In the violent wake of President Obama's military surge in Afghanistan, and his failure to withdraw the U.S. military from Iraq, the Libertarian Party (LP) says anti-war liberals can vote Libertarian with a clear conscience.
Sadly, President Obama is spending an even larger percentage of America's money on the military than George W. Bush did. According to the tracking website usgovernmentspending.com, during the first two budget years of the Obama administration (FY 2010 and 2011), military spending is expected to be over 6 percent of GDP: a larger percentage of GDP than during any year of the Bush administration.
LP Chair Mark Hinkle commented, "Anti-war liberals who thought President Obama and the Democrats would reduce military spending and American interventionism have been betrayed.
"Liberals have also been betrayed by Obama's unwillingness to reverse the serious civil liberties violations of the Bush administration. Obama has claimed the authority to kill American citizens overseas without indictment or trial. Even worse, he has claimed that 'state secrets' prevent his targets or their families from challenging him in court. Obama's expansion of the 'state secrets' claim is a page taken right out of the neoconservative playbook."
LP Executive Director Wes Benedict added, "In many ways, the Obama administration is looking like four more years of George W. Bush. A vote for Libertarians sends a message for peace and respect for the Constitution."
Benedict continued, "It's important to remember that many congressional Democrats voted for the PATRIOT Act, and many also voted for the War in Iraq. They tried to blame Bush later, even though they deserved just as much blame as Republicans."
The Libertarian National Committee has passed resolutions calling for U.S. military withdrawal from Iraq and Afghanistan.
On September 12, 2001, the day after the major terrorist attacks, two-time Libertarian Party presidential nominee Harry Browne courageously spoke out against American interventionism. In his article he wrote, "When will we learn that we can't allow our politicians to bully the world without someone bullying back eventually?"
Benedict said, "The Libertarian Party doesn't have the resources to take the lead in organizing mass protests, but we like to join anti-war protests when we can find them. When George W. Bush was president, Democrats helped organize many anti-war protests. Now that Democrats are doing the war-making, protests are hard to find.
"I made an effort to express the Libertarian position at the One Nation March on October 2.
"The terrorists have tricked our government into massive overreaction, spending trillions of dollars and thousands of American lives to fight a small number of America-hating fanatics. Many thousands of innocent Muslims have been killed in the process. We have gotten bogged down trying to rebuild entire governments. Democrats and Republicans have both given in to this terrorist trickery. Libertarians, on the other hand, see through this trickery, and we would stop wasting lives and money on the disastrous policies of foreign interventionism."
Liberal vs. conservative support
There is a myth frequently repeated in the media that Libertarian candidates take votes from conservatives. In reality, the situation is mixed: many polls show that Libertarian candidates actually receive greater support from liberals.
In this Kansas poll, the Libertarian candidates received more support from liberals than conservatives.
This poll showed North Carolina Libertarian candidate Michael Beitler with more support from liberals than conservatives.
Hinkle said, "Libertarians have a lot in common with liberals. In fact, people with a libertarian philosophy often call themselves 'classical liberals,' in the sense of the word as it was used historically. Libertarians sometimes describe themselves as 'fiscally conservative and socially liberal.'
"We Libertarians have a saying that we're 'pro-choice on everything.' We are uncompromising supporters of free speech. We completely oppose corporate welfare, and we hate the way big corporations often manipulate the government to get subsidies and protection from competition. And we are more immigration-friendly than either Republicans or Democrats."
The Libertarian Party has 21 candidates for U.S. Senate and 169 candidates for U.S. House in the upcoming November 2010 elections.
Showing posts with label military. Show all posts
Showing posts with label military. Show all posts
Thursday, October 7, 2010
Thursday, September 2, 2010
Libertarians: Obama is shockingly pro-war
Following President Obama's "end of our combat mission" speech, Libertarian Party chairman Mark Hinkle released this statement:
"President Obama needs to stop lying. In his speech, he repeated the ridiculous and false claim that the U.S. combat mission is over in Iraq. He seems to think that if he keeps talking about the war in a nice way, then the war isn't really happening.
"Unfortunately, even though President Obama is the one person on Earth with the authority to withdraw the U.S. military from Iraq, he has chosen instead to keep over 50,000 troops there, risking their lives, and bleeding American taxpayers.
"The Republicans in Congress are just as bad. They have consistently failed to own up to the terrible financial impact of these wars, all the while claiming that they want to cut government. They want to nit-pick Obama's past statements about the war, but in fact they should be showering him with praise for doing exactly what they want.
"This war has been a shameful failure from the beginning. But even if the U.S. military could impose a sustainable modern democracy on Iraq, it would in no way be worth the hundreds of billions of dollars, and thousands of American lives, lost in the process. The Bush-Obama War in Iraq has done nothing to safeguard the rights of Americans -- on the contrary, it has probably made Americans less safe, and certainly poorer.
