The
euphemisms concocted by the environmentalists with the Club of Rome, the
original developers of the scare tactic idea of fabricated global
warming/climate change catastrophes, have made their way into the military
lingo.
The
federal government guidelines demand “compact development,” “mass transit,”
“energy conservation,” “sustainable development,” and high-rise mixed housing five-minute
walk from shops and work. Land
preservation must be included in military missions, a monumental challenge,
costing a huge amount of taxpayer dollars since the Defense Department has
300,000 buildings and 2.2 billion square feet.
Dorothy
Robyn, Deputy Undersecretary of Defense for Installations and Environment,
described U.S. military bases as “very sprawling, very auto-centric; you have
to have a car to get around.” She bemoaned the fact that one base has 70,000
parking spots and the daily population never exceeds 40,000. “Urban sprawl” destroys
Mother Nature and must be eventually eradicated by the environmentalist lobby. All confiscated land will be rededicated to
wilderness.
Mark
Gillen, professor of architecture at the University of Oregon, describes how
soldiers have to drive up to an hour from the housing area to the commissary at
Aviano Air Base in Italy. That is a huge stretch - I was there and it only took
me five minutes. The supposed environmental problem could be solved quite
simply by closing the base in Aviano. Italy can defend itself. They can take
the generous welfare expenditures from their budget and allocate the funds for their
own defense.
Military
forced compliance with UN Agenda 21 has been in planning and development for 18
months. “The guidance applies to all installation master planning and
represents the first rewrite of DoD’s policy in a quarter century.” (Sean
Reilly, Army Times)
The
military leadership explains that transit-oriented development reduces traffic
congestion and accident rates while encouraging walking, bicycling, and overall
healthy communities. This is a ridiculous excuse since a soldier, by
definition, has to be healthy and fit in order to serve in the military.
Walking and biking actually increase accident rates of hit and run. There are
retirees, even young ones, who are handicapped, and biking and walking is not
an option for them. We have thousands of soldiers who have returned from Iraq
and Iran with severe, life altering disabilities.
David
A. Deptula, a retired three star general, paints a very sad picture of
America’s aging Air Force fleet with its F-15s and the Cold War era B-52
bombers. After one F-15 fighter disintegrated in mid-air in 2007, the entire
fleet was grounded. “Stretching the life of military aircraft puts our fighting
men and women in mortal danger.” (Mike Brownfield, Heritage Foundation)
Because
of drastic cutbacks in the military for cost-saving reasons, at a time when the
world threat to our country is at an all time high, we do not have money to
refurbish and modernize the military capability. We let soldiers fight in
Afghanistan and Iraq with scarce resources and protection, having to duct-tape
their body armor to non-armored vehicles in order to provide some level of
safety.
The
military is more concerned with rules and regulations, like a soldier being
licensed properly to drive an un-armored SUV through a war zone. Those who make
ill-conceived rules from the safety of their offices in Washington, D. C. do
not worry that this soldier might be blown off by a roadside bomb because his
vehicle is not armored.
Trying
to shape the military in lock step with United Nations Agenda 21 of “greening”
and saving the planet from the destructive activities of humans, the federal
government spent nearly $70 billion on “climate change” since 2008. Sen. James Inhofe
(R-Oklahoma) criticized the current administration for its “drastic cuts in
personnel, brigade combat teams, tactical fighters, and airlift aircraft in the
last four years, along with the cancellation or postponement of specialized
ship and aircraft construction.” (Caroline May, Daily Caller, May 17, 2012)
“Which
would you rather have? Would you rather spend $4 billion on Air Force Base
solar panels, or would you rather have 28 new F-22s or 30 F-25s or modernized
C-130s? Would you rather have $64.8 billion spent on pointless global warming
efforts or would you rather have more funds put towards modernizing our fleet
of ships, aircraft and ground vehicles to improve the safety of our troops and
help defend our nation against the legitimate threats that we face?” (Sen. James
Inhofe as quoted by Caroline May)
Yet
we spend billions to needlessly restructure military bases into global
environmentalism compliance. It is more important for our executive branch to “sustain”
the so-called endangered environment, and please the environmentalist wackos,
than to defend our country.
No comments:
Post a Comment