Our Morally and Financially Bankrupt Government

THE IDEA THAT THE AMERICAN CITIZEN ALREADY OVERTAXED AND OVERREGULATED HAS TO REACH INTO HIS/HER OWN POCKET TO DONATE MONEY FOR A FENCE IS SICKENING. MEANWHILE THOSE TAX DOLLARS ALREADY TAKEN GO TO FUND WELFARE MOMS AND PUBLIC SCHOOLS WHICH THE CITIZEN NEVER WANTED IN THE FIRST PLACE.

"Unlike running schools, national defense happens to be a
constitutional obligation of our Federal government."

Since when is ruling the world as an empire "national defense"?

What a bald faced stupid argument.

And the right/left Hegelian perspective is for niave suckers.

Why don't you grow up?

Willy Whitten

Petrarch,
In rhetorical argumentation it is only necessary to detect the error of the proximate assertion to dismiss anything based on such an erroneous foundation.

Have you even studied reason or critical thinking before going out into the larger world to pontificate to the groveling proletariat?

"Since when is ruling the world as an empire "national defense"?...What a bald faced stupid argument."

The best defense is a good offense. Bush's policy of "preemptive action", once scorned, is now showing its wisdom.

Even Obama, a lefty, has had difficulty seeing past that. That's why he hasn't shut down Gitmo or pulled out of Iraq/Afghanistan.

It turns out that when you get to be in charge, you realize some truths about the world you didn't see before.

Building a fence has nothing to do with being in favor or or against amnesty, or in favor or against immigration in general. It just makes sense.

The best defense is a good offense. Bush's policy of "preemptive action", once scorned, is now showing its wisdom.

First: "The best defense is a good offense"

This is Newspeak, like The best peace is a good war"
Take note, war is not a little game like most of you jingos like to characterize it.

Your opinion that Bush policies are worthy of anything more than scorn is limp--as bloody as the stump may be.

WW

"Take note, war is not a little game like most of you jingos like to characterize it."

That's right. It's a very serious, very consequential thing which is why we MUST get right the first time.

If you believe, as I do, that Middle Eastern Muslims very much want to bring the war to our soil - and will, given enough time and resources - then we only have two choices. Fight there first, or wait and fight here.

"If you believe, as I do, that Middle Eastern Muslims very much want to bring the war to our soil - and will, given enough time and resources - then we only have two choices. Fight there first, or wait and fight here."

I'm sorry I do not believe in fractured fairytales as you describe here

http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=20958
9/11 ANALYSIS: From Ronald Reagan and the Soviet-Afghan War to George W Bush and September 11, 2001
~Michel Chossudovsky

-Osama bin Laden, America's bogyman, was recruited by the CIA in 1979 at the very outset of the US sponsored jihad. He was 22 years old and was trained in a CIA sponsored guerilla training camp.

-The architects of the covert operation in support of "Islamic fundamentalism" launched during the Reagan presidency played a key role in launching the "Global War on Terrorism" in the wake of 9/11.

- President Ronald Reagan met the leaders of the Islamic Jihad at the White House in 1985

-Under the Reagan administration, US foreign policy evolved towards the unconditional support and endorsement of the Islamic "freedom fighters". In today's World, the "freedom fighters" are labeled "Islamic terrorists".

-In the Pashtun language, the word "Taliban" means "Students", or graduates of the madrasahs (places of learning or Koranic schools) set up by the Wahhabi missions from Saudi Arabia, with the support of the CIA.

-Education in Afghanistan in the years preceding the Soviet-Afghan war was largely secular. The US covert education destroyed secular education. The number of CIA sponsored religious schools (madrasahs) increased from 2,500 in 1980 to over 39,000.

The Soviet-Afghan war was part of a CIA covert agenda initiated during the Carter administration, which consisted in actively supporting and financing the Islamic brigades, later known as Al Qaeda.

>>In plain English, it was Western Intelligence that created “Islamic Radicalism”--the 'Controlled Opposition'.~ww

With William Casey as director of the CIA, NSDD 166 was described as the largest covert operation in US history:

The U.S. supplied support package had three essential components-organization and logistics, military technology, and ideological support for sustaining and encouraging the Afghan resistance....

U.S. counterinsurgency experts worked closely with the Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) in organizing Mujahideen groups and in planning operations inside Afghanistan.

... But the most important contribution of the U.S. was to ... bring in men and material from around the Arab world and beyond. The most hardened and ideologically dedicated men were sought on the logic that they would be the best fighters. Advertisements, paid for from CIA funds, were placed in newspapers and newsletters around the world offering inducements and motivations to join the Jihad. (Pervez Hoodbhoy, Afghanistan and the Genesis of the Global Jihad, Peace Research, 1 May 2005)

Religious Indoctrination
Under NSDD 166, US assistance to the Islamic brigades channeled through Pakistan was not limited to bona fide military aid. Washington also supported and financed by the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), the process of religious indoctrination, largely to secure the demise of secular institutions:

To Will Offensicht,

I'm sorry, but I have neither the time nor the inclination to teach the Theory and Practice of Forensic History to a group that isn't even familiar with History 101.

I have studied Social Engineering and Intelligence analysis for more than 40 years.
I find futile exercise in addressing those who are still enchanted by the necromancy of high tech perception manipulation in the mainstream media.

If there is a comment showing the slightest intelligence in this thread, I may come back on to address it. So far I have detected no such intelligence in the responsed thus far, but only the jejune mindset of the TVZombie majority stuck in the phony Left/Right paradigm.

The whole phony Left/Right paradigm is founded on blase rhetorical pseudo-differences.

Willy Whitten

I'm sorry, Willy, but you're full of it. Even the leftist WaPo condemns your "argument" as a conspiracy theory:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/five-myths-about-osama-bin-laden/2011/05/05/AFkG1rAG_story.html

"Common among conspiracy theorists is the notion that bin Laden was a CIA creation and that the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, were blowback from an agency operation gone awry... In fact, during the Soviet war in Afghanistan during the 1980s, the CIA had no dealings with “Afghan Arabs” such as bin Laden and had few direct dealings with any of the Afghan mujaheddin."

And if you reject the "phony" Left/Right paradigm... well, you're partially right, it is indeed much more complicated than that. But there really are fundamental issues being fought over between the two sides, primarily involving personal economic liberty vs government totalism. If you don't see that as a real debate, well, I'm afraid I'm not pointed enough to pierce your tinfoil hat.

@Willy Whitten

Don't get your panties in a twist.

If you read Scragged on a regular basis, you'd know that few conservative writers are as aware of the many nuances of political "sides" as these guys are.

Sometimes, it's useful to say "the left" or "the right" to quickly associate a group by their typical positions.

You're missing the forest for the trees.

As a South American shaman once told a Blackrobe a long long time ago,
"That scratched and it scratches well, but that's not where the itch is."

"Common among conspiracy theorists is the notion...I'm afraid I'm not pointed enough to pierce your tinfoil hat." and etc, etc....

However, if you were to read the actual facts of this matter you will discover that this
'conspiracy' is hardly "theory", and that it is the 'Coinsidence Theorist' who suffers from cognitive dissonance.

That USAID was at the forfront in the creation of the Taliban {students} is no theory, it is established documented fact. In fact it was reported in the very newspaper that then turns around and feeds the line of bullshit about: "the CIA had no dealings with “Afghan Arabs” such as bin Laden and had few direct dealings with any of the Afghan mujaheddin."

"...primarily involving personal economic liberty vs government totalism."

If you do not recognise that with the PATRIOT Act, the Military Commissions Act, the death of Posse Comitatis, and the encyclopedic tome of 'Executive Orders" driven by BOTH the left and the right has already left Amerika as a totalitarian panoptic maximum security state, then there is indeed no reason to try to have an intelligent and rational argument with you.

ww

twibi,

One of these days you will look at the clock and it will say "too late".

ww

@Willy Whitten

And one day you will look back at all the comments you've made and realize they aren't as clever, cohesive or relevant as you once imagined them to be.

