It’s hilarious when godless liberals appropriate a word like “immoral” when they clearly haven’t the slightest clue what it means, much less think that it would ever truly apply to something they support.
Yet, Democrats of late have been in the habit of using the term to describe President Trump’s proposed border wall. It’s a two-pronged propaganda coup for them. First, by casting something they staunchly oppose as “immoral,” it virtue-signals morality on themselves. Second, it paints those who oppose their position as bad people who want to slaughter puppies and hang immigrant children by their toes.
So unless you’ve been living under a rock, you’ve probably noticed that soon-to-be House Speaker Nancy Pelosi - or Saint Nancy, as Tucker Carlson aptly dubbed her - is among the most flagrant offenders.
Get a load of this ‘logic:’
"We have a responsibility, all of us, to secure our borders, north, south, and coming in by plane on our coasts, three coasts, north, south, and west," Pelosi said at a press briefing earlier this month. "And that's a responsibility we honor, but we do so by honoring our values as well.”
So, we have a “responsibility” to “secure our borders,” but we can’t utilize anything that would actually work because, you know, “values” and stuff ...
Then, the kicker:
“We, most of us, speaking for myself, consider the wall immoral, ineffective and expensive and the president ... promised Mexico would pay for it. So even if they did, it's immoral still, and then they're not going to pay for it."
Notwithstanding the “we, most of us” and “speaking for myself” contradiction which can probably be attributed to Pelosi’s Biden-like clumsiness with the English language, that mouthful of a statement raises more than a few questions. Expensive? Really? Unless it’s something a conservative supports and they want an easy ‘reason’ to oppose it, since when has a Democrat EVER considered anything too expensive? Then there’s the whole “Mexico would pay for it” thing. They know what Trump meant, and they know Mexico was never going to actually write us a check per se, but “even if they did,” according to Saint Nancy, “it’s immoral still.”
But the logic gets even more convoluted. The wall, to the new moralizers like Saint Nancy, is both “immoral” AND “ineffective,” which raises perhaps the most important question of all - How can it be both? If the wall was “ineffective” at stopping illegal immigration, then how could it be “immoral,” assuming that their definition of the word relates to the possibility that it would actually stop illegals from crossing the border?
At this point, consider this explanation by liberals of why exactly liberals consider the wall “immoral.” In an article titled “The Immorality of Trump's Border Wall, Explained,” Teen Vogue reveals the true liberal mindset:
Opposing the wall because it’s expensive, not because it's wrong, also obscures the balance of who truly ‘owns’ and who truly ‘owes.' The balance should be clear: the United States and its business partners perpetuate great violence and disruption upon the Americas, pressuring people to emigrate, then profiting off their detention when they do. As people flee the violence and poverty exacerbated by U.S. imperialism and neoliberal trade, we must defend their freedom of movement, because if anyone owes anyone, the federal government owes migrants.
So, the wall is “immoral” because “U.S. imperialism” is somehow responsible for “pressuring people to emigrate,” thus our government should do nothing to impede “freedom of movement” because it “owes migrants.”
In other words, even the libs know that walls work. Otherwise, why oppose them? Put it this way - If the “wall” were nothing more than a 3-foot high landscaping feature that immigrants could step over, would Democrats really be so hot and bothered?
But Saint Nancy wants to have her cake and eat it too.
Earlier this month on his Fox News program, Carlson had this to say about “Saint Nancy” and her opposition to a border wall:
Now, if you’re familiar with how things work in Washington, you may be wondering: When did morality begin to play a central role in the legislative process? The answer is the day that Nancy Pelosi got ordained. Pelosi is now an archbishop in the church of progress sanctimony. Weak moral authority. That is not a problem for St. Nancy. Her moral thought is absolute. She is a good person. You, unfortunately, are not. So pay attention as she explains once again — a border wall is immoral. Well, fine. Far be it for us to question the command of an archbishop. We’ll take her at her word. God hates walls. But if walls are immoral, what about fences?
What about Israel’s security wall? It’s big and real and very effective. Pelosi supported it, actually. She voted for a resolution defending that wall from U.N. Condemnation. It’s confusing. Must have been before her conversion. But now [that] the walls are definitely immoral, a few obvious theological questions arise. What about doors? And locks? How about hedges or security systems or airport checkpoints or anything else that specifically designed to keep some people out? What about the gate in front of Pelosi’s weekend house? Is St. Nancy against all of that? Of course not.
Morals that come from God are one thing. They are immutable, infallible, indisputable. Humans have generally agreed over millennia that things like murder, stealing, and lying are wrong. And for that matter, before liberals placed themselves above God as the grand arbiters of all things moral, things like adultery and fornication were once considered wrong as well, and protecting one’s national borders was considered a good thing. Of course, that’s the problem when fallible humans get to decide what is “moral” and what is not. Things get taken off or added to “the list” based on convenience, desire, and even politics.
Christian theologian Wayne Grudem, among others, has already made an infallible case based on the Bible that border walls aren’t just NOT “immoral,” but actually preferred by the Biblical God.
Saint Nancy, on the other hand, just wants to play politics.