The Other McCain

"One should either write ruthlessly what one believes to be the truth, or else shut up." — Arthur Koestler

‘Her Fiancé, Garry Brown Sr., the Man Who Fathered 10 of Her 15 Children …’

Posted on | July 6, 2012 | 50 Comments

Something about hearing that sentence in the video stuck in my head, besides the fact that the sentence ended with “… was arrested,” but you have to do some research to discover that Brown is currently serving a five-year-sentence for dealing cocaine. The Florida woman’s name is Angel Adams and she says her children are “a gift from God,” although she doesn’t strike me as very angelic, and I’m not too certain that God approves of the lifestyle by which Ms. Adams found herself at age 37 with 15 children by three different fathers:

All this drama transpired in 2010, but the video — with nearly 2 million views — for some reason topped the recommendations by YouTube when I logged in today to upload a video about my own family. So I decided to do some research and, in a Tampa Tribune article, read this quote by a spokeswoman for a Hillsborough County non-profit agency:

“Children always are better with their biological parents.”
— Elaine Olszewski

Perhaps some people would care to debate Ms. Olszewski on the subject of whether there are exceptions to that general rule, and whether the case of Angel Adams is one such exception. 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.

Of course, it’s probably a bit late for such a debate to have any meaningful utility in the case of Ms. Adams and her numerous progeny, but it might be helpful in determining appropriate standards for social agency interventions in the future.

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.

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.

Was it really a coincidence that we were urged to discard pre-marital chastity and marital fidelity at just about the same time that we were told that the old-fashioned “Protestant work ethic” was obsolete, harmful and inappropriate for victimized minorities? I think not.

And about the same time that America’s ideals of sexual probity and economic self-sufficiency came under assault in the 1960s, a generation of youth were urged to “Tune In, Turn On and Drop Out.”

It seems a long way from the hippy-dippy hallucinogenic gospel of Timothy Leary to the arrest of Garry Brown Sr. for dealing cocaine, but one cannot say that this consequence — however unintended — was entirely unpredictable. If Professor Leary at Harvard thought it a fine thing for the offspring of America’s elite to experiment with “expanding their consciousness,” certainly he ought to have recognized that an egalitarian democracy would extend this privilege also to the less fortunate, who lacked adequate resources for coping with the results of drug addiction.

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”?

Is Hillsborough County Circuit Court Judge Tracy Sheehan a liberal or a conservative? Is she a Democrat or a Republican? It doesn’t matter. The point is, Judge Sheehan is absolutely right:

TAMPA — A courtroom full of people who paid off Angel Yulee Adams’ debts and found a rent-free, six-bedroom home for her and a dozen of her children waited Monday morning for a sign of gratitude, a clue of cooperation. They waited for a thank you.
They didn’t get it. Angel Adams, 37, said she was glad to have the home. But she wanted them all out of her life.
“I’ve been railroaded since day one,” she said.
The state says day one was 21 months and 28 hearings ago, when Adams first landed in the courtroom of Hillsborough Circuit Judge Tracy Sheehan. Ever since then, Sheehan said, the state has tried to keep Adams and her children together. . . .
Judge Sheehan gave her a lecture.
Adams would not have sat through 28 hearings if her kids had been fed, got their medicines and were living in a good home, the judge said. “We know you want us out of your life,” she told Adams. “We will be thrilled to close this case when you have all these things.”
Adams sat at a table just below the judge’s bench, looking away from Sheehan.
“A lot of people have gone way extra miles for you,” Sheehan said. “Do you understand that?”
Adams replied quietly, “No comment, your honor.”
“Hear what I’m saying,” the judge told her. “Reach out your hand to these people instead of looking a gift horse in the mouth and asking for more, more, more.”

Did Judge Sheehan expect her lecture to do any good?

