Senate Sinks Admiral Obama’s ‘Great Green Fleet’

Common sense has prevailed in Washington for once. The Senate has torpedoed Barack Obama’s plan to launch his Great Green Fleet, a foolhardy project even for an administration that specializes in the harebrained:

Senate Panel Cuts Off Navy’s Biofuel Buys

The Navy’s ambitious renewable-energy plans aren’t sunk quite yet. But they took a major hit Thursday, when the Senate Armed Services Committee voted to all but ban the military from buying alternative fuels.

[…] “Adopting a ‘green agenda’ for national defense of course is a terrible misplacement of priorities,” [Sen. John] McCain told National Journal Daily on Tuesday, calling it “a clear indication that the president doesn’t understand national security.”

Despite this setback, Obama and his other “watermelons” (green on the outside, Red on the inside) are busily subverting our armed forces by way of Agenda 21, i.e. “sustainable development” …

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)

[…] 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)

Barack Obama’s idea of national security is to confront our increasingly blood-thirsty enemies with a ‘progressive’ army filled with homosexuals and women, nourished on tofu and bean sprouts, and supported by a solar-powered air force and a navy whose ancient ships are fueled by distilled pond scum (manufactured, preferably, by one of Obama’s political cronies). This is what’s going to strike terror into the black hearts of America’s foes?  The only observers an Obama-style military strikes fear into are the taxpayers it’s supposed to be defending.


Al Sharpton, the abrasive host of MSNBC’s Politics Nation and self-styled leader of Black America — at least that part of Black America susceptible to demagogic ‘progressivism’ — has been mentioned in federal court in connection with a money laundering operation:

Is Al Sharpton Involved in a Money Laundering Ring With P Diddy and Wyclef Jean?

Al Sharpton’s record in public life is dubious, to say the least. Yet being an irresponsible public figure and being a criminal are quite different things, and one does not necessarily imply the other. As such, recent news that Sharpton is suspected of potentially being involved in a money laundering ring requires us to seriously examine the evidence for the charge. And in this case, Sharpton’s guilt is decidedly ambiguous.

[…] While it appears unlikely that further allegations against Sharpton will be made at the legal level, there is still a problem inherent in this story for the MSNBC Anchor. That is, the fact that such charges are believable in the first place, and that he, of all people, is raising suspicion. Many of Sharpton’s defenders will likely blame that suspicion on racism

…including, more than likely, Al himself. After all, it’s the last refuge of the modern scoundrel, and unfounded accusations of racism are the left-wing charlatan’s stock in trade.  But this isn’t the first time that the bombastic ‘reverend’ has been accused of laundering drug money:

A 2002 telecast of HBO’s Real Sports with Bryant Gumbel showed a 1983 FBI surveillance video in which Sharpton was taped discussing a money-laundering scheme with mobster-turned-informant Michael Franzese, onetime captain for the Colombo crime family. On the tape, Sharpton appeared to offer to broker a meeting between Don King and a South American drug lord. No indictments were filed.

”I knew Sharpton and was aware that he was associated with people in the Genovese family, in particular with family soldier Danny Pagano,” Franzese said.

About Bob Mack

Retired since 2003. Military Service: U.S. Army, 36th Artillery Group, Babenhausen, Germany 1966-67; 1st Signal Brigade, Republic of Vietnam, 1967-68 Attended University of Miami, 1969-73
This entry was posted in News, Opinion and tagged , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

25 Responses to Senate Sinks Admiral Obama’s ‘Great Green Fleet’

  1. Funny you should mention the F-22. The plane many pilots are refusing to fly because of it’s problems. A plane that in 2009 cost$150 million each. A plane whose program cost $66.7 Billion. A plane that costs between $20,000- and $50,000 an hour to fly.

    The US already has the largest and most advanced military in the world. A military whose budget in 2010 was $683.7 Billion. A budget which is routinely 20% of the US budget (and by many estimates that factor in the spending associated with the military can push the total as high as 50%)

    So yes- give me a military working towards energy independence. One that is not dependent on foreign sources of fuel. And one that at times of need does not put such a demand on resources that it raises the prices for all americans- as we saw with the near tripling of gas prices un der Bush.

    • Bob Mack says:

      The purpose of the U.S. military is to defend the United States, not to “work towards energy independence.” Also, it’s not “many pilots” refusing to fly the F-22. Two pilots went public with safety concerns regarding hypoxia in-flight. But they also said this:

      Major Jeremy Gordon: “I firmly believe in the aircraft.”

      Captain Josh Wilson: “It is just a phenomenal, phenomenal machine.”

      • AFVET says:

        Ahhh Bob, you have snagged a troll, and it appears to be a nice one. 🙂
        Get ready, in the next 5 months these boobs are going to attack relentlessly.
        Although you don’t need any help in dispatching these creatures, I would be honored to assist you.

    • AFVET says:

      Give me a president that does not use AF1 as a private jet to fly to Hollywood to suck on the teats of the 1% he consistently demonizes.
      As far as the military budget goes, what would you call fair ?
      Keep in mind that 50% of Americans pay little or no federal income tax at all yet benefit from the security that the military provides.
      Your last paragraph is a conundrum.
      Since when does the military control energy independence ?
      It exemplifies a twisted view of the real world you exist in.

  2. Bob Mack says:

    From Daniel Greenfield via the CFP: Spot the Narrative

    Wouldn’t it be terrible if we lived in some kind of dictatorship where a tiny group of powerful men controlled the broadcast media and used it to justify abuses of power by the government?

    Isn’t it great that we live in a country where we don’t have to worry about that kind of thing?

    Yeah me too.

    It all starts with the narrative. Coverage of the lawsuits can be minimized as much as possible, but sooner or later it has to be reported on. The media is as lazy, as it is corrupt and stupid, so they usually garner their talking points from liberal talking point distributors like Think Progress and Media Matters.

    The narrative on the Catholic lawsuits is problematic because it’s a clear case of religious freedom being infringed on. That means this problematic fact has to be countered by…

    Talking Point #1: The lawsuit isn’t religious, it’s political.

    Talking Point #2: The lawsuit isn’t from the Catholic Church, but from a small group of extremist bishops.

    Talking Point #3: Most Catholics love abortion and the Catholic Church is out of step with modern American Catholics.

    Talking Point #4: Both sides need to compromise. Obama has already faked a compromise. Not the Catholic Church needs to give in.

    Talking Point #5: Molestation

    You can see all four talking points in just the headlines of the news stories on the screenshot above. I didn’t choose this screenshot, these are the first listed stories, which also tells you something. You have to click outside to find the fifth one, but it’s there.

    It’s pretty sad when the propaganda is not only this obvious… but when you don’t even need to read past the headline to see it.

    This shows how much contempt the media has for us and for its own profession. This isn’t between the lines stuff. This is talking point headlines. It’s the journalism equivalent of a cop selling crack to crack babies. It’s a level of treason to one’s own integrity and professionalism that there’s nowhere lower to go except printing actual press releases without altering a word.

    I’ll even go you one worse. Only one of the outlets listed is the Huffington Post and it has the mildest headline of the bunch. What does it tell you when HuffPo looks moderate compared to the Star Ledger or the Palm Beach Post?

    Three words. Cancel your subscription. Don’t take out ads in these papers. Kick the propagandists out into the cold hard new media world. If the Obama Administration is going to have a propaganda arm, it should be the one paying them out of its campaign coffers.

  3. Obama I can understand. We know he is a green Marxist watermellon. What I don’t understand are the top people in the Pentagon. Apparently they are more interested in keeping their jobs than standing up for our national defenxe. What gives?

    • Bob Mack says:

      Apparently they’ve all become Chairborne Rangers, JIM.

    • AFVET says:

      They’re afraid for their careers and their families.
      The Obama thugs have infiltrated the high society, and they know who you are.
      They know where you live.
      It has taken them 100 years to do it, but, now the attention is being diverted to the rich people that supply Obama with millions of dollars to defeat the nasty capitalistic policies.
      Thugs have no rules.

  4. May Obama go down with the fleet!

    It is obvious to me that the Senate is FINALLY worrying about re-election for themselves. About damn time!

    • Bob Mack says:

      Down with the ship? Democrat/Progressive political mariners are likelier to kick the women and children out of the lifeboats so’s they can all pile in.

  5. Pingback: Be Sure You’re RIGHT, Then Go Ahead | Grumpy Opinions

  6. Cry and Howl says:

    Ah yes … Al Sharpton.
    The “Harrigan” song does not apply …

  7. boudicabpi says:

    Reblogged this on Boudica BPI Weblog and commented:
    Obama, always wrong and marching forward towards the cliff!

  8. Pingback: Teeing it up: A Round at the LINKs (Memorial Day edition) | SENTRY JOURNAL

  9. samiam60 says:

    Here is a Memorial Day Outrage coming of course from MSNBC:

    ‘Come Up With a More Neutral Term’: MSNBC Panel Debates Using the Word ‘Hero’ To Describe Fallen Soldiers

    MSNBC is not known as a network that sympathizes with the wars in Iraq or Afghanistan, but this Memorial Day weekend, rather than put aside their political differences to salute our men and women in uniform, a panel on Chris Hayes’ show instead engaged in a debate over how to refer to our fallen soldiers.

    Specifically, the panel debated over using words like “hero” because– in their words– the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan aren’t “worthy” causes.

    Chris Hayes introduces the issue:

    “I feel uncomfortable about the word ‘hero’ because it seems to me that it is so rhetorically proximate to justifications for more war. Um, and, I don’t want to obviously desecrate or disrespect memory of anyone that’s fallen, and obviously there are individual circumstances in which there is genuine, tremendous heroism, you know, hail of gunfire, rescuing fellow soldiers, and things like that. But it seems to me that we marshal this word in a way that is problematic. But maybe I’m wrong about that…”
    John McWhorter of the New York Daily News continued: “…I would almost rather not say ‘hero’ and come up with a more neutral term…I share your
    discomfort with those words because they are argumentational strategies in themselves, often without wanting to be.”

    Michelle Goldberg of the Daily Beast, who recently compared Ann Romney to Hitler and Stalin on the same network, added: “There are people who are genuine heroes, but the kind of implication is that death is what makes you a hero, you know as opposed to any kind of affirmative act or moral act…”

    After reassuring that there is honor and valor in the military, Goldberg said: “It’s more just that, it’s a way of ennobling sacrifices that have a lot of nobility for the individual, but to say that someone kind of died heroically suggests that they died worthily, or that they died in the pursuit of a worthy endeavor…” [Emphasis added]

  10. wdednh says:

    Reblogged this on YOU DECIDE.

  11. Pingback: Monday Musing | What Would The Founders Think?

  12. cmblake6 says:

    Reblogged this on Cmblake6's Weblog and commented:
    You want to read this whole thing. Holy shit, how blatant will this fuckhead get before the military ABIDES BY THEIR OATH!!!!

  13. cmblake6 says:

    Reblogged at mine as well!

Your thoughts?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s