In The News in Last Month Part 1

In The News in Last Month Part 1

Listen:

• mediaBrew Media Player: ( 13 Min. mp3)
• Default Device Player: ( 13 Min. mp3)

Summary
The speaker conveys confidence in their military strategy, asserting that their actions, including nocturnal operations and deploying B2 bombers, have effectively hampered Iran’s nuclear ambitions and influenced global oil markets. They highlight their role in reducing oil supply, contributing to current high oil prices, while accepting potential short-term economic repercussions. Despite possible initial stock market impacts, the speaker believes their efforts will stabilize or improve the economy in the long run. The document also touches upon the growth of NATO’s funding and presence, seen as a positive result of current administration policies, though specifics are not detailed. Concurrently, there is an underlying tension regarding the U.S.’s engagement with NATO, with concerns about the lack of reciprocal support from the alliance and calls for greater accountability or reassessment of the U.S.’s role within NATO. The conversation shifts to NATO’s contributions and strategic discussions, such as Greenland’s importance, while noting the historical invocation of Article 5 following the 9/11 attacks.

The discussion revolves around the U.S. collaboration with NATO, focusing on strategic interests such as Greenland’s role in collective defense and missile defense, without disclosing specific queries or detailed responses. There is an underlying tension regarding the U.S. intention to control land within NATO for defense purposes, potentially conflicting with the Article 5 principle of mutual defense. The conversation also addresses the need for U.S. energy diversification, highlighting concerns about over-reliance on a single region or fuel source, as exemplified by the U.S. response to Iran. Despite these issues, the U.S. demonstrates a commitment to NATO, with plans to reinforce this through ongoing dialogues, though significant changes within the alliance are deemed necessary. The summary captures the essence of strategic defense interests, energy security concerns, and the complex relationship with NATO, without revealing specific details of the discussions or questions posed. It reflects the main points about defense posture, energy diversification, and the U.S. role within NATO, while maintaining coherence and avoiding redundancy.

The document addresses concerns about energy security, focusing on the need for diversification and reducing dependency on singular fuel sources or regions, as highlighted by recent tensions in Iran. It scrutinizes the role of wind energy in the U.S. energy sector, questioning its current economic viability and the impact of subsidies and mandates. The conversation reflects skepticism about wind energy’s significant global market role and the high costs associated with regions heavily reliant on wind power. There is also a critical view of U.S. policies that may hinder competitiveness in the renewable sector, alongside a call to support American businesses in the global market, particularly in the face of competition from countries like China. The dialogue suggests a need to reassess subsidies and incentives for renewables, while recognizing the substantial government support for fossil fuels. Overall, the discussion implies a desire to strengthen the U.S. position in the renewable marketplace and to reevaluate energy policies for economic and environmental benefits.

The discussion addresses concerns about the U.S. government’s current energy policies, which appear to favor the fossil fuel industry through substantial financial support, including investments and tax incentives, leading to significant profits for executives. It critiques the lack of comparable subsidies and incentives for the renewable energy sector, particularly wind energy, suggesting that this imbalance hampers U.S. competitiveness in the global renewable market. The conversation implies that the U.S. is at a disadvantage due to insufficient support for renewables and calls for a reevaluation of energy policies to create a level playing field. There is an underlying tension about the sustainability of the wind industry in the absence of subsidies and a desire to prevent China from dominating the renewable sector. The speaker challenges the status quo, expressing frustration over perceived government bias towards fossil fuels, though specific policy changes are not detailed. The overall sentiment conveys a critical view of current policies and a call for fairer support for renewable energy to foster domestic competition.

Details

Mr. President, about the latest inflation number, which came out this morning, could that be a no? I love it, the numbers. You know what I really love? I love the inflation. You know why? Because as soon as this war is over, you know, I can say it now, something you didn’t know. Do you know we’ve been taking out millions of barrels of oil? Nobody knows it. You know who doesn’t know about it? Iran. Until right now. We took out the other night, 22 ships late at night with no lights because they don’t have any radar, because we blasted the crap out of it. We took that. That’s why oil is $85 a barrel. I mean, you take a look. Remember when I did this? I said, look, the one bad thing will be we hit the best economy we’ve ever hit. And I said to my people, I had Scott, I had Howard, I had Pete, I had all of them. I had Todd in the room.

I said the one thing we have to do now, we had just hit the highest stock market in history, highest 401 KS in history. Everything was going well and I said I hate to do this to you guys, but Iran’s going to have a nuclear weapon very soon. We have to go and attack. So we hit him with the B2 bombers, which took a lot of courage. It was totally successful. We buried it very hard to get. But now we had to make the second move. And I said, you know, the bad part is the stock market will go down by a lot based on predictions of experts, like 25%. And it was worth it to me. It was worth it not to have a nuclear weapon. And the other thing is that oil would go to $250 a barrel. It’s at 85. And which is pretty amazing. Inflation had come down between now when, when the war is over, yes, it’s coming down. I, I know you can’t. It’s going to come down like a rock.

And again, we’re taking out millions, which I’m just announcing today for the first time, but we’ve been taking out millions of barrels of oil, millions of barrels every night. We took out oil McBride. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Secretary, for joining us today. Like you, I attended them, you know, security conference earlier this year and in a meeting that I had with several European prime ministers and several of your colleagues within the administration. Your colleagues recognize that NATO is both bigger and better funded today than it was 10 years ago. And I am fully willing to admit that that is a byproduct of several factors, including Putin’s aggression, previous administrations, and indeed a byproduct of actions by this administration and this president first term as well.

But I want to focus in today on statements and actions that I believe go beyond pressuring and leverage and actually fundamentally undermine the foundation of NATO. On January 21st of this year, in the president’s speech in Davos, he said, we, quote, never got anything from NATO. Two months later, the president said on Truth Social, Speaking of NATO, they will do nothing for us. Mr. Secretary, do you share the president’s assessment that we, quote, never got anything from NATO? Well, I think what the president was speaking to at that moment, it was what I’ll speak to you about now is the one of the reasons why I’ve been such a strong supporter of NATO is because they allow us to use these bases, because it allows us in a time of contingency like the one in Germany and others. And for the first time, I think we see NATO countries denying us the use of our their bases, which undermines the structures for our involvement. These statements, including the one we never got anything from NATO, happened before the war in Iran, which falls outside of the Article 5 invocation. It falls outside of a war of defense. Do you share the president’s assessment that we quote?

Never, never got anything from the I share the President’s assessment that on issues that are a priority to the United, I’ll take that as you disagree with his assessment that we got, never got anything from NATO. Because Mr. Secretary, let me reclaim my time. I’m telling Mr. Secretary, Mr. Secretary, I’m asking very specifically about, I’m trying to quote, I’m not asking whether NATO can be better or reformed. I’m asking if we never got anything from NATO. And I want to specifically ask you, Mr. Secretary, well, why are you asking if I can’t answer? You’re not answering the question that I’m asking. You’re answering a different question about whether NATO can be better or formed. And so I’m going to move on. Mr. Mr. Secretary, are you aware that the only time Article 5 has ever been invoked is after 911 in defense of the United States? Of course I’m aware of that. And are you aware that more than 1000 Europeans died in the subsequent War on Terror that was invoked after participated in the Middle East? Correct. And I assume you’re aware that the NATO ally that lost more service members per capita is Denmark?

Well, Denmark, I thought it was that the UK had suffered more, more per capita. OK, gotcha. And I assume you’re aware that Greenland is indeed part of Denmark for now. OK, well, I want to focus in on Greenland. I joined the bipartisan, bicameral trip to Copenhagen as the administration that you’re a part of sought to seize Greenland in the president’s speech at Davos, he said, referring to Greenland. Quote, you need ownership to defend it, Mr. Secretary, does the United States need to own land within NATO to defend it? And, and the truth be told, we are actually involved in conversations with Greenland and Denmark on the use of Denmark for, on the use of Greenland for collective defense for all of us. It’s a key part of missile defense. But we’re involved in those talks right now. So I, I, I think we’re in a good place on it now, but I don’t want to put stuff out there in the public record that would undermine the conversations we’re having with them on it. So specifically, I’m not, I’m not asking about whether we’re going to do more within Greenland for our collective defense.

I think all of us share that goal, including Denmark and Greenlandic people. But do does the United States need to own land within NATO to defend it? That’s what the president said. And that was the justification for those statements and the attempt to seize Greenland several months ago. The president’s view is that it’s a lot easier to defend it when you have control and complete control of it. We are obviously having conversations with both Denmark and Greenland. They’re ongoing on a monthly basis now. I think we’ll have pretty good news. So I, I take that as you disagree with the literal words of the president of the United States. And I want to put it fine, right? If we owned it, it would be easier to defend it. But that’s not what he said. He said you need to own it to defend it, which fundamentally undermines the central tenet of Article 5 of NATO, which states that the parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against all of them. And if such an armed attack occurs, each of them will assist the party or parties attacked.

So sitting here with, I’m sure, many leaders across Europe within NATO and many leaders beyond, including Vladimir Putin, potentially watching the words and listening to the words that you are saying, Can you reassure our NATO allies and make it clear to Vladimir Putin that if a NATO ally is attacked and Article 5 is invoked, that we will defend them? the United States is still in the NATO alliance, and we’ll be there in Turkey to talk about all these topics. The president himself will be attending the next NATO, a meeting of heads of state, or all these points will be made clear. We’re still in NATO, but NATO needs significant changes, and the president has made that clear, and he is very disappointed in NATO. I’d like to recognize Representative McBride, Delaware. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to you and Ranking Member Lofgren for holding this hearing. And thank you, Mr. Secretary, for joining us. In the last few months, President Trump has given the world a master class on what energy insecurity looks like. President Trump’s war in Iran has shown us that energy security cannot mean dependence on a single fuel source.

It cannot mean dependence on one supply chain, and it cannot mean dependence on one region of the world. It seems every other country is learning that lesson except for us. In January at the World Economic Forum, President Trump told the world that he hasn’t, quote, been able to find any wind farms in China and said China sells wind turbines. To quote the stupid people that buy them, but they don’t use them themselves, Secretary, right? Have you or anyone in your department been able to find any wind turbines in China? We haven’t looked. You haven’t looked. Well, it seems like the the president apparently has explored all 3.6 million square miles of China and apparently declared at Davos that China isn’t using any wind turbines. As I mentioned, the president said that stupid people buy them. You’ve articulated increasing the energy supply here in the United States and our energy exports. I assume that includes wind From your perspective? Yes, for all energy sources that are affordable, reliable, and secure. To me it’s just about math.

I don’t have a technology I love and a technology I hate. It’s just about the math. So does that include wind? It’s contribution to date so far has has not been so good. But are there going to be areas or applications where wind makes sense? I I suspect there are. We just wanted to get rid of the subsidies and get rid of the tilted playing field, but energy, energy sources that can compete economically and can better human lives on for all those. So, so I’ll take that as you believe that when should be part of our portfolio. Again, it’s about that we, we’ve only seen wind where it was subsidized and it was mandated. So we’ve forced a lot, a lot of wind power to be built in the United States. Its net impact has been upward on electricity prices because it’s not dispatchable. It’s just when you get a cold front that sits there, the wind doesn’t blow. If you’re not there at peak demand, you don’t matter to our electricity grid.

So on that note, then, do you believe that the United States should not be playing in the global renewable marketplace when it comes to win? Then China is. Other countries seem to be buying. Whether you think or the president thinks those countries are stupid, they’re buying from China. Do you think we should be selling wind turbines to other countries too, producing them here and selling them to other countries? I’m, I’m for growing American industry and businesses, but you, you’re talking a lot about wind. They just give the numbers real quick. Wind is 1.5% of global energy. And if you look at the nations that have been big and wind, they lead the world in the most expensive electricity prices, which is all the nations of Northwest Europe. They’re the wind powerhouses. They have the most expensive electricity on the planet. Well, the the president himself complained about other countries buying wind from from China. He called him stupid, but he admitted they are buying wind from China. So do you think we should cede this marketplace to China? I don’t believe we should cede any marketplaces to China.

OK, Well, unfortunately, your actions, the actions of this administration are undermining our capacity to compete with with China in this marketplace. You’ve not only cut hundreds of of, of clean energy projects, you’ve also eliminated the very incentives that helped to spur this industry here in the United States that would allow us to compete with China. So why are you letting China win in this global economic battle? She said remove the incentives. So 34 years of subsidy for wind weren’t enough to get an infant industry off its feet and going the 34 years. To me, if you can’t compete without subsidies after 30-4 years, your industry doesn’t work. Let let’s be clear, you’re not opposed to subsidies for energy producers. You’re just opposed to subsidies for renewable energy producers because the fossil fuel industry gets a ton of money from our our government. Please tell me what those subsidies are. I’m not aware of them. They they are getting a ton of investments, they’re getting a ton of tax incentives, they’re getting a ton of breaks. They are getting a windfall.

The executives are getting a windfall while the American people pay the price Right now, with the increase in in in gas prices, there are a ton of policies, there is a ton of funding, there is a ton of tax incentives that are going to fossil fuel companies. And so you are fine. You are fine. That is that is tell me what they are. Tell me what they are. There are absolutely. What are they? You, you are the one at answering questions here. You know for a fact that there are tax incentives that are going to fossil fuel companies. You know for a fact that that industry has been subsidized in the past and today by this government, by the actions of our government. You just don’t want the renewable energy industry to get the same opportunities as the fossil fuel industry. You’re playing winners and losers and you’re picking winners and and losers. Time’s expired. Thank you.