hansen’s response is disingenuous — his comment about the implication of climate change has nothing to do with Griffin’s question. Who are we to say that this climate is the best climate and that we should do something to arrest the climate to our arbitrary standard? Hanson continues to deliberately misunderstand Griffin’s query.

Hansen believes Griffin’s comments fly in the face of well-established scientific knowledge that hundreds of NASA scientists have contributed to.

“It’s unbelievable,” said Hansen. “I thought he had been misquoted. It’s so unbelievable.”

It’s not unbelievable. It’s just that Hansen isn’t listening to what Griffin is actually saying. Griffin isn’t denying that there is a warming trend. What he doubts is that we must be all a-twitter over “fixing” our climate. Climate temperatures rise and fall over time, just as the water level of the sea rises and falls over time with the tide. Griffin is saying that it is arrogant for scientists to claim that our current climate is the “right” climate and to try to fix temperatures at this level. Imagine a scientist standing at the seashore, declaring the “right” sea level and trying to stop the changing of the tide. Is it not arrogant to stand on the shore and demand that the tides obey your very whim?

Sadly, it appears that President Bush is climbing on the “we must fix it” bandwagon.

President Bush on Thursday urged 15 major nations to agree on a global emissions goal for greenhouse gases and to reach a consensus by next year.

With the United States accused of dragging its feet on combatting climate change, Bush called for a meeting this fall of 15 countries identified as major emitters of greenhouse gases. This list would include the United States, China, India and major European countries.

But Germany has a better plan, and it only calls for a reduction in emissions (read that as production of goods and services) to 50% of what it was in 1990. It is like making only 50% of the money you earned 17 years ago. Does that sound like a good plan?

Germany, which holds the European Union and Group of Eight presidencies, is proposing a so-called “two-degree” target, whereby global temperatures would be allowed to increase no more than 2 degrees Celsius – the equivalent of 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit – before being brought back down. Practically, experts have said that means a global reduction in emissions of 50 percent below 1990 levels by 2050.

It was hot yesterday, and there is no air conditioner at my place. But I took care of the matter because I gave strict instructions to my thermometer not to rise more than 3.6 degrees that day before it started to cool off. For some reason, it ignored me. I’m not sure why.

But good luck on that, Germany. Tell us how it works out.

Are you sick of hearing from the global warming whiners and climate change moaners? I know I sure am. I’m sick of reading gloomy sob-stories like the one titled “Time to tax carbon” that appeared in the LA Times on May 28, 2007:

If you have kids, take them to the beach. They should enjoy it while it lasts, because there’s a chance that within their lifetimes California’s beaches will vanish under the waves.

Global warming will redraw the maps of the world. The U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change predicts that sea levels will rise 7 to 23 inches by the end of the century; as the water gets higher, the sandy beaches that make California a tourist magnet will be washed away. Beachfront real estate will end up underwater, cliffs will erode faster, sea walls will buckle and inlets will become bays. The water supply will be threatened as mountain snowfall turns to rain and the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta faces contamination with saltwater. Droughts will likely become more common, as will the wildfires they breed.

Global warming is happening and will accelerate regardless of what we do today, but the scenarios of climatologists’ nightmares can still be avoided. Though the cost will be high, it pales in comparison to the cost of doing nothing.

Oh noes! Global warming iz teh suxx0rz! Everybody go see nature right away, because tomorrow it will be gone! It’s time to PANIC!!!!!!”

Well, maybe not.

Yes, there is a chance that California’s beaches will vanish under the waves because of rising sea levels caused by global warming. But there is also a chance that California’s beaches will vanish under the waves because of a huge tsunami caused by a massive meteor strike in the Pacific. I can come up with all sorts of horror stories, but what is the actual chance of global warming causing the sea level to rise sufficient to remove California’s beaches? The news article doesn’t say. But we must get crackin’ at doing something, the article says, because any cost we might have to pay now is better than the cost of doing nothing. Thus saith the LA Times.

The more I hear people moan about global warming, the more it sounds like the Red Queen in the last chapter of Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland:

‘No, no!’ said the Queen. ‘Sentence first–verdict afterwards.’

‘Stuff and nonsense!’ said Alice loudly. ‘The idea of having the sentence first!’

We don’t need no stinkin’ verdict that humans are causing global warming, we need a sentence first. It’s so important that we need to start now, Now, NOW to fix the climate. We can’t wait until we really know the cause. News articles like the one from the LA Times are “sentence first, verdict afterwards” articles. And they are “stuff and nonsense,” to quote Alice.

Have we actually proved that the earth is warming? There are people debating the methodology of getting a global-wide temperature of the Earth (“Open wide, Earth, and say, ‘Ah.’ Now keep this thermometer under your tongue for three minutes.”), while others claim to know the average temperature of the Earth down to .0001 of a degree, as displayed on this USA Today graphic. Pray tell, how does “scientific analysis” derive the information that the average temperature from 200-210 was 56.7302 degrees, and from 210-220 it was 56.7896? And what was the “scientific analysis” used to detect the difference of 0.0594 of a degree and not, say, 0.0595? And why does the USA Today graphic show no peaks for the Medieval Warm Period of the 10th – 14th centuries, or troughs for the Little Ice Age between the 16th and 19th centuries? Puzzling, isn’t it? The omission of these two time periods in the graphic is as startling as a hypothetical discussion of Louisiana events of 2005 which fails to mention Hurricane Katrina.

But if we say that global temperatures are actually rising, have we answered the question of whether the rise is caused by man’s actions? Well, no. I have often asked people to name the primary cause of global warming, but so far no one I’ve asked has ever answered correctly. [Answer here] If global warming is the result of human action as is so often stated, why are Mars and Neptune simultaneously warming up? But back to the LA Times article — what is their solution?

A well-designed, well-monitored carbon-trading scheme could deeply reduce greenhouse gases with less economic damage than pure regulation. But it’s not the best way, and it is so complex that it would probably take many years to iron out all the wrinkles. Voters might well embrace carbon taxes if political leaders were more honest about the comparative costs.

The world is under a deadline. Some scientists believe that once atmospheric carbon dioxide levels have doubled from the pre-industrial level, which may happen by mid-century if no action is taken, the damage may be irreversible.

Irreversible? Really? How is it that the Earth has had periods of much higher carbon dioxide levels than there are now, without irreversible damage?

What would be the real result of the LA Times‘ beloved carbon tax? Well, the simple answer is that you get less of what you tax, which is the real goal of the carbon tax. But what produces carbon in the first place? The answer is “just about everything,” including human production of goods and services. So a carbon tax will effectively limit all human production of goods and services. Are you ready to live in a world with fewer goods and services? If you approve of a carbon tax and the resultant drop in production, prepare to give up your car and never to fly in a commercial aircraft again.

I am really sick of hearing naysayers whine and moan about climate change. They remind me of others who have mastered the skill of complaining:

Gloom, despair, and agony on me!
(*woe*)
Deep dark depression, excessive misery.
(*woe*)
If it weren’t for bad luck, I’d have no luck at all.
(*woe*)
Gloom, despair, and agony on me!

A pig and a chicken were walking down the street when they noticed a billboard advertisement for a bacon and egg breakfast special. The chicken turned to the pig and exclaimed, “Isn’t it great? Think of all the people made happy by what we do!” The pig responded, “I don’t see why you feel so special. For you, it’s just a contribution, but for me it’s a total commitment.”

Are we totally committed, or are we merely contributing?

Let me give an example. In 1863, as the Civil War dragged on, the North needed men and money for the fight. The North levied a draft, but with a significant loophole — any draftee could get out of service by paying the government a fee of $300. Now it cannot be denied that a draftee buying his way out of service with $300 had contributed significantly to the war effort, but could he be said to be completely committed? Of course not. How could anyone be totally committed when all he had done was throw some money at his problem to make it go away? The soldiers who stood shoulder-to-shoulder in firing lines were completely committed, and almost 600,000 paid with their lives.

The difference between making a contribution and being totally committed was not lost on the people of the day. A well-dressed gentleman might be greeted with a sardonic call of “There goes a $300 man!” While both soldiers and wealthy “$300 men” contributed to the war effort, the total commitment of the soldiers trumped the monetary contribution of the wealthy.

Here’s a more recent example. The other day I drove behind someone with a TerraPass bumper sticker. The driver was still putting CO2 into the atmosphere, but he had purchased an indulgence from TerraPass so he didn’t have to change his lifestyle and become totally committed to reducing pollution. After a quick look at the TerraPass site, I realized that I could buy forgiveness for my car’s CO2 emissions with a simple yearly payment of $39.95. And it’s so much easier to pay to have someone else take care of my CO2 emissions than it is to be wholly committed to a vastly smaller CO2 footprint. That’s the difference between contribution and commitment.

