Good Monday morning! The start of a new week, time to fire it up and get some productive work done. How 'bout a beer?
You'll need said beer after this story
WASHINGTON — 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.
The bipartisan proposal, which its sponsors expect to pass the Congress with wide support, calls for the director of national intelligence to conduct the first-ever "national intelligence estimate" on global warming.
The effort would include pinpointing the regions at highest risk of humanitarian suffering and assessing the likelihood of wars erupting over diminishing water and other resources.
The measure also would order the Pentagon to undertake a series of war games to determine how global climate change could affect US security, including "direct physical threats to the United States posed by extreme weather events such as hurricanes."
No, this is not an April Fools joke. It is a stark reality of the silliness and insanity of our Federal government, which shows exactly why the Founders wanted to limit their power, leaving most in the hands of state and local representatives. Climate change as national security? Bah.
What is being proposed is quite transparent. Global warming as caused by Man zealots have found a way to force the military into the mix, thereby manufacturing a way to codify GWACBM as a reality. There is not a hell of a lot the military can do about a hurricane or flood, and, though the zealots try to create a link, snow and ice storms aren't part of any warming trend. Nor can they do anything about El Nino or La Nina weather patterns.
OK, it is not a bad idea to know where wars could be fought over resources. What do we do then? Jump in and stop the fighting? The Left keeps telling us we should not be the world's policeman. They demand we do something in Darfur, but do not want to consider military action. What national security implications does a war in the middle of nowhere have to the USA? Woops, forgot about the actions in the Balkans, which mattered to the USA none what so ever.
All in all, they are digging deep to find any link to create a national security issue where none exists. This is also known as pandering to a voter block.
If only the Left would worry about the threat from Islamic extremists half as much.
And the bipartisan proposal? Chuck Hagel (R-Nebraska) and Dick Durbin (D-Ill). Both of whom are dismissed by half the country as surrender monkeys, and Durbin has the higher distinction of comparing our troops to nazi's and mass murderers. Great.
Send a trackback to this post, but don't forget to link it.
Sphere: Related Content
I think that the percentage that conside those two senators to be “surrender monkeys” has dropped down to about 33%
The vast majority of the American people no longer support either Bush nor the Iraq debacle.
More than a beer sweetheart; more like tequila. Mmmm, Jose Cuervo.