"The purpose of the U.S. armed forces is to defend the territory of the United States, not to re-engineer foreign societies.
"Contrary to his rhetoric before being elected, the president has proven himself to be shockingly pro-war. In addition to sustaining the American war presence in Iraq, he has greatly escalated the War in Afghanistan. Just like his predecessor, Obama believes that government force is the answer to everything."
The Libertarian Party platform states under "3.3 International Affairs": "American foreign policy should seek an America at peace with the world. Our foreign policy should emphasize defense against attack from abroad and enhance the likelihood of peace by avoiding foreign entanglements. We would end the current U.S. government policy of foreign intervention, including military and economic aid."
"President Obama needs to stop lying. In his speech, he repeated the ridiculous and false claim that the U.S. combat mission is over in Iraq. He seems to think that if he keeps talking about the war in a nice way, then the war isn't really happening.
"Unfortunately, even though President Obama is the one person on Earth with the authority to withdraw the U.S. military from Iraq, he has chosen instead to keep over 50,000 troops there, risking their lives, and bleeding American taxpayers.
"The Republicans in Congress are just as bad. They have consistently failed to own up to the terrible financial impact of these wars, all the while claiming that they want to cut government. They want to nit-pick Obama's past statements about the war, but in fact they should be showering him with praise for doing exactly what they want.
"This war has been a shameful failure from the beginning. But even if the U.S. military could impose a sustainable modern democracy on Iraq, it would in no way be worth the hundreds of billions of dollars, and thousands of American lives, lost in the process. The Bush-Obama War in Iraq has done nothing to safeguard the rights of Americans -- on the contrary, it has probably made Americans less safe, and certainly poorer.
"The purpose of the U.S. armed forces is to defend the territory of the United States, not to re-engineer foreign societies.
"Contrary to his rhetoric before being elected, the president has proven himself to be shockingly pro-war. In addition to sustaining the American war presence in Iraq, he has greatly escalated the War in Afghanistan. Just like his predecessor, Obama believes that government force is the answer to everything."
The Libertarian Party platform states under "3.3 International Affairs": "American foreign policy should seek an America at peace with the world. Our foreign policy should emphasize defense against attack from abroad and enhance the likelihood of peace by avoiding foreign entanglements. We would end the current U.S. government policy of foreign intervention, including military and economic aid."
Tuesday, May 25, 2010
New Zogby Poll: Americans By 3 to 1 Margin Believe Military Leaders Instead of Congress Should Decide 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell'
/PRNewswire/ -- Today, FRC Action, the legislative action arm of Family Research Council, released the results of a commissioned national survey showing that the American people by a 3 to 1 overwhelming majority say that military leaders should make the decision on whether or not homosexuals should serve openly in the military.
The scientific survey by Zogby International asked the following question of likely voters: "As it pertains to homosexuals openly serving in the military, do you believe this decision is best made by military leaders or Congress?"
An overwhelming majority of voters (59%) chose military leaders as the most capable decision makers compared to (23%) who chose Congress. Almost one in five, (18%) were unsure.
"The American people by a three to one margin believe that uniformed military leaders should be a part of shaping this policy, it should not be done by politicians," noted FRC Action President Tony Perkins.
"This Administration and liberals in Congress are attempting to use the military to advance a radical agenda as payoff to their homosexual base of political support. Congress and the White House should be listening to our military commanders and exhausting every resource to understand the concerns of our troops - who will not only be forced to live under this new rule, but who can evaluate the issue through the lens of practicality," said Perkins.
"The study conducted by the Department of Defense should be the start of debate in Congress, not the useless afterthought that President Obama, Speaker Pelosi and Senator Levin's actions will reduce it to," concluded Perkins.
Zogby International reports, "A majority in nearly every sub-group believes that military leaders should make the decision about homosexuals serving openly in the military. Exceptions include Democrats (37%), those under 30 (45%), single people (44%), and African Americans (44%) where a plurality believe military leaders should make the decision. One in five (21%) of those who are or has a family member who is a member of the Armed Forces thinks that Congress should make the decision, while 14% of this group is not sure."
The scientific survey by Zogby International asked the following question of likely voters: "As it pertains to homosexuals openly serving in the military, do you believe this decision is best made by military leaders or Congress?"
An overwhelming majority of voters (59%) chose military leaders as the most capable decision makers compared to (23%) who chose Congress. Almost one in five, (18%) were unsure.
"The American people by a three to one margin believe that uniformed military leaders should be a part of shaping this policy, it should not be done by politicians," noted FRC Action President Tony Perkins.
"This Administration and liberals in Congress are attempting to use the military to advance a radical agenda as payoff to their homosexual base of political support. Congress and the White House should be listening to our military commanders and exhausting every resource to understand the concerns of our troops - who will not only be forced to live under this new rule, but who can evaluate the issue through the lens of practicality," said Perkins.
"The study conducted by the Department of Defense should be the start of debate in Congress, not the useless afterthought that President Obama, Speaker Pelosi and Senator Levin's actions will reduce it to," concluded Perkins.
Zogby International reports, "A majority in nearly every sub-group believes that military leaders should make the decision about homosexuals serving openly in the military. Exceptions include Democrats (37%), those under 30 (45%), single people (44%), and African Americans (44%) where a plurality believe military leaders should make the decision. One in five (21%) of those who are or has a family member who is a member of the Armed Forces thinks that Congress should make the decision, while 14% of this group is not sure."
Friday, April 9, 2010
Schlafly: Obama Would Be Foolish to Leave Supreme Court Without A Veteran
/PRNewswire/ -- Phyllis Schlafly, president and founder of the conservative grassroots public policy organization Eagle Forum, made the following remarks after Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens, the last military veteran serving on the high court, announced that he will retire:
"The vacancy resulting from Stevens' retirement is significant because it means that the Supreme Court is at risk of being left without a single military veteran. For as long as I can remember, the U.S. Supreme Court has included at least one military veteran.
"Considering President Obama's weak and highly unpopular track record on national defense issues, specifically his decision to try known terrorists in criminal court rather than in military tribunals and his recent announcement about U.S. nuclear disarmament, it is critical that President Obama replace a military veteran judge with another military veteran judge. If President Obama can make this happen, it will certainly be a winner with American voters, but if he does not, it will reinforce his commitment to ideology alone and further erode the American people's confidence in their president."
"In the midst of two wars, we must protect our military from radical, anti-military judicial nominees. President Obama would be foolish to leave the Supreme Court without any veterans."
"The U.S. Senate, both Democrats and Republicans alike, should not allow President Obama to thumb his nose at our armed services by replacing the last decorated veteran on the Supreme Court with a non-veteran. Our brave men and women who risk their lives for our nation's security deserve better."
For more information on Eagle Forum and the courts, please visit www.eagleforum.org.
"The vacancy resulting from Stevens' retirement is significant because it means that the Supreme Court is at risk of being left without a single military veteran. For as long as I can remember, the U.S. Supreme Court has included at least one military veteran.
"Considering President Obama's weak and highly unpopular track record on national defense issues, specifically his decision to try known terrorists in criminal court rather than in military tribunals and his recent announcement about U.S. nuclear disarmament, it is critical that President Obama replace a military veteran judge with another military veteran judge. If President Obama can make this happen, it will certainly be a winner with American voters, but if he does not, it will reinforce his commitment to ideology alone and further erode the American people's confidence in their president."
"In the midst of two wars, we must protect our military from radical, anti-military judicial nominees. President Obama would be foolish to leave the Supreme Court without any veterans."
"The U.S. Senate, both Democrats and Republicans alike, should not allow President Obama to thumb his nose at our armed services by replacing the last decorated veteran on the Supreme Court with a non-veteran. Our brave men and women who risk their lives for our nation's security deserve better."
For more information on Eagle Forum and the courts, please visit www.eagleforum.org.
Friday, February 5, 2010
FRC Statement on New Policy Requiring Military Bases to Carry 'Morning After' Pill
/PRNewswire/ -- The Family Research Council today criticized a decision by the Obama Administration to require military bases worldwide to carry Levonorgestrel, or 'Plan B.'
Jeanne Monahan, FRC's Director of the Center for Human Dignity, released the following statement:
"Family Research Council opposes requiring military bases worldwide to carry Levonorgestrel, or 'Plan B,' because the drug can prevent a fertilized embryo from implanting in the uterus and thereby destroy a human life. We can all agree that there is a huge difference between preventing and destroying human life. And women in uniform deserve to know the truth about their medications.
"In the last year we have witnessed the Obama Administration move from the status quo of abortion as legal and available in health care plans to aggressively promoting U.S. government funded abortions. In the same way, the fact that Plan B is optional for military facilities is not sufficient for the Obama Administration, so now military facilities will be compelled to carry and disseminate Plan B.
"Moreover, a requirement to carry this drug would be a violation of the conscience rights of military personnel who have moral objections to providing it, not to mention the majority of American taxpayers supporting military operations. Taxpayers should not be required to pay for military medical personnel to carry Plan B anywhere in the world.
"Recently the FDA changed its approval of Plan B from a prescription drug to an over-the-counter drug for women ages 17 and up. This change was made despite the fact that Plan B is composed essentially of high doses of regular contraceptive drugs (which still require a doctor's prescription). However, because extensive testing for those under the age of 17 has not taken place, the drug can only be obtained by prescription for girls 16 and under. Forcing military professionals to carry over-the-counter Plan B will make it more difficult to enforce age requirements for a drug not widely tested on young girls.