I have seen the distinction between contribution and being completely and totally committed in another way. Former Vice President Al Gore has spent countless hours bringing global warming to the people’s attention through his movie An Inconvenient Truth, his books, and his speeches. But based on his actions, is Gore merely contributing to a solution, or is he completely committed to that solution?

The answer has to be obvious. While Gore is contributing his time, his energy, and his money, he is far from being totally committed to fixing global warming. Gore talks about the effects of CO2 on global warming, but his actions and lifestyle produces vast quantities of CO2. He has flown many thousands of miles on private and public jets to promote his cause, and his personal mansion consumes more energy in one month than the average American household consumes in a year. If he were totally committed he would change his lifestyle in a significant way, but he has not. Instead, he excuses his large, deep CO2 footprint through his contribution of money to fight the problem in his name.

If you ask me, Al Gore and TerraPass users are the 21st century’s version of the $300 man.

Speaker Pelosi is in the news again — this time, she is in Greenland with other members of Congress looking at climate change. If you haven’t noticed already, more and more people and reports are switching to the term “climate change” from “global warming.” This term is much more flexible and useful; whether temperatures go up or down, they can thus claim to have predicted it. Using the “climate change” method, I predict that stocks will go up and down over time. I like to call it “stock change.” Of course, I have to wonder who promised people that stocks and the climate would never change during their lifetimes.

But that’s not what caught my eye. I was reading a news article reporting Speaker Pelosi’s trip to Greenland when I noticed an error. See if you can spot the error in the following two paragraphs:

Her trip comes ahead of next week’s Group of Eight summit and a climate change meeting next month involving the leading industrialized nations and during a time of increased debate over what should succeed the Kyoto Protocol, a 1997 international treaty that caps the amount of carbon dioxide that can be emitted from power plants and factories in industrialized countries. It expires in 2012.

President Bush rejected that accord, saying it would harm the U.S. economy and unfair excludes developing countries like China and India from its obligations. Pelosi, who strongly disagrees with that decision and many other of Bush’s environmental policies, said Friday she said she wants to work with the administration rather than provoke it.

Based on what I read here, President Bush rejected the Kyoto Protocol. But that is completely and utterly wrong! I have to wonder whether the reporter, Geir Moulson, was too lazy to actually research the facts, or if he just sought to beat on President Bush for political brownie points. So, lazy or lying? It’s a tough call.

Here’s the facts: the U.S. is a signatory of the Kyoto Protocol, but even though the Protocol was signed, it does not take effect until ratified by the Senate. In 1997, the Senate voted 95-0 on a resolution not to ratify the Kyoto Protocol. Pray tell, Geir, what was President Bush’s role in rejecting the Kyoto Protocol in 1997? Here’s a hint: President Bush took office in 2001.

While President Bush is not a fan of the Kyoto Protocol, that is not the same as saying he “rejected that accord.” The Kyoto Protocol was rejected more than 40 months before President Bush even took office. So I must repeat my question: is Geir guilty of being too lazy to research the facts, or was it a deliberate attempt to mislead?

Lazy or lying? It’s your call.

UPDATE (5/29/2007 12:12:52 PM): Hehe. I see that Ed Morrissey of Captain’s Quarters spotted this same reporting error earlier today.

Woohoo! It’s Memorial Day — a three-day weekend for barbecues, pizzas, playing games, and avoiding mowing the lawn. But while you are enjoying this time, stop and remember those Americans who have fallen in military service. It is their sacrifice that has preserved us as a nation and made this day of shopping and drinking possible.

And yet we ask very little for those who fall. Then-Secretary of State Colin Powell was asked how he felt as a representative of a country seen by many as the Satan of contemporary politics:

So, far from being the Great Satan, I would say that we are the Great Protector. We have sent men and women from the armed forces of the United States to other parts of the world throughout the past century to put down oppression. We defeated Fascism. We defeated Communism. We saved Europe in World War I and World War II. We were willing to do it, glad to do it. We went to Korea. We went to Vietnam. All in the interest of preserving the rights of people.

And when all those conflicts were over, what did we do? Did we stay and conquer? Did we say, “Okay, we defeated Germany. Now Germany belongs to us? We defeated Japan, so Japan belongs to us”? No. What did we do? We built them up. We gave them democratic systems which they have embraced totally to their soul. And did we ask for any land? No, the only land we ever asked for was enough land to bury our dead. And that is the kind of nation we are. So, far from being the Satan, I think we are the protector of a universal value system that more and more people are recognizing as the correct value system: democracy, economic freedom, the individual rights of men and women to pursue their own destiny. That’s what we stand for, and that’s what we try to help other countries achieve as well. [emphasis mine - CM]

Bill Whittle echoes this characteristic of America: our ability to fight, conquer, and then leave as seen at the end of World War II:

History has never, and will never, record a time when such unchallenged power existed in the hands of a nation, nor of a time when opposing forces were so weak and in such a state of disarray and abject surrender.

