I am not the audience that you are targeting, but I do have to call out your numerous lies in this article:

1. The East German State was a Stalinist Democratic State. Stalin, if you recall expunged the Socialist Republicans in the Great Purge.

2. Communism is a form of household organization, not a political one. There is no such thing as a “communist state”.

3. There is no such thing as “illegal immigration” in the United States of America.

a. The body politic crucial to the forming of the United States of America was established by the Mayflower Compact. Out of necessity, the fact that the Mayflower was in danger of foundering well east of the Hudson River, that body politic was based on residence, not on the legality of immigration. That germ ensured that the successor body politic of the United States of America cannot declare immigration illegal, lest it itself become illegal.

b. There is no Congressional power for immigration in the Constitution. However, the responsibility of Congress to establish an uniform rule of naturalization is prevented by any selective immigration law. Immigration law is inherently anti-constitutional.

4. Your stated objective is not only wrong in kind, but also in size. There is a Congressional responsibility in Article IV, Section 4, to provide two things pertinent to this discussion: a guarantee of a republican form of government in the States and protection from invasion.

a. Republican governance requires a communist household in each member of the republic, e.g. the gens in the Roman Republic. The essentials of communism are the common holding of the household’s land and buildings, the assurance of place afforded to each person of that household born, and — as its etymology establishes — a defensive wall built together by the household members. Thus, there is an obligation to allow communist households to be established and to allow those households to build and, if necessary, defend a wall. Then each republic, as a public matter, can build its own wall around the households and use a militia formed from the member households to defend its republic against invasions.

b. The militia clauses specify the manner of regulating the operation of each militia, and the conditions under which they can be called to defend the Union.

c. The manner of defending the Union from invasion would naturally inherit from the communist republican style of defense. That is, it would use the passive restraint of a wall to break up the invading hordes or armies so that the militia can more easily stop the invasion.

Therefore, your point (1) presents a false criteria for “working”. Snipers can pick off the tunnelers one by one and militia, once alerted to rampart-building, can attack the invaders in force.

Your point (2) is nonsensical on the face and, even if we allow for re-expression, proposes a wholly different objective of maintaining clearly anti-constitutional policies of non-uniform practices of naturalization and indentured servitude. Both policies should be ended forthwith, with or without a border wall.

Your point (3) is irrelevant as it has nothing to do with invasion.

Your point (4) is contradicted by the Great Wall of China.

Your point (5) shows the fallacy of allowing individual ownership of land, indeed of alienable ownership, i.e. property. What if this border land was sold to Vladimir Putin or some other foreign entity? The solution is to eliminate property in land and buildings, to only permit a common holding or a republican domain.

Your points (6) and (7) ascribe authority to the wrong entity. The Congress can and should stipulate the nature of the wall, as they stipulate the discipline of the militia, and that stipulation should be consonant with a militia defense against invasions, not of a police force.

Your point (8) is based on the wrong objective and is therefore irrelevant. If natural boundaries suffice to prevent an invasion, that should be enough. Just watch out for a herd of pachyderms.

Your point (9) is supportive of the indentured servitude of pickers, an impossibility when farms are an integral part of communist households or republican fields farmed by civil servants. At the least, you should watch “Harvest of Shame” and reconsider making this obnoxious point.

Your points (10) and (11) only pertain to the size of the appropriations needed for a Congressional obligation. They do not contradict that obligation.

A scion of the Sherman and Delano families, C. P. Klapper comes from a long history of New England Communist Republicanism.

Get the Medium app

A button that says 'Download on the App Store', and if clicked it will lead you to the iOS App store
A button that says 'Get it on, Google Play', and if clicked it will lead you to the Google Play store