Aspie with Attitude

Sure, I'm just another Southern Recovering Alcoholic NPR- and Sweet-Tea Addicted Comic Mom with Asperger's in the SFV, but I can tell you now that I don't necessarily fit the stereotype.

Tuesday, March 27, 2007

Paying For Babies

It's not enough that adoption agencies are providing scholarships for moms who give their babies to strangers. Ahem, love their babies enough to give them away. No, push has come to shove and, evidently, the 40 couples vying for each adoptable infant is just too much for the government, which subsidizes adopters for taking babies from their moms, to swallow. Now, Texas, the great state from which King Jorge came to his current throne, is trying to make it even more wonderful for a mom to give her child to those supposedly more deserving adopters. By golly, don't moms who agree to give away their child deserve $500?!? Well, I can only say that Texas seems to be in the lead of the recycling children campaign. As a recycled child, however, I can only say that their prominence indeed sucks.

Parents of the Future?

I've rallied and railed against the mental health industry. Accordingly, I've received all kinds of e-mails and such from people, mainly women, who think that I'm the crazy one for questioning the mental health industry. I'm sure that if certain true believers read this journal entry, the same kind of thing will happen. Oh well. I know it's a problem to many that neither my children nor I (nor their dad) are on any type of pharmaceutical psychiatric drug. But I'm wondering for how much longer people like my family and me will be a problem? How long will the Busheviks or their descendants, the Clinton "Lizard Queen" (thanks Vox Day) and her husband, leave our family alone?

Really, we just want to be left alone. We do fine by ourselves.

But here's what happens when the government interferes. Parents completely forget that they're in control. And the elite love it when parents do this kind of crap. Let's say that the pharmaceutical companies depend on it. There's nothing better for government-funded business that moms and dads who cede control. Ah, socialism . . .

Monday, March 19, 2007

Do People Even Believe Hillary Hype Anymore?


I can't tell you how happy I am to be deconstructing myself from mainstream media. I assume that everyone else is doing the same. Every once in a while, however, I get an inkling of what the American Idol crowd receives: It ain't pretty!
The whole idea of Hillary's plan to make the United States into a socialist/communist state makes me want to barf. Do YOU really want her to change your light bulbs?

Hillary Clinton vowed to pursue several specific goals if elected president, including universal health care, preschool for every child, and making college more affordable. She also pledged to promote energy independence and drew laughs from the crowd when she described replacing ordinary light bulbs with energy-efficient models and shutting off lights to conserve power.

On the other hand, who knows what she would be up to if she weren't in everyone's house going, "Is anyone in here?" "Can you turn that thing off?" and "Can I take your child and place him or her in my VILLAGE?"

Give me Ron Paul! Thanks to Nick for the photo of a Ron Paul badge from the last time he ran for President. Wouldn't it have been nice if Paul had won in 1988?

Wednesday, March 14, 2007

More Adoption Propaganda

Last weekend, I was talking with Michelle at The Adoption Show regarding being a guest on her show. We talked for well over an hour and I'm afraid that I kept her East Coast lights on way too long (it was past 11:30 p.m. EST when we hung up). Nonetheless, as we both agreed, there are many, many issues involved in adoption, not the least of which is defeating the myth that adoption is a wonderful thing for everyone involved. Oh, Joy! Adoption agencies seem to be saying, while offering scholarships to moms who give away a baby.

While adoption truth tellers such as Michelle, who has over 25 people who want to be guests on her show, strive to be honest, the $1.5 billion adoption industry continues to make familial separation seem like the most wonderful thing in the world. Although Madonna didn't allow criticism of her taking a young child from his village to stop her from acquiring him, Angelina Jolie doesn't seem to follow in Madonna's footsteps, at least acquiring a child whose parents seem to be out of the picture completely. Of course, Jolie didn't think that maybe her millions of dollars would, perhaps, help keep a mother and child together, maybe even here in America. No, it would be better for this beautiful star whose public relations people have done an excellent job of making over her image since she and Billy Bob each decided to wear a vial of the other's blood. She's acquiring children left and right, making adoption seem like a very hip thing to do. No wonder so many of the 20-something girls that I talk with these days say that they'll "just adopt" if they feel too uncomfortable with the idea of bearing their own child. Celebrities such as Madonna and Angelina make adoption seem like a breeze. Their adoptees will grow up to be indebted to their adopters, never quite understanding why they don't quite feel whole inside. Mother and child separation is a real bitch; celebs should use their money to keep families together. Oh, but then who would promote adoption?

http://my.earthlink.net/article/top?guid=20070314/45f78150_3421_1334520070314376416275

Monday, March 12, 2007

Do You Like To Travel?

For those who think the REAL ID is just dandy, take a look at what our lovely friends across the ocean are doing with IDs these days. It's just fine if you don't want to have an official government tracking device on your person. It's just that, well, you won't be able to leave the country. Or to come back. Now that's true freedom, isn't it?

What's next? You don't have to have an ID card. No, not at all. It's just that you won't be able to buy or sell anything. Revelation, anyone?

Monday, March 5, 2007

Now, What's That Thing About Privacy?

Well, really there's nothing much in the Constitution about it, is there? Especially since, you know, that whole search-and-seizure/Fourth Amendment thing was thrown where, really, it needed to be--in the trash can!! Well, okay, it hasn't been officially thrown out, but try going on a plane without being having your articles searched, and probably seized, by some government official.

So, I guess it should be small news, considering the burial of Anna Nicole Smith's body and such, that privacy invasion is just dandy. You know, of course, that if you don't agree, well, then that makes you anti-Bush. Being anti-Bush makes you, well, anti-American!

My favorite quote from this article , which tells how official committees think privacy invasion is simply dandy, is
this one:
The privacy board members declined to comment on the proposed legislation. But they have made it clear that they believe the board works effectively in its current structure and that it could alienate the president if members took on a more openly adversarial role.

Now, that's saying a lot, especially considering these wonderful words:
A White House privacy board has determined that two of the Bush administration's controversial surveillance programs - electronic eavesdropping and financial tracking - do not violate citizens' civil liberties.

The article talks about no-fly lists, but after all, aren't lists that we may or ma not be on, for reasons that we can't find out, placed on there by people whom we don't know, for our own good?!? Don't you realize that safety is first? If we aren't safe, why then, we could alienate our president! You know, the one who's upheld the Constitution and given us back all the freedoms that we've lost in the past one hundred or more years. Well, it's hard to believe that anyone would decide against our great Decider. Evidently, members of the privacy board won't do it either. And who can blame them? As John Lennon would say, Imagine!

Saturday, March 3, 2007

The REAL ID Propaganda Begins!

For those who haven't read my latest LRC article on the REAL ID, it happened to appear just days before Homeland Security (misnomer that it is) czar, Michael Chertoff, decided to take the two steps backward, one step forward approach, so very popular with the Fabian Socialist crowd, and give states another few months to comply. Oddly enough, there's some deal going on with "Republican senator" from Maine, who is a sponsor of an anti-REAL ID bill.

We must remember, however, that our power elite have the help of mainstream media, including those supposedly conservative or supposedly liberal rags that tout what our socialist elite leaders (those behind the scenes, not King Jorge and his show-and-tell bunch) want for us. Let's be clear on this point: They want to track us. They want to know where we are at all times and they want to have access to all information about us. Even if they never use said information, it will at least be there . . . just in case.

Just last night, I was watching Huell Howser's California Gold, one of my favorite PBS shows, and he was in downtown Los Angeles. He was talking to a friendly policeman (they're always friendly on television) and our wonderful officer of the law was telling him how fabulous it is that downtown L.A. has surveillance cameras, to, you know, catch people doing crime. Uh, isn't that what the police are for?!?

Nonetheless, people buy the whole security thing hook, line, and sinker, and readers of the National Review are no exception. Or so the power elite think. As with the policeman on Huell Howser's show, the National Review assures us that the REAL ID is something we all need; if we don't already love the idea of it, we're, of course, whiners and complainers. You know how it goes.

But here's my very favorite two sentences of the whole thing:
Of the two main gripes—ideological and fiscal—the first is easy to deal with. The act simply does not create a national ID card. Any modern society must have a means of identifying people—for national security, business transactions, and more.

Yes, yes, I know it's actually three sentences, but the first one, which paints those of us who are fully against the REAL ID (and the Mark of the Beast, et al.) has gripers, complainers, whiners, and wimps, is such a lovely piece of propaganda that I had to include it as well.

Okay, so here's my very favorite part: "The act simply does not create a national ID card," followed by the supposed fact that any "modern society must have a means of identifying people." Well, in other words it'll be the national ID card that isn't a national ID card. Methinks that the editors at the National Review certainly need a lesson in, well, logic. But who can afford the time for such a class when one is being paid off by the power elite to write such drivel?

A thankful nod to Vox Day's blog for the link to the National Review story.