Is this a true statement – 97 percent of climate scientists agree that climate change is real

Is this a true statement? “97 percent of climate scientists agree that climate change is real.”

It’s one of the most illogical, unscientific arguments you can make

Climate Scientist out of context

Climate Scientist out of context

 

How many times have you heard that statement? Probably hundreds. It may seem like a compelling and scientific argument against fossil fuels, but it’s one of the most illogical, unscientific arguments you can make. To see how, let’s use this form of argument for another controversial product, vaccines.

An anti-vaccine person approaches you and says, “97 percent of doctors say that the side effects of vaccines are real?”

What would you say in response?

You’d probably say, “Yeah but the benefits far outweigh the side effects.”

By saying that “97% of doctors agree that vaccine side effects are real” without mentioning any of the benefits of vaccines, the anti-vaccine activist is trying to get you to look at the potential dangers of vaccines out of context.

When fossil fuel opponents say “97 percent of climate scientists agree that climate change is real,” they are doing the same. Yes, using fossil fuels for energy has a side effect?increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. Okay. But what about the upside? In the case of fossil fuel that upside is enormous: the cheap, plentiful, and reliable energy that makes modern life possible, and at a scale no other energy source can match.

So, how significant is the side effect? This raises another problem with the statement “97% percent of climate scientists agree that climate change is real.” It tells us nothing about the meaning or magnitude of “climate change”?whether it’s a mild, manageable warming or a runaway, catastrophic warming. This is an example of the fallacy of equivocation?using the same term in different, contradictory ways.

If someone were to say “97% of doctors agree that vaccine side effects are real,” what exact “vaccine side effects” do the doctors agree on? That a certain number of babies will get a rash? Or that large percentages will get full-blown autism? Precision is key, right?

But fossil fuel opponents don’t want you to know the precise magnitude of climate change. Because if you did you wouldn’t be scared of climate change, you would be scared of losing the benefits of fossil fuels.

For example, listen to how Secretary of State John Kerry manipulates the “97 percent of scientists” line. “97 percent of climate scientists have confirmed that climate change is happening and that human activity is responsible,” he said in a speech in Indonesia in 2014. Later, in the same speech, he claimed that Scientists agree that, “The world as we know it will change?and it will change dramatically for the worse.” 97 percent of climate scientists never said any such thing.

So what did the 97 percent actually say? It turns out, nothing remotely resembling catastrophic climate change. One of the main studies justifying 97 percent was done by John Cook, a climate communications fellow for the Global Change Institute in Australia. Here’s his own summary of his survey: “Cook et al. (2013) found that over 97 percent [of papers surveyed] endorsed the view that the Earth is warming up and human emissions of greenhouse gases are the main cause.”

“Main cause” means “over 50 percent. But the vast majority of papers don’t say that human beings are the main cause of recent warming. In fact, one analysis showed that less than 2 percent of papers actually said that.

How did Cook get to 97 percent, then? First, he added papers that explicitly said there was man-made warming but didn’t say how much. Then, he added papers that didn’t even say there was man-made warming, but he thought it was implied.

A scientific researcher has a sacred obligation to accurately report his findings. Cook and researchers like him have failed us?as have the politicians and media figures who have blindly repeated the 97 percent claim to support their anti-fossil fuel goals.

How can we protect ourselves against this kind of manipulation? Whenever someone tells you that scientists agree on something, ask two questions: “What exactly do they agree on? And, “How did they prove it?”

I’m Alex Epstein, author of The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels, for Prager University.

Give Old Guard Audio a Listen, you will be glad you did!

Ken Starr – Clinton era Special Prosecutor on the FAKE NEWS of Trump Obstructing Justice

Ken Starr – Clinton era Special Prosecutor on the FAKE NEWS of Trump Obstructing Justice

Ken Star says there is no obstruction of justice, and questions need for Special Counsel 

