The Left’s Embrace of Authoritarian Policies to Achieve ‘Equality’

[Clementine]

First of all, the left constantly confuses equality with equal outcomes. If there aren't enough minorities living in a particular neighborhood, they scream inequality and set about moving people around until they see color balance. They've done this with schools, work places and now they are working on neighborhoods. They don't take into account that people tend to choose where they live and they make choices regarding school and work.

If the left sees that not enough people choose a certain thing, they feel the need to step in and make things right. If not enough blacks are making movies or get nominated for awards, it can't be that because blacks are a small percentage of the population and, therefore, represent a small percent of actors (or other professions), they think something is wrong. And when something is wrong, there is both a victim and a villain. To right the perceived wrongs, they must take something from the villain and give it to the victim. Whether it's ensuring that those evil white people don't get the most jobs or share of wealth, the left is there to dictate how things are doled out.

They don't see individuals. It's all about grouping people and judging based on color and class. Nothing more. If they would just see human beings making their own choices, they might be more willing to back off instead of imposing their will on others. As it is, they have an idea of how things should be and are forever trying to manipulate people so they fit into their narrow scope of what the perfect world should look like. They don't care how others feel. It's about the liberals and what they need to do to make themselves feel relevant and good about themselves. For some, it's about having a dictator mindset and simply wanting to control people.

They think they can bring about equal outcomes by treating some more equal than others.



"What is it about how liberals think of equality that makes them so prone to recommend authoritarian policies to achieve it—confiscatory tax policies, campus speech codes and fining pastors and the like?

As I explain in my forthcoming book, "The Closing of the Liberal Mind," it has a lot to do with how they frame the issue. In short, they assume (at least theoretically) that any variation in how human beings fare in society, no matter how small, is more often than not an injustice. People who make less money than others are victims of economic oppression, not just someone who may be willing to work less."



"A Disappearing Act

The second thing you notice is that the individual human being completely disappears. No single person is responsible for anything (unless of course you are a banker or conservative free speech advocate).

He or she is just an object of society, a victim, or at best a rarified "construct" of some class, gender or sexual preference. Morality is defined not by what we do as individual human beings but by our political attitudes and ideology.

Do we advocate same-sex marriage and an expanded welfare state? Check, we are "good" people. Do we question these things? Check, we are bad and must not merely be opposed but shut out of the debate.

There’s no room for dissenters because the new morality dictates that being a good person depends on politics, not personal behavior."



"King hated stereotyping of any kind, and when he said he had a dream "where [black people] will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character," he was making a universal claim that blacks were as individuals no different than white people. Their right to equality was based on their rights as individuals. He was not making any claims about black people’s group identity or demanding that blacks be treated differently, but that they should be given the same exact political (read: civil) rights as whites.

King’s original vision of equality was perfectly in sync with how the Founding Fathers viewed equality. It was, as a matter of fact, taken directly from the Declaration of Independence. Its author, Thomas Jefferson, wanted a constitutional government that treated everyone equally before the law and protected the individual’s rights of everyone equally. That was what they meant by equality. Jefferson and other Founders understood instinctively that any form of government that promised to level all the social and economic conditions of society will result in authoritarian government. It’s inescapable. "




http://dailysignal.com/2016/02/29/the-lefts-embrace-of-authoritarian-policies-to-achieve-equality/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=thffacebook

 

[Unkotare]

 

[Agit8r]

First of all, the left constantly confuses equality with equal outcomes. If there aren't enough minorities living in a particular neighborhood, they scream inequality and set about moving people around until they see color balance. They've done this with schools, work places and now they are working on neighborhoods.

Lol. Whatever.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

The first things you notice about this approach to equality are the aggressive means to achieve it. Money must be taken from some people and given to others.

You can’t force a boy into a girl’s bathroom with nice words. You need a court order. And you can’t overturn a millennia-old definition of marriage without making a fundamental change, by the majority stroke of a single Supreme Court Justice’s pen, to the Constitution.

