This “ironic realization” came to me when two popular Democratic lies were brought to my attention, both things they spout as if they’re truisms but have no more basis in fact than Nancy did when she assured the country less than 2 weeks ago that “the Republicans don’t have the votes in the House,” after which the votes were tallied and they DID have the votes by a plurality of roughly 40, not even close. The two Dem lies I’m talking about here, de rigeur talking points in every rebuff to Republican efforts to protect our people with a secure border, are “Most of the country doesn’t want a wall” and “Walls don’t work.” They act like these are facts, but they are not. Never do they cite a significant poll or survey that backs up the first of those, because it doesn’t exist. But I’m really focusing here on the second of those bromides.
At its simplest, I would posit as proof of how well walls work that you perform the following experiment: try to walk through one, even in the comfort of your own home. I suspect you’ll fail because the wall worked (and if not, I suggest you sue your builder). But the lib pretext of “not working” falls back on the premise that no matter how high a wall you build, somebody can find or create a ladder tall enough to surmount it, and things like tunneling under. Those things are true in a literal sense but nonsensical in the sense of being a practical argument here, and here’s why, and how I’m tying it to the title of this article.
Yes, a wall can always be breached, but if a decent wall, that will require a heroic effort, something beyond the capabilities (or willingness to expend that extreme effort the breach would require) of the average person who might want to breach it. The people on the ground who actually know because they’re right there WORKING WITH THE WALL to ensure our safety will, to a one, confirm that the wall does work. Not infallible, and they freely admit that, but with an effectiveness rate of a percentage somewhere in the 90s. Those who say we should forget the idea of a wall because it “doesn’t work” and instead use what they call technology, things like drones, should have to provide documentation that a drone is more effective than just 90-some percent, but of course they can’t do that, because a drone doesn’t stop any breach at all, rather just takes a picture of it. But even if drones DID somehow stop 95% of breaches, that would still mean the “don’t work” by their bar of 100% effectiveness.
Now for the tie-in. Most forms of birth control, contraceptively, are in the 90s percent effectiveness range, some higher and some lower in the 90s. But the contraceptive method has ever achieved perfection, 100%. What DOES indeed have 100% effectiveness is an aborted fetus. So, if you follow that liberal logic that a wall is not worth constructing/paying for because it’s not 100% effective, then the same liberal logic would say that birth control should not be used, nor paid for, because it’s not 100% either, and the only thing that would pass muster would be abortion.
I know that seems like sort of a ridiculous analogy, but it’s totally legit in showing how ridiculous the argument is that something as effective as a wall is not worth utilizing. Logic is logic, and can’t be selectively applied and “dis-applied.” Well, it can, but there’s a name for that: hypocrisy.