Until then, keep the rant alive.

Al-Qaeda
What does the word "Al-Qaeda" mean ? In Arabic, "Al-Qaeda" has a different
meanings, among them “Base", "Ground", "Norm", "Rule", "Fundament",
"Grammar". The exact meaning is dependent on the context in which it is used.
It depends on the word which follows “Al-Qaeda” in the sentence. "Qawa'ad
Askaria" is an Army Base, "Qawa'ad Lugha" stands for Grammar Rules (the
Bases of Grammar).
"Qa'ada" is the infinitive of the verb "to sit". "Ma-Qa'ad" is a chair. "Al-Qaeda"
is the base or fundament of something. "Ana raicha Al Qaeda" is colloquial for
"I'm going to the toilet". A very common and widespread use of the word “Al-
Qaeda” in different Arab countries in the public language is for the toilet bowl.
This name comes from the Arabic verb “Qa'ada” which mean “to sit”,
pertinently, on the “Toilet Bowl”. In most Arabs homes there are two kinds of
toilets: “Al-Qaeda” also called the "Hamam Franji" or foreign toilet, and
"Hamam Arabi" or “Arab toilet” which is a hole in the ground. Lest we forget
it, the potty used by small children is called "Ma Qa'adia" or "Little Qaeda".
Those who founded the glorious "International of Islamic Terror, Al-Qaeda,
probably knew too little about common use of Arabic language to know that by
using this name for their organization, they risked becoming the laughing stock
of everybody who speaks the Arabic "public" language.

"Sometimes, it's useful to say "the left" or "the right" to quickly associate a group by their typical positions."~twibi

It is never “useful” to apply a fraudulent frame to a discussion attempting to ferret out the truth of a situation.
Set yourself and rhetoric within a false paradigm, and anything resultant will be equally as fraudulent.

Let's face it. You don't really want me on this board. I will not allow you to get away with any fraudulent argumentation, and you will simply be frustrated and accuse me of not staying “on topic” and other spurious assertions. Anyone who comprehends the architecture of modern political power realizes that all topics of the sociopolitical are linked like a chain of evidence. This is the point I make although the article pretends to address the situation at the border within the false zeitgeist of the gangster system the US has become.

"I will not allow you to get away with any fraudulent argumentation"

By "fraudulent argumentation" you mean something like a straw-man?

(eg. "..you will simply be frustrated and accuse me of not staying on topic and other spurious assertions...")

Or perhaps the logical fallacy of false continuum?

(eg. "...the PATRIOT Act, the Military Commissions Act, the death of Posse Comitatis, and the encyclopedic tome of 'Executive Orders" has already left Amerika as a totalitarian panoptic maximum security state...")

Or perhaps the logical fallacy of Ad Ignorantiam?

(eg. "...Those who founded the glorious "International of Islamic Terror, Al-Qaeda, probably knew too little about common use of Arabic language...")

@lfon

LOL!

Run on home, Willy.

"you mean something like a straw-man?"
"logical fallacy of false continuum?"
"logical fallacy of Ad Ignorantiam?"~lfon

In light of the historical facts all of these assertions are illogical and craven.

>false continuum:
It is no stretch at all to point out that the US is now a panoptic maximum security state. If you have missed this you have been asleep since all of the draconian laws instated since 9/11.

>Ad Ignorantiam:
That the moniker "al Qeada" in fact means 'The Western Toilet' is hardly an absurd point. This is especially so as to the historical fact of both the Taliban and al Qaeda are the creation of western intelligence, and their promotion of “Islamic Radicalism”.
ALL verifiable historical fact.

ww

lfon's arguments are auto-epistemic, in that he does not know the meaning of the word "al qaeda", therefore, anyone who does know the meaning of the word are wrong, because Infon is ignorant of the meaning.

ww

"lfon's arguments are auto-epistemic, in that he does not know the meaning of the word "al qaeda", therefore, anyone who does know the meaning of the word are wrong, because Infon is ignorant of the meaning"

Um, no. What's happened is that you've gotten so confused about everyone's points, you're not even able to follow your own.

Let's review...

The example I pointed out as Ad Ignorantiam:

(eg. "...Those who founded the glorious "International of Islamic Terror, Al-Qaeda, probably knew too little about common use of Arabic language...")

Had nothing to do with what the word al-Qaeda means. Read that sentence again.

It had to do with you saying that those that use the word "probably knew too little about common Arabic" which means you're using an argument from ignorance as the basis for your whole point. That's what Ad Ignorantiam means.

From there, you quickly jumped back into a history lesson about who knows what - which know one cares about or is arguing with - and from there to more Ad Hominem attacks.

That's what happens when you bleet about several different things in several different directions at once.

Slow down, point out one cogent point at a time and be done with it.

eg. "...Those who founded the glorious "International of Islamic Terror, Al-Qaeda, probably knew too little about common use of Arabic language...")

"Had nothing to do with what the word al-Qaeda means. Read that sentence again."

Your newest comments are the most ludicrous yet. The last sentence in the blurb about the MEANING OF AL QEADA; is the "therefore" or summation of the explanation of the meaning of the word.
That you can assert that it, therefore "has nothing to do with what the word" means is beyond absurd--it is in fact insane.

As far as addressing two issues in one post--you obviously cannot follow a travelling thought beyond A to C, without becoming confused yourself.

<censored>?
ww

There is NO absence of evidence as to the meaning of the word al qeada in common usage by Arabian speakers.

There is only your ignorance of the meaning.
Therefore You are the one who is arguing from ignorance.

Does this STILL not compute?

Again, <censored>?
ww

I think you've realized, my dear Willy, that you're out of good material and are now flailing at whatever disjointed half-truths you can reconstruct.

Stop bleeting about the meaning of al-Qaeda. No one cares what the word means. No on has debated you on what the word means. No one has said your statements are Ad Ignorantiam because of that specific word.

The reason your statement was Ad Ignorantiam was because of your assertion that those who used it "probably knew too little about common use of Arabic language".

Follow?

Your statements attacking others because they "don't know Arabic" is the problem. That's the basis of Ad Ignorantiam.

Clear?

Sheesh. For someone that prides himself on his being too smart of "this board" you appear too confused to even follow two or three simple sentences.

(Please don't use childish acronyms to swear. It only makes your case, already poorly put, seem that much worse. Scragged tends to be above that.)

"Stop bleeting about the meaning of al-Qaeda. No one cares what the word means."

>If the actual meaning of the word has no impact on you, it is because you simply do not want to address the implications--which is that the name was invented by westerners who did not realize said implications of using the term "western toilet" for what is supposedly a fearsom 'terrorist organization'.

"The reason your statement was Ad Ignorantiam was because of your assertion that those who used it "probably knew too little about common use of Arabic language".
Follow?"

>This is obviously addressed in the comment already made here. It is searingly obvious that the western intel agencies, who used the term to describe a 'data base' in their computers with lists of Mujahedin fighters, had no idea of the street Arabic meaning.

"Your statements attacking others because they "don't know Arabic" is the problem. That's the basis of Ad Ignorantiam."

>You are absolutely backward, "Ad Ignorantiam" simply means arguing from ignorance--not accusing others of being ignorant.

As far as "running out of material", you are dreaming. I am simply pointing out that you don't know what you are talking about and giving examples.
You are the one flaying about trying to back out of admitting that you don't even understand the meaning of "Ad Ignorantiam", having flipped the meaning upside down and backwards.

You are the one beating the dead horse--your own.
I take it are Will--right?
ww

"If the actual meaning of the word has no impact on you, it is because you simply do not want to address the implications"

Huh? What are you talking about?

Do yourself a favor - go to the top of the page, read the full article again.

Your bringing up al-Qaeda has nothing whatsoever to do with anything being discussed here. You're off in weeds, on your mission and with your own arguments, completely out of scope.

There are no "implications" to anything being discussed here, nevermind what I do or do not "want to address".

This isn't a general message board where one is free to wax on about whatever topic enters their brain. You're commenting on an article, which you started out doing originally.

If you'd like to write your own article, perhaps you should submit a request to the Editors. They've run guest editorials before.

"Ad Ignorantiam" simply means arguing from ignorance--not accusing others of being ignorant."

"arguing FROM ignorance" was exactly the point.

You do realize that saying the word "probably" means you don't know, right?

You saying "I'm right because OTHERS PROBABLY DON'T KNOW" = Arguing from ignorance.

"I take it are Will--right?"

Huh? What are you attempting to ask here?

(Not that you being confusing is anything new)

and you will simply be frustrated and accuse me of not staying “on topic” and other spurious assertions. Anyone who comprehends the architecture of modern political power realizes that all topics of the sociopolitical are linked like a chain of evidence.'

As predicted at 2:20PM:
"This isn't a general message board where one is free to wax on about whatever topic enters their brain. You're commenting on an article, which you started out doing originally."

Zeroing in on the word "probably" is such and anemic dodge that I will lieve it to you to live with.
ww

"probably" is a quote from the explanation of the word "al Qaeda", not a characterization that I used for you.

I am quite certain that you were ignorant of the meaning of the word before I sent the information.

So, why don't you kids get back to your bustle at the southern border, rather than playing games you are not equipped to handle.

Bye bye,
ww

Got it. So as long as you add strange and irrelevant comments to any random article, like a senile old man telling stories on a park bench, we are all supposed to be held captive and amused, debating any point you throw out.

I'm guessing you aren't welcome on a lot of websites.

At first, I thought you meant that the Scragged community didn't "want you here" because you were too intellectually superior.

I'm beginning to understand what you really meant - your rambling and divergent train-of-thought is too irritating for above-average thinkers to put up with.

Well, at least you understand your own shortcomings.

And you're right - you did warn us.

"probably is a quote from the explanation of the word al Qaeda"

Yes, exactly.

You make assertions that are based on "probably"s. That means you're arguing from ignorance.

I'm glad we finally agree.

Some years ago, the US NAvy had a doctrine called "force projection." The idea was that we could fight at a distance - fight in the other guy's back yard rather than in our own.

Seems like a good idea to me.

Even in sports, isn't the best defense a strong offense?

You have the concept of arguing from ignorance backward, as I have pointed out explicitly several time.
If you think that the more times you declare victory, the stronger your argument becomes, that is for the candid observer to decide, not yourself.ww

My last comment was meant for Ifon.

And I want to say point blank, we agree on nothing.
You are a rhetorical twirly bird passing vapor as knowledge.

As I have made it clear, I have not interest in the current "topic" as I see it framed in a fraudulent paradigm. So there is no use in continuing on with this jejune back and forth with Ifon. It is like trying to teach a potato to play a banjo.

ww

Sounds like a good idea, and let those of us who see the right to the "pursuit of happiness" as applicable to all people, not just white Republicans, continue to be capitalist pigs, employing willing workers from any country and of any color.
What is with the Arizonan & Utah legislatures that they see capitalism as anti-state, and wish to go to any lengths to use the state to enforce their myopia and fear?
Not so weird when you consider their statist mentality and rage against those of us who produce, think, and don't need the government's permission to do as we will...
.. and I see Mr Petrarch endorses this fear, thinking only those who have the State's stamp of approval have rights.
Oh well. No wonder Republicans hopefully are a dying breed: their contempt for life, liberty, and, clearly, finding one's dream, are out of sync with the Founders' clarity in restricting power.

Sir Petrarch, a fine essay as always, and a fine response as well. I had no idea you had such a large stockpile of troll feed to set out all at once.

Like flies to a dung heap. And the troll won't even stick to the topic at hand, bleating instead about nothing in particular. Wee Willy Whitten has a few nice vocabulary words, and some interesting grammar, but uses them to no useful purpose.

In any case, the fact is plain, and it has nothing to do with one president or party or another. The federal government has utterly and completely failed to do what it is constitutionally, logically, and morally required to do, since it would rather concern itself with matters it has no constitutional, logical, or moral basis to do so.

And so personal donations pour in to secure our border. Now, we have egregious crimes by citizens and noncitizens alike being overlooked or ignored while the common citizen is harassed to death by speed limit and seat belt laws and light bulb restrictions.

So Brother John, Petrarch...hmm a coven of abbots?

I won't respond to the attempt at insult O'brother, it would be like being insulted by a barking dog.

Like beauty, 'useful purpose' is in the eye of the beholder.

ww

The common citizen is also harassed by driving, even breathing, while appearing brown.. the greatest threat to our lives & liberty are not from some invading mulatto skinned horde, but from these mentalities who see freedom as a threat, and see those finding a muted joy in being employed as a desecration of the Jefferson's view that only Amerikans have rights., Guess what?
We all do...
PS Since Scragged is now the residence of Addy & her brother Hominem, I'll slither back to my cave-- a pity Republicans have yet to learn that the meaning of freedom excludes controlling how your neighbours think, let alone act, within the confines of excluding violence, & using the powers of the State-- their god-- to investigate, violate, prevaricate:-- one wonders at the mental obscenities that their contradictions tolerate, or why we how prize liberty over their obfuscations should tolerate any longer the attack on our very lives.

I suppose it would be only fair to address such concerns as expressed by irvnx.

It might be profitable to admit the hypocrisy of the foundation myth based in exceptionalism. How regardless of the bright and beautiful declaration of the holding of certain truths as being self evident, and yet so--the brutal truth was more aptly expressed as, "the only good Injun is a dead Injun".

Beyond such glaring absurdities as creatures deemed as "3/4ths human", and all the etceteras cascading from that, it might be wondered if something quite strange and pathological might have been at work in the European mind. And that extends of course to the Anglo Saxon mind which obviously vibrates in sympathy with the rest of the greater continent after the battle of Hastings.

So rather than stating conclusions for the rest here, I will merely leave it as this, for you all to ponder.
ww

WW:

Where you refer to "3/4ths human", is it safe to assume that you refer to the 3/5ths representation compromise settled upon at the Constitutional Convention of 1787?

If so, you should be aware that the 3/5ths compromise was arrived at because northern free states and abolitionists did not wish to use the number of slaves in a state to determine congressional representation. The southern slave holding states wished to count their slaves for purposes of congressional representation.

The 3/5ths in question was a compromise arrived at to count, in effect, 60% of the slaves of any given state for such purposes. The result, then, was to reduce the congressional representation of slave holding states and undercutting their political power.

Far, then, from being a glaring absurdity, as you state, it was the way decided upon to strengthen and maintain the integrity of the new nation while simultaneously ensuring that eventually, slavery could be eliminated.

If the 3/5ths compromise is not what you refer to, then, I'm sorry but I have no idea what you're talking about.

And finally, your previous post responding to me was the very definition of "ad hominem." Latin: to the man. You made no effort to refute any point I made, you merely compared me to a barking dog. Is that really your best?

"3/5ths 3/5ths compromise"...yes, pardon my disfractions. I reflected on that after posting.

"And finally, your previous post responding to me was the very definition of "ad hominem." Latin: to the man. You made no effort to refute any point I made, you merely compared me to a barking dog. Is that really your best?" Bro John

My best? Let us examine this assertion that I compare you to a barking dog.

Actually that is left to interpretation. Is one 'startled' perhaps at the bark of a dog as on walks by? Yes, this may be a more apt description of the reaction. This may "insult" the adrenaline into flooding ones system, but certainly not ones consciousness. So do I compare you to a dog, or merely explain my reaction?

But most certainly if you wish to complain as per your personal interpretation, it seems rather hypocritical, as such as the following are your words;

“And the troll won't even stick to the topic at hand, bleating instead about nothing in particular. Wee Willy Whitten has a few nice...”..etc.

Yes, "ad hominem." Latin: to the man."

And as far as: “You made no effort to refute any point I made,”

Which had already been addressed twice, if you would have had the where-with-all to look to what you speak:

..and you will simply be frustrated and accuse me of not staying “on topic” and other spurious assertions. Anyone who comprehends the architecture of modern political power realizes that all topics of the sociopolitical are linked like a chain of evidence.'

As predicted at 2:20PM:
"This isn't a general message board where one is free to wax on about whatever topic enters their brain. You're commenting on an article, which you started out doing originally."
May 11, 2011 4:47 PM

ww

Um, for the record, I am not "Brother John".

Don't mix his comments with mine (though I 100% agree with everything he has said thus far).

Good Infon, as you agree with Bro John, you can share in my response to him.
ww

And as to And Bro John, as to the 3/5ths human excuse you offer.

Let it be said that it is no less hypocritical as per this excuse that you offer. Jefferson himself recognized this in his original draft of the Declaration, giving attention to the dichotomy of declaring it self evident that all people are created equal within a society that itself held humans in bondage. This chapter of the Declaration was deleted by committee in editing.

The founders had a choice at the very beginning to remain consistent to their stated principles, or to abandon them for “practical” purposes. A bloody civil war a generation later proves how 'practical' hypocrisy actually is.

The ends do not justify the means—the means define the ends.

A few points, if I may:

First, thanks to lfon for his stated agreement. I appreciate the sentiment and hope we continue to agree.

Second, the post you cite at 2:20PM does not address the topic of Petrarch's column. You address, instead, the topic of the border, and derive from that points about racism and facts about American history that make you sore. If I might clarify (and Petrarch, feel free to correct if I am in error, if you're still reading), the topic of the column was government ineptitude resulting from its refusal to do its job while insisting on interfering improperly in other areas. The border is but one illustration of these manifold failures.

Third, the logic of your barking dog analogy still eludes me; whatever it is, that is irrelevant. My point remains, i.e. that you did not refute my point. Cf: the final two paragraphs of my initial post time-stamped May 11, 11:42 PM, and my distillation of the essay in question, specifically, my second point in this post.

Fourth, I do not wish to pick on your mistaken fraction. That would be cheap and petty of me and is not meaningful in any case. And perhaps it was hypocritical of the founders to compromise thus and leave it at that, but perhaps it was the way they best felt to achieve two ends: that the new nation would be strengthened and that slavery would eventually be ended within it. When reflecting on this compromise and slavery in general, Jefferson himself said: "I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just." But is hypocrisy the greatest of all possible sins? I think not. Just the same, I defy you to find another political system on earth that treated a greater number of its citizens better and presented greater opportunities, in 1776 or now. Furthermore, I submit to you that despite the stain that slavery is on the history of this nation, the descendants of slaves are, in fact, better off than they would likely be had they all been left alone in Africa. In Africa today, slavery, sex trafficking, socialism and the ruin it produces abound and personal property rights and religious freedom are essentially nonexistent. That's just for starters.

Fifth, and finally, the proper - though I admit uncommon - formulation of your closing sentence is, in fact, "Do the ends justify *any* means?" There is a significant difference.

All the best!

Bro John,

My point that all sociopolitical issues are of a kind and set within the larger frame, was my point in NOT addressing the issues of the article itself, in that, as I said, the frame within which the article is placed, that of the Left/Right Hegelian paradigm, is false. Any argument made within a false frame is by extension false as well.

I certainly agree that Amerika is far beyond Constitutional governance and is in fact merely a criminal syndicate fronting for the Money Powers.

This has been the case since the Industrial Revolution, and set in official stone in 1913 under the regime of Woodrow Wilson.

As far as your adjustment of "any means" you split hairs. The means, whatever they be, define the ends they lead to.

As far as the sin of hypocrisy, it is one that has many radiations there from. You may judge as you may on this head. I see it as a root issue, often under the ground of other errors if one digs deeper.

Africa today is a complex issue bundled with the legacy of both colonialism and
neocolonialism.

It is not my intent to claim that there are no other brutal peoples than the Europeans and their descendants. This is a human problem and is not the exclusive bane of any particular tribe or people. However, the present technological era driven by the Western powers has created a system that is inhuman beyond the extremities of any person or groups thereof.

I would suggest reading Ellul's THE TECHNOLOGICAL SOCIETY, for further elucidation on the modern situation.

ww

Latinos are looking for a better life. This is natural. People come to the U'S' for that reason. If we build a fence, do we put up watch towers with machineguns? Where is the limit? If immigrants, legal or otherwise, had to be paid the same as other workers, there would be less immigration. The fault is with employers, not the immigrants. Controlling employers is easier than controlling immigrants. Finally, immigrants need citizenship to vote. These people have given up everything for another life.

and the beat goes on...

Arizona Officials, Fed Up With U.S. Efforts, Seek Donations to Build Border Fence
Legislators open a new initiative in their long-running battle against illegal immigration.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/20/us/20border.html

what part of "illegal" do they not understand? I guess for liberals, if they agree with a law it should be enforced, but if they don't, it shouldn't.....

PHOENIX — Americans upset about illegal immigration have a new outlet for their rage: a fund set up by the State of Arizona that will use private donations to build a border wall.

Critics call the state’s effort to build its own border barriers a foolhardy, feel-good campaign that will have little practical effect on illegal border crossings. But organizers in the State Legislature, which created the fund, say it will allow everyday people fed up with the inability of Congress to address the problem of illegal immigration to contribute personally to a solution.

Beginning during the second Bush administration and continuing in President Obama’s tenure, the federal government has built more than 600 miles of barriers, some designed to keep out cars and others to block individuals from crossing. The congressionally approved construction effort is winding up, but about 82 miles of Arizona’s 388 miles of border remain without a barrier, federal officials say.

The construction has been expensive. The Government Accountability Office said in a 2009 report that the federal government spent $1 million to $3 million for every mile of border fencing. Arizona, though, intends to use low-cost inmate labor to reduce those costs.

The most likely locations for the state’s planned barriers are on state or private land, organizers say. A committee will determine the details of the wall’s construction after money comes in, according to the legislation creating the border fund, which Gov. Jan Brewer, a Republican, signed in April 2010.

Janet Napolitano, the secretary of homeland security, expressed doubts about the effectiveness of physical barriers at the border when she was Arizona’s governor and Congress first endorsed the idea in 2005. “You show me a 50-foot wall and I’ll show you a 51-foot ladder at the border,” Ms. Napolitano said at the time. “That’s the way the border works.”

She has subsequently argued that the border fencing is only a part of the solution and must be supplemented by Border Patrol agents and technology. The Obama administration has significantly increased staffing at the Border Patrol and has employed unmanned drones to patrol from above. But the administration last year halted work on a “virtual fence” along the border after a series of technical problems and cost overruns.

Even before Wednesday’s formal start of Arizona’s fund-raising Web site, organizers said they detected considerable interest.

“We are getting e-mails, calls and letters from all over the country,” said State Senator Steve Smith, a Republican who came up with the idea. “We had a business owner from California and individuals from Indiana. People want to do their part to help this country.”

Donors will get a certificate acknowledging their contribution, and Mr. Smith said he expected them to become popular items.

But not for everybody. “This state-sponsored border wall idea is ludicrous,” said Sandy Bahr, director of the Grand Canyon Chapter of the Sierra Club. “It is just another distraction from the real issues facing Arizona, issues this Legislature has repeatedly failed to address.”

Arizona has had some success with private fund-raising on the contentious issue of immigration. Ms. Brewer opened a fund to finance the state’s defense in federal court of the immigration crackdown known as Senate Bill 1070, which was approved in 2010 but never fully went into effect. Private donors have already contributed about $3.8 million to that effort, state officials say.

Sam: In your article you quoted the sierra club,“This state-sponsored border wall idea is ludicrous,” said Sandy Bahr, director of the Grand Canyon Chapter of the Sierra Club. “It is just another distraction from the real issues facing Arizona, issues this Legislature has repeatedly failed to address.” This communist inspired organization is a-typical of liberals who issue vanilla statements like this. Why don't they articulate what the issues are and what their exact solution would be? Answer: It would expose them for what they are, radicals bent on destroying our way of life. Keep pointing out these people Sam, it's the only way to expose them for what they are. Good work.