0-00

so joining me now Ken Starr who served

0-02

as independent counsel for five special

0-04

investigations including the whitewater

0-05

investigation involving then President

0-08

Clinton mr. Starr welcome good to have

0-10

you with us tonight great to be with you

0-13

thank you so you watch this testimony

0-15

today and I know that you’ve said that

0-17

there is no obstruction of justice that

0-19

you have seen in any of this and you’ve

0-21

questioned even the need for a special

0-23

counsel given the evidence what did you

0-25

think about Jeff Sessions testimony

0-27

today

0-27

I thought the attorney general was

0-30

terrific

0-31

first of all I’ve known the Attorney

0-33

General since 1981 and I know him to be

0-36

a man of honor a man of the law and I

0-41

thought that came through his passion

0-43

and commitment to the rule of law

0-45

I came shining through so I don’t think

0-48

a lot was revealed today and I think

0-50

we’re much farther down the road but I

0-52

think that the American people saw that

0-54

this Attorney General is just a great

0-57

human being with an enormous amount of

0-59

passion and determination to try his

1-02

very best to do the right thing I like

1-05

his sense of moral indignation so given

1-08

that what do you think in reflection

1-10

about James Comey and what he suggested

1-12

about Jeff Sessions well a lot of what

1-17

director Comey suggested if I may say so

1-20

was innuendo but we’ve now seen a very

1-23

honorable person defend himself and I

1-27

thought he recorded himself beautifully

1-30

I thought he was very very plausible

1-32

and I have stated previously that I have

1-35

serious problems with the way director

1-37

Comey conducted himself and those were

1-40

really explored again today by virtue of

1-42

the senators going through meticulously

1-45

the Rosenstein memorandum which

1-47

enumerated the various areas in which

1-50

the director really violated perhaps law

1-54

but he certainly violated policy time

1-56

and time again

1-57

all right so in terms of investigations

1-59

which you are very familiar with one of

2-01

the things that the Democrats took issue

2-03

with today primarily we’re moments like

2-05

this let’s play number 5 I did not have

2-09

any private meetings no other do I

2-12

recall any Congress

2-13

stations with any Russian officials at

2-15

the Mayflower Hotel I did not attend any

2-18

meetings at that event to the best of

2-20

your memory you had no conversation

2-22

within that ambassador kishlak at that

2-25

meeting I don’t recall it senator Morra

2-27

it would been certainly I can assure you

2-29

nothing improper if I’d had a

2-31

conversation with him and it’s

2-33

conceivable that occurred I just don’t

2-35

remember well I guess I could say that

2-38

possibly at a meeting but I still do not

2-41

recall it there’s a lot of counting of

2-43

the times he said I don’t recall and

2-45

people saying you know how could that

2-47

possibly be your that well I’m very

2-51

sympathetic with with that my goodness

2-53

it’s difficult for us to recall what

2-55

happened last week we’re going back some

2-58

considerable time and also it was not

3-00

one of those interactions that you would

3-02

automatically say you should remember

3-04

that a reasonable person would remember

3-06

that because no Americans back all the

3-08

time and he was a very permanent figure

3-10

around Washington and showed up at a lot

3-12

of these things right exactly and it was

3-14

a social kind of gathering etc or at

3-17

least it was a social context as opposed

3-19

to we’re going over to the Russian

3-21

embassy or the Ambassador is coming to

3-23

your Senate office for a meeting

 

Give Old Guard Audio a Listen, you will be glad you did!

Oliver Stone heaps compliments on Vladimir Putin, calls news reports about hacking FAKE NEWS

Oliver Stone heaps compliments on Vladimir Putin, calls news reports about hacking FAKE NEWS

BBC Fake News reporter Laura Trevelyan, is taken aback by Oliver Stone’s positive comments on Putin and the Russia FAKE NEWS

 

Oliver Stone agrees with Pres Trump and Putin - election intervention is FAKE NEWS

Oliver Stone agrees with Pres Trump and Putin – election intervention is FAKE NEWS

The Liberal Fake News BBC’s Laura Trevelyan spoke to the filmmaker Oliver Stone about his upcoming documentary with Vladimir Putin. Oliver Stone asked the Russian president about the US election hacking situation. The liberal fake news journalist was not ready for what she heard.

Oliver Stone interview with Vladimir Putin, Stone was extremely complimentary of the man, yet the BBC/PBS pushed it, and Stone said the Russia election thing was all smoke with no fire, Russia had nothing to do with Trump and the 2016 election. And he even labeled the coverage of it as FAKE NEWS

Give Old Guard Audio a Listen, you will be glad you did!

