This message is for Roger Ebert. First, let me recommend you quit staying at the Holiday Inn Express.

Second, global warming is indeed real, but it can’t be stopped by scaremongering bureaucrats or by turning off the front porch light.

The convenient truth is to believe mankind can do anything remotely close to changing the earth’s climate within a ten year period. The Apollo program was big, but compared to this it’s like changing a bike tire. It’s convenient in terms of the given time frame, which is designed to be short enough to scare voters into voting left now or risk facing runaway global warming.

The inconvenient truth is that even by doing nothing (failing to elect environmentalists like Gore) the earth will continue to do as it wishes, as it always has. Conversely, if we DO choose to elect environmentalists the earth will continue to do as it wishes, just as it always has, but our taxes will increase and we’ll probably lose the GWoT. A sudden burst of nuclear winter might tend to make us forget the whole climate thing (sorry, such hypotheticals are called sleazy scaremongering when practiced by the right).

But here’s news, Mr. Gore and Mr. Ebert–earth science isn’t always an exact science. For example, not even Gore would dare predict when and where the next big earthquake might occur, or which volcanoes might pop off before 2015. Meteorologists themselves don’t predict out beyond 10 days using the best computers on earth. Therefore, anyone who claims a “100 percent agreement” about the cause of global warming is either a liar, clown, or a pandering politician.

As for me, I’m not beyond believing global warming is totally human-induced, just like I’m not averse to believing aliens are routinely abducting people or that crop circles are being produced by means other than drunk engineering students. They could do a lot more to convince people by loading their super computer with 1900 data, crunching the numbers, then coming out with the correct result for 2000. Or how about just starting with a model than can correctly predict 30 days out and go from there?

After all, that’s the least we should expect before pouring our GNP into a global socialistic wealth redistribution scheme enforced by carbon police headquarted at the UN and eventually run by Bill Clinton.

It’s a fairly dangerous area.

Anytime a conservative wanders down the road of discussion about family values, morals, ethics, or the rule of law, folks immediately begin looking to point fingers of fault back at the commentator. It’s human nature. So let’s get it out of the way–I’m just as messed up as the next guy. Hey, we’re all messed up to varying degrees, even the Pope. That doesn’t mean we can’t discuss right and wrong. So here goes.

The rule of law is taking some big hits at the moment. Not to say it’s never happened in the past but it does seem more pervasive than ever in America, with members of Congress figuratively driving the chuck wagon and whipping the horses. Example one, our illustrious leaders recently had the nerve to cackle about the need to maintain their Capitol Hill offices as sanctuaries against subpeonas, presumably to keep their incriminating evidence away from the other branches of government.

Funny though, they seem utterly perplexed as to why over 80 percent of their constituencies don’t quite see it the same way.

Other “public servants” have seemingly gotten away with crimes that would land the average you and me in jail. I’m speaking of Congresswoman McKinney (striking an officer of the law) and Congressman Kennedy (driving while under the influence of something leading to a crash). Surely there are republican examples, just fill in the blank. But it’s not only Congress, judges are doing some confusing things, too. The recent decision to not send a convicted felon to jail because he was “too short” comes to mind.

But the most annoying rule-of-law slippage involves illegal immigration. The same crimes committed by our undocumented coworkers would land a citizen in jail, but we’re learning that some trespasses are more forgivable than others. Meanwhile, the response from DC is to throw it back in our faces as if to say, “they’re doing the jobs you won’t do, so get over it” while the illegal aliens themselves march in the streets demanding the rights they checked at the border. Such a density of rational thought boggles the mind.

Political consultant extrordinaire Dick Morris was recently on the air talking about strategy. He believes the republicans are on the verge of losing the burgeoning Hispanic vote forever if they come down too hard on the border issue. Peggy Noonan penned a generic response to that notion by suggesting a bipolar, er bipartisan concept, aka a third party. She’s certainly not alone in those sentiments.

But a third party is no magic bullet. If we continue living by a national motto of “get yours before the other guy does” it’ll be nothing more than an exercise in shuffling the Titanic’s deck chairs. The new leaders must have an unbinding respect for the rule of law and it’s importance to make any real difference, which requires the same from the electorate. Anything less and we simply continue our march down the yellow brick road leading to a banana republic.

The solution is not real hard. The Bible’s quaint suggestion that we “do unto others” is fairly intuitive, no matter what one believes, and no one doubts the world would be much better if everyone could practice that preaching. The founders began in that same league by laying out our present system based on a Creator providing inalienable rights (not alien rights), which has served us well these many years, a success based mainly on the bedrock principles it was laid upon and our willingness to uphold them.

However, knowing human nature most of the founders were skeptical such an experiment would last very long. Let’s not prove them right.