Show

Hey, ‘Trump Is Racist’ Peeps: Prager Just Blew Your ‘Animals’ Nonsense All To Hell

The Left nearly blew up when Trump called MS13 ‘animals’.

They were tripping over themselves coming to their defense, with lines like ‘divine spark’ or ‘dehumanizing’.

At least AP had the — decency? — to delete the tweet that claimed Trump called all immigrants animals.

(That was enough to make even infamous Never-Trumper Glenn Beck put on a MAGA hat! And who knows how many others followed suit.)

Then there was the irony of an MS13 Member getting a guilty verdict and a 40-year sentence only days later. What was his nickname? ‘Animal‘.

The segment in question begins at the 13:36 mark.

Dennis Prager took aim at the perpetually offended who took up the cause of MS13 in the latest instance of their endless opposition to Trump.

Prager said there’s something wrong with us if we DON’T call them animals.

Leftism hates people that fight evil.

They have a big problem with calling evil ‘evil’.

He explained that what is truly dehumanizing is to NOT have boundaries that cannot be crossed where you say, essentially, ‘that behavior is so wicked you have crossed a line, and we won’t welcome you as one of us anymore’.

Because to be human isn’t just a ‘biological’ category, but a MORAL one, as well. And if you fail to live up to the bare minimum expectations of how one human should treat another… terms like ‘animal’ are a way of excluding such people.

And if Obama had made the same ‘animal’ statement, the virtue-signaling political hacks and journalists (but we repeat ourselves) not a soul would have denounced him.

To pick up on Prager’s idea, and press it a little further, the Left doesn’t make the case for any set principles. It has political objectives, but no ideological bedrock on which they are grounded.

So it shouldn’t surprise us that they don’t argue ISSUES, so much as ‘values’. (Note that isn’t the same as ‘morals’.)

The Left are always positioned as the guys in the white hats, and we are always positioned as the bad guys.

Why do they resist the terms ‘evil’?

Partly because they tend to share values with other people that are objectively evil. (When was the last time you heard a Leftist speak out about the oppressed citizens of Iran?)

If they acknowledge objective evil, and we oppose real evil, we stop being the bad guy. We are at the very worst a ‘mixed bag’. That screws up their narrative.

So they downplay any person or group who might otherwise be genuinely evil, and instead focus on ‘oppressed’ and ‘oppressor’.

And then, the major networks work very hard to cement that thinking in the public mind.

It’s the kind of thinking that can be cleared up with a good flush.

CNN — all the news that’s fit to flush.

Are you tired of the fake news that spews forth from CNN and the lame-stream media? Well, you don’t have to put up with their crap any more! Clash Daily is proud to release a very special brand of toilet paper!

Send to your liberal friends so that they can wipe their minds clear of the waste produced by the Communist News Network!

Get yours here!

Get Doug Giles’ new book:

Rules For Radical Christians is not a survival devotional designed to help the young Christian adult limp through life. Rather, it is a road-tested, dominion blueprint that will equip the young adult with leadership skills and sufficient motivation to rise to a place of influence in an overtly non-Christian culture. Rules For Radical Christians gives the reader the keys to become strategically equipped to move into an anti-theistic environment and effectively influence it for the glory of God.

Get yours today!

You can choose either the classic Paperback to trigger your college professors and quasi-communist classmates, or the Kindle edition to always have it on hand.

Like Clash? Like Clash.

Leave a Comment

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse.