/PRNewswire/ -- Family Security Matters' Contributing Editor, Lt. Col. James G. Zumwalt, has called on the Obama administration to clearly identify what he terms "the greatest threat in history to our democracy." He further identifies clearly that threat to be the one "posed by Islamic extremism."
Lt. Col. Zumwalt, author of "Bare Feet, Iron Will - Stories from the Other Side of Vietnam's Battlefields," strongly believes that earlier generations of free societies were able to recognize, understand and defeat earlier threats to their existence posed by Nazism and Communism because those threats were made clear to them. But, the threat posed by Islamism to America remains obfuscated by a President unwilling to call it what it is. He states the irony of the president's position when he says, "Obfuscating a threat seeking the destruction of our way of life shows unbelievable naivete by our President, underscored by a determined unwillingness to call Islamists 'the enemy' at the same time he freely attaches such a label to his political opponents."
In comparison, Lt. Col. Zumwalt points to the utter failure of South Korea's President Kim Dae Jung's "Sunshine Policy" which sought a soft policy of political and economic interaction with Pyongyang, thinking it would reap more benefit. Under cover of that policy, Pyongyang—using other assets it garnered under the policy and the millions of dollars paid by the South in 2000—aggressively pursued its nuclear arms program, and other aggressions which culminated in the sinking of a destroyer and artillery attack on a South Korean island. The Sunshine Program was abandoned in 2008 under the new presidency of Lee Myung-bak.
Similarly, while acts/plots of domestic terrorism by Islamists in the U.S. were low between 2001 and 2008, the number had doubled by 2009, a time during which this administration removed all reference to "Islam," "Islamic extremism" and "jihad" so as not to risk offending moderate Muslims.
Carol Taber, president of FamilySecurityMatters.org , where Lt. Col. Zumwalt's article "Obfuscating the National Security Threat" appears said, "The threat posed by Islamism to America remains obfuscated by a political leadership unwilling to call it what it is. Thank God some of our other leaders, such as Lt. Col. Zumwalt, do not lack that courage."
Showing posts with label security. Show all posts
Showing posts with label security. Show all posts
Tuesday, January 11, 2011
Monday, December 14, 2009
United Nations Kicks NGOs Out of COP-15 Climate Conference
/PRNewswire/ -- The United Nations announced today it is permanently banning thousands of accredited non-governmental organizations from the COP-15 climate conference in Copenhagen.
The restriction was announced today outside the Copenhagen conference center after several thousand accredited NGO conference delegates, including three from the National Center for Public Policy Research, waited outside for eight hours or longer in 32-degree F temperatures for admission.
NGOs apparently are being banned because the United Nations accredited 45,000 people for a building with a capacity of 15,000, although the stated reason was "security concerns." The "security concerns" may be related to the fact that, after waiting several hours in the cold, delegations began to chant, "Let us in! Let us in!"
"To be an 'accredited' or 'admitted' NGO to a COP conference, NGOs must apply months in advance, and typically only make travel plans to attend after receiving complete credentials from the United Nations," said Amy Ridenour, president of the National Center for Public Policy Research, an accredited COP-15 NGO organization that is as of now banned from the conference. "To give credentials to 45,000 people while choosing a building that holds 15,000 people is insane, although the United Nations, to be fair, has never been known for competence."
"What makes this an even greater travesty," said Ridenour, "is the COP-15 conference ostensibly is trying to find ways to reduce the burning of fossil fuels. If 30,000 people fly to Copenhagen for no reason, doesn't that put unnecessary greenhouse gases into the atmosphere?"
Ridenour has formally asked the U.N., which is permitting some NGOs to have many delegates inside while others are permitted none, to limit each NGO to one representative as long as space limitations remain a concern.
"Some of these NGO delegations are from rich countries like our own," said Ridenour, "but for some NGOs, raising the funds to attend a conference in Copenhagen is a real financial hardship. The least the U.N. can do is let in at least one member of these delegations, so all of their money won't be wasted."
-----
www.politicalpotluck.com
Political News You Can Use
The restriction was announced today outside the Copenhagen conference center after several thousand accredited NGO conference delegates, including three from the National Center for Public Policy Research, waited outside for eight hours or longer in 32-degree F temperatures for admission.
NGOs apparently are being banned because the United Nations accredited 45,000 people for a building with a capacity of 15,000, although the stated reason was "security concerns." The "security concerns" may be related to the fact that, after waiting several hours in the cold, delegations began to chant, "Let us in! Let us in!"
"To be an 'accredited' or 'admitted' NGO to a COP conference, NGOs must apply months in advance, and typically only make travel plans to attend after receiving complete credentials from the United Nations," said Amy Ridenour, president of the National Center for Public Policy Research, an accredited COP-15 NGO organization that is as of now banned from the conference. "To give credentials to 45,000 people while choosing a building that holds 15,000 people is insane, although the United Nations, to be fair, has never been known for competence."
"What makes this an even greater travesty," said Ridenour, "is the COP-15 conference ostensibly is trying to find ways to reduce the burning of fossil fuels. If 30,000 people fly to Copenhagen for no reason, doesn't that put unnecessary greenhouse gases into the atmosphere?"
Ridenour has formally asked the U.N., which is permitting some NGOs to have many delegates inside while others are permitted none, to limit each NGO to one representative as long as space limitations remain a concern.
"Some of these NGO delegations are from rich countries like our own," said Ridenour, "but for some NGOs, raising the funds to attend a conference in Copenhagen is a real financial hardship. The least the U.N. can do is let in at least one member of these delegations, so all of their money won't be wasted."
-----
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)