Did PC allow abusive lesbian couple to adopt (and kill) six black children?

The horrific cliff plunge of eight people off an isolated northern California highway, and now the revelation that it was likely intentional, ought to raise questions about political correctness, given the abusive backdrop.

What we had here was a lesbian couple virtue-signaling with six adopted black children, who used them publicly for political purposes and then abused them back home, before eventually driving them all off a cliff in a Thelma and Louise-style dramatic climax.  The question it raises is why a couple like this was permitted to adopt six innocent black children, why they were able to use and showcase them for political purposes, and why authorities failed to act quickly to shut the whole thing down when the first evidence of child abuse surfaced.  The result is a terrible apparent murder-suicide that's now on their hands, quite possibly as a result of political correctness – a willingness to ignore red flags because the white flags of P.C. were already flown.

The warning signs were ample: an unconventional family, wanting to prove that unconventional family setups are just as good as, or, in fact, actually better than, traditional family setups.  Some are (and I know of unconventional parents who raise their children right, so let's not knock all of them, but to be fair, the obstacles are higher), and many are not.  It's not good to start a family to prove a political point, which looks as though it might have been a reason the Harts, who drove their kids off a cliff, did.

Then there was evidence of a sentimental desire to "save" black people that some whites, usually on the left, have.  Again, to be fair, there are many good white couples who adopt children who are black and who raise these children with good results.  But in general, they adopt the kids not precisely because they are black (knowing that there could be cultural obstacles), but because these children are available and having a parent of any color is better than a child not having a parent.  The Harts adopted six, as if in all their efforts to adopt kids, only black kids were available.  This would seem to go against the random laws of averages, for one.  But what a coincidence: all the kids they adopted were black, which raises more red flags about a white savior complex.

Then there was the use of the children for political purposes, as one of the children, Devonte, was used by the couple in a protest against police.  Did they adopt the kids to politically showcase them?  The fact that they homeschooled them suggests that they sought to isolate them.  Again, nothing wrong with homeschooling, but combined with some of the other factors, it ought to have been a red flag.  Is it too much to ask if that went on now with the Hart couple who drove their kids off the cliff?

Lastly, there was the evidence of abuse.  Sarah Hart beat up one of her kids in 2011, leaving the child with bruises, and somehow got off, with all that virtue-signaling and a claim that she let her anger get the better of her.  Then there was another child's plea for protection at the door of a neighbor at 1:30 a.m. and, finally, young Devonte's plea for food to his neighbors as he was being repeatedly punished by the withholding of all that supposedly organic food they were serving, which apparently triggered the flight to the highway and the cliff.

Authorities should have fast-tracked the case, given all the warning signs.  But it's hard not to suspect that political correctness and all the virtue-signaling that went on with the couple created a smokescreen that fooled politically correct authorities.

Now the kids are dead, and somebody has gotten away with it.

The horrific cliff plunge of eight people off an isolated northern California highway, and now the revelation that it was likely intentional, ought to raise questions about political correctness, given the abusive backdrop.

What we had here was a lesbian couple virtue-signaling with six adopted black children, who used them publicly for political purposes and then abused them back home, before eventually driving them all off a cliff in a Thelma and Louise-style dramatic climax.  The question it raises is why a couple like this was permitted to adopt six innocent black children, why they were able to use and showcase them for political purposes, and why authorities failed to act quickly to shut the whole thing down when the first evidence of child abuse surfaced.  The result is a terrible apparent murder-suicide that's now on their hands, quite possibly as a result of political correctness – a willingness to ignore red flags because the white flags of P.C. were already flown.

The warning signs were ample: an unconventional family, wanting to prove that unconventional family setups are just as good as, or, in fact, actually better than, traditional family setups.  Some are (and I know of unconventional parents who raise their children right, so let's not knock all of them, but to be fair, the obstacles are higher), and many are not.  It's not good to start a family to prove a political point, which looks as though it might have been a reason the Harts, who drove their kids off a cliff, did.

Then there was evidence of a sentimental desire to "save" black people that some whites, usually on the left, have.  Again, to be fair, there are many good white couples who adopt children who are black and who raise these children with good results.  But in general, they adopt the kids not precisely because they are black (knowing that there could be cultural obstacles), but because these children are available and having a parent of any color is better than a child not having a parent.  The Harts adopted six, as if in all their efforts to adopt kids, only black kids were available.  This would seem to go against the random laws of averages, for one.  But what a coincidence: all the kids they adopted were black, which raises more red flags about a white savior complex.

Then there was the use of the children for political purposes, as one of the children, Devonte, was used by the couple in a protest against police.  Did they adopt the kids to politically showcase them?  The fact that they homeschooled them suggests that they sought to isolate them.  Again, nothing wrong with homeschooling, but combined with some of the other factors, it ought to have been a red flag.  Is it too much to ask if that went on now with the Hart couple who drove their kids off the cliff?

Lastly, there was the evidence of abuse.  Sarah Hart beat up one of her kids in 2011, leaving the child with bruises, and somehow got off, with all that virtue-signaling and a claim that she let her anger get the better of her.  Then there was another child's plea for protection at the door of a neighbor at 1:30 a.m. and, finally, young Devonte's plea for food to his neighbors as he was being repeatedly punished by the withholding of all that supposedly organic food they were serving, which apparently triggered the flight to the highway and the cliff.

Authorities should have fast-tracked the case, given all the warning signs.  But it's hard not to suspect that political correctness and all the virtue-signaling that went on with the couple created a smokescreen that fooled politically correct authorities.

Now the kids are dead, and somebody has gotten away with it.