Adoption Myths Prevail

When I was pregnant with Micah, the wonderful doctor who did my amnio, Drew Carlson, mentioned during the amnio that she had found, earlier that week, a baby with the genitalia of one sex and the chromosomes of another. She was a fabulous doctor (she died before Jadon was born, from breast cancer, at only 47) and she dealt with a lot of high-risk pregnancies (fortunately, mine was not high-risk). Therefore, you'd think she would have seen it all. Nonetheless, she seemed quite concerned and almost sad about what she'd found with that baby. She wasn't the kind of person to be shaken by things, but she did seem a bit shaken by her finding.

This morning, I came across this story about a woman who has the chromosomes of a man, with a condition known as Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome (AIS). This syndrome can come from the mother or occur spontaneously. Although it is rare, it does indeed occur and although it must be very difficult for the doctors to deal with, I imagine that it's especially difficult for the parents. Eden, the woman in the ABC News story, was told that she had "twisted ovaries," although the reality is that she had testes inside her body. Of course, this rendered her infertile. How very sad it is that she was lied to and even sadder is the fact that she cannot have her own children. I find it interesting, however, that the adoption industry has once again jumped to the rescue and Eden, unfortunately, has taken someone else's child and is pretending that it's her own. A "new generation of girls with AIS" seem to take pains not to lie about their condition, but their moms seem to be lying to themselves and the children about the devastation of infertility. Instead of helping her child to come to terms with the fact that she cannot have her own child, Jen Cole tells her daughter a lie:

"I just told her that she was special," Cole said, "and had to adopt other people's babies that don't have mommies and daddies."

It's so very basic to say that EVERY child has a mommy and daddy. EVERY child. Even Eden's adoptee has a mom and dad, despite the fact that it is truly sad and tragic that Eden cannot have her own child. I'll say this basic truth once again: Every child has a mom and dad. That's how we get here. And yet, in her zest to make herself and her daughter feel better, Cole has taken this basic fact--that every child has a mother and father--and made it seem as though some of us end up in the cabbage patch, popped up spontaneously amongst the vegetables. We don't. We ALL have a mommy and daddy, although some of us do not grow up with our natural parents. It bothers me that adoption is seen as the cure for infertility once again, in this case for a whole "new generation" of young women with AIS. Perfectly fertile women in their 20s yearn to adopt these days. That's how successful the $1.6 billion adoption industry has been with their propaganda.

The Uselessness of Our Elected Representatives

Well, being that the REAL ID had so much success in the state legislatures--please note my italicized sarcasm here--we plebeians now have to worry about the PASS Act. Of course, as it was completely explained to me (along with an accusation that my "husband had just called," which was untrue) by the girl answering the phone in Sen. Daniel Akatta's office. Akatta is on the committee that's trying to pass (get it? there's a pun here, of great proportion) this bill. The girl assured me that if I would only read the entire bill, I would find that the Pass Act is actually dampening some of the effects of the Real ID act. I don't believe her, but boy, was she ever angry at me for not understanding things the way that she did. And no, my husband had not just called. For the record, I'd received an e-mail about this bill and decided to call the committee members and protest it. But at my second phone call, I decided I had better things to do with my day than have someone answering the phone at a senator's office give me the what for. Some say that senators are not supposed to be directly elected by the people and surely, that's the way it was, before the elite deemed the people more powerful than the Founding Fathers intended, around the beginning of the 20th century. Whatever the case, this senator's office was not very nice about things and led me to believe that the good senator was very much for privacy, which is why he's voting for the Pass Act. Why do I even bother?!?

Read Jim Bovard's account of this federal infringement of our rights. Then, think about how you are going to around this invasion of privacy, in which the government can track you wherever you are.

Dying with Lies

Most adoptees live in a world of lies from shortly after birth. Some of us learn to love those lies, or rather, we learn to attach ourselves to those lies so intimately that we forget that they are lies. There is more, I'm convinced, to the adoption industry than meets the proverbial eye. After reading about the elite's plans and experiencing mainstream media's dissing, both of those of us who scream about adoption and of those of us, deemed "terrorists" who supported Ron Paul as the Republican candidate. In the past ten years, I have lost so much faith and trust in the things that mainstream media tell me to trust that I trust almost nothing. If the L.A Times tells me that something is good, I automatically look for the bad side, knowing that the Times, like most mainstream publications, has a globalist agenda. Many people mistake a lot of mainstream newspapers, including the Times, as having a liberal bias. The reality is that such publications have a statist bias that is extremely strong. Thus, the so-called liberals and the so-called conservatives seem very much to be at each other's throats. In reality, they are moving us all in the same government-controlled direction.

I ponder this kind of thing when I think about adoption. Recently, I received a comment on "Et tu, Maryellen Hooper?" a post about a comic that I'd worked with. If you'd asked me to, I could have hardly written a more mainstream-media-brainwashed comment for that post than this one:

WOW! I am the first comment and I pray that means no one else stumbled upon your ridiculous, ignorant blog about Maryellen. She "took the baby" from their mothers? Wait a second, isn't the premise of an open adoption that the [natural] mother has spent countless sleepless nights agonizing over her decision to give her baby up. [sic] You make it sound like Maryellen and her husband snuck into the hospital and kidnapped a child while it nursed from its mother. They were chosen by the [natural] mother as that child's best chance at a life that she decided she could not offer. There are countless women who cannot conceive and yes, have tried every alternative out there..and the move to adoption is one that is thought out and carefully screened by all involved. You are obviously ignorant to the entire thing and admit to only having met Maryellen for a few seconds...yet, go on this venomous diatribe about her, when you clearly no [sic] nothing. I can only assume, that you feel your [adopters] "stole you" from your [natural] mother. Does your [natural] mother agree, and where would you be without your [adopters] who stepped up? hmmmmm......

For future reference, I don't publish comments that use negative language about moms. It's not that I didn't want you to see this woman's ignorance; it's that I will only use language that is respectful of natural families on this blog. Therefore, I will not use the ugly b-word to describe my or anyone else's mom, whether or not that mom raised her child. The ridiculous "birth mother" word, which I just used for those of you who may not know what I'm talking about when I say the "ugly b-word," is a slap in the face to mothers, whether or not we've lost a child to adoption. It is demeaning indeed and yet, the La Leche League disowned me as their spokesperson because I support natural families staying together. Yes, what an irony.

Anyway, I can tell you that that the woman who wrote the snappy reply that I posted previously is more than likely an adoptress. She's probably from a small town and she's adopted at least one child and sees absolutely nothing wrong with adoption. I'm sure that she has good intentions, but as with the 92% of people who believe that adoption is just dandy, this woman sees only the lies that the adoption industry has bombarded her with, since before she was born. I'm not sure how she came across my blog but it was probably the first time that anyone had poked a hole in the balloon of lies that she's built for herself, an adoptee, no less, saying stuff that she's never heard before. I can tell that this woman is having a visceral reaction because, for one thing, she didn't read my post that closely. I said that I worked one whole week (one comedy week, that is, i.e., Wednesday-Saturday) with Hooper, not merely a "few seconds." This woman also believes that just because adopters are removed from the process, i.e., the social worker is often the one who does the taking of the child and hands it to the adopters, that adopters have no blood on their hands from taking someone else's child. It's probably really difficult for this woman to know that the demand for children is so strong that there are 40 couples waiting for each adoptable infant. Better that this woman believe she is saving a child, that the child would have died or had tragic consequences if the child had stayed with his or her real mother (as she somehow surmised from my own family, although she has never met my mom or my adopters), and that the mother thought it wonderful, albeit somewhat sad, to give her child to strangers. Ah, this woman thinks exactly what the adoption industry wants her to think. The $1.6 billion adoption industry is very proud of her and, in fact, depends on such people to continue its existence.

Now, back to the big picture: No doubt the elite find it extremely valuable to break up families through adoption. In fact, the elite absolutely love it when such obituaries as this one come up. I happen to know the woman who died and I know very well that she is adopted and that she was not born in Wilkes County. I also know that she was not born to her adopters, Elizabeth and Dean Holbrook. I also know that when Nancy was still a little girl, her adoptress died of a heart condition that she'd had for a very long time. In fact, the heart condition may have been why she could not have her own children. I used to play with Nancy when she and I were little girls. People thought that we may be sisters because we both had very dark hair and blue eyes. Fortunately, as I would find out years later, my mother lost only one child to adoption, moi! Therefore, Nancy was indeed not my sister. But she is also not the daughter of Dean and Elizabeth Holbrook and she certainly wasn't born to them. From the obituary, it seems as though Nancy went to her grave believe the lies that she'd been told since her own both. In that respect, she and the writer of the previously quoted comment have a lot in common. If Nancy had read my blog, she would have probably been just as pissed off as the writer above seems to be. It's easy to see how people get angry when there are lies that threaten what they've built their lives around. Unfortunately, Nancy, like so many adoptees, lived the lies so much that she wholeheartedly believed them. Even her obituary is a lie. If Nancy's real mother lives today, she is still wondering what happened to her daughter and she has no idea that her daughter is dead and that she has three grandchildren and some great-grandchildren as well. Nancy's real mom has probably suffered physically and emotionally since the day Nancy left her arms to go into the arms of strangers.

So, what do the elite gain by having adoptees such as Nancy and adopters such as the one who wrote the above comment? With $1.6 billion riding on the lies of adoption each year, there is much to be gained by the lies of the adoption industry. But even more important, there are families to break up. Nancy, no matter how much she lied to herself, her children, and her grandchildren, was never the whole person she would have been had she found her mother, or better yet, had she grown up with her mom and her natural family. Her mom's life, although Nancy never knew this, was torn apart by losing her daughter to adoption. There are two people that were so damaged by adoption that they could never lead a full life. Perhaps separation from her mother did indeed, either directly or indirectly, cause Nancy's way-too-early death. Either way, the elite win and another family is lost for generations to separation by adoption. The elite have much to gain by separating families by adoption, just as they have much to gain by electing Emperor Obama to office. Therefore, those who speak the truth about adoption, like Ron Paul supporters, are noted as crazy and we are dismissed by mainstream media. The lies continue and so do the problems of adoption.

May you rest in peace, Nancy, and one day, may you and your real mother (and father and the rest of your natural family) be reunited in heaven.

Et Tu, Maryellen Hooper?!?

I've probably mentioned this before, but a couple of months before Mr. Thinking Mama and I left Raleigh, I performed for a week at Charlie Goodnight's Comedy Club. Granted, having just started to do comedy, I was the lowest proverbial man on the totem pole, the opener, but the experience was fabulous and I remember it fondly. My mom, whom I had recently found, came to see one of my shows and the headliner was Maryellen Hooper. Maryellen seemed very nice, if not dismissive, in the way that all road comics probably are from time to time. For Maryellen, the winner of some Stand-Up Comic of the Year award or some such, I was a mere local comic in a club in a medium-sized city. Having now lived in Los Angeles and been in tune with the L.A. comedy scene for a while, I can sort of understand the attitude. Nonetheless, I introduced her to my mom and Maryellen was very pleasant, which I greatly appreciated. Trying to be nice, she asked my mom, "Has Tricia always been funny?" Wow, what a question for a mom who'd just been found and for the daughter who didn't grow up with her. The world of adoption reunion is a strange one indeed and my mom and I just sat there, neither knowing what to say. Fortunately, Maryellen made some joke, which my mom and I greatly appreciated, and the air was indeed much lighter.