And these feared and ruthless Americans, a people who had incinerated cities in Europe and Japan and whose ferocity and tenacity on island jungles and French beaches had brought fanatical warrior cultures to their knees – what did these new conquerors of the world do?

They went home is what they did. They did pause for a few years to rebuild the nations sworn to their destruction and the murder of their people. They carbon-copied their own system of government and enforced it on their most bitterly hated enemy, a people who have since given so much back to the world as a result of this generosity. They left troops in and sent huge sums of money to Europe to rebuild what they all knew would eventually become trading partners, but also determined competitors. Then they sent huge steel blades through their hard-earned fleets of ships and airplanes and came home to get on with their lives in peace and quiet. [emphasis Bill's - CM]

Remember this day those who have fallen in our service, and thank anyone you see in uniform, for they are putting their lives on the line for your freedom and peace.

Memorial Day 2007

George Santayana is credited with the following quote: “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” It is just as true today as it was when he first wrote it.

Liberals are comparing Iraq to Vietnam, and they are right, but not for the reasons they seem to think. What do we hear? We’re stuck in a “quagmire.” We can’t “win.” The war is already “lost.” And every night the news reports every death. The media is stuck in the same rut reporting on Iraq as though it were Vietnam. But it’s not a big deal, right? After all, Iraq is just like Vietnam; even President Bush talks like it is:

President Bush said in a one-on-one interview with ABC News’ George Stephanopoulos that a newspaper column comparing the current fighting in Iraq to the 1968 Tet offensive in Vietnam, which was widely seen as the turning point in that war, might be accurate.

Stephanopoulos asked whether the president agreed with the opinion of columnist Tom Friedman, who wrote in The New York Times today that the situation in Iraq may be equivalent to the Tet offensive in Vietnam almost 40 years ago.

“He could be right,” the president said, before adding, “There’s certainly a stepped-up level of violence, and we’re heading into an election.”

So what are the memes from this? Iraq = Vietnam, and fighting in Iraq = Tet offensive. For the people who are don’t remember the Tet offensive, it was a military victory for the U.S., but it was widely reported and subsequently viewed as a major failure. Let me repeat — the failure didn’t happen in Vietnam; it was created by our press. Walter Cronkite reported that the fighting in Vietnam was unwinnable right in the middle of the Tet offensive, and this depressed President Johnson enough that he chose not to run in the 1968 presidential election. He reportedly said, “If I’ve lost Walter Cronkite, I’ve lost Middle America.” We didn’t lose the Tet offensive, but it was reported as a failure.

And the North Vietnamese were closely watching the news. A former officer in the North Vietnamese army, Bui Tin, discussed the American media’s effect on the war in an interview by Stephen Young reported in the Wall Street Journal on August 3, 1995:

Stephen Young: How did Hanoi intend to defeat the Americans?
Bui Tin: By fighting a long war which would break their will to help South Vietnam. Ho Chi Minh said, “We don’t need to win military victories, we only need to hit them until they give up and get out.”

Stephen Young: Was the American antiwar movement important to Hanoi’s victory?
Bui Tin: It was essential to our strategy. Support of the war from our rear was completely secure while the American rear was vulnerable. Every day our leadership would listen to world news over the radio at 9 a.m. to follow the growth of the American antiwar movement. Visits to Hanoi by people like Jane Fonda, and former Attorney General Ramsey Clark and ministers gave us confidence that we should hold on in the face of battlefield reverses. We were elated when Jane Fonda, wearing a red Vietnamese dress, said at a press conference that she was ashamed of American actions in the war and that she would struggle along with us.

Stephen Young: Did the Politburo pay attention to these visits?
Bui Tin: Keenly.

Stephen Young: Why?
Bui Tin: Those people represented the conscience of America. The conscience of America was part of its war-making capability, and we were turning that power in our favor. America lost because of its democracy; through dissent and protest it lost the ability to mobilize a will to win. [emphasis mine -- CM]

The murderous thugs in Iraq want the U.S. out of Iraq, giving them a free hand to rule and terrorize that country as they see fit. Democrats want the U.S. out of Iraq, and that will give the murderous thugs a free hand to rule Iraq with terror. Liberals scream when we question their patriotism, but why is it their desires so closely match the desires of the people who are actively fighting our military? The Democrats are the party of defeat. If Iraq becomes a peaceful country, only the Democrats lose. If we pull out of Iraq as we did Vietnam, the Iraqis will lose, our military will lose, and Democrats will win. Well, they will have won only until the emboldened killers in Iraq and around the world laugh at the American paper tiger, and they choose to bring fighting and terror to American shores.

Liberals are comparing Iraq to Vietnam, and they are right because their reporting and negativity are the same. And their constant negative reporting is bolstering the morale of the people who kill Iraqis and Americans. But there is another area of similarity: our decision to run from Vietnam led to millions of deaths, and the decision to run from Iraq will certainly lead to the same. But since liberals do not learn from history, it’s no wonder that they seek to repeat their past failures.

I have lost count the number of times I’ve heard someone say, “The rich get richer, and the poor get poorer,” when talking about capitalism in general, or our country under President Bush in specific. This presupposes that there are easily defined groups we can point to as “rich” or “poor.” The dirty little fact that too many people ignore is the fluidity of these groups. People who are “poor” this year may have been millionaires last year, and people who are poor, starving students this year may be pulling down the big bucks right after graduation. When we say that America is the home of the free, we mean that people are free to fail just as they are free to succeed.

Contrary to the phrase, while the rich are getting richer, so are the poor. Here is a snippet from a Wall Street Journal story posted yesterday titled “The Poor Get Richer.” (subscription required)

Earnings growth tapered off as the economy slowed in the early part of this decade, but earnings for low-income families have still nearly doubled in the years since welfare reform became law. Some two million welfare mothers have left the dole for jobs since the mid-1990s. Far from being a disaster for the poor, as most on the left claimed when it was debated, welfare reform has proven to be a boon.

The report also rebuts the claim, fashionable in some precincts on CNN, that the middle class is losing ground. The median family with children saw an 18% rise in earnings from the early 1990s through 2005. That’s $8,500 more purchasing power after inflation. The wealthiest fifth made a 55% gain in earnings, but the key point is that every class saw significant gains in income.

On the one hand we have a well-used slogan, and on the other hand we have historical reality. The next time you hear some liberal use the phrase, “The rich get richer, and the poor get poorer,” you can explain that just isn’t the case here in the United States.

Not that hearing the facts will change the average liberal’s mind.

As I sat catching up on news this morning, my monitor flickered, and the Drudge Report changed into an alternate reality version of the Drudge Report. I could tell this was an alternate reality because everyone pictured on Drudge had a goatee. But here’s the first part of the story that caught my eye:

Washington Authorizes New Covert Action Against Hessians
December 22, 1776 6:29 PM

Brian Ross and Richard Esposito Report:

The Continental Army has received secret approval to mount a covert “black” operation to destabilize the Hessian garrison in Trenton, New Jersey, current and former officials in the Continental Army tell the Blotter on ABCNews.com.

The sources, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitive nature of the subject, say General Washington has signed a “lethal General finding” that puts into motion an army plan that reportedly includes a coordinated campaign of sneaking across the Delaware River on Christmas to assault the Hessian’s stronghold when they least expect it.

The screen flickered again and the story shimmered as if my monitor had just been degaussed, which is a pretty cool trick since it’s an LCD. I could hardly believe it, but the story had changed on my screen:

Roosevelt Authorizes New Terror Weapon Against Axis Powers
November 22, 1940 6:29 PM

Brian Ross and Richard Esposito Report:

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has received secret presidential approval to mount a covert “black” operation to develop a devastating new terror weapon, current and former officials in the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers tell the Blotter on ABCNews.com.

The sources, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitive nature of the subject, say President Roosevelt has signed a “very lethal presidential finding” that puts into motion a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers plan that reportedly includes a coordinated campaign of research to develop an “implosive-explosive sub-molecular device.”

At this point I knew I had to be hallucinating caused by after-effects from the pork chile verde I ate last night. After a quick drink of water in the kitchen, I was happy to see that The Blotter entry on ABC had stopped shifting around and was finally stable. But the news was just as disturbing:

Bush Authorizes New Covert Action Against Iran
May 22, 2007 6:29 PM

Brian Ross and Richard Esposito Report:

The CIA has received secret presidential approval to mount a covert “black” operation to destabilize the Iranian government, current and former officials in the intelligence community tell the Blotter on ABCNews.com.

The sources, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitive nature of the subject, say President Bush has signed a “nonlethal presidential finding” that puts into motion a CIA plan that reportedly includes a coordinated campaign of propaganda, disinformation and manipulation of Iran’s currency and international financial transactions.

Well, whatever secret cover this plan once enjoyed has now been blown sky-high, thanks to the reporting of Ross and Esposito. Are there any other secrets they are poised to reveal to one and all? Maybe they have some combat plans for fighting the Taliban remnants in Afghanistan they’d like to pass on. Are there any secret discussions between the U.S. and British governments that Brian Ross and Richard Esposito would like to air? *sniff* Nothing quite like the smell of the American press leaking secrets to the world. Good for ratings, don’t you know?

My brief trip to alternate dimensions is over, but I am convinced that members of the mainstream media live in an alternate reality all their own.

Oh, what fun! Over the weekend a water pipe broke in the basement, and gallons of water started to pour into the house. I made a quick call to a plumber, and he explained to me that based on current government guidelines, we would need to take care of the water already in the house before the plumber would fix the broken pipe. He suggested that we fine the water in the house, give it a “Z card” for temporary residency with an option for permanent residency, and I would need to pay for any doctor bills the water incurred.

OK, so I’m being silly, as you might have guessed, and I didn’t have a pipe break this weekend. It really happened several months ago during a bitter cold spell. I was sitting at my computer, and I thought I heard the shower running, but the sound was coming from the garage. When I took a look out there, water was pouring from the light fixtures on the ceiling. My first priority was to find the water main, shut it off, and cut off the flow of water pouring into the attic space above the garage. Once the water was shut off, it was time to start sweeping the water out of the garage — and to start wondering why anyone would put a bare water pipe in the attic over an unheated garage in the first place.

I could have focused on the water pouring out of the ceiling instead of cutting off the flow to the house. If I had done that, I would have spent all my time placing buckets under the streams of water draining out of the ceiling and mopping around where it splashed. Depending on how fast I worked and the number of buckets available to me, I could have kept up with the flow indefinitely, but who wants to live with a broken pipe?

Apparently, we do. We have a broken pipe of illegal aliens pouring into our nation. And in its infinite wisdom, the government is more concerned with putting out buckets and mopping up rather than first shutting off the flow. I have to wonder whether members of the House and Senate have ever had a broken pipe in their homes, and whether they were just as illogical in fixing that as they have been in fixing illegal immigration.

Our first priority should be to turn off the flow. Our second priority should be to clean up the mess and patch the pipe. “But Captain, are you saying we need to deport the 12 million illegals already here?” I’ve often heard that question, and I’ll answer it with another — once you have fixed the broken water pipe, do you leave the water standing where it poured in, or do you clean it out? I believe the analogy holds.

Can we stop the flow of illegal aliens completely? I wouldn’t bet on it, but we certainly can reduce the flow to a small trickle rather than a torrential flow, and a secure border is the best way to do it. I’m not guessing that a secure border would greatly reduce the flow because it has already been proved:

The San Diego Border Fence works:

  • Illegal alien apprehensions along the fenced region were reduced from over 202,000 in 1992 to approximately 9,000 in 2004. Further, it is estimated that the apprehensions vs. attempts ratio increased to over 90%;
  • Following the establishment of the San Diego Border Fence, crime rates in San Diego have fallen dramatically. According to the FBI Crime Index, crime in San Diego County dropped 47.3% between 1989 to 2000;
  • Vehicle drive-throughs in the region have fallen from between 6 to 10 per day before the construction of border infrastructure to only four drive-throughs in 2004, all of which were isolated in locations where secondary fencing is incomplete;
  • The fence has forced drug smugglers, who once crossed the San Diego border without contest, to focus their efforts of access through America’s ports of entry, significantly increasing the likelihood of discovery and seizure of illegal narcotics entering the U.S.

We have a broken pipe flowing into the U.S. Do you want to stop the flow first, or would you rather spend all your time, money and energy mopping up?

I am a big fan of Bill Whittle’s writing, and he has come out with a big update to his site titled “You Are Not Alone.” But more than just an essay long enough to be split into two parts, he has a BIG IDEA, and you can be part of it. So go get crackin’!

You Are Not Alone, Part 1
You Are Not Alone, Part 2
Comments for You Are Not Alone
Being part of building Ejectia.