If so, she’s probably a liberal. Any conservative must be dubious of the likelihood that Angel Adams will be any more responsible in the future than she has been in the past. It’s not “racist” to be realistic about human nature, to expect that people who have lived their entire lives engaged in a pattern of helpless, irresponsible dependency will continue being helpless, irresponsible and dependent. But liberalism requires us to abandon common-sense judgment and pretend that human nature is an unknown quantity, an utterly unpredictable factor in the equation, so that we might somehow expect Angel Adams suddenly to change her ways and become a responsible, upstanding, productive citizen.

To expect gratitude from Angel Adams, the living embodiment of the entitlement mentality, is not just liberalism, it’s lunacy. Not that there’s much difference between the two, but sometimes we encounter a liberal who tries briefly to stand up against the lunatic tendencies of his philosophical peers.

Nearly a half-century ago, Daniel Patrick Moynihan tried to explain to his fellow liberals that the socio-economic problems afflicting black America could not be solved by increasing handouts or other standard bureaucratic interventions of welfare agencies. In his 1965 report, The Negro Family: The Case for National Action, Moynihan sought to explain these problems in far greater depth than was acceptable to liberals who had become accustomed to addressing all such issues through the prism of “civil rights.”

Moynihan’s report made him a target of the Left, which memorably accused him of “blaming the victim,” as if assigning blame for a problem were more important than identifying the problem. The Left wanted to blame Evil Racist Capitalist Amerikkka for everything that was wrong with the black community, and Moynihan’s attempt to provide a more helpful explanation — to address a significant and relatively recent increase in what he accurately called a “tangle of pathology” in black urban culture — was condemned and suppressed.

This, as Kay Hymowitz explained in 2005, was the beginning of 40 years of lies, and keeping these lies alive is still the goal of the Left. The fact that the Left’s lies do nothing to help the children of Angel Adams is one of those facts we’re not supposed to notice.

UPDATE: Thanks to the clever reader who located this recent update on the perpetually victimized Angel Adams:

McElroy said a pair of officers attempted to question one of Angel’s sons about a rock throwing incident, when several family members, including Angel, her 21-year-old daughter, also named Angel, and two 13-year-olds attacked the officers.

It turned into such a “fracas” (to quote the news article) that police called for backup, and one of the backup officers used a taser on Ms. Adams, who was eight months pregnant with her 16th child.

She claimed to be the victim of “police brutality,” because she’s always got to be the victim of something other than her own stupidity, I guess.

UPDATE II (Smitty): Welcome, Instapundit readers!

 

Category: Liberals, Racism

Comments

50 Responses to “‘Her Fiancé, Garry Brown Sr., the Man Who Fathered 10 of Her 15 Children …’”

  1. Adobe_Walls
    July 6th, 2012 @ 1:15 pm

    I’ve no doubt she’ll be back in court again and again.

  2. rosalie
    July 6th, 2012 @ 1:22 pm

    Children are NOT always better off with their biological parents, but no matter how bad the parents are, the children usually want to be with them.  I’m sure that the help this woman is receiving is being done more for the children than her.  She certainly doesn’t deserve it.  Moynihan had commonsense, and that’s really all it took to see what was going to happen.  

  3. just a conservative girl
    July 6th, 2012 @ 1:37 pm

    Has this women ever heard of a condom?  

  4. Mmassey1111
    July 6th, 2012 @ 2:01 pm

    A quick google search reveals as of May 8 2012, (I’ll let you guess)

    http://www.ksdk.com/news/world/article/319245/28/Officer-uses-stun-gun-on-8-month-pregnant-mother-of-15

    Short version. Kids are wild. Sherrif shows up. Mom and kids try to beat up Sherrif. Mom stunned with taser. And oh yes, she is pregnant again.

  5. Robert Evans
    July 6th, 2012 @ 2:04 pm

    She probably named the most recent little milksucker “Trayvon.”

  6. richard mcenroe
    July 6th, 2012 @ 2:59 pm

    The Democrats are ecstatic.  They FINALLY got themselves a slave population THEY don’t have to pay for or control…

  7. mojo
    July 6th, 2012 @ 3:38 pm

    In the immortal words of the great Groucho:

    “Well, I love my cigar, but I take it out of my mouth every now and then.”