Although I've yet to run into Maryellen since our move to L.A., which is not that unusual considering that you can hardly throw a rock in L.A. without hitting a comic, I've often wondered about her. And I was curious if she'd ever had a baby. I think she's a bit older than I am, although not too much, and I just assumed that she was happy with her career and not that interested in bearing a child. Turns out I was right about the second part. Actually, after finding out only today that Maryellen is an adopter, I don't know much about what she went through to make her decision to take some mother's child; perhaps, like Sarah Jessica or the countless other celebrities who use their money to take other people's children or pay a womb to gestate, she'd had many miscarriages and failed attempts. In no way do I mean to understate or fail to recognize any pain, physical and emotional, that she went through before she became desperate enough to take a mother's child and claim it as her own. It is indeed sad and heartbreaking when a woman wants to have a child and it doesn't work out. I sincerely hope that more people, especially the celebrity types, visit Brandon. Brandon, Wendy, Steve, et al. are the folks when it comes to helping people have their own children. Perhaps Maryellen could have benefited from a few visits with the folks at the Eastern Center for Complementary Medicine. These people help your body naturally to work the way it's supposed to and if you look at their testimonials, you'll see that they've helped more than one woman conceive her own child.

How extremely disappointed I was, however, to find out that Maryellen has adopted not one but two children. Indeed, she is so supposedly grateful for her good fortune in obtaining a child by any means that she wrote this review of an adoption book:

...Your book really touched me. Especially the opening statement about how he is my son whether I gave birth to him or not. His soul was meant to be my son. I have said that since he was born!

Maryellen Hooper - 1998's Best Female Stand-Up at the 12th Annual American Comedy Awards

Now, isn't that just the sweetest thing. According to the review, Maryellen must have scooped up this baby from his mother right after birth. These days, adopters tend to do that very thing, claiming that they, not the mother, can bond with the baby more quickly. The mother, with her leaking breasts and sore groin, is much more quickly disposed of. Peachy, isn't it? I especially enjoy the way that Maryellen so completely disposed of her adoptee's mom in her review, failing even to mention her.

And then, I googled around a bit more and found this lovely quote from Adoptress Hooper:

If you really want to see some angry moms, take your 6-week-old in a jogging stroller to the park wearing a size 6 miniskirt. I don't know why people give birth when you can adopt. I love them way more. I've seen the video. You have to be holding a grudge. . . . Giving birth in bed with no drugs? I don't even want to conceive like that.

Yep, that's what passes for adopter humor these days. Maryellen has the audacity to fault those of us who are fortunate enough to become real moms for our sagging, leaky breasts and the extra pounds that a new baby tends to leave, unless one has a personal trainer, of course. But the real jewel in the previous quote is that Maryellen claims to love her adoptees "way more" because she took them from their mother. So, I guess I don't really love my little guys that much, even though my breasts bled off and on for two weeks after my first son was born, until we finally got the whole latching on thing right. There's no love there. Nah, I really don't care for my guys nearly as much as I would somebody else's baby who doesn't look like Mr. Thinking Mama and me and doesn't have any comparable traits. Why, perhaps I should have given my own firstborn to Maryellen; after all, she could love him "way more" than his real father and I, right?!?

Look, I don't know why Maryellen didn't have her own child and I'm very sorry that she didn't. But she need not try to make it seem as though taking a baby from the very mother that God and nature gave said child and pretending that baby is your own is some kind of act of love. Far too many of us know that pretending to be a parent is often much more an act of insecurity and desperation than an act of love. The real act of love in this case, and in most adoptions, is supporting the mother and baby in staying together. I can't help but wonder why adopters fail to choose it.

It's really disappointing to read about celebrity adopters. But it's extremely disappointing to find that a celebrity you've worked with has taken it on herself to take someone else's child. I'm really sorry that someone who seems as nice as Maryellen Hooper has gotten involved in the $1.6 billion U.S. adoption industry, contributing to its profits. How very sad indeed.

Another Adoption Propaganda Piece

I'm sad but not surprised to report that the News and Disturber has posted another adoption propaganda piece, this time about the joys of open adoption. Did you realize that you could be a mother and not a parent? Gosh, I love how mainstream media are redefining family. And how the general public is buying it. Oh, isn't it so very good when an adoptee knows her incubator?!? And when those who, sadly, cannot have their own children can pretend they are parents? Isn't this a joyous Mother's Day story? About a mother who's extremely happy to lose her precious daughter and about a couple who was more than happy not to support the mother in raising her child, but to take said child away? Oh, Joy!

And, of course the adopters are singing the praises of adoption in the comments section of the article. Personally, I found it worth it to register and leave a comment.

Of course, Amy, the natural mother, is demeaned to a mere breeder and the message is clear: Adoption is a fabulous and gorgeous option to abortion; in fact, it's really the only option to abortion worth considering: Don't ever, ever consider keeping, breastfeeding, and raising your own baby. Oh, and lest we forget: A college degree earned on time with a scholarship is definitely worth giving away your firstborn. With such wonderful publicity, I'm sure that all beautiful little girls reading this article will one day want to give away a baby to a couple who can't have their own. Don't dare say anything about any pain that real mother Amy feels: she's certainly in the land of denial, smiling, as if giving your baby to someone else is the most wonderful thing in the world.

Look Who's Renting A Womb

Wow, it's been about three weeks since I wrote in this blog; I must have been busy!

Nonetheless, I was sad to hear, via reader Jade, that one of my favorite celebrities, Sarah Jessica Parker, is renting a womb. Look, I've followed her ever since Square Pegs and even before, in Annie. What a life, I thought to myself, as she danced with Steve Martin in L.A. Story and dated the now-deceased John Kennedy. I read about how her mother sacrificed so that she could act and take all those artsy classes that I always wanted to take. Her artistic and creative life seemed so very wonderful, especially in comparison to my own, in which I, after many years of wanting to be an artistic soul as a child, finally, after the beginning of my first marriage, summoned the courage, money, and support to follow my dream of taking a writing class and an acting class. Ah, but it is indeed dangerous to compare and I'll take my own mommy life any day over Sarah Jessica Parker's; living with three boys each day sans a nanny or any of the crap that celebrities must do to continue to be celebrities is indeed worth it when I think of how much I like being there, every day, for my babies.

My admiration and respect for Sarah Jessica, however, continued, even through her being named as one of the "unsexiest" people and through Sex and the City, in which she played a writer. Wow, an actress playing a writer--what a dream role. A couple of years after my first son was born, and around the time that I became pregnant with my second, Sarah Jessica had her own son, James Wilkie, whose father was none other than Matthew Broderick. For those who spent way too much time watching television and dreaming of moving to Los Angeles and being on the tube, such as myself, you may remember the show Family, with the totally hot and butch Kristy McNichol as "Buddy." I watched this show, set in Pasadena, every week. How I yearned to have parents like Buddy's, with Broderick's real life father, James, playing the role of Buddy's dad on the show.

I must admit, however, that Sex and the City really began to get to me when Charlotte, who had gone to great lengths to conceive her own child, failed to do so and went looking for a little China girl to buy. I remember turning off the last episode about midway through and I have no interest in seeing the movie.

Now, however, real life has somewhat mimicked the show with Sarah Jessica Parker's hiring of a twenty-something female to have a couple of babies for her and Matthew. In googling this mess, I found some interesting articles, one of which rumored a Sarah Jessica Parker pregnancy around September 2006, shortly after my own first miscarriage. Evidently, she and Matthew had been trying hard to have another child, for quite a while. I can understand her desire to have another child. Whether you have one or twenty children, if you want one more and cannot do so, it is not an easy scene. I've also had a few people suggest that I adopt from China so that I will be assured of getting a girl. But it won't by my girl and I decided long ago that I would do no such thing.

Nor would I ever hire someone else's womb.

In my googling, I also found rumors that she and Matthew have had problems and that a few short months ago, their marriage was in trouble. Rumors had it that he was seeing a twenty-something himself. These things, however, are merely rumors and one never knows to what lengths Sarah Jessica Parker went to in order to give James Wilkie, whom she very openly breastfed, a little brother or sister.

