Janet Napolitano to tackle climate change as a National Security issue....

When there are more pressing issues actually having to do with National Security, this moron comes up with this ....

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/napolitano-says-dhs-begin-battling-clima

 

thats what we need, another task force created from scratch.

 

+1......and the growth continues.

 

This prolly has something to do with Cap and Trade taxing, and more importantly-->enforcement. I've heard its already been taken into account regarding tax revenues from such as soon as 2012. And "they" haven't even voted on anything yet. Seems its already a done deal. Guess we'll see.

 

Seems like I've posted that quote before.

Seems like it was incomprehensible to many here.

 

And like before you have not stated what that means.

Why don't you go ahead and explain it?

 

to battle the effects of climate change on domestic security operations.


duh just like he said before see it is explained because of the large font and bold letters and the underline command was also used what is left to explain silly goose.

 

It means we are going to waste more stolen from the public tax dollars on something that doesn't exist or at the very least we have no impact upon.

 

HS is NOT battling climate change, they are studying how it affects their operations.

Other companies do the same. It's only prudent.

IMNSHO, of course.

 

Here's my question; when the Federal cancer implodes, should we go back to The Constitution or the Articles of Confederation? [comparison];
http://home.earthlink.net/~gfeldmeth/chart.art.html

 

Yes.

 

Maybe is my second language, or maybe is my engineering but shoud it said, address, instead of battle?

You don't fucking battle global change.

 

Carlos, look at the OP.

 

Tackle? WTF.

I can see where use of the word can lead to a different conclusion.

Yeah, I am the one with the second language problem. <sigh>

Edit, I was not bustin' on you. The linked article uses battle.

 

So were going to spend money to find out if they should wear a heavy coat or not? Money well spent.

Or perhaps they are going to study if they need to wear rain gear when it rains. Money well spent.

It's another lame ass justification for the spending of your tax dollars with no tangible benefit to the US tax payer.

 

Personally, I would think the Defense Department would be able to indentify any threat, reliability issues to satellites, etc under their budget. I don't see how Homeland needs to do this?

 

Does anyone know what the current threat or problems are or what they are perceived to be?

 

Good enough. Criticize the bill for what is there rather than makin' up shit to bitch about it.

 

Did you forget? After the so-called Patriot Act, HS was established to oversee ALL those departments and bureaus and shit so they wouldn't have the duplication of efforts and shit and lack of communication and shit.

Hows that Homy Safety thing workin' out for ya?

 

Oversee! I don't have a big issue with an oversight or someone managing. Maybe I got it wrong. Maybe I am trying to guess wha Homeland Security is trying to anticipate in terms of glitches that would not be covered by the Defense Department. Now, if Homeland is speaking as one, that is fine but I would be cautious about duplicating or funding the efforts already entrusted to one department.