Joe Biden and his China strategy – feminize the U.S. military

 

It’s important that pregnant women are able to drop into enemy territory. Imagine a pregnant woman pilot with air sickness. Imagine a pregnant American woman captured by an enemy.

Imagine Joe Biden is President.

China is on a tear with a massive increase in Navy ship building. First we have Tucker Carlson giving us an update on China. Joe himself comes next with his military strategy and then our intrepid Mustang throws out some thoughts on the China matter for us think about.

 

 

China Joe himself with the necessary improvements to our fighting forces that will carry us to victory. Note his ever present minder Harris waiting in the wings prepared to pull the plug should Biden go off script or need direction to get off stage.

 

The Enemy of My Enemy

An Introduction to Chinese Checkers

by Mustang

 

 

Recently, Mr. Schweizer wrote about China’s Dragon Ships — a massive increase in Chinese navy shipbuilding. Despite Wikipedia’s warning about Peter Schweizer — that he’s a contributor to the far right media organization Breitbart News — I enjoy his articles.  They are well-researched and convey useful information in a well-organized and highly articulate manner.

Among his pearls are — 

  • The Chinese Navy has replaced the USN as the world’s largest 
  • China’s goal, in developing such a large navy is (a) to intimidate and threaten the economic security of Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Singapore, Thailand, and Indonesia, and (b) lay claim to the entire South China Sea as a Chinese sovereign territory
  • China’s push for nuclear powered ships reflects a longer-term goal of challenging the US and other navies around the world
  • China’s shipbuilding behavior will only get worse unless the US challenges China through diplomatic and economic penalties.

I think Mr. Schweizer did a good job in his article up until his final point.  Economic and diplomatic penalties imposed on China have never worked.  This bears repeating.  There is nothing more useless than a law that cannot be enforced, or a foreign policy that has no effect.  

So if we agree that the imposition of trade restrictions on China — or diplomatic consequences (and I cannot imagine what these might entail) — have no effect, why bother?  It makes you wonder, “Well, then, what else could the US do to challenge China?”

Beyond my reading of Chinese history and the product of the so-called China Watchers for a few decades, I am no expert.  I can say that Chinese frequently demonstrate their craftiness, and more often than not to the detriment of US foreign and trade policies (which reflects more the ineptness of American diplomats than it does on the cleverness of Chinese thinking).  As but one example, America’s involvement in the Vietnam War was entirely the brain-child of Chou En-Lai … whose trap we walked into with both eyes open.

All that aside, what could the Americans do to challenge China?

  • We could increase our naval construction program.  This is easier said than done, particularly since the US cannot bank on revenues if it intends to keep the American economy in lockdown mode.  China could more or less assure our continued lockdown by introducing yet another virus into the United States — which shouldn’t be too hard since every week, 3,881 flights arrive in the US from China.  Snap!  A robust US naval construction effort would entail more sailors (more financial outlays), but of course we cannot do that and provide unrestrained and un-budgeted-for economic stimulus programs to the American people.

 

  • The balance of power in East Asia may involve more than issues of naval supremacy; Japan, for example, purchases most of its rice from Vietnam.  We might encourage our Asian allies to pursue a more robust naval construction program — but that would only work if our Asian allies perceived the Chinese navy as a significant threat to their economic interests.  Otherwise, from their perspective, there would be no justification for increasing their spending on naval/military hardware.  Note: looking back in time, maybe FDR should have backed Japan against China in the 1930s.

 

  • I suppose the US could simply stop trading with China, although the fact is that if the US did impose an embargo on all Chinese made goods, it would only account for $106-billion (annually)… a drop in the bucket as a percentage of China’s GDP.  Plus, should we really send Wal-Mart into bankruptcy?

 

  • There is always the option of not challenging China’s naval activities at all.  Should the US really care about this — enough to spend billions we don’t have on naval construction — when China’s strategy may very well be the exact same thing we did to the former-Soviet Union, which was to drive the Soviets into economic oblivion?

 

  • Finally, the US might consider an ambitious campaign to convince Americans that Chinese noodles are deliciously nutritious.   

 Greg Poling, Director of the Asia Maritime Transparency Initiative at the Center for Strategic and International Studies organization seems to agree with me, recently stating, “The South China Sea isn’t a military problem and has no military (naval) solutions.  All the force investments in the world won’t matter if the US fails to impose enough diplomatic and economic costs to alter Chinese behavior.”  

