‘Her Fiancé, Garry Brown Sr., the Man Who Fathered 10 of Her 15 Children …’
8th July 2012
The Other McCain points out some inconvenient truth.
You will notice that when a conservative proposes a general rule of human behavior, liberals are quick to cite some exception to that rule. However, when liberals propose general rules, no conservative is permitted to cite exceptions, and thus any attempt to discuss human behavior with liberals is doomed to end in the accusation that conservatives are arguing unfairly.
Indeed, I have noticed that.
The case of Angel Adams is also probably helpful as a basic political litmus test of sorts. You may have noticed that liberals delight in making crude jests about pro-life Christian families like the Duggars. Yet if anyone calls attention to the case of a hyper-procreative welfare mother with multiple babydaddies including an imprisoned cocaine dealer — a dreadful situation that imposes heavy costs on innocent taxpayers — the very same liberals will predictably scream, “RAAAAACIST!”
Yet it is not the race, but rather the behavior, of Angel Adams which is the problem, and her behavior is rooted in an attitude, one that is commonly labled “the entitlement mentality.” I’ve seen the entitlement mentality manifested in various ways by all types of people. No race has a monopoly on such selfish attitudes, but liberals go out of their way to justify the entitlement mentality when it comes to certain groups of people whom liberals apparently view as Official Victims of Society.
Whose turn is it to be the victim…?
Liberalism, as a philosophy, requires such victims as proof that America is fundamentally unjust, thus in need of the kind of “reforms” that liberals advocate. Examining the arguments of liberals — to the extent that liberals actually engage in arguments, rather than mere name-calling — the conservative points out that much of the “social injustice” bemoaned by today’s liberalism is actually a direct byproduct of previous liberal “reforms.”
In the case of Ms. Adams, for example, one sees not only the result of LBJ’s “Great Society” expansion of welfare programs, but also a fairly predictable consequence of the Sexual Revolution that liberals insisted was necessary for Americans to escape the oppressive shackles of our nation’s puritanical Judeo-Christian heritage.
Flap flap flap ye chickens, coming home to roost….
President Obama and his liberal friends like to lecture us about the alleged evils of “the 1%” — the ultra-rich who supposedly refuse to pay “their fair share” of taxes to support Angel Adams and her children (or to keep Garry Brown Sr. in prison). But where is the justice or morality in compelling the ultra-rich (or anyone else) to pay more to foot the bill for these predictable consequences of liberalism? How can anyone be faulted for an unwillingness to pay for new liberal “reforms” when they can see with their own eyes the endless misery produced by old liberal “reforms”?
No matter — it’s their job to pay, and to pay, and to pay, so long as there are useless mouths to be fed, and parasites are available to suck the blood of the productive.
“A lot of people have gone way extra miles for you,” Sheehan said. “Do you understand that?”
Adams replied quietly, “No comment, your honor.”
Gratitude? What’s that? Sorry, no room for that in the Entitlement Mentality.
July 8th, 2012 at 13:09
As the resident ‘liberal’ here, I must object to the broad mis-characterization expressed.
The leeches will always be with us, to paraphrase the gospel. For every program, there will be those unscrupulous or just ignorant few that will figure out how to game the system. They are to be villified, and justly so.
But conservatives always find a single worst-case scenario and use it to argue that all participants in any given program are “useless mouths to be fed, and parasites…to suck the blood of the productive.”, which is patently untrue.
So when we say that conservatives are arguing ‘unfairly’, that is simply a statement of fact. It is intellectually dishonest to characterize a complete group by pointing out a few bad examples. Just as it is intellectually dishonest to characterize all conservatives and libertarians as heartless assholes. (Though there are quite a few…)