Ukraine and Korea, more of the same

In January 1950, Secretary of State Dean Acheson gave a speech discussing, among other things, where he thought US interests around the world sat. The United States had been supporting the South Korean government with training and arms to quell a communist uprising in their country, and had been so successful that it seemed they would be able to withdraw from the peninsula entirely later that year. Unfortunately for Mr. Acheson, his speech was likely one of several indicators that the Soviet Union used to ultimately decide that the US would not intervene in a Korean Conflict. Josef Stalin authorized Kim Il-Sung later that spring to begin his invasion, which kicked off in June of 1950.

The Soviet Union, People’s Republic of China and North Korea all counted on the United States not intervening in Korea. That turned into a miscalculation that ultimately cost over one million lives between the two sides and countless scars that are still visible in the landscape and culture today. It was a worthy sacrifice, as South Korea has remained a strong and independent country that demonstrates what a real democratic government can look like in Asia.

The Ukrainian invasion came as a surprise to nobody. Russia’s interest in Ukraine has been stated from the very beginning, and it has been calculating the time and place of an invasion for some time. Perhaps the most important reason it launched now, verses in the past, was the assurance that it could invade without interference from the US and NATO. Similar to Korea, the invasion is designed to be quick, precise and achieve victory in a matter of days. Whether it does or not remains to be seen.

Authoritarian governments bent on invasion will never back down from their intentions, but they also aren’t stupid. They all perform the cold calculations of cost when they consider actions, and those costs skyrocket if a country like the US, France, Japan, UK, or other nations intervene. The Russians and Chinese militaries aren’t without faults, and they know those faults well, and they do in fact fear legitimate military intervention by Western democracies. But as shown in Korea, when we telegraph weakness or even indifference, it pushes these calculations in a direction we don’t want.

This post represents the views of the author and not those of the Department of Defense, Department of the Navy, or any other government agency.

Candidates are being vetted now…are you part of the process?

With everyone focused on November elections, its easy to forget that right now, as we speak, candidates are being vetted to run at the local, state and federal level. Especially for local elections, where the winner often wins by less than a thousand votes, and frequently less than a hundred votes, now is the time when candidates get setup with the party architecture and start building their campaign and fundraising.

This is also the time where upstart candidates have a chance of booting out the establishment folks in the primaries and caucuses. We hear about this for federal candidates, but surprisingly little for state and local candidates. The big reason is that the local parties are run by very few people, who often wield significant influence.

Which brings me to my main point: are you getting involved now? Are you attending your local Republican or Libertarian meetings? Are you part of that process? Are you asking the hard questions of the candidates? Are you donating to candidates you like? Are you getting signatures to get them on the ballot?

Too many times, we have trusted party leadership to vet a slate of candidates and assume that they will do a good job. That’s how we wind up with the Lisa Murkowskis, Liz Cheneys and Arlen Specters of the world, who win elections but don’t actually support the policies that their party supports. They sneak in because the majority of people aren’t part of the selection process.

Now is the time to get involved. Everyone is busy, but find the one thing you’re able to do. Maybe its walking around getting signatures for your school board and local representatives to get them on the ballot. If so, do that. Maybe you’re more extroverted and are good at asking hard questions at a party meeting. If so, do that. The point is, find what you’re capable of and do it now, while encouraging your friends to get involved as well.

We can’t make the Republican party great in November if we don’t start today.

This post represents the views of the author and not those of the Department of Defense, Department of the Navy, or any other government agency. If you like this post, please help the author by purchasing his book.

Biden and Western weakness will hand Ukraine over to Russia

Bumper sticker that reads, in Ukranian, “Putin is a d*ckhead.”

By John Ruberry

“History teaches that war begins when governments believe the price of aggression is cheap.” Ronald Reagan.

Contrary to the lessons that are almost certainly taught in American universities by leftist professors, large military budgets are not a precursor to war. In reality history teaches us something different.

As the Ottoman Empire declined in the 19th and 20th centuries, the Turks were faced with numerous rebellions and wars. They were on the losing side in nearly all of them, as ethnic groups and nations saw their opportunities, and for the most part, took them. One of those opportunistic states was the Austro-Hungarian Empire, itself in decline. Its annexation of Bosnia, nominally still part of the Ottoman Empire, in 1908 nearly caused a war in the Balkans. But a few years later there were two conflicts, the First Balkan War and the Second Balkan War, which, along with the assassination of the heir apparent of Austria-Hungary in Bosnia in 1914, and to be fair some other European disputes, set the table for World War I. 

The First World War brought us World War II, arguably the same conflict with a two-decade intermission, which led to the Cold War, then the collapse of communism, with eventually, former KGB agent Vladimir Putin becoming the de facto president-for-life of Russia.

Do you see where weakness leads us?

Last year, with the inauguration of Joe Biden, an emphasis on wokeness and diversity was pushed by our military leaders, instead of more important things, such as defending America and confronting enemies. Far worse for the appearance of American military strength was the rapid fall of Afghanistan. As bad as the fall of Saigon was for the image of the USA, the South Vietnamese were able to hold off the communists for two years after the departure of American combat troops. Afghanistan fell before Joe Biden’s pullout date. 

Which brings us back to Putin. 

Russia seized Crimea from Ukraine in 2014. As soon as this week, Russian troops, including some in Putin’s client-state of Belarus, could invade the rest of Ukraine. While I am not an advocate of sending troops to Ukraine, now that is, if Biden had sent a tripwire contingent of American and NATO ally troops to Ukraine last summer, that very well may have been enough to scare off Putin. We have troops in South Korea that aren’t sizable enough to defeat the North Koreans, but an invasion from the north would almost certainly lead to a national outrage and call for a swift response to avenge American casualties and to protect South Korea. There are NATO troops in the Baltic States, and yes, Estonia, Lativa, and Lithuania are members of NATO, which are serving a similar role

For those calling for an economic boycott of Russia. Good luck with that. The best way to punish Russia in the pocketbook is to stop buying Russian oil and natural gas, the latter is a crucial energy source for western Europe. That will not happen. 

Biden projected weakness early in his presidency by waiving sanctions against the Russian company building the Nord Stream 2 natural gas pipeline. Nord Stream 1 and Nord Stream 2 originate in Vyborg, Russia. It’s important to remember that between the world wars, Vyborg was part of Finland, but the Soviet Union seized it in the Winter War of 1939-1940

As for fossil fuels in America, Biden is instead hitching his shaky wagon to Green New Deal follies. 

Humiliating defeats don’t necessarily lead to more debacles. The first major World War II battle between American forces and the Nazis was the Battle of Kasserine Pass in North Africa, it was a fiasco for the Allies. 

What happened next?

The American commander, General Lloyd Fredendall, was sent stateside and was replaced by General George S. Patton.

After the Afghanistan rout, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Mark A. Milley, still has his job. 

Was anyone fired after the fall of Kabul? I don’t believe so. 

Worse, Putin likely sees Biden as not only weak, but as someone suffering from cognitive decline. At the very least, Biden and his top aides, were indecisive as Afghanistan collapsed, according to recently declassified documents.

Which brings us back to that Reagan quote. 

John Ruberry regularly blogs at Marathon Pundit.

Democrats exposed as complete frauds on gerrymandering

By John Ruberry

The latest, I think, Democratic Party Chicken Little existential crisis is “voting rights.” In attacking a Georgia voting reform law, President Joe Biden called it “Jim Crow on steroids,” a hateful and thoroughly dishonest claim.

C’mon man!

The end of partisan gerrymandering was one of Biden’s selling points as he stumped for his “voting rights” bills.

“For too long, partisan gerrymandering has allowed politicians to rig the political process and draw districts in their favor.” Biden said on Twitter two days ago,” voters should choose their representatives — not the other way around.” The was president celebrating a court victory for Democrats challenging a Republican-drawn state legislative map in North Carolina.

Biden and other prominent Democrats are silent on egregious gerrymandering by their party. For instance, New York currently has 27 congressional seats, slow population growth brings that number down by one for the next Congress. The current New York congressional delegation has nineteen Democrats and eight Republicans, but the new map, passed by the state Assembly, could bring a new tally, 22 Democrats and just four GOPers. 

The Dems are also quiet on Democratic gerrymandering in Maryland. That state’s Republican governor, Larry Hogan, last year called on Biden to ask attorney general Merrick Garland to sue Maryland over partsian gerrymandering. Garland is probably too focused on using his FBI to harass parents who protest school boards.

Illinois, under the iron-fist rule of Boss Michael Madigan, the longtime state House speaker and Democratic party chairman, perfected Dem gerrymandering with his 2000 and 2010 remaps. Madigan was finally ousted as speaker last year and he quickly resigned his party office, but the chicanery continues.

