Rachel's tender tears

Is there a more tender age than that of a child in the womb?

Rachel Maddow's tears aside, expressions of outrage over government provisioning for displaced children entering the U.S. illegally portray such children as a means to an end rather than ends in and of themselves.  If Maddow and her like-minded minions are teary-eyed over images of children being ripped from the loving arms of their parents, then one would expect her to be cut to the heart by the ripping of children from their mother's wombs. Alas, her passions are selectively silent on the issue of the slaughter of innocents.

Bible-thumping by the likes of failed candidate Hillary Clinton likewise reveal the true trajectory of this brewed up brouhaha.  Were Mrs. Clinton to remain consistent with the teachings of her progressive pals, then invoking the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth would be, at best, on par with any other philosopher at hand (e.g., Peter Singer, perhaps).  If all moral teaching is relative to the culture from which it arises, then why would Mrs. Clinton seek to impose a dusty ethics prevalent in first-century Galilee upon a situation occurring in Central America some twenty centuries hence?  Is that not cultural appropriation of the first order?  What is more, how are we to be certain that children cared for in government temporary shelters don't self-identify as adults?  If we are to accept that gender is fluid, then why not age?

The plain fact is that progressives are grievously casting about for a cause that will tug at heartstrings while aiming all along for  purse-strings.

Courtroom wisdom holds that when facts are on your side, pound on the facts.  When the law is on your side, pound on the law.  When neither the facts nor the law is on your side, then pound on the table.  People who truly care about children care about children all the time, not simply in the few months remaining in the run-up to midterm elections.

Is there a more tender age than that of a child in the womb?

Rachel Maddow's tears aside, expressions of outrage over government provisioning for displaced children entering the U.S. illegally portray such children as a means to an end rather than ends in and of themselves.  If Maddow and her like-minded minions are teary-eyed over images of children being ripped from the loving arms of their parents, then one would expect her to be cut to the heart by the ripping of children from their mother's wombs. Alas, her passions are selectively silent on the issue of the slaughter of innocents.

Bible-thumping by the likes of failed candidate Hillary Clinton likewise reveal the true trajectory of this brewed up brouhaha.  Were Mrs. Clinton to remain consistent with the teachings of her progressive pals, then invoking the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth would be, at best, on par with any other philosopher at hand (e.g., Peter Singer, perhaps).  If all moral teaching is relative to the culture from which it arises, then why would Mrs. Clinton seek to impose a dusty ethics prevalent in first-century Galilee upon a situation occurring in Central America some twenty centuries hence?  Is that not cultural appropriation of the first order?  What is more, how are we to be certain that children cared for in government temporary shelters don't self-identify as adults?  If we are to accept that gender is fluid, then why not age?

The plain fact is that progressives are grievously casting about for a cause that will tug at heartstrings while aiming all along for  purse-strings.

Courtroom wisdom holds that when facts are on your side, pound on the facts.  When the law is on your side, pound on the law.  When neither the facts nor the law is on your side, then pound on the table.  People who truly care about children care about children all the time, not simply in the few months remaining in the run-up to midterm elections.