Global Warming as a National Security Risk, Skeptics Silenced in the US
Written by Brandon on April 10, 2007 – 12:16 pm - Welcome, if you're new here, you may want to subscribe to our RSS feed or subscribe to our email newsletter. Thanks for visiting!
It appears that the media’s hype surrounding Global Whining is getting help from RINO Chuck Hagel and “Gulag/Pol Pot accuser” Dick Durbin. Sens Durbin and Hagel have introduced a bill to designate global warming as a “national security threat”. Weather cycles are now a national security threat worthy of a “series of war games to determine how global climate change could affect US security”?
Don’t we have better things to spend our time and money on (Iran, Iraq, healthcare, free trade, tax reform, missile defense(from Iran), social security reform, how green the grass is by the Washington Monument, what color flowers look best for the next White House dinner….). Here is a quick description of the bill:
The CIA and Pentagon would for the first time be required to assess the national security implications of climate change under proposed legislation intended to elevate global warming to a national defense issue.
We don’t even know if it is real! Oh wait, if you read this Boston Globe article, it seems that global warming is an absolute certainty and that this is just the next logical step. Nevermind team Global Warming’s hypocrisy, there are still many skeptics who are completely ignored here in the US by a media obsessed with global warming alarmism. After all, isn’t the weather report so much more interesting and ominous now?
Newsbusters has a great post with links to two documentaries that are skeptical of the Global Warming hype but, of course they have never been aired here in the US.
Enacting policies and procedures based on one-sided media hype and contested scientific hoopala is a waste of the American peoples’ time and money. Frankly, it insults any rational persons’ intellect.
Last 5 posts by Brandon- Blue States and Budget Deficits... Democrats can't manage budgets. - November 18th, 2008
- One Bank CEO Has The Courage to Stand Up to the Bailout Bonanza - November 17th, 2008
- Show Renters their Share: Require a Property Tax Share Line Item on Leases - November 11th, 2008
- Save $483 a year, avoid the new Milwaukee Sales Tax Hike - November 5th, 2008
- How are Milwaukee residents suppose to speak up? - November 5th, 2008
Posted in Brave New World, US News and Liberal Debacles |
April 10th, 2007 at 12:56 pm
Its about time! I’m glad congress is finally going to investigate Karl Rove’s weather machine that caused Hurricane Katrina in order to keep the “black man” down.
April 10th, 2007 at 1:17 pm
It won’t be long until the Global Warming National Security Police come after me. With all that CO2 I’ve been exhaling, CH4 I’ve been producing by “breaking wind”, and the hydrogen monoxide that has seeped into the atmosphere from my sweat, they should be “coming to take me away, ha ha” any minute now.
April 10th, 2007 at 2:30 pm
And don’t forget… iPods are the #1 contributor to global warming.
April 10th, 2007 at 9:55 pm
First of all, your spelling of hipocrisy (and the spelling in general on this blog, with the exception of all Dan’s work) is far more offensive to my intellect than this bill.
You point out that its sponsored by Hagel (RINO) and Durbin (Nazi). But I do believe the article you linked to also said the bill was expected to pass with wide bipartisan approval.
“The bipartisan proposal, which its sponsors expect to pass the Congress with wide support…”
April 10th, 2007 at 10:31 pm
Greg, I’m afraid that “hypocrisy” is in fact the correct spelling of the word.
April 10th, 2007 at 11:22 pm
So let’s get this straight…we’re going to acknowledge the theory of global warming as a national secruity threat, but the Democrats won’t even acknowlege the “War on Terror” as part of our national security strategy?
Good God.
April 10th, 2007 at 11:35 pm
Leave it to people who have kicking Donkeys as their icon
April 11th, 2007 at 10:01 am
Judith - I’m pretty sure the spelling of hypocrisy was corrected ex post facto. Whatever though, I just like to give you guys crap because your spelling on the whole on this website is terrible. I do have more substantive issues.
Ask any Democrat if terrorism is a national security threat. From elected officials I have little doubt that you will receive a unanimous yes. Ditto for climate change. Now, because something is a threat, does that automatically require that we declare war on it? As a Democrat, I would be extremely unhappy if Democrats tried to push a “War on Climate Change” campaign. The semantics are an important part of conceptualizing the problem. There is a reason the “war on povety” and “war on drugs” haven’t worked.
Now, when Democrats want to reject the idea of a “war on terrorism”, it isn’t because they don’t see terrorism as a legitimate threat. It’s that there is little usefulness in lumping together the myriad disparate groups that want to attack us, since virtually all of them have different MOs, political agendas, tactics, religious orientations, geographic locations, etc. Katie Wycklyndt posted a link to a terrorist group’s political arm in defense of one of her posts a few days ago - the National Council for Resistance in Iran. Are we at war with them? “War on al-Qaida”? Fine. “War on Terror”? How?
April 12th, 2007 at 9:27 pm
“since virtually all of them have different MOs, political agendas, tactics, religious orientations, geographic locations, etc.”
I wish those Jews, Africans, South Americans, Gernmans, and Sweds would quit attacking us!! wait, thats right, they didn’t crawl onto a plane and run it into innocent people, they don’t make car bombs that kill innocent people… oh thats right, radical muslims do. I think the only thing you got right is different geographic locations. Maybe a little less concentration on spelling and a little more reading of newspapers, websites, tv, etc…
April 13th, 2007 at 6:46 am
Ok, let’s take a look:
Laskar-y-Tayyiba - supports Islamic (Pakistani) control of disputed Kashmir region
1) Al Qaida in Iraq - supports undermining of Iraqi government and creation of Islamic state
2) Sunni insurgency in Iraq - supports creation of non-Islamic state in Iraq
3) Shiite militias in Iraq - support Shiite dominated state in Iraq, possible alliance with Iran; tactics focused more on Iraqi as opposed to American/MNF targets
4) Hizballah - Shiite party, supports creation of Islamic state in Lebanon
5) Al Qaeda in Islamic Maghreb - seeks to undermine governments of Algeria, Morocco - largely Sunni
6) Palestinian Islamic Jihad - supports elimination of Israel
7) FARC - supports Marxist revolution in Columbia
I think what we are calling for, those who oppose the term “war on terror”, is more precision in what we are fighting. If we are going to defeat the groups that I just listed, it’s going to require different tactics, strategic approaches, diplomacy, thinking, etc. That’s what we’re calling for. They are not all radical Muslims. Sunni insurgents, who comprise the majority of the resistance in Iraq, by my understanding, are far less concerned with political Islam than they are with maintaining political power and controlling oil revenue.
April 13th, 2007 at 6:46 am
Not sure why that smiley face appeared.
April 13th, 2007 at 11:28 am
Exhibit A:
Islamic Army of Iraq and Al-Qaeda in Iraq break ties.
http://billroggio.com/archives/2007/04/islamic_army_of_iraq.php