What is even more disappointing than Sarah Jessica's hiring of a womb is her and the media's treatment of the whole thing; meanwhile, the surrogate is looked upon as a thing, a disposable womb that will be paid and tossed aside. Pregnancy, however, is an extremely important part of a child's life and having someone else do the work, regardless of the reason, seems wrong to me. Just plain wrong. This article states that Sarah Jessica is even acting pregnant, drinking water instead of liquor or wine. But isn't all that a little weird? After all, she hired someone to be pregnant for her. Why is she pretending to be pregnant herself?

The whole thing is extremely strange and illustrates the sad fact that celebrities often have more money than sense. I had really admired Sarah Jessica's breastfeeding of her first child and she might even try to breastfeed these babies after they come out of the rent-a-womb. However, the whole thing seems sad and wrong to me. I'm really, really sorry that Matthew and Sarah Jessica, for whatever reason, have not had a second child. However, I've lost a tremendous amount of respect and admiration for her after she jumped, however reluctantly, on the surrogacy/adoption bandwagon.

So, How Do You Like Obama NOW?!?

First, it was marijuana; now it's tomatoes:

Chuck Baldwin, one of my favorite writers and Southern Baptist ministers, has written an excellent overview of the new Gardening Police legislation:

Self-proclaimed "conservatives" love to tout themselves as ardent supporters of the "free enterprise" system. In the name of "capitalism," they support any and every piece of legislation or governmental decision that caters to business--especially Big Business. Favorite policies of these folks include anything and everything that calls itself "free trade." Furthermore, these same "conservatives" will support just about anything and everything that is said to advance the so-called "global economy."

Needless to say, in the name of "free trade" millions of American jobs and thousands of American manufacturing plants have been outsourced to foreign countries and interests. And leading the charge for "free trade," outsourcing, and the "global economy" is the international cabal known as Big Business. But Big Business does not play this game alone. Joining Big Business is its pernicious partner, Big Government.

Together, Big Business and Big Government form a tyrannical tandem that is squeezing the breath out of our once-great republic. In fact, people need to understand that what is passing for "capitalism" in America today is nothing more than "Corporatism."

Corporatism has little to do with genuine capitalism or free enterprise. Freedom and federalism thrive when true capitalism and free enterprise are at work. But Corporatism has nothing to do with freedom and everything to do with tyranny.

Corporatism is the marriage of Big Business with Big Government. Corporatism uses the force and weight of government to create giant monopolies, which strangle competition and freedom. Rules and regulations are enacted that make it impossible for "little" guys to compete. The trade laws of nations are pitted against each other, forcing free nations to sacrifice their own peace and security to accommodate the economies of totalitarian regimes. And, of course, Big Business is the recipient of gargantuan profits in the process.

Please understand that the movers and shakers of Big Business have no national loyalty. They claim no country, salute no flag, and recognize no independence but their own. They are the travel companions of the bloodiest butchers on the planet. They have homes in every corner of the globe and are happy to share the beds of the vilest people on earth. They would gladly sell the heart and soul of America to the highest bidder, and have long ago sold their own hearts and souls to the devil.

And there is no limit to how intimately Big Business and Big Government can collaborate to steal people's liberties. A classic case in point is the burgeoning effort to control and regulate private, homegrown gardens.

In the face of a growing recession, thousands of people across America are planting and growing their own gardens. And this is not lost to Corporatism. Remember, Corporatism's great goal is to create monopolies and crush freedom, leaving the cabal controlling both Big Business and Big Government alone atop the world of prosperity and power. Therefore, it will use every tool at its disposal to protect any and all of Corporatism's favored players. And when it comes to America's food supply, Big Agriculture is that favored player.

Even as Michelle Obama plants a White House garden and encourages Americans everywhere to do the same thing, her husband is creating a brand new tool for the Big Business/Big Government powerbrokers: a new "Food Safety Administration" (FSA).

At the same time, Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-Connecticut) has introduced H.R. 875 to "protect the public health." But it is not the public health that Ms. DeLauro wants to protect. It is the health of the demonic duo of Big Business and Big Government. Two other bills with similar machinations are S. 425, introduced by Senator Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio), and H.R. 815, submitted by Rep. Diana DeGette (D-Colorado).

In a nutshell, when these bills become law, every homegrown garden in the country will be regulated, inspected, controlled, and taxed by the federal government. (No, I am not making it up.) In addition, small, independent farms would most certainly be put out of business. In effect, the great Nanny State is posturing itself to completely take over the food business in America.

First, the Big Business/Big Government Axis of Evil began taking over the banking and financial institutions. Next, it was the automobile business that was in Corporatism's crosshairs. Now, it is energy, healthcare, and even the food business--down to the smallest backyard, homegrown garden--that Corporatism is plotting to plunder.

It is an ingenious system: first, Big Government regulates legitimate business to the point that it can no longer function in a free and open market. Then it paves the way for foreign investors to gain influence or even seize control of those same businesses. Then it forces the mergers of smaller entities into international monstrosities. Then it passes laws making it impossible for the remaining small, independent businesses to compete. Meanwhile, the newly created super-wealthy collaborators in Big Business are more than eager to share their bounty with their fellow miscreants inside Big Government.

The obvious result of all this chicanery is the creation of a superior ruling class and the destruction of a free and independent middle class. If all this sounds familiar, it is because Corporatism used to be known by another name: fascism! And this is exactly what is being created right in front of our very eyes, here in the good old U.S.A.

If "conservatives" were more cognizant of and diligent to protect the U.S. Constitution and principles of liberty contained in our Bill of Rights and Declaration of Independence, they would be able to see through the façade of modern Corporatism that masks its totalitarian agenda under the guise of "free trade."

So, in the meantime, go ahead and grow your garden, because you are going to need it. But, at the same time, be prepared to give an account to your local FSA agent. He'll want to know how much you've grown, how much you sold or gave away, and to whom you sold or gave it. He'll want to inspect it; he'll expect you to fill out the appropriate government forms, including names, addresses, amounts, prices, etc. And this goes for all those church and social club potluck dinners as well. Oh, yes! He'll also expect you all to pay taxes on it.

Either that, or convince your State legislators and governor to do what the Thirteen Colonies did: tell King George to go to Hades! But if you don't have--and cannot get--a State legislature and governor willing to do that, you'll need to either move or start turning your entire life over to the new fascist America that Big Business and Big Government are creating, because the die has been cast, and it doesn't appear that there is any going back.

As someone who's currently got some fabulous lettuce in the Gingerbread House garden, with tomatoes and potatoes soon to follow, I am extremely concerned about this legislation. It's funny that lots of people are totally okay with the feds or whomever coming on to private property and confiscating marijuana plants. I'm guessing that the propaganda surrounding this bill is going to sway the worshippers of Emperor O. to welcoming the supposed authorities onto their land. Communism, anyone?

I don't know what Obama worshippers are saying to these things, and to the fact that Obama has now said that wireless wiretapping is just dandy. Really. Are Obama worshippers even aware of this blatent bitch slap to the Constitution? Do they even care? Obama seeks to expand the totalitarian state that Bush, et al. began. And guess what? You can't sue the government if they gather information on you. I guess that's okay. After all, Obama's not one of those awful white males we've always had as a president. That's all that really matters.

So, Obama is trying to figure out how to get onto our private property and he's expanded the totalitarian state that Bush started. Now, aren't you glad that you have no idea who Ron Paul is? Were he president, you'd be living in a less totalitarian state by now. But really, who wants that?!?

I can't help but wonder how many of the newly unemployed will be vying for a job with the local Garden Police Department. My guess is that lots of trained snoops from the government schools will be anxious to apply. Oh, and then, when they fine or arrest you for resisting, don't worry: They'll just be following orders, just as they did in Nazi Germany.