The coercion is built into the absolute nature of the demands. We are talking about making a cultural revolution here, and nothing short of breaking lots of eggs to make the new progressive omelet is required.​

I think the important point is that the left wrong has strayed far from any sort of mainstream beliefs, into an area of madness and immorality that normal, sane people just are not buying. Their ideology demands policy positions that they cannot achieve through any legitimate democratic process, so they resort to illegitimate, corrupt means to defy the will of the people in order to force these policies into place.

Even here in relentlessly wrong-wing California, the perverts-right movement could not get “gay marriage” established through legitimate means. The matter was put on the ballot twice, and both times, the perverts were soundly defeated. They had to get a corrupt judge, a fellow pervert, to abuse his position, to overturn the clearly-expressed will of the people, in order to get their way.

 

[Pogo]

First of all, the left constantly confuses equality with equal outcomes. If there aren't enough minorities living in a particular neighborhood, they scream inequality and set about moving people around until they see color balance. They've done this with schools, work places and now they are working on neighborhoods. They don't take into account that people tend to choose where they live and they make choices regarding school and work.

If the left sees that not enough people choose a certain thing, they feel the need to step in and make things right. If not enough blacks are making movies or get nominated for awards, it can't be that because blacks are a small percentage of the population and, therefore, represent a small percent of actors (or other professions), they think something is wrong. And when something is wrong, there is both a victim and a villain. To right the perceived wrongs, they must take something from the villain and give it to the victim. Whether it's ensuring that those evil white people don't get the most jobs or share of wealth, the left is there to dictate how things are doled out.

They don't see individuals. It's all about grouping people and judging based on color and class. Nothing more. If they would just see human beings making their own choices, they might be more willing to back off instead of imposing their will on others. As it is, they have an idea of how things should be and are forever trying to manipulate people so they fit into their narrow scope of what the perfect world should look like. They don't care how others feel. It's about the liberals and what they need to do to make themselves feel relevant and good about themselves. For some, it's about having a dictator mindset and simply wanting to control people.

They think they can bring about equal outcomes by treating some more equal than others.



"What is it about how liberals think of equality that makes them so prone to recommend authoritarian policies to achieve it—confiscatory tax policies, campus speech codes and fining pastors and the like?

As I explain in my forthcoming book, "The Closing of the Liberal Mind," it has a lot to do with how they frame the issue. In short, they assume (at least theoretically) that any variation in how human beings fare in society, no matter how small, is more often than not an injustice. People who make less money than others are victims of economic oppression, not just someone who may be willing to work less."



"A Disappearing Act

The second thing you notice is that the individual human being completely disappears. No single person is responsible for anything (unless of course you are a banker or conservative free speech advocate).

He or she is just an object of society, a victim, or at best a rarified "construct" of some class, gender or sexual preference. Morality is defined not by what we do as individual human beings but by our political attitudes and ideology.

Do we advocate same-sex marriage and an expanded welfare state? Check, we are "good" people. Do we question these things? Check, we are bad and must not merely be opposed but shut out of the debate.

There’s no room for dissenters because the new morality dictates that being a good person depends on politics, not personal behavior."



"King hated stereotyping of any kind, and when he said he had a dream "where [black people] will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character," he was making a universal claim that blacks were as individuals no different than white people. Their right to equality was based on their rights as individuals. He was not making any claims about black people’s group identity or demanding that blacks be treated differently, but that they should be given the same exact political (read: civil) rights as whites.

King’s original vision of equality was perfectly in sync with how the Founding Fathers viewed equality. It was, as a matter of fact, taken directly from the Declaration of Independence. Its author, Thomas Jefferson, wanted a constitutional government that treated everyone equally before the law and protected the individual’s rights of everyone equally. That was what they meant by equality. Jefferson and other Founders understood instinctively that any form of government that promised to level all the social and economic conditions of society will result in authoritarian government. It’s inescapable. "




http://dailysignal.com/2016/02/29/the-lefts-embrace-of-authoritarian-policies-to-achieve-equality/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=thffacebook

The writer starts out on rational ground making solid points. Then after two paragraphs he starts morphing "the left" into "liberals".