0-00

Vladimir Putin is a former KGB operative

0-02

he understands the importance of

0-04

television he understands the importance

0-05

of image is it possible that he’s using

0-07

you to send a message

0-09

perhaps you that isn’t really a true one

0-11

that he doesn’t really want okay well in

0-12

one he certainly know it’s an elaborate

0-14

ruse but I’m he knows that I’m not going

0-17

to change American policy but what I

0-18

should I’d like to do is contribute to a

0-20

consciousness of what he’s saying you

0-25

have had unparalleled access to Vladimir

0-28

Putin for a Western filmmaker what do

0-31

you hope all that access is revealing

0-34

about him I hope to it would lead to a

0-36

serious interesting and discussion about

0-39

world affairs particularly US and Russia

0-42

she wouldn’t yeah at the instability she

0-44

is previously understood tell me it’s I

0-46

use Nick over he lays out a world that

0-49

we don’t know you know Russia’s referred

0-51

to rather than eleven only in the

0-52

Western media but let’s get beyond those

0-55

those images those caricatures and

0-57

that’s what I wanted to do is it your

0-59

impression from these hours of

1-01

interviews that Vladimir Putin genuinely

1-03

wants a better relationship with the

1-04

West absolutely there’s just no doubt in

1-07

my mind he referred to the United States

1-09

consistently as our partner I never

1-11

heard a bad word there was some

1-13

criticism under Miss unjust he said I

1-15

didn’t understand why our partners were

1-17

doing this and the Ukraine point and the

1-20

Syrian point when he explained

1-21

Ukrainians it in a way that perhaps a

1-24

westerner can understand that the

1-25

Russians look at this completely

1-26

differently than we do so I have to

1-28

wonder where is the the threat that we

1-30

talked about where the NATO commanders

1-32

are perhaps exaggerating this to get

1-35

make sure that the Alliance stays

1-37

together and they’ve implied that

1-40

Russia’s behind everything in the West

1-42

that was wrong what’s their concerns not

1-44

it’s not bespoke with practically any

1-46

traditions you are Adam a Putin directly

1-49

did Russia hack the u.s. election and he

1-52

tells you it’s all lies do you accept

1-55

that he didn’t put it that way but he

1-57

thought it was a preposterous statement

1-59

but did you believe him when he said I

2-01

probably I absolutely believe that

2-03

there’s all smoke and no fire are there

2-05

would you agree with President Donald

2-06

Trump them when he says that stories

2-08

about Russia hacking to influence the US

2-11

election a fake news

2-13

oh definitely as Putin said I think it’s

2-16

an internal political battle in America

2-18

and I think it’s worked I mean it’s

2-20

obscured the possibility of resetting

2-23

the relations it’s installed everything

2-26

you’ve spent all this time with a man

2-28

who has been called a ruthless opponent

2-31

accused of killing his political

2-33

opponents did you ever worry that you

2-35

might be unwittingly a tool of Putin

2-38

propaganda if I was and you know it’s

2-41

certainly an adventure but I don’t buy

2-43

those old spy Wars you know the English

2-47

are great at inventing James Bond sort

2-49

of scenarios I didn’t see him as doctor

2-51

no no he’s a very rational man

 

President Trump’s personal attorney Marc Kasowitz response to Comey Testimony

President Trump’s personal attorney Marc Kasowitz response to the former Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation James Comey Testimony at the Senate

Mark Kasowitz attorney to President Trump

0-00

ladies and gentlemen I’m mark Kassovitz

0-03

president Trump’s personal lawyer

0-06

contrary to numerous false press

0-09

accounts leading up to today’s hearing

0-12

  1. Comey has now finally confirmed

0-15

publicly what he repeatedly told

0-18

President Trump privately that is that

0-22

the president was not under

0-24

investigation as part of any probe into

0-28

Russian interference the president he

0-32

  1. Comey also admitted that there is no

0-34

evidence that a single vote change as a

0-38

result of any Russian interference

0-40

  1. commies testimony also makes clear

0-44

that the president never sought to

0-47

impede the investigation into attempted

0-50

Russian interference in the 2016

0-53

election and in fact according to mr.