  8. Adjoran
    July 6th, 2012 @ 4:08 pm

    Yessiree, if it were a Mormon or Catholic family with husband, wife, and 15 kids, the left would be mocking them mercilessly, but they will undoubtedly use this post against you as “raaaaaaaaaaaacist!!!!1!”

    I say, ship all the parasites to one of the remaining Socialist Paradises like Cuba or Zimbabwe – China is getting too capitalistic – so they can be truly happy.

  9. smitty
    July 6th, 2012 @ 4:15 pm

    Yeah, but the association fee was too high. Wait, what?

  10. daisy
    July 6th, 2012 @ 4:23 pm

    Take the kids from this foul woman.  Put the youngest up for adoption immediately.  The older ones go to an all inclusive boarding school like  the Piney Woods Academy. Tell the mom to get a job or face jail.

  11. Red
    July 6th, 2012 @ 5:24 pm

    They do pay for them–with our taxes. We’re the “40 acres and a mule” they were promised. I definitely like the mule.

  12. Red
    July 6th, 2012 @ 5:27 pm

    So what exactly was wrong with the whole “get your tubes tied if you want to keep receiving welfare” proposal again?

  13. Bob Belvedere
    July 6th, 2012 @ 6:29 pm

    Especially when her children, as is to be expected considering their upbringing, will be arrested for crimes such as drug-dealing, violent behavior, and prostitution.

    They never, it seems, will ever get a break.

  14. Bob Belvedere
    July 6th, 2012 @ 6:30 pm

    The more children she has, the more taxpayer money she thinks she will get, is part of it.

  15. David Lentz
    July 6th, 2012 @ 6:54 pm

     I know it the style book thinkg, but I tired of seeing the term fiance used to describe people who have utterly no intention of marriage.   If Mr. Brown was not willing to marry Ms Adams after their first ten kids together, he never will.

    As to Ms Adams, I quess the best we can do is to use her the poster child for LBJ’s Great Society.

  16. alsharpton
    July 6th, 2012 @ 7:39 pm

     “..Ms. Adams, who was eight months pregnant with her 16th child.”

    If there ever was a case to be made for forced sterilization…..

  17. M. Thompson
    July 6th, 2012 @ 7:54 pm

    One of those useless types who will not understand that actions have consequences.

    Actually, it’s this woman and her various men.

  18. Taxpayer1234
    July 6th, 2012 @ 8:48 pm

    If there were no system to game, she’d have one kid and a job.

  19. jwallin
    July 6th, 2012 @ 9:58 pm

    Fiance’.

     HAHHAHAHAHAHAHA

    That’s funny.

  20. Mr. Bingley
    July 6th, 2012 @ 10:02 pm

    Instead of trying to “keep her and her children together” both she and her children would be better off if she could keep her knees together.

  21. rbeccah
    July 6th, 2012 @ 10:08 pm

    Or “Barack”.

  22. Adjoran
    July 6th, 2012 @ 10:11 pm

     Got me.  I never figured out what was wrong with “Pay your own damn bills for your damn children.”

    This lady doesn’t look elderly OR disabled.  She’s healthy enough to spit out the babies, she’s healthy enough to support them.

  23. rbeccah
    July 6th, 2012 @ 10:14 pm

    It’s not “racist” to be realistic about human nature, to expect that people who have lived their entire lives engaged in a pattern of helpless, irresponsible dependency will continue being helpless, irresponsible and dependent.

    I agree with this statement in all but one particular.  Angel Adams is anything but “helpless”.  She is a cunning, amoral user and abuser of the welfare system.  She knows no one will ever question her “right” to have as many kids as she wants, by as many men as she wants, and to throw them onto the mercy of the taxpayers, as she herself will never be held responsible for them.  Responsibility is too much work, and in her warped mind, probably equates to “acting white”.  

    Unfortunately, this isn’t only a black inner-city problem anymore.  Plenty of young white women are falling prey to the same entitlement disease, thanks to the glorification of pathological ghetto culture.