Of course, Mr. Poling probably has more confidence in America’s diplomatic corps than I do.  I cannot find one single “clever” thing the US State Department has done in the past 120 years that didn’t end up costing the American people needless loss of life or an increase in the loss of disposable income.

The enemy of my enemy is my friend is a concept suggesting that other governments who live in fear of China might become worthwhile American allies.  I laugh. 

 Our “friends” would expect that the USA subsidize their naval construction efforts, while at the same time increasing our trade deficits with them as part of the bargain.  It makes me want to question the wisdom of wasting time trying to create any worthwhile anti-Chinese alliances.  

By the way, the title expression originated in India in the fourth century before the common era.  It may not actually apply to this perceived Chinese threat since the US has no worthwhile friends and all of our former allies should have learned their lessons by now. 

Still, I wonder … what do the commenters at Bunkerville think? 

 

Mustang also blogs at Fix Bayonets and Thoughts From Afar

FBI Comey pushed back probe origins of ‘Salacious material’ requested by Trump

Interesting isn’t it that the Comey prepared remarks distributed yesterday included statements on the sex act nonsense against Trump. All of which would easily explain why Trump met privately with him at the least. If I were Trump, I would be furious as well as to why Comey didn’t want to go after the origins. Add to his angst that McCain confirms he handed over Trump documents to FBI | 12NEWS … Here goes:

Former FBI Director James B. Comey admitted that he pushed back against a request from President Donald Trump to possibly investigate the origins of “salacious material” that the agency possessed in the course of its investigation into alleged Russian interference in the 2016 presidential campaign.

The detail was included in Comey’s prepared remarks set to be delivered Thursday to the U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence and released ahead of Comey’s appearance.

 

In Comey’s prepared remarks, the former FBI chief says that following a January 6 Oval Office meeting with Intelligence Community leaders, Comey “remained alone with the President Elect to brief him on some personally sensitive aspects of the information assembled during the assessment.”’

It is clear Comey was referring to the dossier since he writes the “salacious and unverified” material was about to be publically reported by the news media.

He writes:

The IC leadership thought it important, for a variety of reasons, to alert the incoming President to the existence of this material, even though it was salacious and unverified. Among those reasons were: (1) we knew the media was about to publicly report the material and we believed the IC should not keep knowledge of the material and its imminent release from the President-Elect; and (2) to the extent there was some effort to compromise an incoming President, we could blunt any such effort with a defensive briefing.

Four days later, the dossier was published by BuzzFeed. 

Also, in his statement summarizing his conversation with Trump, Comey refers to Russian prostitutes, a key component of the dossier:

He said he had nothing to do with Russia, had not been involved with hookers in Russia, and had always assumed he was being recorded when in Russia. 

The document contains wild and unproven claims that the Russians had information on Trump and sordid sexual acts, including the mocked claim that Trump hired prostitutes and had them urinate on a hotel room bed.

Comey writes:

During the dinner, the President returned to the salacious material I had briefed him about on January 6, and, as he had done previously, expressed his disgust for the allegations and strongly denied them. He said he was considering ordering me to investigate the alleged incident to prove it didn’t happen. I replied that he should give that careful thought because it might create a narrative that we were investigating him personally, which we weren’t, and because it was very difficult to prove a negative. He said he would think about it and asked me to think about it.

In testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee on FBI oversight last month, Comey repeatedly refused to answer questions about his agency’s ties to the dossier.

More at Breitbart

Two former Secretaries of Defense give scathing rebuke of Defense policies

We know how the Emperor is doing on the home front, but anyone wondering how he is demonstrating his intellectual prowess as the Commander-in-Chief? (Or should I add how Valerie is doing)? We have heard subtle comments that he is micro managing our military actions, but this is a scathing report by two former Secretaries of Defense. This story makes the immigration issue pale for those who are serving or have loved ones serving in our military. Here we go:

President Obama’s former Secretaries of Defense have a low opinion of the boss’ defense policy.

Robert Gates, who served in that position under Obama from 2009 to 2011, and his replacement Leon Panetta (2011 to 2013), sharply criticized Obama on everything from administrative methods to being too insular to fighting the Islamic State terrorist organization in speeches at the Reagan National Defense Forum November 15.

“[President Obama] has given them the mission of destroying ISIS,” Gates said. “But when you then deny the military the authorities they require to achieve the objective, you leave them with a great sense of frustration.”

 

“I think it is important for the president and I think it’s important for our military leaders to know that they have to be able to use every possible option on the table in order to be able to succeed in that effort, and that we ought not to just ad hoc limit certain areas,” Panetta said.

