Poor Nancy. She’s gotten herself into a bind ethically and morally, not to mention politically.
Her archbishop, operating from atop the rock of Peter, just asked her to denounce her support of abortion. She refuses to do so, obfuscating something about supporting “those who are born” and a “woman’s right” while implying that those who are not born, including those just minutes away from being born, are not equally worthy of her support. Maybe grandmother that she is, she has never witnessed a late-term abortion or the rescue of a premie in a hospital incubator. Relevance to a cause can be a bitch, right Nancy?
Her husband Paul (meaning “humble”) was attacked by an illegal alien. She has consistently refused to do anything practical about the border because, well, Trump is racist or Republicans are racists—even, I guess, the hispanic and black conservatives. An attack by an illegal Canadian druggie nudist isn’t by the way an attack by an illegal criminal drug-dealing and card-carrying cartel member with slightly browner skin. (Has she ever mentioned the plight of Americans who have been attacked, injured, or killed by illegal aliens?) Relevance to a cause can definitely be a bitch, Nancy. Let them all in without some Ellis Island kind of vetting because of political expediency or have a husband attacked by a white illegal—gotta be two different things, right?
She backed all the restrictive measures during the pandemic, but neither kept her “six-foot-distance” nor wore a mask during moments when she was unknowingly caught-on-camera. She did, however, wear a fashionable outfit-matching, color-coordinated cloth mask (that probably had no effect on stopping a virus) before many camera appearances. At least she had expensive ice cream to eat while the country was in lockdown and the ice cream makers were temporarily out of a job—remind anyone of Marie Antoinette and something about eating cake?
Nancy Pelosi, a successful money-maker in the stock market, has taken no noteworthy stand against the creeping socialism (or jumping socialism, if one counts Obamacare she touted) that is destroying capitalist entrepreneurship in favor of free stuff for anyone foreign or domestic who can lay claim to free stuff. Under her watch, Congress spent (allocated) more money than had been spent during all previous Speakers combined. At least she voted for 87,000 new IRS agents whose salaries, say at an average start of $50,000 will equal 4.35 billion dollars just in the first year—mandated raises to come, of course, and then all those retirement and health care packages to follow ad infinitum. Caught between statements about “caring for the little people” (i.e., middle class and working families) and raising taxes that will affect those “little people” who have investments in the very businesses she taxes, Nancy is definitely in a difficult position to defend logically.
The problem with any of us lecturing any others as so many do, is that all of us, regardless of political persuasion or religious affiliation, can’t be fully consistent with our ideals. Ideals are too simple to execute practically in “the real world.” They are also difficult to define precisely because they can, like the circles of a Venn diagram, overlap. The world’s just too complex. It throws us often and unexpectedly into self-conflict, like being for healthcare, but not recognizing that a late-term “thing” half out of the womb is a human.
So, there stands Nancy, caught between her religion and her personal wealth and the politics of abortion and socialism. She is caught between acting on her personal entitlement and on restricting the lives of others. She is caught between unmitigated illegal migration and a husband attacked by an illegal immigrant. She’s caught between indurated arrogance and humility.
It’s a bummer to be caught between religion and political expediency.
Her archbishop, operating from atop the rock of Peter, just asked her to denounce her support of abortion. She refuses to do so, obfuscating something about supporting “those who are born” and a “woman’s right” while implying that those who are not born, including those just minutes away from being born, are not equally worthy of her support. Maybe grandmother that she is, she has never witnessed a late-term abortion or the rescue of a premie in a hospital incubator. Relevance to a cause can be a bitch, right Nancy?
Her husband Paul (meaning “humble”) was attacked by an illegal alien. She has consistently refused to do anything practical about the border because, well, Trump is racist or Republicans are racists—even, I guess, the hispanic and black conservatives. An attack by an illegal Canadian druggie nudist isn’t by the way an attack by an illegal criminal drug-dealing and card-carrying cartel member with slightly browner skin. (Has she ever mentioned the plight of Americans who have been attacked, injured, or killed by illegal aliens?) Relevance to a cause can definitely be a bitch, Nancy. Let them all in without some Ellis Island kind of vetting because of political expediency or have a husband attacked by a white illegal—gotta be two different things, right?
She backed all the restrictive measures during the pandemic, but neither kept her “six-foot-distance” nor wore a mask during moments when she was unknowingly caught-on-camera. She did, however, wear a fashionable outfit-matching, color-coordinated cloth mask (that probably had no effect on stopping a virus) before many camera appearances. At least she had expensive ice cream to eat while the country was in lockdown and the ice cream makers were temporarily out of a job—remind anyone of Marie Antoinette and something about eating cake?
Nancy Pelosi, a successful money-maker in the stock market, has taken no noteworthy stand against the creeping socialism (or jumping socialism, if one counts Obamacare she touted) that is destroying capitalist entrepreneurship in favor of free stuff for anyone foreign or domestic who can lay claim to free stuff. Under her watch, Congress spent (allocated) more money than had been spent during all previous Speakers combined. At least she voted for 87,000 new IRS agents whose salaries, say at an average start of $50,000 will equal 4.35 billion dollars just in the first year—mandated raises to come, of course, and then all those retirement and health care packages to follow ad infinitum. Caught between statements about “caring for the little people” (i.e., middle class and working families) and raising taxes that will affect those “little people” who have investments in the very businesses she taxes, Nancy is definitely in a difficult position to defend logically.
The problem with any of us lecturing any others as so many do, is that all of us, regardless of political persuasion or religious affiliation, can’t be fully consistent with our ideals. Ideals are too simple to execute practically in “the real world.” They are also difficult to define precisely because they can, like the circles of a Venn diagram, overlap. The world’s just too complex. It throws us often and unexpectedly into self-conflict, like being for healthcare, but not recognizing that a late-term “thing” half out of the womb is a human.
So, there stands Nancy, caught between her religion and her personal wealth and the politics of abortion and socialism. She is caught between acting on her personal entitlement and on restricting the lives of others. She is caught between unmitigated illegal migration and a husband attacked by an illegal immigrant. She’s caught between indurated arrogance and humility.
It’s a bummer to be caught between religion and political expediency.
RSS Feed