Taxing men

A local Republican party official [Steven M. Backiel] wrote this on his blog:

There are many diverse opinions within this County Party membership and you should all feel welcome to share those opinions in a courteous manner on this site. Just please remember that not everyone is a pro-life, social conservative who favors governmental de-regulation, tax reduction, limited spending and a massively strong national defense (although I can’t imagine why they wouldn’t be)…

Besides the contention that there is not a diversity of opinion in that party, there are the rife contradictions in the statement, "governmental de-regulation, tax reduction, limited spending and a massively strong national defense". This could be made accurate, and honest, by saying, "complete ascendancy of corporate moneyed interests and militarism".

The contradictions are that de-regulation refers to no legal constraints on moneyed interests, added regulations to deny civil and political rights are not much of concern and to create a stronger police state is favored, albeit gun proliferation is promoted, so a greater militarisation of society will be achieved by these measures. The part that reads, "tax reduction, limited spending and a massively strong national defense" is thorough bullshit. Most income taxes are spent on the military. If one was truly interested in "tax reduction, limited spending" they would cut "massively strong national defense". What he, and they, may mean is that no tax money will be denied for military spending. But, there is still another tax they approve of. This "massively strong national defense" requires another tax, that of men, some whom return in caskets to Dover Air Force Base. There may be an increase in this tax by draft. This may meet with some opposition, for those, and they are by far—Republicans, who advocate more military and more war, quite often make damn sure, that, they are never in position themselves; please refer to five deferments Cheney, and gwbjr somewhere a.w.o.l. in Alabama.