“I think there is a gap between the president’s rhetoric in terms of the objectives and the missions that he sets for the military and then the authorization that he gives them to carry it out,” Gates added

More over at the Free Beacon

 

Supreme Court allows NDAA ‘Indefinite detention’ of Americans to stand

The Supreme Court this week, refused to hear an Appeals court decision regarding the NDAA “indefinite detention”. This leaves Obama with the power to pack us up. While we are looking the other way. This should be the headline story today. But then again, we have the Basketball owner’s racism that is much more important. First a refresher.  From  August, 2012 post:  Obama fights injunction against unlawful detention of U.S. citizens

On May 16th,federal judge Kathleen Forrest granted a preliminary injunction to plaintiffs in a lawsuit filed against Barack Obama and the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012 (NDAA),striking down those sections of the Act that provide the president the power to indefinitely detain American citizens without benefit of their 5th and 6th Amendment rights. As a reminder, keep in mind it was Obama that insisted that the language in the NDAA bill include Citizens: Obama lies-he insisted that detention of Americans be in defense bill

“But… It was his administration that insisted that the language be included in the bill”.

From the video: Senator Carl Levin (D-Mich.) told Congress recently that under the original wording of the National Defense Authorization Act, American citizens were excluded from the provision that allowed for detention. Once Obama’s officials saw the text though, says Levin, “the administration asked us to remove the language which says that US citizens and lawful residents would not be subject to this section.”

Under the terms of the Act,Obama had been given exclusive authority to direct members of the US military to arrest and imprison anyone he believed to have “substantially supported” al Qaeda,the Taliban,or “associated forces.” When pressed by plaintiff’s attorneys about the practical extent of this authority,government lawyers admitted …the NDAA does give the president the power to lock up people like journalist Chris Hedges and peaceful activists,” admitting that “…even war correspondents could be locked up indefinitely under the NDAA.”

Yet incredibly,when pressed on the issue,this Obama mouthpiece suggested to Judge Forrest that concerns about the president’s detention powers were excessive as American citizens would,after all,have the ability to file a writ of habeas corpus should they be illegally or improperly jailed! “How long does [such a] petition take,” asked Forrest? When Torrance refused to answer,the Judge continued,“Several years,right”?

You might want to check out FBI Director “I have to check and see if Obama can kill Citizens on U.S. soil

FBI Director Robert Mueller on Wednesday said he would have to go back and check with the Department of Justice whether Attorney General Eric Holder’s “three criteria” for the targeted killing of Americans also applied to Americans inside the U.S.

Now back to the update:

A decision by the U.S. Supreme Court means the federal government now has an open door to “detain as a threat to national security anyone viewed as a troublemaker,” according to critics.

The high court this week refused to review an appeals court decision that said the president and U.S. military can arrest and indefinitely detain individuals.

The controversial provision authorizes the military, under presidential authority, to arrest, kidnap, detain without trial and hold indefinitely American citizens thought to “represent an enduring security threat to the United States.”

At the trial court, on Sept. 12, 2012, U.S. District Judge Katherine Forrest of the Southern District Court of New York ruled in favor of the plaintiffs and placed a permanent injunction on the indefinite detention provision.

Obama then appealed, and the 2nd Circuit authorized the government detention program.

Since the law passed, multiple states have passed laws banning its enforcement. Herb Titus, a constitutional expert, previously told WND Forrest’s ruling underscored “the arrogance of the current regime, in that they will not answer questions that they ought to answer to a judge because they don’t think they have to.”

The judge explained that the plaintiffs alleged paragraph 1021 is “constitutionally infirm, violating both their free speech and associational rights guaranteed by the 1st Amendment as well due process rights guaranteed by the 5th Amendment.”

From: Supreme Court green lights detention of Americans  Read more at WND

NDAA Passes Senate – Welcome to the Gulag or what they won’t tell you

Looks like this is the vote breakdown U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes. 84 to 15 with 1 not voting. Brave guy.

YEAs 84
NAYs 15
Not Voting 1
Vote Summary By Senator Name By Vote Position By Home State
Question:              On the Motion (Motion to Concur in the House Amendment to Senate Amendment to H.R. 3304 )
Vote Number: 284 Vote Date: December 19, 2013,  11:14 PM
Required For Majority: 1/2 Vote Result: Motion Agreed to
Measure Number: H.R. 3304

Congratulations America. We are now a totalitarian State. I know I have been beating on this bill, but just to let you know what you bought. Enjoy the Gulag. I will post the vote tally when available. You thought last year’s was bad? This is even worse. See Details Here

Even more onerous than the previous versions. It must be voted on by the House and by the Senate .Section 1071 of the version of the 2014 NDAA approved by the House and Senate committees this week expands on the scope of surveillance established by the Patriot Act and the Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF).

From  August, 2012 post: Obama fights injunction against unlawful detention of U.S. citizens

Obama fights the preliminary injunction granted to American Citizens against unlawful imprisonment. But Obama is not through with us yet. They are fighting it big time, and the rationale gets even more creepy. The argument goes something like this, if we are thrown in jail, we can always appeal, even though it may take years to prove our innocence. Guilty until proven otherwise, typical Marxist justice.

On May 16th,federal judge Kathleen Forrest granted a preliminary injunction to plaintiffs in a lawsuit filed against Barack Obama and the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012 (NDAA),striking down those sections of the Act that provide the president the power to indefinitely detain American citizens without benefit of their 5th and 6th Amendment rights. As a reminder, keep in mind it was Obama that insisted that the language in the NDAA bill include Citizens:Obama lies-he insisted that detention of Americans be in defense bill

“But… It was his administration that insisted that the language be included in the bill”.

From the video: Senator Carl Levin (D-Mich.) told Congress recently that under the original wording of the National Defense Authorization Act, American citizens were excluded from the provision that allowed for detention. Once Obama’s officials saw the text though, says Levin, “the administration asked us to remove the language which says that US citizens and lawful residents would not be subject to this section.”

Under the terms of the Act,Obama had been given exclusive authority to direct members of the US military to arrest and imprison anyone he believed to have “substantially supported” al Qaeda,the Taliban,or “associated forces.” When pressed by plaintiff’s attorneys about the practical extent of this authority,government lawyers admitted “…the NDAA does give the president the power to lock up people like journalist Chris Hedges and peaceful activists,” admitting that “…even war correspondents could be locked up indefinitely under the NDAA.”

Yet incredibly,when pressed on the issue,this Obama mouthpiece suggested to Judge Forrest that concerns about the president’s detention powers were excessive as American citizens would,after all,have the ability to file a writ of habeas corpus should they be illegally or improperly jailed! “How long does [such a] petition take,” asked Forrest? When Torrance refused to answer,the Judge continued,“Several years,right”?

You might want to check out FBI Director “I have to check and see if Obama can kill Citizens on U.S. soil

FBI Director Robert Mueller on Wednesday said he would have to go back and check with the Department of Justice whether Attorney General Eric Holder’s “three criteria” for the targeted killing of Americans also applied to Americans inside the U.S.

From August, 2012 post: Obama fights injunction against unlawful detention of U.S. citizens

Obama lies-he insisted that detention of Americans be in defense bill

“But… It was his administration that insisted that the language be included in the bill”.

From the video: Senator Carl Levin (D-Mich.) told Congress recently that under the original wording of the National Defense Authorization Act, American citizens were excluded from the provision that allowed for detention. Once Obama’s officials saw the text though, says Levin, “the administration asked us to remove the language which says that US citizens and lawful residents would not be subject to this section.”

So not only did Obama’s attorney lie about his Marxist boss’s corrupt intentions;he actually claimed that the abuse of American citizens was somehow acceptable because those unconstitutionally imprisoned might ask that the charges against them be produced after ONLY a few years behind bars!

Script from Video: Senator Levin told Congress recently that under the original wording of the National Defense Authorization Act, American citizens were excluded from the provision that allowed for detention. Once Obama’s officials saw the text though, says Levin, “the administration asked us to remove the language which says that US citizens and lawful residents would not be subject to this section.”

Specifically, the section that Obama asked to be reworded was Section 1031 of the NDAA FY2012, which says that “any person who has committed a belligerent act” could be held indefinitely.

“It was the administration that asked us to remove the very language which we had in the bill which passed the committee…we removed it at the request of the administration,” said Levin. “It was the administration which asked us to remove the very language the absence of which is now objected to.”

Here we have Rand Paul telling what it will take to get on “The List” of being a terrorist.

Defense One
  1. DefenseNews.com ‎- 2 hours ago
    In a vote that ended around 11:40 p.m. Thursday, the chamber voted 84-15 to pass the 2014 national defense authorization act (NDAA),

The defense policy bill is “one of the essential pieces of legislation the Senate considers every year,” Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., said this week. The NDAA “is legislation that … puts muscle behind America’s most important strategic objectives around the globe.”

