Several years ago, the Pentagon correlated energy independence with national security. "Then-General James Mattis famously called on the DoD to "unleash us from the tether of fuel" because the logistical need for gas was costing lives and limiting troop movement." (according to Gemini)
Among those who identify as political conservatives, there is a significant percentage, perhaps even a majority, who would call themselves "fiscal conservatives". It has been 10 years or more since I first called bullshit on that claim (see my essay, "The Big Lie" which I will post to this blog next) but, for the sake of discussion I will ignore what I think of it. I will simply point out that if such a thing actually existed, one would expect them to choose the least costly path whenever there was a viable option.
So what might we think about a politician who considered it reasonable to spend an exorbitant amount of money to make the nation less secure? What if that politician called themselves something else, would that matter?
The question is not academic. Unfortunately for humanity, the USA has allowed Felon47, Donald J.Trump to be in a position to betray several groups at once. By limiting the nation's access to renewable energy, he demonstrates that he is not now, nor has he ever been a patriot. He is taking intentional, overt steps to weaken the nation. He is doing that by unnecessarily spending tax revenue. In doing that he establishes that he is decidedly NOT a fiscal conservatives and that he is willing to screw over those who claim the mantle of fiscal conservatism.
So we have installed into the presidency an individual who is not concerned with the security of the nation nor does he care about the condition of the nation or the world's economy. He is not one thing and he is also not the other. I will never understand how anyone finds this appealing enough to vote for.
No comments:
Post a Comment