They're not the same thing. People who think they know enough to write a book and then demonstrate that they don't --- don't.

It's also curious that with all this extensive quote from this author --- the OP never reveals who the author is.

 

[Clementine]

The first things you notice about this approach to equality are the aggressive means to achieve it. Money must be taken from some people and given to others.

You can’t force a boy into a girl’s bathroom with nice words. You need a court order. And you can’t overturn a millennia-old definition of marriage without making a fundamental change, by the majority stroke of a single Supreme Court Justice’s pen, to the Constitution.

The coercion is built into the absolute nature of the demands. We are talking about making a cultural revolution here, and nothing short of breaking lots of eggs to make the new progressive omelet is required.​

I think the important point is that the left wrong has strayed far from any sort of mainstream beliefs, into an area of madness and immorality that normal, sane people just are not buying. Their ideology demands policy positions that they cannot achieve through any legitimate democratic process, so they resort to illegitimate, corrupt means to defy the will of the people in order to force these policies into place.

Even here in relentlessly wrong-wing California, the perverts-right movement could not get “gay marriage” established through legitimate means. The matter was put on the ballot twice, and both times, the perverts were soundly defeated. They had to get a corrupt judge, a fellow pervert, to abuse his position, to overturn the clearly-expressed will of the people, in order to get their way.

There have been quite a few elections overturned by judges. When they think the people get it wrong, they no longer care about what the people think. Obama is one who would prefer just to use his pen and forgo the process altogether since he knows that congress won't go along. It's a way of saying that the people be damned and he'll do as he pleases. And those who criticize the lack of due process are the ones ridiculed.

I am tired of the racist accusations for calling a thug a thug or criticizing affirmative action. I am tired of the discrimination accusations for being concerned that anyone can come through the borders. I am tired of the accusations of greed for feeling that I pay more than enough in taxes already. I am tired of being vilified for simply disagreeing with liberal policies. It's not mean to want Obamacare repealed. It doesn't work and is collapsing on it's own. It's not mean to want people to take more responsibility for themselves instead of putting the burden on others.

There doesn't always need to be minorities nominated for Oscars. In a perfectly fair world, that will happen. There isn't always a villain.

If someone is poor, you can't blame the ones who aren't and punish them. Sometimes people live miserably because of their own stupid choices and it's not fair to take from those who are actually trying.

Artificially elevating people by handing them money for nothing or giving them extra points for race or gender does not make them as good as those who earned it on their own. It does not help people to pull strings for them or create shortcuts for special groups. It just helps the mediocre appear to be as worthy as those who put forth the effort. I wouldn't want a doctor who only got where they are because someone tilted the playing field for them.

By pretending that interfering and changing the rules brings about equality is bullshit. It just means that you can no longer tell what is real. We are all equal under the law. We have equal opportunity. Equal outcomes are a liberal fairy tale. Until people change their ways and climb the ladder like everyone else, they'll never achieve anything. It's a myth that we fail blacks. We throw more money at inner city schools, yet never see results. Who is to blame? It's the breakdown of the family and lack of moral compass that is at the root of virtually every problem in society. It's people being raised by dysfunctional parents, or more like single parent, and not having good values instilled in the home. This is a direct result of the left's effort to have government assume the role of bread winner and daddy. While many minorities are affected simply because the Dem politicians target them with their fucked-up programs, it affects many people of all races and genders. Anyone who buys into the crap that they are entitled to things are cheating themselves out of true equality.

 

[bripat9643]

First of all, the left constantly confuses equality with equal outcomes. If there aren't enough minorities living in a particular neighborhood, they scream inequality and set about moving people around until they see color balance. They've done this with schools, work places and now they are working on neighborhoods. They don't take into account that people tend to choose where they live and they make choices regarding school and work.

If the left sees that not enough people choose a certain thing, they feel the need to step in and make things right. If not enough blacks are making movies or get nominated for awards, it can't be that because blacks are a small percentage of the population and, therefore, represent a small percent of actors (or other professions), they think something is wrong. And when something is wrong, there is both a victim and a villain. To right the perceived wrongs, they must take something from the villain and give it to the victim. Whether it's ensuring that those evil white people don't get the most jobs or share of wealth, the left is there to dictate how things are doled out.

They don't see individuals. It's all about grouping people and judging based on color and class. Nothing more. If they would just see human beings making their own choices, they might be more willing to back off instead of imposing their will on others. As it is, they have an idea of how things should be and are forever trying to manipulate people so they fit into their narrow scope of what the perfect world should look like. They don't care how others feel. It's about the liberals and what they need to do to make themselves feel relevant and good about themselves. For some, it's about having a dictator mindset and simply wanting to control people.

They think they can bring about equal outcomes by treating some more equal than others.



"What is it about how liberals think of equality that makes them so prone to recommend authoritarian policies to achieve it—confiscatory tax policies, campus speech codes and fining pastors and the like?

As I explain in my forthcoming book, "The Closing of the Liberal Mind," it has a lot to do with how they frame the issue. In short, they assume (at least theoretically) that any variation in how human beings fare in society, no matter how small, is more often than not an injustice. People who make less money than others are victims of economic oppression, not just someone who may be willing to work less."



"A Disappearing Act

The second thing you notice is that the individual human being completely disappears. No single person is responsible for anything (unless of course you are a banker or conservative free speech advocate).

He or she is just an object of society, a victim, or at best a rarified "construct" of some class, gender or sexual preference. Morality is defined not by what we do as individual human beings but by our political attitudes and ideology.

Do we advocate same-sex marriage and an expanded welfare state? Check, we are "good" people. Do we question these things? Check, we are bad and must not merely be opposed but shut out of the debate.

There’s no room for dissenters because the new morality dictates that being a good person depends on politics, not personal behavior."



"King hated stereotyping of any kind, and when he said he had a dream "where [black people] will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character," he was making a universal claim that blacks were as individuals no different than white people. Their right to equality was based on their rights as individuals. He was not making any claims about black people’s group identity or demanding that blacks be treated differently, but that they should be given the same exact political (read: civil) rights as whites.

King’s original vision of equality was perfectly in sync with how the Founding Fathers viewed equality. It was, as a matter of fact, taken directly from the Declaration of Independence. Its author, Thomas Jefferson, wanted a constitutional government that treated everyone equally before the law and protected the individual’s rights of everyone equally. That was what they meant by equality. Jefferson and other Founders understood instinctively that any form of government that promised to level all the social and economic conditions of society will result in authoritarian government. It’s inescapable. "




http://dailysignal.com/2016/02/29/the-lefts-embrace-of-authoritarian-policies-to-achieve-equality/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=thffacebook

The writer starts out on rational ground making solid points. Then after two paragraphs he starts morphing "the left" into "liberals".

They're not the same thing. People who think they know enough to write a book and then demonstrate that they don't --- don't.

It's also curious that with all this extensive quote from this author --- the OP never reveals who the author is.

Actually, they are virtually indistinguishable. People who call themselves "liberals" endorse all the same policies that the Communist Party endorses.

 

[Pogo]

First of all, the left constantly confuses equality with equal outcomes. If there aren't enough minorities living in a particular neighborhood, they scream inequality and set about moving people around until they see color balance. They've done this with schools, work places and now they are working on neighborhoods. They don't take into account that people tend to choose where they live and they make choices regarding school and work.

If the left sees that not enough people choose a certain thing, they feel the need to step in and make things right. If not enough blacks are making movies or get nominated for awards, it can't be that because blacks are a small percentage of the population and, therefore, represent a small percent of actors (or other professions), they think something is wrong. And when something is wrong, there is both a victim and a villain. To right the perceived wrongs, they must take something from the villain and give it to the victim. Whether it's ensuring that those evil white people don't get the most jobs or share of wealth, the left is there to dictate how things are doled out.

They don't see individuals. It's all about grouping people and judging based on color and class. Nothing more. If they would just see human beings making their own choices, they might be more willing to back off instead of imposing their will on others. As it is, they have an idea of how things should be and are forever trying to manipulate people so they fit into their narrow scope of what the perfect world should look like. They don't care how others feel. It's about the liberals and what they need to do to make themselves feel relevant and good about themselves. For some, it's about having a dictator mindset and simply wanting to control people.

They think they can bring about equal outcomes by treating some more equal than others.



"What is it about how liberals think of equality that makes them so prone to recommend authoritarian policies to achieve it—confiscatory tax policies, campus speech codes and fining pastors and the like?

As I explain in my forthcoming book, "The Closing of the Liberal Mind," it has a lot to do with how they frame the issue. In short, they assume (at least theoretically) that any variation in how human beings fare in society, no matter how small, is more often than not an injustice. People who make less money than others are victims of economic oppression, not just someone who may be willing to work less."



"A Disappearing Act

The second thing you notice is that the individual human being completely disappears. No single person is responsible for anything (unless of course you are a banker or conservative free speech advocate).

He or she is just an object of society, a victim, or at best a rarified "construct" of some class, gender or sexual preference. Morality is defined not by what we do as individual human beings but by our political attitudes and ideology.

Do we advocate same-sex marriage and an expanded welfare state? Check, we are "good" people. Do we question these things? Check, we are bad and must not merely be opposed but shut out of the debate.

There’s no room for dissenters because the new morality dictates that being a good person depends on politics, not personal behavior."



"King hated stereotyping of any kind, and when he said he had a dream "where [black people] will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character," he was making a universal claim that blacks were as individuals no different than white people. Their right to equality was based on their rights as individuals. He was not making any claims about black people’s group identity or demanding that blacks be treated differently, but that they should be given the same exact political (read: civil) rights as whites.

King’s original vision of equality was perfectly in sync with how the Founding Fathers viewed equality. It was, as a matter of fact, taken directly from the Declaration of Independence. Its author, Thomas Jefferson, wanted a constitutional government that treated everyone equally before the law and protected the individual’s rights of everyone equally. That was what they meant by equality. Jefferson and other Founders understood instinctively that any form of government that promised to level all the social and economic conditions of society will result in authoritarian government. It’s inescapable. "




http://dailysignal.com/2016/02/29/the-lefts-embrace-of-authoritarian-policies-to-achieve-equality/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=thffacebook

The writer starts out on rational ground making solid points. Then after two paragraphs he starts morphing "the left" into "liberals".

They're not the same thing. People who think they know enough to write a book and then demonstrate that they don't --- don't.

It's also curious that with all this extensive quote from this author --- the OP never reveals who the author is.

Actually, they are virtually indistinguishable. People who call themselves "liberals" endorse all the same policies that the Communist Party endorses.

Bullshit.

Political parties, number one, don't exist to represent an ideology. They exist to consolidate power. They'll do that by embracing or ignoring any ideology that furthers the cause.

Liberalism isn't a political party; it's a philosophy. And no, it is not at all a synonym for "leftist", and an author with degrees to his name should know better. I'm not an author with degrees to my name and *I* know better.

And third, what you just put out was a biased sample strawman anyway. It is therefore dismissed.

The author started out on the right track. He should have stayed there. But he didn't -- he immediately wandered off to "liberals".

My go-to example has always been: to declare "all men are created equal" is Liberalism. To then go try to force it into existence by Affirmative Action laws, is leftism. That's where they part ways.

The dynamic he's trying to describe here is leftism --- not Liberalism.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

The writer starts out on rational ground making solid points. Then after two paragraphs he starts morphing "the left" into "liberals".

They're not the same thing. People who think they know enough to write a book and then demonstrate that they don't --- don't.