"Finally, the requirement to carry Plan B on military bases doesn't include a parental notification provision in cases in which a minor obtains Plan B by prescription. This new policy undermines the right of parents to properly care for their daughters' physical well-being. In a society that requires teachers to send students to the nurse for a band-aid, the Administration's approach on something profoundly more important than a paper cut defies common sense."
-----
www.politicalpotluck.com
Political News You Can Use
Jeanne Monahan, FRC's Director of the Center for Human Dignity, released the following statement:
"Family Research Council opposes requiring military bases worldwide to carry Levonorgestrel, or 'Plan B,' because the drug can prevent a fertilized embryo from implanting in the uterus and thereby destroy a human life. We can all agree that there is a huge difference between preventing and destroying human life. And women in uniform deserve to know the truth about their medications.
"In the last year we have witnessed the Obama Administration move from the status quo of abortion as legal and available in health care plans to aggressively promoting U.S. government funded abortions. In the same way, the fact that Plan B is optional for military facilities is not sufficient for the Obama Administration, so now military facilities will be compelled to carry and disseminate Plan B.
"Moreover, a requirement to carry this drug would be a violation of the conscience rights of military personnel who have moral objections to providing it, not to mention the majority of American taxpayers supporting military operations. Taxpayers should not be required to pay for military medical personnel to carry Plan B anywhere in the world.
"Recently the FDA changed its approval of Plan B from a prescription drug to an over-the-counter drug for women ages 17 and up. This change was made despite the fact that Plan B is composed essentially of high doses of regular contraceptive drugs (which still require a doctor's prescription). However, because extensive testing for those under the age of 17 has not taken place, the drug can only be obtained by prescription for girls 16 and under. Forcing military professionals to carry over-the-counter Plan B will make it more difficult to enforce age requirements for a drug not widely tested on young girls.
"Finally, the requirement to carry Plan B on military bases doesn't include a parental notification provision in cases in which a minor obtains Plan B by prescription. This new policy undermines the right of parents to properly care for their daughters' physical well-being. In a society that requires teachers to send students to the nurse for a band-aid, the Administration's approach on something profoundly more important than a paper cut defies common sense."
-----
www.politicalpotluck.com
Political News You Can Use
Thursday, October 22, 2009
Family Reserach Council's Tony Perkins Denounces Senate Vote on 'Hate Crimes' Legislation
/PRNewswire/ -- Family Research Council President Tony Perkins released the following statement reacting to today's passage of "Hate Crimes" legislation as attached to the Defense Authorization Bill.
"In a slap to the face of our servicemen and women, they attached 'hate crimes' legislation to the final defense bill, forcing Congress to choose between expanding hate crimes or making our military go without. This hate crimes provision is part of a radical social agenda that could ultimately silence Christians and use the force of government to marginalize anyone whose faith is at odds with homosexuality. Expanding hate crimes puts America in lock step with the stated agenda of homosexual activists who will turn next to the so-called Employment Non-discrimination Act, followed by the repeal of the ban on homosexuality in the military and then the Defense of Marriage Act. We call on President Obama to veto this legislation which violates the principle of equal justice under the law and also infringes on the free speech rights of the American people."
-----
www.politicalpotluck.com
Political News You Can Use
"In a slap to the face of our servicemen and women, they attached 'hate crimes' legislation to the final defense bill, forcing Congress to choose between expanding hate crimes or making our military go without. This hate crimes provision is part of a radical social agenda that could ultimately silence Christians and use the force of government to marginalize anyone whose faith is at odds with homosexuality. Expanding hate crimes puts America in lock step with the stated agenda of homosexual activists who will turn next to the so-called Employment Non-discrimination Act, followed by the repeal of the ban on homosexuality in the military and then the Defense of Marriage Act. We call on President Obama to veto this legislation which violates the principle of equal justice under the law and also infringes on the free speech rights of the American people."
-----
www.politicalpotluck.com
Political News You Can Use
Monday, May 18, 2009
New Report From Top Military Leaders Finds Current US Energy Policy Poses Serious Threat to National Security
/PRNewswire/ -- America's energy posture constitutes a serious and urgent threat to national security -- militarily, diplomatically and economically, according to a blue-ribbon panel of top-ranking retired admirals and generals. In a report released today entitled "Powering America's Defense: Energy and the Risks to National Security" the military leaders warn that continuing business as usual is perilous and recommend immediate action to address the nation's long-term energy profile. By addressing its own security needs, the Department of Defense can help lead the transformation of U.S. energy use as an innovation incubator for new energy technologies.
Moving beyond recent studies on the dangers of imported oil, this new report finds that fossil fuels, as well as the nation's fragile electric grid, pose significant security threats to military mission and the country, and are "exploitable by those who wish to do us harm." Issued by the Military Advisory Board (MAB) of CNA, a nonprofit research organization, the report identifies a series of "converging risks" associated with future energy choices, and concludes "diversifying our energy sources and moving away from fossil fuels where possible is critical to our future energy security."
"It's a sobering but honest, and necessary assessment," said MAB chairman General Charles F. "Chuck" Wald, USAF (Ret.). "As military planners and as responsible public servants we cannot turn a blind eye to the dangerous realities of our energy situation. The current recession is no excuse for inaction. If we don't address the fossil fuel issue now, we will see more price volatility, with steeper spikes and shorter cycles between spikes. We are already paying a penalty for not looking into the future."
"There is a relationship between the major challenges we're facing. Energy, security, economics, climate change - these things are connected," former U.S. Army Chief of Staff Gordon R. Sullivan said in the report.
Due to the destabilizing nature of increasingly scarce resources, the impacts of energy demand and climate change are likely to increasingly drive military missions in this century, according to the report. The first priority for the new Administration, the MAB recommends, is to clearly and fully integrate energy security and climate change goals into national security and military planning.
"Increasing demand for, and dwindling supplies of, fossil fuels will lead to instability. In addition, the effects of global climate change will pose serious threats to water supplies and agricultural production, leading to intense competition for essentials," said MAB member Vice Admiral (ret.) Dennis McGinn, former commander of the U.S. Third Fleet, and deputy chief of Naval Operations, Warfare Requirements and Programs. "The U.S. cannot assume that we will be untouched by these conflicts. We have to understand how these conflicts could play out, and prepare for them."
The MAB, which produced the landmark 2007 report "National Security and the Threat of Climate Change" is comprised of retired 2, 3- and 4-star flag and general officers from the Army, Navy, Air Force and Marine Corps. The board includes a former Army Chief of Staff, commanders of U.S. forces in global regions, a former shuttle astronaut and NASA administrator, and experts in energy, planning, deployment, procurement and logistics.
The 2007 report found that climate change constitutes a "threat multiplier" because projected impacts will exacerbate existing security risks. Building on the 2007 report, the new report states, "Our approach to energy and our approach to climate change have profound impacts on each other - and both have impacts on our national security."
National security risks resulting from the current U.S. energy posture identified in the report include:
-- U.S. dependence on oil - not just foreign oil - weakens international
leverage, undermines foreign policy and leaves us vulnerable to
unstable or hostile regimes.
-- Inefficient use of and over reliance on oil burdens the military,
reduces combat effectiveness, and exacts a huge price tag - in dollars
and lives.
-- U.S. dependency on fossil fuels undermines economic stability critical
to national security.
-- A fragile domestic electric grid makes US military installations, and
their critical infrastructure, unnecessarily vulnerable to incident,
whether deliberate or accidental.
Looking forward, the report identifies the following converging risks associated with future energy choices:
-- The market for fossil fuels will be shaped by finite supplies and
increasing demand. Continuing our heavy reliance on these fuels is a
security risk.
-- Regulatory frameworks driven by climate change concerns will increase
the costs - both economic and geopolitical - of using carbon-based
fuels.
-- Insecurity driven by ongoing climate change has the potential to add
significantly to the mission burden of the U.S. military in fragile
regions of the world.
"In our view, confronting these converging risks is critical to ensuring America's secure energy future," the report states. "Consistency with our emerging climate policies should shape our energy and national security planning; we should not pursue energy options inconsistent with our national response to climate change."
The Military Advisory Board calls on the Department of Defense (DoD) to take a leadership role - for government and the nation - in transforming America's energy posture. "By addressing its own energy security needs," the report finds "DoD can stimulate the market for new energy technologies and vehicle efficiencies."
The Military Advisory Board outlines "A Roadmap for Energy Security" to help focus DoD's investments in a strategic manner in order to mitigate its highest energy-related risks and optimize fiscal resources through a series of priorities.
-- Priority 1: Energy security and climate change goals should be clearly
integrated into national security and military planning processes.
-- Priority 2: DoD should design and deploy systems to reduce the burden
that inefficient energy use places on our troops as they engage
overseas.
-- Priority 3: DoD should understand its use of energy at all levels of
operations. DoD should know its carbon bootprint.
-- Priority 4: DoD should transform its use of energy at installations
through aggressive pursuit of energy efficiency, smart grid
technologies, and electrification of its vehicle fleet.
-- Priority 5: DoD should expand the adoption of distributed and
renewable energy generation at its installations.
-- Priority 6: DoD should transform its long-term operational energy
posture through investments in low-carbon liquid fuels that satisfy
military performance requirements.
"Confronting this challenge is paramount for the military; to achieve the endstate, we must have a national approach," the report states. Securing America's energy future will require the active and consistent participation of governments at all levels, as well as that of all Americans, according to the report.
Moving beyond recent studies on the dangers of imported oil, this new report finds that fossil fuels, as well as the nation's fragile electric grid, pose significant security threats to military mission and the country, and are "exploitable by those who wish to do us harm." Issued by the Military Advisory Board (MAB) of CNA, a nonprofit research organization, the report identifies a series of "converging risks" associated with future energy choices, and concludes "diversifying our energy sources and moving away from fossil fuels where possible is critical to our future energy security."
"It's a sobering but honest, and necessary assessment," said MAB chairman General Charles F. "Chuck" Wald, USAF (Ret.). "As military planners and as responsible public servants we cannot turn a blind eye to the dangerous realities of our energy situation. The current recession is no excuse for inaction. If we don't address the fossil fuel issue now, we will see more price volatility, with steeper spikes and shorter cycles between spikes. We are already paying a penalty for not looking into the future."
"There is a relationship between the major challenges we're facing. Energy, security, economics, climate change - these things are connected," former U.S. Army Chief of Staff Gordon R. Sullivan said in the report.
Due to the destabilizing nature of increasingly scarce resources, the impacts of energy demand and climate change are likely to increasingly drive military missions in this century, according to the report. The first priority for the new Administration, the MAB recommends, is to clearly and fully integrate energy security and climate change goals into national security and military planning.
"Increasing demand for, and dwindling supplies of, fossil fuels will lead to instability. In addition, the effects of global climate change will pose serious threats to water supplies and agricultural production, leading to intense competition for essentials," said MAB member Vice Admiral (ret.) Dennis McGinn, former commander of the U.S. Third Fleet, and deputy chief of Naval Operations, Warfare Requirements and Programs. "The U.S. cannot assume that we will be untouched by these conflicts. We have to understand how these conflicts could play out, and prepare for them."
The MAB, which produced the landmark 2007 report "National Security and the Threat of Climate Change" is comprised of retired 2, 3- and 4-star flag and general officers from the Army, Navy, Air Force and Marine Corps. The board includes a former Army Chief of Staff, commanders of U.S. forces in global regions, a former shuttle astronaut and NASA administrator, and experts in energy, planning, deployment, procurement and logistics.
The 2007 report found that climate change constitutes a "threat multiplier" because projected impacts will exacerbate existing security risks. Building on the 2007 report, the new report states, "Our approach to energy and our approach to climate change have profound impacts on each other - and both have impacts on our national security."
National security risks resulting from the current U.S. energy posture identified in the report include:
-- U.S. dependence on oil - not just foreign oil - weakens international
leverage, undermines foreign policy and leaves us vulnerable to
unstable or hostile regimes.
-- Inefficient use of and over reliance on oil burdens the military,
reduces combat effectiveness, and exacts a huge price tag - in dollars
and lives.
-- U.S. dependency on fossil fuels undermines economic stability critical
to national security.
-- A fragile domestic electric grid makes US military installations, and
their critical infrastructure, unnecessarily vulnerable to incident,
whether deliberate or accidental.
Looking forward, the report identifies the following converging risks associated with future energy choices:
-- The market for fossil fuels will be shaped by finite supplies and
increasing demand. Continuing our heavy reliance on these fuels is a
security risk.
-- Regulatory frameworks driven by climate change concerns will increase
the costs - both economic and geopolitical - of using carbon-based
fuels.
-- Insecurity driven by ongoing climate change has the potential to add
significantly to the mission burden of the U.S. military in fragile
regions of the world.
"In our view, confronting these converging risks is critical to ensuring America's secure energy future," the report states. "Consistency with our emerging climate policies should shape our energy and national security planning; we should not pursue energy options inconsistent with our national response to climate change."
The Military Advisory Board calls on the Department of Defense (DoD) to take a leadership role - for government and the nation - in transforming America's energy posture. "By addressing its own energy security needs," the report finds "DoD can stimulate the market for new energy technologies and vehicle efficiencies."
The Military Advisory Board outlines "A Roadmap for Energy Security" to help focus DoD's investments in a strategic manner in order to mitigate its highest energy-related risks and optimize fiscal resources through a series of priorities.
-- Priority 1: Energy security and climate change goals should be clearly
integrated into national security and military planning processes.
-- Priority 2: DoD should design and deploy systems to reduce the burden
that inefficient energy use places on our troops as they engage
overseas.
-- Priority 3: DoD should understand its use of energy at all levels of
operations. DoD should know its carbon bootprint.
-- Priority 4: DoD should transform its use of energy at installations
through aggressive pursuit of energy efficiency, smart grid
technologies, and electrification of its vehicle fleet.
-- Priority 5: DoD should expand the adoption of distributed and
renewable energy generation at its installations.
-- Priority 6: DoD should transform its long-term operational energy
posture through investments in low-carbon liquid fuels that satisfy
military performance requirements.
"Confronting this challenge is paramount for the military; to achieve the endstate, we must have a national approach," the report states. Securing America's energy future will require the active and consistent participation of governments at all levels, as well as that of all Americans, according to the report.
Tuesday, May 5, 2009
U.S. Reps, Faith and Military Leaders Want Action on Climate Change to Prioritize Most Vulnerable
/PRNewswire / -- As climate bill negotiations reach their apex this week, Members of Congress, religious and military leaders are intensifying their efforts to ensure the legislation prioritizes the most vulnerable at home and abroad. Bolstered by the results of a new national poll that shows strong support among key religious groups for action on climate change and its impact on the most vulnerable, U.S. Reps. Heath Shuler and Tom Perriello joined religious and military leaders today to discuss the importance of these principles and announce a new radio and email campaign pressing this message in key districts across America.
"The climate bill provides us with the unique opportunity of answering the call to be good stewards of creation in a way that will not only create jobs and make our nation safer, but will also allow us to care for the least of these among us," said Congressman Heath Shuler (D-NC). "It is not often that Congress has the ability to accomplish all of this in one bill, and I am grateful for the ability to work alongside leaders in the faith and military communities to ensure that these values are reflected in the final bill."
"Addressing climate change is not just a matter of national security and sound economic policy, but a moral duty to care for God's creation and to care for the needs of those who are contributing the least to climate change but bearing the brunt of its burden," said Congressman Tom Perriello (D-VA). "We need to ensure that this legislation fairly addresses the burden on low- and middle-income families, especially at a time when millions of Americans are out of work."
According to the new national survey, sponsored by Faith in Public Life and Oxfam America and conducted by Public Religion Research:
-- Majorities of Americans, including majorities of Catholics and
Evangelicals, believe dealing with climate change now will create new
jobs and help avoid more serious economic problems in the future.
-- Nearly 7-in-10 (69%) Americans and similar numbers of Catholics and
Evangelicals agree that climate change is making it harder for the
world's poorest people to support their families.
-- Approximately three-quarters of the general public and similar numbers
of Catholics and Evangelicals favor helping the world's poorest people
adapt to food and water shortages caused by rising global
temperatures.
The new media campaign, beginning today, includes ads on Christian radio at saturation levels in key districts in GA, FL, NC, MS, AL, LA, VA, OH and emails to over 5.3 million evangelicals and Catholics in GA, FL, AL, and NC. The campaign, sponsored by the faith-based nonprofit American Values Network, is designed to demonstrate that the faith and military communities will stand behind and encourage undecided Members to support a climate bill that protects the most vulnerable and makes America more secure. (Listen to the ad here: http://americanvaluesnetwork.org/climate/ad)
Specifically, members of Congress are pushing for the bill to include: direct rebates to help offset increased energy costs for the most affected vulnerable people and communities and to encourage spending on energy efficiency, as well as sufficient international adaptation funding to ensure that the most vulnerable populations in developing countries have the resources they need to proactively adapt to climate change.
Religious groups have long been committed to ensuring that legislation pays special attention to the needs of vulnerable communities at home and abroad who will be most affected by climate change. They have also consistently pressed Congress to prioritize the needs of at-risk populations who will have the most difficulty adjusting to our attempts as a nation to combat climate change. The groups include the Evangelical Climate Initiative, Southern Baptist Environmental Climate Initiative, National Hispanic Christian Leadership Conference, The United Methodist Church General Board of Church and Society, Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, Presbyterian Church (USA), The Episcopal Church, and Redeem the Vote.
"This important new poll confirms what I have seen in my own congregation and across the country -- people of faith are ready to address climate change and deal with its full range of effects, including its disproportionate impact on the poor," said Rev. Joel Hunter, pastor of the 10,000-member Northland, A Church Distributed. Rev. Hunter is also the voice of the campaign's radio ads.
"The moral measure of climate change legislation is how it treats the poor and vulnerable in our own country and around the world," said John Carr, Director of Justice, Peace, and Human Development for the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops.
Military groups -- including The Truman Project, VET PAC, and Veterans Green Jobs -- also support addressing the needs of those who are most impacted by climate change worldwide because they recognize the national security implications of the issue.
"Threats to nations and our world economies do not always originate with our enemies," said Rear Admiral Stuart Franklin Platt, USN Ret, a highly decorated Vietnam veteran, with over 20 medals for military sea and combat service. "Global climate change is one of the greatest threats to our national security both because it literally threatens the very planet we inhabit and because the droughts, famine, and floods it creates threaten to destabilize regions around the world."
"This new poll shows that a majority of Americans, including people of faith such as Catholics and Evangelicals, support addressing climate change even in our challenging current economic conditions. Moreover, majorities support tackling climate change in a way that assists the poor who are affected by these changes," said Dr. Robert P. Jones, president of Public Religion Research.