With the departure of Madigan, Illinois’ governor, J.B. Pritzker, is finally the most powerful Democrat in the Prairie State. In 2018 he repeatedly promised to veto gerrymandered remaps. The grandiloquent rhetoric continued after his election. “As I’ve said since I was a candidate, I will veto any map that is unfair,” Pritzker said in 2019. “It’s the right thing to do. We’re going to have to make sure that here in Illinois we’re not gerrymandering, that we’re drawing maps that are fair and competitive. That’s what’s best for the voters of the state, that they have choices when they go to the ballot.” 

Last year Pritzker signed the gerrymandered legislative and congressional remaps into law.  

Leftists who read this blog post will howl out, “What the gerrymandering in Texas, Tennessee, and Florida?”

Well, what about it?

Okay, yes, that’s wrong too. But the GOP is not cloaking themselves, as Biden and the Democrats are, in the memory of Martin Luther King and John Lewis. The Democrats are the bigger hypocrites here. 

Barack Obama and his first attorney general, Eric Holder, have been frequent critics of Republican gerrymandering, however, and you shouldn’t be surprised by now, they are mum on gerrymandering that favors the Democrats. 

On Twitter last week, Holder also praised the court ruling against the North Carolina state legislature remap.

Holder is the chairman of the National Democratic Redistricting Committee, which, because of its selective silence, can rightly be called a front group for supporters of Democratic partisan gerrymandering.

Don’t look for the hack mainstream media to blow the whistle on this blatant hypocrisy by the Democrats.

A responsible parent knows how to counter the “but-everyone-else-does-it” defense from a naughty child.

John Ruberry regularly blogs from gerrymandered Illinois at Marathon Pundit.

Don’t read one, Read two

Don’t buy one, buy two

Harry Bartell pitching Petri Wine on the New Adventures of Sherlock Holmes

Hi All

If you’re visiting and enjoying the fine work of John Rubbery & navygrade36bureaucrat you might be wondering why I don’t post much here myself

Why I don’t post regularly here is simple, this is now the official BACKUP site for the primary blog which is now which is actually our original wordpress blog from when we first started back in Nov of 2008 before we moved to and before said site blew up which is still having repercussions for me.

“But DaTechGuy” you ask, “If this is the backup site why are two of your paid writers, including one of your original Magnificent seven writers posting here instead of there?”

Good Question.

Apparently they are having issues with the other site and circumstances have not allowed me to fully address them yet. So rather than creating new accounts and jumping through hoops they have continued to post here.

In one respect it’s good because that means this location remains fresh though it divides my hits.

But frankly I stopped counting and chasing hits once I realized that the primary drivers of hits have been censoring stuff. I’m more interested in making sure you get their insights and attention and if it comes via here rather then there and as long as enough is coming through DaTipJar to support both sites, it’s all good.

So by all means continue to stop here at and check out our fine writers here but don’t hesitate to stop over at and me and the rest of our fine writers.

Don’t read one, read two.

Less easy but vital 2022 Republican issue: Chopping into Pentagon bureaucracy

Fighting inflation will require the US government to begin balancing its books, and it will have to cut costs to do so. One of the largest areas to cut costs is the military, and while its fashionable for conservatives to spend big on military, the truth of the matter is that the military is inherently wasteful. It spends without abandon, and the taxpayer doesn’t seem to get everything they pay for from it.

We can in fact cut 10% to even 20% of the military’s budget without much harm, however, past efforts to do this never really yielded much success, because they simply trimmed at the edges without addressing real, systemic issues that exist. Republicans would do well to address these issues.

The top issue that makes the Pentagon expensive is bureaucracy. The military employs over 750,000 civilians and over 500,000 contractors. Many of these jobs make sense for civilians to execute because they require deep knowledge in an individual field, but plenty of them are administrative bloat. The problem with trying to cut these positions is that positions typically get cut by seniority, so newer positions (created typically to address new problems) are cut first, and old positions that may be obsolete, but inhabited by someone with seniority, are cut last, if at all.

Targeted cuts to our civilian and contractor force should be accompanied by technological solutions. There are hordes of people that simply build PowerPoint slides, rehash data in different formats and in general make busy work. Existing technology today can replace them, but the military lacks the spinal cord to cut these people and embrace technology. Part of that is poor infrastructure (see the recent post about Fixing Our Computers), and part is a corps of senior military leaders that are unable to embrace new technology.

Which brings me to the third point: trimming military senior leaders. We now have almost 1,000 flag and general officers, which is not the most we’ve had, but the percentage has increased over the years, while the level of responsibility and actual decision making has decreased. Worse still, our selection process for flag officers has remained relatively static over the years, so we continue to pick officers that are often stuck in the past. Keep in mind that forward-thinking officers like Hyman Rickover relied on political connections to circumvent the selection system, and our current system very rarely produces warfighters like James Mattis anymore. Not only do these ranks need to be trimmed, but its time that we begin placing forward-thinking civilians on the selection boards to ensure we’re picking officers that can fight in the increasingly complicated environment we find ourselves in.

The last point that any Republican administration needs to address is Acquisition Reform. We continue to pay astronomical costs for basic equipment. We’re not talking about hypersonic research, but basic things like computer networks, paper, and basic services. Congress has been terrible at addressing this because it benefits their individual districts, but there is no reason companies cannot make money while delivering valuable goods at a market price to the military.

Without addressing these core issues, trimming the Pentagon’s budget will result in more non-change, and worse, will affect the youngest and smallest programs that might be more focused on winning tomorrow’s wars then existing programs.

This post represents the views of the author and not those of the Department of Defense, Department of the Navy, or any other government agency.

2020 election was “the most secure in American history” according to Democrats, but now Biden is already questioning 2022 midterms

By John Ruberry

Shortly after Joe Biden declared victory in the 2020 presidential election–one that Donald J. Trump said repeatedly was “rigged,” staff from the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency declared that election “the most secure in American history.” 

Left-wingers, particularly those in media, viewed that statement as sacrosanct, a papal bull for liberals. But a radio host, I believe it was Mike Gallagher, issued a sagacious response to that sentiment, which went something like this, “If 2020 was the most secure election in American history, which one was the second-most secure?”


In short, that statement on the “secure” 2020 presidential elections was a hollow as the one from 60 former national security officials about the Hunter Biden laptop, where they made the since-debunked claim that emails from Hunter’s laptop showed signs of being part of a Russian disinformation campaign

So if the 2020 presidential election, in the mind of leftists, was really “the most secure in American history,” how did we go from that to Biden, in last week’s rambling press conference, questioning the results of elections where the ballots haven’t even been printed yet, the 2020 midterms.

“Well, it all depends on whether or not we’re able to make the case to the American people that some of this is being set up to try to alter the outcome of the election,” when asked by a reporter about whether those races would be “fairly conducted” and “legitimate.”

Wow. The Democrats and their media allies continue to pillorize Donald Trump for casting doubt on the results of the ’20 election, but here is Biden calling into question the upcoming midterms. 

It’s difficult to say if Biden was having one of his great-grandpa moments or was succumbing to the Democrats’ wont to cast every political issue as an existential crisis. Perhaps both. Jen Psaki once again had to conduct a clean-up in the supermarket aisle as Star Trek’s John Gill created another mess. 

The Democrats have been in a hyper-tizzy for almost a year because of the recently-enacted Georgia voting law, which expands early voting but also establishes controls to minimize vote fraud. Biden called it “Jim Crow on steroids,” a hateful insult, because until the Voting Rights Act of 1965, black voters were disenfranchised in most of the southern states, including Georgia.

The 2021 Georgia reforms are in fact about election integrity.

Despite multiple calls from conservative pundits, Democrats haven’t come up with a single person who was unlawfully denied the right to vote in 2020.

Adding oxygen to the Dems fire, earlier this month Biden likened opponents to what he calls “voting rights” to notorious racists Bull Connor, George Wallace, and Jefferson Davis. All three were Democrats, by the way. Here is some more history for you. Nineteen senators voted against the 1965 Voting Rights Act, seventeen of them were Democrats. Some of those Dems were still members of the Senate when Biden was elected to that body in 1972.

While of course it is many within the Republican Party, led by Donald J. Trump, who question the result of the 2020 presidential election, it was the Democrats, of course without scolding from their media allies, who did the same after Trump’s victory in 2016 and George W. Bush’s narrow win in 2000. Just two weeks ago it was revealed that Vice President Kamala Harris’ new communications director, Jamal Simmons, repeatedly questioned Bush’s 2000 victory.

At the very least, the overuse of ballot drop boxes in states that Biden narrowly won, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Georgia, just might have nudged Biden over Trump in those states. The drop boxes were brought into the voting process because of COVID-19.

Who filled out those drop box ballots? Who deposited them into those boxes?

But don’t worry. The experts said it. The 2020 presidential election was “the most secure in American history.”

John Ruberry regularly blogs at Marathon Pundit.