Levin said “the bill before us is not a Democratic bill and it is not a Republican bill. It is a bipartisan, bicameral defense bill.”

NDAA 2014 – Congress rushing to approve even worse Defense bill UPDATE

Latest Update:

News for ndaa passed

Defense One
  1. DefenseNews.com ‎- 2 hours ago
    In a vote that ended around 11:40 p.m. Thursday, the chamber voted 84-15 to pass the 2014 national defense authorization act (NDAA), which….

UPDATE: Just passed cloture 71 to 29.Will be voted on today or tomorrow.

While we were looking the other way, the NDAA (National Defense Authorization Act  2014) rises. Even more onerous than the previous versions. It must be voted on by the House and by the Senate next week. Will they do it? Of course they will.

Section 1071 of the version of the 2014 NDAA approved by the House and Senate committees this week expands on the scope of surveillance established by the Patriot Act and the Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF).

The House and Senate Armed Services Committees have reached an agreement on the fiscal year 2014 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA).

As approved by the committees, the text of the latest iteration of the bill is derived from H.R. 1960, which passed the House on June 14 by a vote of 315-108 and S. 1197, a version passed by a Senate committee by a vote of 23-3, later that same day.

House and Senate leaders hurried to hammer out a mutually acceptable measure so as to get the whole package passed before the end of the year.

For two years, the NDAA included provisions that purported to authorize the president of the United States to deploy the U.S. military to apprehend and indefinitely detain any person (including an American citizen) who he believes “represent[s] an enduring security threat to the United States.”

Such an immense grant of power is not only unconscionable, but unconstitutional, as well.

Finally, there is in the NDAA for 2014 a frightening fusion of the federal government’s constant surveillance of innocent Americans and the assistance it will give to justifying the indefinite detention of anyone labeled an enemy of the regime.

Section 1071(a) authorizes the secretary of defense to “establish a center to be known as the ‘Conflict Records Research Center.’” According to the text of the latest version of the NDAA, the center’s task would be to compile a “digital research database including translations and to facilitate research and analysis of records captured from countries, organizations, and individuals, now or once hostile to the United States.”

In order to accomplish the center’s purpose, the secretary of defense will create an information exchange in cooperation with the director of national intelligence.

Key to the functioning of this information exchange will be the collection of “captured records.” Section 1071(g)(1), defines a captured record as “a document, audio file, video file, or other material captured during combat operations from countries, organizations, or individuals, now or once hostile to the United States.”

When read in conjunction with the provision of the AUMF that left the War on Terror open-ended and the prior NDAAs’ classification of the United States as a battleground in that unconstitutional war, and you’ve got a powerful combination that can knock out the entire Bill of Rights.

Finally, when all the foregoing is couched within the context of the revelations regarding the dragnet surveillance programs of the NSA, it becomes evident that anyone’s phone records, e-mail messages, browsing history, text messages, and social media posts could qualify as a “captured record.”

After being seized by the NSA (or some other federal surveillance apparatus), the materials would be processed by the Conflict Records Research Center created by this bill. This center’s massive database of electronic information and its collaboration with the NSA converts the United States into a constantly monitored holding cell and all its citizens and residents into suspects. All, of course, in the name of the security of the homeland.

Although the outlook is dire, there are those willing to stand and oppose the threats to liberty posed by the NDAA.

In The Federalist, no. 46, Madison recommended that an effective way to thwart federal overreach is for agents of the states to refuse “to cooperate with officers of the Union.”

In order for Fiscal Year 2014 NDAA to become the “law,” the House of Representatives must pass the bill this week and the Senate would have to follow suit by the end of next week. This gives Americans only a few short days to contact their federal representatives and senators and encourage them to reject any version of the NDAA that infringes on the timeless civil liberties protected by the Constitution. Read more  The New American

Need a refresher?

From  August, 2012 post: Obama fights injunction against unlawful detention of U.S. citizens

…Yet incredibly, when pressed on the issue, this Obama mouthpiece suggested to Judge Forrest that concerns about the president’s detention powers were excessive as American citizens would, after all, have the ability to file a writ of habeas corpus should they be illegally or improperly jailed! “How long does [such a] petition take,” asked Forrest? When Torrance refused to answer,the Judge continued,“Several years,.right”?