Results of the survey were based on telephone interviews with 1,200 adults 18 years of age and older and an over sample of 250 white evangelical Protestants and 252 Catholics. The survey was conducted from March 20 to March 27, 2009. The margin of error for the national sample is +/- 3.0% at the 95% confidence interval. The national sample of adults was interviewed using random digit dial process.
-----
www.politicalpotluck.com
Political News You Can Use
"The climate bill provides us with the unique opportunity of answering the call to be good stewards of creation in a way that will not only create jobs and make our nation safer, but will also allow us to care for the least of these among us," said Congressman Heath Shuler (D-NC). "It is not often that Congress has the ability to accomplish all of this in one bill, and I am grateful for the ability to work alongside leaders in the faith and military communities to ensure that these values are reflected in the final bill."
"Addressing climate change is not just a matter of national security and sound economic policy, but a moral duty to care for God's creation and to care for the needs of those who are contributing the least to climate change but bearing the brunt of its burden," said Congressman Tom Perriello (D-VA). "We need to ensure that this legislation fairly addresses the burden on low- and middle-income families, especially at a time when millions of Americans are out of work."
According to the new national survey, sponsored by Faith in Public Life and Oxfam America and conducted by Public Religion Research:
-- Majorities of Americans, including majorities of Catholics and
Evangelicals, believe dealing with climate change now will create new
jobs and help avoid more serious economic problems in the future.
-- Nearly 7-in-10 (69%) Americans and similar numbers of Catholics and
Evangelicals agree that climate change is making it harder for the
world's poorest people to support their families.
-- Approximately three-quarters of the general public and similar numbers
of Catholics and Evangelicals favor helping the world's poorest people
adapt to food and water shortages caused by rising global
temperatures.
The new media campaign, beginning today, includes ads on Christian radio at saturation levels in key districts in GA, FL, NC, MS, AL, LA, VA, OH and emails to over 5.3 million evangelicals and Catholics in GA, FL, AL, and NC. The campaign, sponsored by the faith-based nonprofit American Values Network, is designed to demonstrate that the faith and military communities will stand behind and encourage undecided Members to support a climate bill that protects the most vulnerable and makes America more secure. (Listen to the ad here: http://americanvaluesnetwork.org/climate/ad)
Specifically, members of Congress are pushing for the bill to include: direct rebates to help offset increased energy costs for the most affected vulnerable people and communities and to encourage spending on energy efficiency, as well as sufficient international adaptation funding to ensure that the most vulnerable populations in developing countries have the resources they need to proactively adapt to climate change.
Religious groups have long been committed to ensuring that legislation pays special attention to the needs of vulnerable communities at home and abroad who will be most affected by climate change. They have also consistently pressed Congress to prioritize the needs of at-risk populations who will have the most difficulty adjusting to our attempts as a nation to combat climate change. The groups include the Evangelical Climate Initiative, Southern Baptist Environmental Climate Initiative, National Hispanic Christian Leadership Conference, The United Methodist Church General Board of Church and Society, Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, Presbyterian Church (USA), The Episcopal Church, and Redeem the Vote.
"This important new poll confirms what I have seen in my own congregation and across the country -- people of faith are ready to address climate change and deal with its full range of effects, including its disproportionate impact on the poor," said Rev. Joel Hunter, pastor of the 10,000-member Northland, A Church Distributed. Rev. Hunter is also the voice of the campaign's radio ads.
"The moral measure of climate change legislation is how it treats the poor and vulnerable in our own country and around the world," said John Carr, Director of Justice, Peace, and Human Development for the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops.
Military groups -- including The Truman Project, VET PAC, and Veterans Green Jobs -- also support addressing the needs of those who are most impacted by climate change worldwide because they recognize the national security implications of the issue.
"Threats to nations and our world economies do not always originate with our enemies," said Rear Admiral Stuart Franklin Platt, USN Ret, a highly decorated Vietnam veteran, with over 20 medals for military sea and combat service. "Global climate change is one of the greatest threats to our national security both because it literally threatens the very planet we inhabit and because the droughts, famine, and floods it creates threaten to destabilize regions around the world."
"This new poll shows that a majority of Americans, including people of faith such as Catholics and Evangelicals, support addressing climate change even in our challenging current economic conditions. Moreover, majorities support tackling climate change in a way that assists the poor who are affected by these changes," said Dr. Robert P. Jones, president of Public Religion Research.
Results of the survey were based on telephone interviews with 1,200 adults 18 years of age and older and an over sample of 250 white evangelical Protestants and 252 Catholics. The survey was conducted from March 20 to March 27, 2009. The margin of error for the national sample is +/- 3.0% at the 95% confidence interval. The national sample of adults was interviewed using random digit dial process.
-----
www.politicalpotluck.com
Political News You Can Use
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)