  24. McGehee
    July 6th, 2012 @ 10:34 pm

    No, that was four kids ago. Maybe five.

  25. Martin Johnson
    July 6th, 2012 @ 10:35 pm

    Somehow, if her adult children are picked up and charged with crimes I suspect she WON’T be there in court or bailing them out or anything else—it would inconvenience her too much.

  26. Friday Night Reads
    July 6th, 2012 @ 10:38 pm

    […] mummies" in order to flummox future antiquarians. Well played, sirs! Still, their behavior was not nearly as bizarre as that of Angel Adams, as profiled by Stacy, which requires generations of painstakingly pathological inculcation to […]

  27. danheskett
    July 6th, 2012 @ 10:40 pm

    Forget the mother.  Anything given to the mother has just one purpose – protection of the children.

    As a liberal, that’s the whole point.  I generally try to avoid punishing the children – “progeny” – for the sins & crimes of the parent(s).

    As long as we can afford to maintain foreign military bases, wage aggressive wars, engage in endless bailouts, inflationary monetary policies, and fund frivolous things like political party conventions, I am perfectly happy to contribute my fair share of taxes to support these children.

    The reason is that the short term alternative (as several posters wrote, ‘pay for your own damn children’, knowing that it is an impossibility that the 37 year old single mother would ever be able to support a dozen or more minor children) is that the poor minors will live a 3rd world existence, on the streets, begging, eating garbage being abused, and entirely hopeless.  I’ve seen it, it’s not pretty, it’s certainly worse than the likelihood that most of Ms. Adams 15 children will end up in the same situation after making the same or worse choices as their mother.

  28. rbeccah
    July 6th, 2012 @ 11:04 pm

    Also, another thought has presented itself:  under Obamacare, we will all be responsible for this woman’s endless maternity costs (and all the women like her).

  29. SDN
    July 6th, 2012 @ 11:59 pm

     And that would be different from now exactly how? Other than the extra bureaucrats and taxes?

    I guarandamntee you that she hasn’t paid a dime of maternity costs yet. Medicaid, WIC, AFDC, or just plain showing up at the ER in labor and not paying.

  30. SDN
    July 7th, 2012 @ 12:00 am

     dan is a prime example of those who want to feel better by enslaving others. Tell you what dan, why don’t we drop the taxes and you can contribute 100% of your income to a charity for enabling sluts?

  31. JeffS
    July 7th, 2012 @ 12:01 am

     It’s not a matter of “punishing the children” — they are being raised as semi-ferals, unwilling or unable to acknowledge that they rule their own lives, not this systematic victimization that Angel Adams manipulates for her own benefit and comfort.  Children are a gift and blessing, not a source of income, and hence an excuse for Mama to get impregnated by random males. 

    As a liberal, you might remember that your ideology demands cheap birth control and unquestioned abortions for women.  Yet, somehow, our complaining about Angel pooping out babies is off the mark?  

    Well, here’s proof positive of that old thought:  if it weren’t for double standards, liberals would have no standards at all.

    Which is why your whining over a number of posters here saying “Pay for your damn children” falls flat — people want to raise their own families, not hers.  If you want to write Angel a check, please do so, with my blessings.  Do not expect me to do so.  She can pay for her own damn children.  I’d rather my taxes go somewhere else.

    “As long as we can afford to maintain foreign military bases, wage
    aggressive wars, engage in endless bailouts, inflationary monetary
    policies, and fund frivolous things like political party conventions, I
    am perfectly happy to contribute my fair share of taxes to support these
    children.    ”

    Do you actually write this stuff, or did you hit some search engine for this tripe?  Migawd, save for the last sentence, I’ve seen pretty much the same carpings from both sides of the aisles.  Hell, I’ve complained those items before, although for different reasons*. 

    Even more to the point, the party of the left, i.e., the Democrats, have violated every one of those points.  Repeatedly since 1960, and most recently since 2008, with the rise of the Obama Administration.

    If you’re going to chastise us, could you at least use standard leftie talking points?    Or try to differentiate between lefties and wingnuts in your scoldings?

    Thanks.

    ========
    *: Save the “wage aggressive wars” schtick; I prefer wars to be quick, decisive, with the enemy dead dead dead, and our people alive.   That hasn’t happened since WWII (and debatable even for that) — too many stupid R-O-E imposed by idiot politicians. 

  32. Raider74
    July 7th, 2012 @ 12:36 am

    This is a typical Democrat Plantation slut used to some one else paying for all there need ,, Laid down HO  Osama will take care of you Heh

  33. Mac
    July 7th, 2012 @ 3:49 am

    Is there anyone besides me who sees that providing further help to such an individual is absolutely insane? The state should tell this woman she, and her offspring, are on their own as of right now. NO MORE ASSISTANCE OF ANY SORT.

  34. Carin Seyler O'Brien
    July 7th, 2012 @ 8:03 am

    Yes, yes, and yes. 

  35. Carin Seyler O'Brien
    July 7th, 2012 @ 8:06 am

    I’ve been working on my Detroit house (which I cannot sell, because it’s worth less than a car) to rent. The folks next door are new – didn’t live there when I did.   Anyway – every time I’m there working, they are … there.  Their kids are … there.   Doing what? NOTHING. They don’t work. They don’t engage their kids.   They don’t clean up their yard.   They do nothing. Occasionally I hear them yell at the kids, or the dog, but that’s about it. 

  36. Carin Seyler O'Brien
    July 7th, 2012 @ 8:07 am

     Sandra Fluke and friends have the answer for that. They only make fun of women having a clown car for a uterus when they’re Christian conservatives.   No, this women has reproductive RIGHTS. Plus, she probably only has so many children because some evil republican limited her access to birth control, don’t you know?

  37. Carin Seyler O'Brien
    July 7th, 2012 @ 8:09 am

     Ha – that’s what my neighbor (see below) calls the woman who lives with him. 

  38. Red
    July 7th, 2012 @ 8:39 am

    Ah. It all makes perfect reasonable sense now. It must be so difficult keeping those legs together I suppose as at this point I’m sure her ligaments have just given out. Poor poor woman. Good thing I have a job so I can help out.

  39. cubanbob
    July 7th, 2012 @ 9:44 am

    The best thing to do is abolish welfare as it exist. Period. Full stop.
    For democrats, an employed person who supports themselves but declines to buy health insurance is a freeloader but this trash living off the taxpayers isn’t a freeloader. Limit welfare to the 20% who actually need and deserve it and cut lose the other 80% and the budget deficit nearly halves. Get rid of farm subsidies and corporate welfare and another quarter of the deficit is gone. The remainder can be trimmed back even further. Couple that with pro-growth policies and the budget is nearly balanced in five years and possibly be running a small surplus. If the republicans win in November and manage to find the stones to do this within 15 years after implementing this the national debt is pretty much eliminated.

  40. cubanbob
    July 7th, 2012 @ 9:51 am

    As a taxpayer thats not my problem. To the extent I pay taxes to support this trash not only am I and indentured servant but that money that could have gone to my kids isn’t going to them.  Emphasise on my money. I don’t owe her and her litter a living. In the meantime as a condition of getting my money she should be compelled to clean my house, wash my clothers and maintain my lawn. Assume you are right about her brood being on the streets, that alone is reason enough to put them in an orphanage since for all practical purposes they already have no parents and are feral children.  You can be a sport and support her and her brood if you wish with your money, so open your wallet if you wish but get your hands out of mine.

  41. Ho4obama2012
    July 7th, 2012 @ 9:52 am

    I wonder how much she gets in welfare every month.

    Someone do that research.

  42. Wombat_socho
    July 7th, 2012 @ 10:06 am

     Aren’t you someone?