The group points out that the new Second Circuit ruling is completely incorrect because it claims that Section 1021 of the 2012 NDAA says nothing about the government’s ability to detain citizens.

You might want to check out first FBI Director “I have to check and see if Obama can kill Citizens on U.S. soil

FBI Director Robert Mueller on Wednesday said he would have to go back and check with the Department of Justice whether Attorney General Eric Holder’s “three criteria” for the targeted killing of Americans also applied to Americans inside the U.S.

From August, 2012 post: Obama fights injunction against unlawful detention of U.S. citizens

Obama lies-he insisted that detention of Americans be in defense bill

“But… It was his administration that insisted that the language be included in the bill”.

From the video: Senator Carl Levin (D-Mich.) told Congress recently that under the original wording of the National Defense Authorization Act, American citizens were excluded from the provision that allowed for detention. Once Obama’s officials saw the text though, says Levin, “the administration asked us to remove the language which says that US citizens and lawful residents would not be subject to this section.”

Hagel: EPA Approval needed to Deploy Missile Defense Sites

As North Korea rattles its sabers, we have John Kerry and Chuck Hagel to count on. Wow.

Anyone who caught Michael Savage last night was in for some ride. In case your feel secure that Secretary Hagel is playing with a full deck, listen to the clips.

Since when does the EPA dictate where and how our defenses are deployed? We are in the hands of fools.

FYI this missile defense system is brought to you by the Reagan administration. The same one that he was mocked and criticized for when it, SDI aka Star Wars, was introduced!

Just for the memory,: Missile Defense; John Kerry  H/T:Thudbits March 15, 2013

A low key story in today’s newspapers mentions expansion of the US Missile Defense in CA and AK. During the Reagan years, every single Democrat voted against it. John Kerry said, “missile defense [was] a “dream based on an illusion,” with “real and terrible consequences?” “Being a Democrat means never being reminded of the times when you were wrong.” Which makes me wonder if John Kerry has ever been right on anything. He must subscribe to Hillary’s infamous, “What does it matter now?” He’s only Secretary of State and is a boot-licker to Obama.  As recently as 2008, Barack Obama said that he didn’t “agree with a missile defense system” and promised to slash funding for development of such systems. He did, too.

 

H/T: Saving the Republic

Senate passes amendment allowing biofuel refinery construction

The sheer madness continues. While the U.S. sits on more energy than we know what to do with, a Senate amendment that would block the waste of this biofuel nonsense by the defense dept. goes down.  Madness. Now even Defense is going to throw our money out the window to cronies. You would think we don’t have a drop of oil, coal or natural gas.

The federal government aids the development of advanced biofuels with $510 million of funding through the Defense Production Act. The act, which includes an industry match, aims to reduce the military’s dependence on foreign oil by strengthening the domestic fuel industry. Sure sounds good.

Earlier I had posted U.S. Navy going Green:

Navy buys biofuel for $16 a gallon

This is going to help the Defense Department weather looming budget cuts, for sure. Teaming up with the Department of Agriculture (which has a cheery Rotary Club ring to it), the Navy has purchased 450,000 gallons of biofuel for about $16 a gallon, or about 4 times the price of its standard marine fuel, JP-5, which has been going for under $4 a gallon.The why and more at Hot Air. Corruption reigns supreme.

By 2020, the Navy must learn to get at least 50 percent of energy from alternative sources, and 50 percent of the military vessels will have to try hard to zero out- that is to spend no more energy than they can produce. In other words, the sailors themselves have expressed doubts as to how efficient the vessels will be after the replacement of traditional fuels with alternative ones.

The Senate passed an amendment to the defense bill Thursday that would strike the prohibition on biofuel refinery construction. Individual breakdown of those voting : Vote here

The biofuels the Defense Production Act supports are made from non-edible feedstocks, such as algae and switchgrass. Advocates say those fuels could provide a sustainable way to power the nation’s vehicle fleet.

The amendment allows the Department of Defense to invest in refineries for “advanced” biofuels through a joint Agriculture, Energy and Navy Departments agreement.

Sen. Kay Hagan (D-N.C.) introduced amendment 3095, which passed on a 54-41 vote. She said the military’s reliance on oil subjects it to price shocks.

Republican Sens. Susan Collins (Maine), Chuck Grassley (Iowa), Mike Johanns (Neb.) and Dick Lugar (Ind.) voted with Democrats for the amendment, while Sen. Jim Webb (D-Va.) opposed the amendment. The Hill

%d bloggers like this: