Clifford Russell, a nice man working in the Mitt Romney campaign office in Bedford, Virginia, has a plan to reduce this awful entitlement culture that we have here in US Amercia. During a visit from freelance writer Christopher D Cook., Mr. Russell expounded on a number of important issues, proclaiming that global warming is “a total fiction,” that the NAACP is “the most racist organization in America,” that “Everyone in Iraq under Hussein was a terrorist,” and of course that the best way to address poverty would be … well, let’s let Clifford Russell speak for himself, with Cook offering him chances to walk back or clarify his views:
I’ll tell you what really need to do with these illegitimate families on welfar — give all the kids up for adoption and execute the parents.”
I stare at him and blink in a glaze of shock.
Just to be sure I heard him right, I ask him to repeat it, twice.
“Yes, I mean it. Get rid of all of them, give the kids up for adoption, execute the parents, and you get rid of the problem.” (When I call him back to revisit the issue, he elaborates: “put the children up for adoption and execute the parents, and word would get out soon” that poor people shouldn’t have kids.)
When Cook points out that most people getting food stamps and other assistance actually do work, Russell explains that is no excuse for being poor, because our economy is structured in such a way that everyone should be an investment banker:
He tells me if they were smarter, like Romney, they would earn more money. “Obama got all his money through his charisma, Romney got his because of his brains,” he says. “Some people are just smarter than others, and not everyone is equal — but everyone has to pull their own weight and stop making excuses for being poor. Get up and do something. Some people just don’t want to work.”
Therefore, the working poor are not willing to work, those dopes. Why this liberal writer cannot see such simple truths is something of a puzzle to Russell, who also complains repeatedly about “inner-city people on welfare and food stamps” and then objects to Cook’s mention of “entrenched systemic impoverishment and disinvestment from black neighborhoods.” Because Russell only said “inner-city,” not “black,” he quite correctly accuses Cook of “trying to make this a racial thing, I never mentioned race.” Anyone who says Fox News is not educational clearly is not paying attention.
We will give Mr. Russell credit for this: He is a man who stands up for truth and accuracy in media! When The Progressive ran Cook’s story with the headline, “Meet a Romney Extremist in Virginia – A staffer in a Romney campaign office wants to execute parents on welfare and give their kids up for adoption,” he wrote back with an angry letter demanding a clarification:
I did not say that I wanted to execute parents on welfare and give their kids up for adoption.
I said that it would be better to execute the parents of an illegitimate child and put their child up for adoption.
He somewhat undercuts his point, maybe a little, by redefining “illegitimate children.” Most of us elitist liberals might think that “illegitimate” would mean something like “born out of wedlock,” but that is because we are snobs who cling to our dictionaries and socialism. Mr. Russell clarifies how a well-defined federal statute would set out clear guidelines for which children are illegitimate, and why they are a burden:
Some might say illegitimate children (children where one of both parents fail to provide for the child) is not even a problem, but an illegitimate child usually represents instant poverty and much misery. Illegitimate children are most of the need for massive health care/welfare programs that are a major burden on Society. The problems in the America school system are mostly related to illegitimate children where one or both parents could care less about education.
Those irresponsible parents should feel especially bad about how their illegitimate children have driven up the costs of the biggest parts of federal spending: Defense, Social Security, and Medicare/Medicaid. All we need are these common-sense guidelines to decide whether someone should be executed: If “one or both parents fail to provide for the child,” then warm up the lethal-injection gurney! (To be fair, Mr. Russell does not specify this method of execution; it may in fact be far too wussy). Also, it is a far better solution than killing babies or wearing little rubber devices to prevent issue:
I believe executing the parents is a better solution than the Democratic solution of abortion and handing out condoms (birth control). Abortion represents the killing of the only innocent person associated with the adultery or fornication that has occurred. Democrats have never explained how they are going to get people to use the birth control they hand out. Why should a man use a desensitizing condom when he know his child can get on welfare. I am still looking for a realistic method from Democrats and Progressive to deal with the problem of illegitimate children.
For all its exciting “let’s kill some people” appeal, which seems to be all the rage with some Republicans this season, we do have a nagging feeling that maybe there are other practical objections to this whole “execute bad parents” idea. For instance, won’t we need gummint bureaucracy to feed the kids and find adoptive parents? And will anyone want to adopt those kids anyway? After all, Pat Robertson has warned people that orphans might grow up all weird and stuff. We may be other-thinking this.
Ever the realist, Mr. Russell closes his letter with a couple of quotes from the Bible, because he is a Christian.
Needless to say, Mr. Russell is merely a low-level worker — perhaps a volunteer? — in a Romney campaign office. We would like to urge Mr. Russell to contact Mitt Romney to share his realistic plan with the candidate, who it must be emphasized has not yet called for the execution of illegitimate parents.