  43. Hamilcarb
    July 7th, 2012 @ 10:53 am

    The 800 pound gorilla here is the woman’s intelligence. What’s her IQ? Calling her “stupid” doesn’t help. Wouldn’t you guess she has a mental incapacity? I don’t have an answer for these situations, but surely one starts with services that include mental health pros who acknowledge this dimension of the problem. I’m not claiming there aren’t cultural and political facets also; I’m not taking issue with anyone here. I’m just saying there’s something else too: something ignored because it’s politically incorrect.

  44. JeffS
    July 7th, 2012 @ 11:07 am

    Why is her IQ or mental status a concern?   How about social engineering?  As in, teaching (some) minorities that they are victims, and are entitled to “free” stuff?  Conditioning can turn an intelligent person into a mindless automaton.  Or an unintelligent person into a mindless automaton.  Or an impressionable child into a manipulative adult, squeezing the system for all it’s worth.

    See, what you’re ignoring is the fact that the system enables her behavior.  It rewards her for having an endless stream of children, whether she loves them or not.  That’s one heckuva role model there.  And one that the system — and certain elements of this country — encourages.

    I concede that she could have mental issues, but I believe that within the context of this system, that’s a feature, not a bug, and possibly encouraged, rather than treated.  Which is why said issues would be “politically incorrect”.

  45. Wombat_socho
    July 7th, 2012 @ 11:39 am

     I don’t think any of the commenters here would disagree with you, Mac.

  46. Hamilcarb
    July 7th, 2012 @ 1:31 pm

    It’s a concern if it’s a concern.  Your critique is correct, but if it isn’t complete, then we’re behind the eight ball in finding a solution. For example, the opinion-organs behind the social engineering and anti-social propagandizing you speak of aren’t going away any time soon, even if conservatives gain the political upper hand. A person of limited intelligence will always be prey to progressives. You can claim that highlighting this merely handicaps us in the propaganda war – which we need to win in order to make progress on the items you mention. So noted. But I feel it is an unspoken truth. If I can’t say it here, then where?  And that’s all I’m doing: saying it. Here.

  47. JeffS
    July 7th, 2012 @ 1:59 pm

    “You can claim that highlighting this merely handicaps us in the
    propaganda war – which we need to win in order to make progress on the
    items you mention.    ”

    I claim nothing.  I am simply pointing out that trying to compete for the attention of people like Angel is meaningless unless we use the same strategy as the left — buying their obedience through a welfare state. 

    I think we agree, the social engineers are the genuine problem.  I’d just use the people of limited intelligence (or at least conditioned to believe they have limited intelligence) as an indicator of where the social engineers are working.  

  48. rosalie
    July 7th, 2012 @ 4:15 pm

    They usually don’t get married because they get more entitlements when they’re unmarried.  They know exactly how to play the system that our idiot politicians have come up with.

  49. DYSPEPSIA GENERATION » Blog Archive » ‘Her Fiancé, Garry Brown Sr., the Man Who Fathered 10 of Her 15 Children …’
    July 8th, 2012 @ 6:37 am

    […] 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. […]

  50. Web3cats
    July 8th, 2012 @ 2:02 pm

    Unfortunately, when one plans their future as a high school drop out in lieu of welfare motherhood, this is what said mother and her tribe have to look forward to – taxpayers footing her standard of living off of other folks. It is easier in her world to have babies and collect welfare than it would be to, say, get a college education and good-paying job and marrying a worthy man of higher morals than the cocaine dealer she made children with, who is not incarcerated and 1)unemployed and 2)leaving his children/responsibility unprotected and at the mercy of an over-stressed, uneducated woman who has no goals or aims toward her children’s futures. I hope those kids meet up with some righteous educators who will teach them that they do not have to define themselves based on their poorly constructed upbringing. Now, I’m thinking the mother does love her offspring but she really brings nothing to the table, so to speak, in the way of moral fiber and educated guidance. That will severely retard any chances her children have of not following in the same footsteps of a procreating baby maker as their mother. Black women seem to have figured out a way to live off of welfare in a way that guarantees they won’t have to do a single day of paid employment and that is not only unfair, but truly to their own detriment.