Review: The Silent Sea on Netflix

By John Ruberry

On Christmas Eve, Netflix began streaming an eight-episode South Korean science fiction series, The Silent Sea, which is based on a short film from 2014, The Sea of Tranquility. Both projects were directed by Choi Hang-yong.

The show brings us to a dystopian world nearly all of Earth’s water is gone. What water remains is of course rationed. 

Such environmental havoc hasn’t prevented the Republic of Korea’s Space and Aeronautics Administration from building an expansive base, Balhae, on the Sea of Tranquility on the moon. 

Han Yoon-jae (Gong Yoo) is recruited to lead a mission to retrieve a valuable scientific sample from the Balhae base. Five years earlier 117 people were killed by a radiation leak and the base was abandoned. Han has an ill daughter whose proper treatment depends on receiving a higher water ration classification. Also recruited for the mission, for reasons no one can ascertain, is Dr. Song Ji-an (Bae Doona), a former astrobiologist, now an ethologist. 

Here’s the plan: In a space shuttle-type craft, the SAA launches the 11-person crew, most of them armed with handguns, so they can land at the Balhae base, locate the sample, and quickly return home. Things don’t go well–the poorly briefed crew doesn’t know what to expect. Some crew members know more than others, the chief engineer, Ryu Tae-seok (Lee Joon), is among them.

Laying out plot twists will produce numerous spoilers, so I’ll leave them out of my review. Being the first Korean science fiction series set in outer space, The Silent Sea is understandably derivative. It owes much to John Carpenter’s brilliant 1984 sci-fi thriller, The Thing.

Although subtle, there is a Christian influence in The Silent Sea as well. Quite unlike the blatant image of a golden calf hurtling through space in another recent Netflix release, Don’t Look Up, which I only saw short segments of while I walked through our living room when Mrs. Marathon Pundit was watching.

Viewers of The Silent Sea will enjoy a suspenseful ride with compelling acting. On the flipside, the series is a bit long. It appears to be a six-episode series that has been stretched out to eight. And the ending was a bit of a letdown for me. 

Amazingly, the desertification of Earth here is not blamed on human-caused climate change. 

The Silent Sea is currently streaming on Netflix, it is available in Korean with subtitles with bits of English dialogue, and in dubbed English with subtitles. It is rated TV-MA for violence and foul language.

John Ruberry regularly blogs at Marathon Pundit.

Republicans will win in 2022, but still be a party of losers

I’m not a fan of Democrats. Once the façade dropped and Democrat-led cities began letting criminals run the streets without facing any sort of charges, it was obvious that Democrats had become the party of lawlessness. Once the abortion debate took a nasty shift into infanticide, where people literally said that a baby could be born and then the doctor would have a conversation with mom on whether to keep it alive murder it, Democrats became the party of killing innocent kids.

But I’ll be damned if I’m excited about Republicans. I watched Republicans at the federal level own the House, Senate and Presidency, but then fail to fix health care and Social Security (you know, those programs that are going to eat us alive in the long run!), fail to fix our defense spending and actually get the quality and quantity we need for the price we’re paying, and fail to, well, really stand for anything. At the state level, things were better in some areas, but even plenty of Republican Governors and state legislatures have been complacent, allowing all sorts of silliness to run amuck in their states.

So yeah, Republicans will still be the party of losers, even if they win in 2022. After much angry thinking, I think it boils down to a few key problems:

  1. Republicans don’t ever make progress on anything because they are the party of NO.
  2. Republicans can’t fundraise from normal people.

Let’s start with the party of NO. Republicans seem to always fight to return to the status quo, like somehow things were so much better in the 80s under Regan, or Bush, or the 1950s, or insert your own time period here. They remind me of some of the old people at my church that only seem fit to complain about how things were so much better under a different Pope and in a different time. As you read this, can’t you hear these people talking? Doesn’t it sound like nagging to you, like something your aunt or uncle that you hate spending time with would do?

Let’s contrast that to Democrats. Everything is about “progress.” Now, I laugh at the term “progressive,” and to me its a negative thing, but Democrats are always progressing towards something, typically Communism in some other form. But I give them credit, because they are on offense. All the time. They are focused on scoring points in the game we call politics. That means they push for things like $15 dollar minimum wage, or free health care, or abortion access to everyone, or letting men compete in women’s sports. These are all terrible ideas, but that misses the point, because they are on offense, over time offense conquers defense.

You can’t simply be the party of NO and expect people, especially young people, to be excited about voting for you. I’ll write more later about progress that Republicans should be making, but I’ll pick one here: adoption. If you’ve ever tried to adopt a US baby, it is an expensive and frustrating process, where the state is happy to charge someone thousands of dollars, let some low life state employee rummage through your home and find “issues,” and in the end only have at best a 50/50 chance of adopting a kid. If I was running for office, I’d make “Free adoption” one of my rallying points, both as a counter to the abortion culture and as a way to start dismantling some of the ridiculous bureaucracy that plagues our country and squanders our tax dollars. That puts me on offense, and if it gets repeated enough, it’ll be part of a larger winning package.

Now what about fundraising? Well, go back to 2016, where Donald Trump totally did not raise as much as Hillary Clinton. I saw this at the local level here in Virginia as well, where Democrat candidates at all levels outraised Republicans nearly two to one. Money matters. It buys you ads, gets your name out there, sponsors events, lets you send flyers and lets your candidate travel. Rallies, events, dinners, interviews with local news and shaking hands all matter. They build excitement and help the buzz about a candidate, especially by word of mouth, spread quickly.

Republicans fail here for two reasons. First, they make it hard to donate. Every Democrat candidate has a Paypal, Venmo and Cashapp donation button. Republicans? Here in Virginia they want everyone to go through some stupid WinRed website. Churches got it right when they made it easy to throw a twenty dollar bill in the collection envelope, or donate automatically online with about 3 clicks of the mouse. How are Republicans so far behind on this?

The second reason is failing to excite young voters and get small donations. One might blame this on demographics, but unexciting candidates are a bigger reason. Bernie Sanders might be crazy, but he’s damn persuasive in person. So is Donald Trump, and so was (and is) Bill Clinton. That’s why they can get young people excited to throw 20 dollars at them. That money adds up. Most Republicans seek to kiss the ring of some person working the local GOP party infrastructure, which gets some big business donations, but not the tidal wave of money we see Bernie able to bring in.

As a conservative, I’m frustrated with the party that I tend to vote for. I want to be excited to vote for Republicans at all levels, but until they start becoming a party of YES, and make it easy to fundraise, they are always going to be losers no matter what election cycle we are in.

This post represents the views of the author and not those of the Department of Defense, Department of the Navy, or any other government agency. If you like this post, please consider supporting the author by purchasing his book on Amazon!

Seeing red over green

By Christopher Harper

Going green may end up making many of us see red, particularly since the Brandon administration plans to force automakers to make 50% of all automobiles electric by 2030. 

All you have to do is look at the issue with one crucial mineral in developing a “green” car: lithium.

First, the cars will be significantly more expensive. The cost of lithium has increased as governments push for so-called “green” technology. Lithium, a mineral that is key for electric car batteries, has skyrocketed more than 250% over the last 12 months, hitting its highest level ever, according to an industry index from Benchmark Mineral Intelligence.

The average cost of an electric-vehicle battery ran $157 per kilowatt-hour, a measure of energy capacity, in 2021, the Department of Energy said. That means a typical EV battery costs between $6,000 and $7,000, a Bloomberg analysis showed.

Battery costs would need to come down to $100 per kilowatt-hour for overall EV prices to compete with traditional internal combustion engine cars, according to Bloomberg. The price of lithium will play a prominent role in achieving that goal.

Second, the United States has limited lithium resources, while China and Russia have vast amounts of the mineral. Depending on China and Russia for such minerals is a bad option in anyone’s book. Just think about how the U.S. dependence on foreign oil dominated American economic and foreign policy for decades. 

Third, a big surprise: environmentalists, who say they want “green” energy, don’t want the mining industry to provide it from the United States. 

Lithium Americas proposed to mine lithium on a dormant volcano in Nevada. However, the firm has yet to mine any lithium due to pushback from environmentalists and ongoing lawsuits related to allegations that the federal government approved the company’s mining permit too quickly.

But there’s more. Lithium isn’t technically what’s known as a “rare-earth mineral” because there’s supposedly enough to go around. We’ll see how that works out once the developed countries force most people to buy an electric vehicle.

China mines over 70% of the world’s rare earths and is responsible for 90% of the complex process of turning them into magnets used in electric vehicles and other “green” technologies, such as windmills.

Not surprisingly, environmentalists are also holding up permissions to mine rare earths in the United States. 

Isn’t it time to realize that the movement toward “green” energy needs to pause to determine what economic and political costs are associated with such a radical change in the energy needs of the United States?

Do we really want to be dependent on China for our energy?

If environmentalists want green energy, don’t they have to allow more mining in the United States?

The answers seem pretty apparent to me.