This site is dedicated to everything that can be disagreed about. There are appropriate swear words and graphic descriptions so PLEASE, keep your children off this site. In fact, don't let your kids look at anything with a screen.

Tuesday, August 30, 2005

There’s An Elephant In The Room

Saturday started the way I like to start my day: with a cup of coffee and a copy of the Rocky Mountain News. It took about 30 seconds for my mood to be soured. The first story in the Lineup is “Parched Future for S. Platte Farmland”. I know this; we all know this. Every one of us knows that farmland is being eaten up by development and water is being eaten (drunk) up by the cities. What’s the new news? I continue reading, looking desperately for the elephant. I FOUND IT! There it was*; one sentence in the middle of a paragraph, in the middle of the story.

Sunday started the way I like to start my day: with a cup of coffee and a copy of the Rocky Mountain News. It took about 30 seconds for my mood to be soured. The first story is another one about failing public schools. This time the developers want to do something about the poor state of public education by building their own schools (we will ignore the fact that they are gobbling up farm land and open space, for now). I scan the article to see if anybody noticed the elephant. Nope. The News noticed the tracks, the developers are trying to fill them; but it appears that nobody noticed the beast responsible. I just shake my head and read on.

I finally make my way to my favorite section of the newspaper, the Op-Ed section. The first story is troubling, but typical. It is one I am all too familiar with. We are loving our national parks to death. I honestly don’t know why I would want to depress myself on such a nice day but I read the story anyway. I must know if the writers of the article noticed the elephant. They didn’t. Ditto the story below it regarding the energy needs of the future.

The tracks of the enormous beast are all over this state. The tracks are all over most states in this country. Government, at every level, race to fill in the tracks as the animal runs roughshod over the country. Filling in these tracks is preferred to harnessing the animal so that it cannot do any more damage. It is a losing battle. The beast moves much quicker than government (but then, what doesn’t?). While it is destroying schools, roads, hospitals, national parks, farmland and open space, and sucking up the last bit of water and energy, the media, the government, and the environmentalists close their eyes, put their hands over their ears and sing “la la la”.

Oh yes, the poor creature does have a name. Its name is mass immigration. The 1990’s saw the largest population boom in our country’s history. In the last decade, the United States added an additional 32.7 million people to our country. This is despite the fact that native U.S. citizens have a negative fertility rate. The replacement rate of citizens leaving the country permanently is 225,000 per year. Simple math dictates then that we should have allowed less than three million immigrants into the country during this decade. The situation as it currently exists is clearly not sustainable. If the U.S. Congress acted on limiting immigration right now (225,000 replacement-level), it is still not sustainable. This is because the fertility rate of immigrant women is 40 percent higher in this country than the one they came from. By 2050, there would be 315 million people in the U.S.. Just over 240 million of the 315 million in 2050 would be descendants of people here in 1970. If Congress does nothing, we will approach 400 million people in 2050. By the end of the century, we will double our current population. ALL of this growth will be the result of mass immigration.

In 1969, President Nixon addressed the problem. He told the nation, "One of the most serious challenges to human destiny in the last third of this century will be the growth of the population. Whether man's response to that challenge will be a cause for pride or for despair in the year 2000 will depend very much on what we do today.” This led to his signing of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Title I of the act begins, “The Congress, recognizing the profound impact of man's activity on the interrelations of all components of the environment, particularly the profound influences of population growth...". Why were Congress, the President, and the public more concerned about sustainable population growth in 1970? Why is it not even discussed in the media now?

Well the answer to the first question is simple. Environmentalists knew that one couldn’t divorce population growth with environmental protection, and they were vocal about these concerns. They also had the backing of the federal government (Republicans and Democrats alike). The answers to the second question are numerous and complicated, but one stands out more than most. U.S. citizens do not want to appear hostile to immigrants. We are a very compassionate country; no nation has helped more people in human history than the United States. However, political correctness has trumped a rational discourse on what to do about mass immigration. Political correctness trumps the environment, public education, healthcare services, land use, water and energy depletion, pollution control, taxes , urban sprawl, crime… the list goes on ad infinitum. Political correctness stifles all debate with one word: racist.

There are only three things that can be done to protect our social and environmental resources: 1) Put a moratorium on all immigration, both legal and illegal, now. 2) Arrest employer’s who higher illegal immigrants. If there is no work, many immigrants will leave of their own accord. 3)Put massive numbers of people on the borders to prevent immigration. This is where political correctness makes the problem of mass immigration more difficult. There is no way any of these three points will happen unless the Left recognizes that mass immigration is a problem. I mention the Left because they are the ones who are shockingly silent on this issue. They are the ones who despair over the environment, the schools, energy policy, and healthcare. They are also those who will to stifle dialog by shouting one word: RACIST. Honest liberals must disassociate themselves with people who would use such and inflammatory word.

If the Left doesn’t wake up, there will be no environment to save, public schools will be dilapidated, open space will be paved over, water and energy resources will disappear along with overburdened hospitals. If the Right doesn’t wake up, taxes, bureaucracy, and crime will all increase as government tries to fill in the footprint of mass immigration. I urge all environmentalists, parents, city planners, law enforcement, politicians, farmers, ranchers, and the media to study the website,, carefully and thoroughly. While listening to the news or reading the newspaper, do so critically. And don’t forget about the elephant.

*The sentence reads as follows: “During the next 25 years another 1.93 million people are expected in the South Platte Basin.”

*A rather interesting aside: Sunday's Post editorial (sorry, no link) concerns the overpopulation of the elk herd in Colorado. Some quotes (with my own changes in brackets{}):

" some places, they're {illegal immigrants} too numerous for the ecosystems and nearby human {U.S. citizens} communities.

Because the ecosystems are out of whack...wildlife managers {law enforcement} must take tough steps and officials {politicians} should support them.

[While] overwhelming the ecosystem that sustains them, the huge herds {of immigrants} also might spread chronic wasting disease {TB, syphillis, leprosy}."


Anonymous Anonymous said...

Your link is one of the scariest things I've ever seen. I had no idea.

The last part of your post is hilarious!


7:52 PM

Blogger The Plumber said...

Hi A2,

Thanks for stopping by. Some people, even in light of the evidence, would rather keep their eyes closed rather than appear hostile to immigrants. This will be to our own peril.

It is like somebody throwing rocks at your house and you cannot legally subdue them. You can call the authorties, but they not only won't stop the rock throwers, but they will encourage more people to throw rocks. When the rock throwers run out of rocks, the government will increase your taxes to pay for more rocks so that the rock throwers can continue their jobs. When the rock throwers get done, the government will again raise your taxes to clean up the mess the rock throwers made.

9:50 PM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

just saw your post over at king of the hillman.

you have a pretty interesting blog.

anon2, if only half of the info at the plumbers link for this story are true, it really is frightening. I may have to get my butt down to the border.


2:33 PM


Post a Comment

<< Home