"Immoral", she says, in the same tone that she usually uses when she is saying something for political purposes that she knows not to be true. Of course, whether a border wall is immoral or not can't be true or false, since morality, in the eyes of the left, is a relative notion that shifts depending on whether it can create votes for Democrats or not.
You know, and I know, that she means none of what she is saying. We know that morality does not apply to nations protecting their own borders from illegal crossings, human trafficking, drug smuggling and gangs, unless we decide they are indeed acutely moral because they prevent all those bad things.
And they do of course. Just ask the Israelis. Or our own Border Patrol.
But Democrats need to stick to their narratives for at least six months, after which the sympathetic leftist press has long since moved on, and refuses to dig up clips of them saying the opposite of what they are proposing then, later.
Never mind. Nancy Pelosi thinks walls are immoral this week, and she is the Speaker of the House for some reason, meaning that she controls the legislative agenda of the House of Representatives. And apparently, based on her opposition to authorizing $5 billion to extend the current border wall, she has some newfound concern for our Federal budget.
But morality should overcome any of that fiscal sanity, right?
That gets me to my central point. If Nancy Pelosi thinks that new wall construction would be immoral and so wrong, then it is logical that the wall already built is equally immoral. And if it is equally immoral, it needs to be removed.
So Nancy -- here is my point: Why, if you think that border protection via barrier is immoral, have you not already introduced legislation to fund the removal of all border walls at our southern border?
Walls either are or are not immoral; they either do or do not work. Now, we all know that they are very moral, and we certainly know that they work. But Pelosi has now gone on record as saying the opposite, and it is past time for her to introduce a bill that would authorize taxpayer money -- yours and mine -- to do what, in her eyes, is the "moral" thing and tear down the existing wall.
You have to ask why she hasn't already done that. Could it be that the Border Patrol, from rank and file all the way up to the last five Directors, would scream bloody murder and cause her to lose the narrative?
But she already said it is immoral. There are no two ways about it; if it is wrong it needs to be removed. And if she does not introduce a bill to do so, she is a coward of the highest degree, not standing up for what she claims to believe in.
So how 'bout it, Nannykins? Put our money where your mouth is.
Copyright 2019 by Robert Sutton
Like what you read here? There are over 1,000 posts from Bob at www.uberthoughtsUSA.com, and after four years of writing a new one daily, he still posts thoughts once in a while as "visiting columns", no longer the "prolific essayist" he was through 2018, but still around. Appearance, advertising, sponsorship and interview inquiries cheerfully welcomed at bsutton@alum.mit.edu or on Twitter at @rmosutton
Like what you read here? There are over 1,000 posts from Bob at www.uberthoughtsUSA.com, and after four years of writing a new one daily, he still posts thoughts once in a while as "visiting columns", no longer the "prolific essayist" he was through 2018, but still around. Appearance, advertising, sponsorship and interview inquiries cheerfully welcomed at bsutton@alum.mit.edu or on Twitter at @rmosutton
No comments:
Post a Comment