“In the Left’s America, Emma Lazarus’ poem on the Statue of Liberty is to be read literally as law, but the Constitution is vague poetry.”
But still, there’s something astounding that happens whenever the political left starts talking about their views on open borders, sanctuary cities, and very lax standards for admitting refugees to America. They continue to speak, shout, or at least appeal to some higher moral standard of “compassion.” It’s almost as though they believe this standard is divine, transcendent, and binding on all humans regardless of nation, tribe, creed, or culture.
And while I’m always fascinated to ask where this supposed Moral Law of compassion came from, or what sustains it and authorizes it if not a transcendent Moral Lawgiver that the left consistently denies, first things first. How can anyone be taken seriously when making demands that laws shelter and protect the “least of these” on the other side of the ocean while simultaneously demanding that the law not shelter and protect the “least of these” on the other side of the womb?
Take New York Senator Kristen Gillibrand, the Hillary Clinton replacement whose inauspicious Senate career began by her being one of only a handful of Senators to vote against defunding the corrupt voter fraud organization ACORN. On Saturday, she waded into this mess of inconsistent compassion by tweeting:
“This country is big enough and strong enough to welcome those who are in need and at-risk with open arms.”
First, this is obviously nothing more than silly “Twitter-wisdom” that doesn’t stand up to any modicum of scrutiny. For instance, it’s illogical to think that Gillibrand believes we should open the floodgates and allow or facilitate the migration of a billion of the world’s starving into the country. So who gets in and who gets left out, Kristen? Who is our country’s arms not big or strong enough to welcome and why? This is just mindless virtue signaling by a leftist.
But that’s why it’s important to point out the contradiction of their virtue. Gillibrand is one who believes that murdering infants in the womb is a form of compassion. These at-risk children being brought into a world of instability, economic hardship, or hunger would be better off aborted in the left’s sick interpretation of abortion as an “act of compassion.”
It’s ignorance. Evil ignorance, but ignorance nonetheless. Leftists like Gillibrand pretend that murdering infants is an appropriate solution to the social problems of unwantedness, suffering, or poverty. But notice she isn’t recommending that we bomb the third world to relieve those same problems. And how could she? Killing human beings is not an answer for the intellectually and morally serious.
She’s pointing to immigrants and refugees and demanding that our country be “big enough” to welcome the “huddled masses yearning to breath free.” Until she points to unborn children and demands the same, there’s absolutely no reason she should be taken seriously.