You're fussing over a semantics issue. Traditional, historical meanings of “liberal” and “left” are rather divorced from the ideology that is today associated with these labels. It doesn't really matter what you call them—liberal, left, progressive… (I prefer “wrong”, as in the true political opposite of what is currently associated with “right”.)—the fact remains that we have one side of our political spectrum that has wandered astray into some very bizarre positions of overt madness, immorality, totalitarianism, and outright evil. Arguing over what to call them doesn't refute the underlying truth of the article cited in the OP.

 

[Moonglow]

The writer starts out on rational ground making solid points. Then after two paragraphs he starts morphing "the left" into "liberals".

They're not the same thing. People who think they know enough to write a book and then demonstrate that they don't --- don't.

You're fussing over a semantics issue. Traditional, historical meanings of “liberal” and “left” are rather divorced from the ideology that is today associated with these labels. It doesn't really matter what you call them—liberal, left, progressive… (I prefer “wrong”, as in the true political opposite of what is currently associated with “right”.)—the fact remains that we have one side of our political spectrum that has wandered astray into some very bizarre positions of overt madness, immorality, totalitarianism, and outright evil. Arguing over what to call them doesn't refute the underlying truth of the article cited in the OP.

Again you try to pigeon hole history and those that lived it...

 

[Pogo]

The writer starts out on rational ground making solid points. Then after two paragraphs he starts morphing "the left" into "liberals".

They're not the same thing. People who think they know enough to write a book and then demonstrate that they don't --- don't.

You're fussing over a semantics issue. Traditional, historical meanings of “liberal” and “left” are rather divorced from the ideology that is today associated with these labels. It doesn't really matter what you call them—liberal, left, progressive… (I prefer “wrong”, as in the true political opposite of what is currently associated with “right”.)—the fact remains that we have one side of our political spectrum that has wandered astray into some very bizarre positions of overt madness, immorality, totalitarianism, and outright evil. Arguing over what to call them doesn't refute the underlying truth of the article cited in the OP.

So in essence, you're using the term wrong, you know you're using the term wrong, and are going to go right on doing it anyway.

Expecting different results I have no doubt.

 

[norwegen]

The writer starts out on rational ground making solid points. Then after two paragraphs he starts morphing "the left" into "liberals".

They're not the same thing. People who think they know enough to write a book and then demonstrate that they don't --- don't.

You're fussing over a semantics issue. Traditional, historical meanings of “liberal” and “left” are rather divorced from the ideology that is today associated with these labels. It doesn't really matter what you call them—liberal, left, progressive… (I prefer “wrong”, as in the true political opposite of what is currently associated with “right”.)—the fact remains that we have one side of our political spectrum that has wandered astray into some very bizarre positions of overt madness, immorality, totalitarianism, and outright evil. Arguing over what to call them doesn't refute the underlying truth of the article cited in the OP.

True enough, but it's not even a matter of semantics. As you imply, leftists and liberals embrace the same mental illness.

 

[Pogo]

The writer starts out on rational ground making solid points. Then after two paragraphs he starts morphing "the left" into "liberals".

They're not the same thing. People who think they know enough to write a book and then demonstrate that they don't --- don't.

You're fussing over a semantics issue. Traditional, historical meanings of “liberal” and “left” are rather divorced from the ideology that is today associated with these labels. It doesn't really matter what you call them—liberal, left, progressive… (I prefer “wrong”, as in the true political opposite of what is currently associated with “right”.)—the fact remains that we have one side of our political spectrum that has wandered astray into some very bizarre positions of overt madness, immorality, totalitarianism, and outright evil. Arguing over what to call them doesn't refute the underlying truth of the article cited in the OP.

True enough, but it's not even a matter of semantics.

Correct, it isn't semantics. It's deliberate ignorance.

It's one level to misuse a term because you don't know any better. That's at least understandable.
But to know the distinction, and then go on ignoring it on the basis that "it is today associated" that way, as if "there's nothing I can do about it", is sheer stupidity.

