Mr. Boot's analysis is unexceptionable, but beside the point. Obama and his acolytes do not see the drastic reduction in military spending--and the concomitant decline in U. S. armed muscle--that they propose as a necessary evil, but as a positive good. The U. S., in their world view, is a neo-imperialist, militarist power that must be curbed for the good of all humanity.
Not only is paring back the military _bonum per se_ , doing so shall free national resources (or Chinese ones on temporary loan to us) for really important projects . . . like manufacturing bogus, environmentally friendly cars that no one wants to buy for a mere federal subsidy of $250,000 per unit, increasing transfer payments--by the trillions--from productive shlemiels to the government client class (Democratic voters, in other words), and completing the sociocultural reengineering of American society so as to wipe out all vestiges of the old virtues of self-reliance, sexual restraint, and family-centeredness.
1 comment:
Mr. Boot's analysis is unexceptionable, but beside the point. Obama and his acolytes do not see the drastic reduction in military spending--and the concomitant decline in U. S. armed muscle--that they propose as a necessary evil, but as a positive good. The U. S., in their world view, is a neo-imperialist, militarist power that must be curbed for the good of all humanity.
Not only is paring back the military _bonum per se_ , doing so shall free national resources (or Chinese ones on temporary loan to us) for really important projects . . . like manufacturing bogus, environmentally friendly cars that no one wants to buy for a mere federal subsidy of $250,000 per unit, increasing transfer payments--by the trillions--from productive shlemiels to the government client class (Democratic voters, in other words), and completing the sociocultural reengineering of American society so as to wipe out all vestiges of the old virtues of self-reliance, sexual restraint, and family-centeredness.
Post a Comment