0-57

Comey the president told mr. Comey quote

1-00

it would be good to find out close quote

1-04

in that investigation if there was quote

1-07

some satellite Associates of his who did

1-11

something wrong

1-12

close quote and he President Trump did

1-17

not exclude anyone from that statement

1-21

consistent with that statement the

1-24

president never in form or substance

1-27

directed or suggested that mr. Comey

1-31

stop investigating anyone including the

1-36

president never suggested that mr. Comey

1-39

quote let Flynn go close quote as the

1-45

president publicly stated the next day

1-46

he did say to mr. Comey quote general

1-51

Flynn is a good guy he has been through

1-54

a lot close quote and also quote asked

1-58

how general Flynn is doing close quote

2-01

Admiral Rogers testified today that the

2-05

president never quote directed him to do

2-09

anything illegal immoral

2-13

unethical or inappropriate close quote

2-17

and never never quote pressured him to

2-22

do so

2-22

close quote director Coates said the

2-25

same thing the president likewise

2-29

never pressured mr. Comey the president

2-33

also never told mr. Comey quote I need

2-38

loyalty I expect loyalty close quote

2-41

he never said it in form and he never

2-44

said it in substance of course the

2-47

office of the president is entitled to

2-50

expect loyalty from those who are

2-52

serving the administration and from

2-55

before this president it and from before

2-58

this President took office to this day

3-01

it is overwhelmingly clear that there

3-04

have been and continue to be those in

3-07

government who are actively attempting

3-10

to undermine this administration with

3-13

selective and illegal leaks of

3-17

classified information and privileged

3-20

communications mr. Comey has now

3-23

admitted that he is one of these leakers

3-27

today mr. Comey admitted that he

3-31

unilaterally and surreptitiously made

3-35

unauthorized disclosures to the press of

3-38

privileged communications with the

3-41

president the leaks of this privileged

3-44

information began no later than March

3-47

2017 when friends of mr. Comey have

3-51

stated that he disclosed to them the

3-55

conversations that he had with the

3-57

president during their January 27th 2017

4-02

dinner and February 14th 2017 White

4-06

House meeting today mr. Comey admitted

4-10

that he leaked to friends of his

4-13

purported memos of those privileged

4-16

communications one of which he testified

4-19

was classified mr. Comey also testified

4-24

that immediately after

4-26

was terminated he authorized his friends

4-29

to leak the contents of those memos to

4-33

the press in order to in mr. commis

4-36

words quote prompt the appointment of a

4-40

special counsel close quote although mr.

4-43

Comey testified that he only leaked the

4-46

memos in response to a tweet the public

4-50

record reveals that the New York Times

4-52

was quoting from those memos the day

4-55

before the referenced tweet which belies

4-58

  1. commis excuse for this unauthorized

5-01

disclosure of privileged information and

5-05

appears to be entirely retaliatory we

5-09

will leave it to the appropriate

5-12

authorities to determine whether these

5-14

leaks should be investigated along with

5-17

all the others that are being

5-19

investigated in some it is now

5-22

established that the president was not

5-25

being investigated for colluding with or

5-28

attempting to obstruct any investigation

5-32

as the committee pointed out today these

5-35

important facts for the country to know

5-37

are virtually the only facts that have

5-40

not been leaked during the course of

5-42

these events as he said yesterday the

5-46

president feels completely vindicated

5-48

and is eager to continue moving forward

5-51

with his agenda with the business of

5-55

this country and with this public cloud

5-57

removed thank you

 

LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, I AM MARC KASOWITZ. PRESIDENT TRUMP’S PERSONAL LAWYER. CONTRARY TO NUMEROUS FALSE PRESS ACCOUNTS LEADING UP TO TODAY’S HEARING, MR. COMEY HAS NOW CONFIRMED PUBLICLY WHAT HE REPEATEDLY TOLD THE PRESIDENT TRUMP PRIVATELY THAT IS, THAT THE PRESIDENT WAS NOT UNDER INVESTIGATION AS PART OF ANY PROBE INTO RUSSIAN INTERFERENCE. THE PRESIDENT — MR. COMEY ADMITTED THAT THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT A SINGLE VOTE CHANGE AS A RESULT OF ANY RUSSIAN INTERFERENCE. MR. COMEY’S SYSTEM TESTIMONY ALSO MAKES CLEAR THAT THE PRESIDENT NEVER SOUGHT TO IMPEDE THE INVESTIGATION INTO ATTEMPTED RUSSIAN INTERFERENCE IN THE 2016 ELECTION. IN FACT, ACCORDING TO MR. COMEY, THE PRESIDENT TOLD MR. COMEY, QUOTE, “IT WOULD BE GOOD TO FIND OUT” IN THAT INVESTIGATION IF THERE WERE SOME SATELLITE ASSOCIATES OF HIM WHO DID SOMETHING WRONG. AND HE, PRESIDENT TRUMP, DID NOT EXCLUDE ANYONE FROM THAT STATEMENT. CONSISTENT WITH THAT STATEMENT, THE PRESIDENT NEVER INFORMED OR SUBSTANCE DIRECTED OR SUGGESTED THAT MR. COMEY STOP INVESTIGATING ANYONE INCLUDING THE PRESIDENT NEVER SUGGESTED THAT MR. COMEY “LET FLYNN GO.” AS THE PRESIDENT PUBLICLY STATED THE NEXT DAY, HE DID SAY TO MR. COMEY, QUOTE, “GENERAL FLYNN IS A GOOD GUY AND HE’S BEEN THROUGH A LOT” AND ALSO “ASK HOW GENERAL FLYNN IS DOING.” THE PRESIDENT NEVER DIRECTED HIM TO DO ANYTHING ILLEGAL, IMMORAL AND UNETHICAL OR INAPPROPRIATE CLOSED QUOTE AND NEVER, NEVER, QUOTE, PRESSURED HIM TO DO SO.” DIRECTOR COATS SAID THE SAME THING. THE PRESIDENT LIKE WISE NEVER PRESSURED MR. COMEY. THE PRESIDENT ALSO NEVER TOLD MR. COMEY, QUOTE, “I NEED LOYALTY, I EXPECT LOYALTY.” HE NEVER SAID IT IN FORM OR SUBSTANCE. OF COURSE, THE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT IS ENTITLED TO EXPECT LOYALTY FROM THOSE WHO ARE SERVING THE ADMINISTRATION. BEFORE THIS, PRESIDENT TOOK OFFICE TO THIS DAY, IT IS OVERWHELMINGLY CLEAR THAT THERE HAVE BEEN AND CONTINUED TO BE THOSE IN GOVERNMENT WHO ARE ACTIVELY ATTEMPTING URN MIND THIS ADMINISTRATION WITH SELECTIVE AND ILLEGAL LEAKS OF CLASSIFIED INFORMATION AND PRIVILEGE COMMUNICATION IS. MR. COMEY HAS NOW ADMITTED THAT HE IS ONE OF THESE LEAKERS. TODAY, MR. COMEY ADMITTED THAT HE UNILATERALLY MADE UNAUTHORIZED DISCLOSURES TO THE PRESS OF PRIVILEGE COMMUNICATION COMMUNICATIONS WITH THE PRESIDENT. THE LEAK OF THIS PRIVILEGE BEGAN NO LATER THAN MARCH OF 2017 WHEN FRIENDS OF MR. COMEY STATED THAT HE DISCLOSED TO THEM THE CONVERSATIONS THAT HE HAD WITH THE PRESIDENT DURING THEIR JANUARY 27TH, 2017 DINNER AND FEBRUARY 14TH, 2017 WHITE HOUSE MEETING. TODAY, MR. COMEY ADMITTED THAT HE LEAKED TO FRIENDS OF HIS PROPORTED MEMOS OF THOSE PRIVILEGED IMMUNE COMMUNICATIONS. ONE OF WHICH HE TESTIFIED WAS CLASSIFIED. MR. COMEY ALSO TESTIFIED THAT AFTER HE WAS TERMINATED, HE AUTHORIZED HIS FRIENDS TO LEAK THE CONTENTS OF THOSE MEMOS TO THE PRESS IN ORDER TO MR. COMEY’S WORDS PROMPT THE APPOINTMENT OF SPECIAL COUNSEL. ALTHOUGH MR. COMEY TESTIFIED THAT HE ONLY LEAKED THE MEMO IN RESPONSE TO A TWEET. THE NEW YORK TIMES WAS QUOTING FROM THOSE MEMOS, THE DAY BEFORE THE REFERENCE TWEETS WHICH — IT APPEARS TO BE ENTIRELY RETALIATORY. WE’LL LEAVE IT TO THE APPROPRIATE AUTHORITIES TO DETERMINE WHETHER THESE LEAKS SHOULD BE INVESTIGATED ALONG WITH ALL THE OTHERS THAT ARE BEING INVESTIGATED. IN SOME, IT IS NOW A ESTABLISHES THAT THE PRESIDENT WAS NOT BEING INVESTIGATED FOR COLLUDING WITH OR ATTEMPTING TO OBSTRUCT ANY INVESTIGATION. AS THE COMMITTEE POINTED OUT TODAY OF THESE IMPORTANT FACTS FOR R THE THE COUNTRY TO KNOW ARE VIRTUALLY THE ONLY FACTS THAT’S NOT BEEN LEAKED DURING THE COURSE OF THESE EVENTS. YESTERDAY, THE PRESIDENT FEELS INDICATE VITAMIN VINDICATED AND EAGER TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THE BUSINESS OF THIS COUNTRY AND HIS PUBLIC CLOUD REMOVED. MR. MARC

Give Old Guard Audio a Listen, you will be glad you did!

