Joe Doakes from Como Park emails:
Everybody knows the federal budget is out of control. So how about thinking of creative ways to save money? Here’s one:
The Third Amendment says: “No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.”
A member of ISIS fleeting war-torn Syria is no longer a soldier, he’s now a refugee, so there’s no constitutional prohibition to Trump issuing an Executive Order requiring homeowners to take in former ISIS soldiers and provide them with food and shelter, at the homeowner’s expense. The refugees’ extended families can join them, if the house is big enough.
I recommend we start with people who oppose Trump’s immigration orders. Why not? How can they refuse to help?
Joe Doakes
Reinforcing consequences for actions?
What’ll happen next?
I’ve actually been saying this for months. Of course, like all libidiots, they want everyone else to take care of those poor refugees, not them. The horrors!
I always say, lets put high density dormitories for illegal aliens on Summit Ave and the Kenwood neighborhood of Mpls. Watch the alt-left white liberals for from zero to George Wallace in one day.
Liberals: Offer up your wives and daughters to political correctness, just to prove your own level of tolerance and inclusivity.
World military spending totaled more than $1.6 trillion in 2015. The U.S. accounted for 37 percent of the total. U.S. military expenditures are roughly the size of the next seven largest military budgets around the world, combined. And for all we spend we have little to show for it. We continue to press the military to solve challenges that are better resolved through political or economic means. At a time when we need to be addressing adjusting to the challenges posed by massive structural changes changes in the economy, how people and society will will work in the 21st century, the GOP instead will squander our resources on 10th century issues.
Of course, part of the disparity in our military costs and those of the rest of the world might have something to do with higher wage scales, aggressive use of biofuels, replacement of lead bullets with tungsten, and using the Marines as a place for social experimentation. It might also have something to do with ten thousand mile long supply chains.
And yes, we have little to show for it–that’s what happens when you have a President who unilaterally declares himself the victor and withdraws troops when the enemy is still capable of action. Maybe send Barry a note of complaint, Emery?
Emery, My take on US military spending is the directly related to where we found ourselves prior to WW1 & WW2 where we had limited military capability. At the end of the 2nd war our benevolence and foresight in rebuilding Europe and Japan kept the world from repeating to some extent the mistakes of the past. We needed to (and still do) maintain a strong military in order to check the communist threat of Russia, followed in short order by China. Those in Europe and Asia were not in position to financially share the burden to any substantial degree. With the existential threats we faced then and still today I believe our military capability and expenditure needs to be such that we are 2nd to none in capability. As has been said Peace Through Strength.
Your comment on the GOP is feckless.
To Joe’s point the folks that are so determined to profess a need to allow the immigration of any and all of these “refugees” or immigrants in general wish to do that by spreading the costs to all of us in order to fulfill their “compassions”.
These are the same people that dictate our tax dollars are spent for light rail, pro stadiums, and other frivolities. If the requirement to meet their desires was that all the newcomers were barracked in their hood we’d surely be hearing them crying NIMBY.
In case you’ve been away, the GOP controls the House, Senate and Presidency.
“It’s good to be the King” – Mel Brooks
The constitution says the feds must provide for a common defense, but the details are left to the political system. American military spending is set by the congress and the president. They all hold elected positions.
Currently the main job of the very large US military seems not to be to keep the world safe for democracy, but to keep the world safe for international trade.
If the US did not have the “big stick,” without doubt trade around the world would be controlled by one or two nations. The Chinese, for example, are aggressively courting African nations for ag and raw materials. They would love to be the only nation allowed to export goods from the African continent.
Regarding MP’s point, it strikes me that trying to impose an “East India Tea Company” kind of arrangement with many nations in Africa–nations where you can get a fully automatic AK or RPG in the markets for a nominal cost, and where traditional forms of government can be described as “warlords” or “tribal”–might not be the world’s best idea. Just sayin’.
And yes, Emery is correct that the government is now in Republican hands. Hopefully and prayerfully, they’ll start to reverse stupid stuff like pallets of euros to Iranian terrorists.
Memo to: DJ Trump,
Please listen carefully to Gens Mattis & McMasters.
Thank you.
Emery Incongnito
Bikebubba –
It’s called neoliberalism (or neocolonialism). The Chinese will pay big bucks to some marginal regime for land leases in Africa. They move in their own managers, and often ordinary workers, and improve the infrastructure to maximize production.
How this differs from the old colonialism depends on what happens when (and if) a new regime wants to renegotiate the leases or seize control of the leased land and infrastructure.
Abstract
Like other Asian and Gulf states, China’s growing concern with food security has inspired a
search for means of obtaining that security in the African context. The result has been,
reflected in the official discourse since 2006, a Chinese commitment to greater involvement
in the agriculture sector in Africa that has resulted in a number of initiatives. These include
a push to acquire long-term leases of agricultural land in some African countries, an
expansion of Chinese agro-industry into Africa and a deepening of the longstanding
technical co-operation aimed at raising Africa’s agricultural productivity. This paper will
provide a survey of Chinese-African experiences in agriculture, examine the domestic
sources of China’s contemporary agricultural policies, and analyse the emerging policies
aimed at facilitating greater co-operation in this sector.
Key words: Africa; agriculture; agricultural policies; China; foreign investment.
Subjects: economy and rural development; farming systems; territory, land tenure,
agricultural and food production policy.
http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/56404/1/Alden_China_long_march.pdf
MP–understood, but it still strikes me that if the people involved aren’t getting a good deal, things can and will get very ugly very quickly. No?