The book author here could have made a good point. He shot his own case in the foot with this deliberate diffusion of definitions. Which is not to be confused with alarming allocation of alliteration.

 

[norwegen]

The writer starts out on rational ground making solid points. Then after two paragraphs he starts morphing "the left" into "liberals".

They're not the same thing. People who think they know enough to write a book and then demonstrate that they don't --- don't.

You're fussing over a semantics issue. Traditional, historical meanings of “liberal” and “left” are rather divorced from the ideology that is today associated with these labels. It doesn't really matter what you call them—liberal, left, progressive… (I prefer “wrong”, as in the true political opposite of what is currently associated with “right”.)—the fact remains that we have one side of our political spectrum that has wandered astray into some very bizarre positions of overt madness, immorality, totalitarianism, and outright evil. Arguing over what to call them doesn't refute the underlying truth of the article cited in the OP.

True enough, but it's not even a matter of semantics.

Correct, it isn't semantics. It's deliberate ignorance.

You liberal lefties are cute when you talk about yourselves.

 

[Clementine]

Government nannies have managed to convince people that equality means people having the same outcome. One person goes through the struggle of climbing the ladder while another sits at the bottom and whines that it's too hard. Instead of encouraging the slower one to try, they simply pick him up and set him at the top and declare that he's now equal. If those two people were doctors, who would you want operating on you? You know damn well they aren't really equal. It's all an illusion and artificially propping people up actually hurts everyone in the end.

The nannies spend more time preaching about unfairness than personal responsibility. You don't have a good job? Must be because you're black. Couldn't be that it's due to your lack of even a high school diploma and no job history. Must be racism and that means government better go after the nasty people responsible.

I have dealt with many people who know nothing but welfare. Generations of their family are idiots who didn't even finish high school. Watch cops and see people of all races who can't put a sentence together and are always in trouble for the same stupid shit like getting drunk and fighting or stealing. They don't work and usually live in filth. Most have a cigarette and beer in their hands when the cops show up. They never understand what they did wrong. Some lie despite evidence, such as a video, clearly showing them up to no good. The cops always know them because they have been to their houses or trailers so many times before.

The only values passed down are either that real success is only for the lucky (or racists) or that they are entitled to use the system and get as much from government as possible, even though it will never be enough. People look around and see people living in nice homes and they are jealous. We all want nice things. But, since government isn't going to hand them a big house and nice car, they often turn to crime or just wallow in their hatred of the "haves." It's all some know and there are those who truly have no clue how other people manage to do well. There is resentment, which is only reinforced by the rhetoric of nanny and race baiting politicians.

It's no wonder that some think they are justified in stealing when they believe somehow that those who are doing well must have cheated or taken from others. Greedy people not paying their fair share or racists who won't hire your unskilled ass for that high paying job are to blame. Too many will only qualify for the minimum wage starter jobs and middle class jobs are disappearing due to over-regulation and laws, like Obamacare. So, of course, instead of making laws that encourage job growth and encouraging people to strive to qualify for those better jobs, the nannies thinks raising the minimum wage is the answer. Never mind that more jobs will disappear and that $10 or $15 an hour still won't elevate people, the nannies still convince people that an hourly wage is at the root of their problem. Instead of helping people overcome their lack of education and job skills, things get blamed on greedy companies who don't pay enough and it just encourages more anger toward those who live well. In the long run, it makes the problem worse.

Since whites make up a larger part of the population, it's easy to make people believe that white privilege is at play. You have to ignore a lot of poor white trash to come up with that ridiculous notion.

I've seen too many, of all races, who grow up with the mentality that they can't do well unless someone hands things to them on a silver platter. They never see their parents going to work and they simply aren't taught work ethics. They still want a good life and welfare will never fill that void. The good life isn't just about material things and nannies haven't yet figured out how they can dole out self-respect and pride. I never hear nanny politicians telling people to get their shit together. No, we just hear about income inequality and racism and how so many people are wronged.

There is a lot of anger among poor people. I believe that they have bought into the hype for years and honestly don't think their lot in life is their own doing. We see all the looting during these riots. We see neighborhoods going up in flames. It's not about a perceived injustice of an "innocent" criminal being shot. It's rage because they are unhappy about their own lives and radical people, like Al Sharpton, have made careers out of encouraging people to direct that anger at the wrong people. It's government policies that discouraged them from trying to make it in this world and instead encouraged dependency. That should be the focus of that anger, not those who rejected nanny government. Of course, the nannies have much to gain by blaming others because they can keep people dependent on them and stay in power by creating villains that people need to be protected from.

Why else would they keep fanning the flames of envy instead of preaching about the benefits of self-sufficiency? Why go so far to remove the burden of personal responsibility for people's own actions and constantly blame those who have nothing to do with causing people to live in poverty? If the big corporations or mean wealthy people cause poverty, then how did so many of us, of all races, manage to overcome it without help from government? It's because we were raised by parents who taught us that we are responsible for our lives and that it's up to us to do the work if we want to get anywhere in life. There was no one to blame but ourselves if we screwed up. And when we screwed up, it was about making amends and moving forward.

Our leaders and our schools need to get away from playing the blame game and start teaching that self-sufficiently beats the hell out of government dependency. Most people who succeed traveled the same road and it's a long one. If parents aren't going to teach their children that making good decisions early in life are the key to a better life, then schools are the last resort. Shame that overwhelmed teachers in inner cities, who have admitted being afraid of some violent students, just aren't able to undo the damage by poor parenting. Until we figure out how to reach children before they join gangs, do drugs, drop out of school, or otherwise turn to crime, we will not turn things around. We'll always have crime, but we wouldn't see the overwhelming generational poverty, large numbers of poorly skilled people, and lack of respect for society that we do now.

I used to volunteer at my kids' school as a teacher's helper. I was often outraged by the attitude of some parents, of all races. I remind you again that this issue isn't contained to any one race or class of people. I've seen parents come in with acrylic nails, hair extensions, fancy phones and clothes and bitch about being asked for $10.00 for their child's field trip. I remember arguing with one mom who was indignant and felt her child was being cheated out of a field trip and said it was unfair to ask for money. I know she could afford it because she had been outside smoking and I always saw her at Bingo at the officer's club and that wasn't cheap. She had money for some things but felt that since her daughter qualified for free breakfasts and lunches that she should also been given money for a class trip to a museum. It seemed more about her thinking she was entitled than her not having the money. And she felt so entitled that she would rather force her daughter to skip the museum trip than hand over $10.

I've seen parents tell teachers that it's totally their responsibility to deal with behavior problems in the classroom. I've seen parents give teachers a deer-in-the-headlight look when they are told they need to get their children into a routine when it comes to doing homework. Some parents never even bothered to show up at school or seemed to have any involvement. Some kids were always late for school or had many unexplained absences. One mom eventually went to jail after her kids were found alone in a dirty apartment with no food or electricity. I've seen so many parents who just don't take their job seriously and I realize that many of these kids are doomed if they don't have responsible adults in their life. Those with behavioral problems and parents who act like it's no big deal are probably the ones who will end up committing crimes at some point.

When you see how parents are with their young children, you can almost predict it when trouble lies ahead and it's all due to parents who just don't do their job. An uneducated parent who doesn't have a clue what it's like to have a career or even go to a job every day makes for a crappy example. No school or government program can make up for the lack of good parenting.

While there are racists who won't choose the minority applicant, it's not the biggest reason that so many black males are currently unemployed. Students getting a poor education isn't about racism or not enough money thrown at the problem, it's about parents who just suck. If we keep blaming the wrong things for problems, they will never be solved. I don't think nannies want the problem solved because otherwise they wouldn't be needed. Nannies need the needy. The needy ones think they need the nannies and will vote to keep them around.