BUILD THE WALL Charles Krauthammer with an ending from Bill Clinton

BUILD THE WALL

BUILD THE WALL Charles Krauthammer with an ending from Bill Clinton

Can America solve its illegal immigration problem both justly and humanely? Yes, but it requires first building a border wall. Washington Post columnist and Pulitzer Prize-winning author Charles Krauthammer explains why.

 

Presented by

CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER

Charles Krauthammer - Prager U - BUILD THE WALL

Can America solve its illegal immigration problem both justly and humanely? Yes, but it requires first building a border wall. Washington Post columnist and Pulitzer Prize-winning author Charles Krauthammer explains why.

Every sensible immigration policy has two objectives: 1) to regain control of our borders so that we decide who enters; and 2) to find a humane way to deal with the 11 million illegal immigrants who now live among us. 

Start with the second. For both practical and moral reasons, America cannot and will not and should not expel 11 million people.  That leaves us with two choices: ignore them or figure out a way to legalize them. Ignoring them hasn’t worked. But there is also a huge problem with legalization: it creates an irresistible incentive for new illegal immigrants to come.

We say, of course, that this will be the very last, very final, never-again, we’re-not-kidding-this-time amnesty. And everyone knows it’s phony. That’s what was said in 1986, when we passed the Simpson-Mazzoli immigration reform. It turned out to be the largest legalization program in American history — nearly 3 million people got permanent residency. There was no enforcement. We now have 11 million new illegal immigrants in our midst.

The irony of this whole debate, which bitterly splits the country, is that there is a silver bullet that would not just solve the problem, but also create a national consensus behind it.

A vast number of Americans who oppose legalization and fear new waves of immigration would change their minds if we could radically reduce new — i.e., future — illegal immigration.

And we can.

First, build a barrier. Call it a wall. Call it a fence. Call it what you will. Add cameras and sensors. Add drones. Beef up the patrols. All that matters is that we regain control of the border.

Fences work. The triple fence outside San Diego led to a 90 percent reduction in infiltration. Israel’s border fence with the West Bank produced a similar decline. Even holier-than-thou Europeans have conceded the point: Hungary, Macedonia, Bulgaria, Austria, Greece, Spain ? why, even Norway — have all started building border fences to stem the tide of Middle Eastern refugees.

Then enforce two other measures: a national E-Verify system that makes it just about impossible to work if you are here illegally, and a functioning visa tracking system, since 40% of illegal immigrants are visa overstays.

The wall/fence will, of course, be ugly. So are the concrete barriers to keep truck bombs from driving into the White House. Sometimes function has to supersede form. 

And don’t tell me that this is our Berlin Wall. When you build a wall to keep people in, that’s a prison. When you build a wall to keep people out, that’s an expression of sovereignty.

Of course, no barrier will be foolproof. But it doesn’t have to be. It simply has to reduce the river to a manageable trickle. Once we do, everything becomes possible — including dealing with our 11 million illegal immigrants.

So, let’s fix that. Track the visas, do E-Verify, build the damn barrier. It’s ridiculous to say that it can’t be done.

And who would certify that the border is back in our control? I would have a neutral party, perhaps a commission of retired jurists, issue the judgment. Once they do, we legalize the 11 million, granting them the right to stay and work here.

We can’t give them citizenship. That’s a bridge too far. You don’t get to join the political destiny of the country by entering it illegally. But any children born here would be American — which means that over time the issue resolves itself.

The American people are legitimately angry at the price American society has paid due to illegal immigration. But they are also a generous people. Once they are assured that we do indeed control our borders, that anger will abate. A national consensus will emerge. 

Radical border control, followed by radical legalization. No mushy compromise. A solution requires two acts of national will: putting up a wall (along with E-Verify and visa tracking) and absorbing those who broke our laws to come to America.

This is not a compromise meant to appease both sides without achieving anything. It’s not some piece of hybrid legislation that arbitrarily divides illegals into those with five-year-old “roots” in America and those without ? or some such mischief-making nonsense.

If we do it right, not only will we solve the problem, we will get it done as one nation.

I’m Charles Krauthammer for Prager University.

Give Old Guard Audio a Listen, you will be glad you did!