Mainly, I've written about Prop. 8 on my lesbian blog, but it's certainly time to bring it here. The economy's in shambles, the Constitution is all but gone, but by golly, none of that seems to matter if gay people have the supposed right to marry a person of the same sex. The more I hear from the Gay Agenda Persons (GAPs), the more I'm sick of them. Or as David Manos, editorial letter writer in the L.A. Times, so succinctly put it: The left believes in freedom of speech and tolerance, as long as you march in lock step with their beliefs. I say: Amen!
According to the editorial letters, and I did not read the original story, a man named Richard Raddon, Director of the Los Angeles Film Festival, lost his job after he contributed $1,500 to the Yes on Proposition 8 people. Yes on Proposition 8 means that state-approved marriage should remain between a man and a woman. For this contribution and his support of keeping state-approved marriage as the definition that has existed for centuries, Raddon was somehow forced to resign. Imagine if the situation had been reversed and a GAP had been fired or forced to resign. Everyone from the Gay and Lesbian Anti-Defamation League to the Southern Poverty Law Center would have been suing the Los Angeles Film Festival. Ah, but Raddon had a belief that, despite centuries of support, was not politically correct. Many GAPs wrote in to let the Times know their displeasure. Two of the letters, of course referred the the "civil rights" of gays and lesbians in marrying a person of the same sex, redefining marriage and family. As my readers know, I am very much against state approval for any marriage; marriage is a sacrament between a man and a woman and God or whomever or whatever. However, opponents of Prop. 8 wish to redefine not only marriage but also the very idea of family. And here's where I beg to differ. God and nature, or nature if you're an atheist, have created the family as being between a man and a woman. Pro-adoptionists started messing with this natural relationship a hundred years or so ago when they began the idea of stranger adoption of infants and children. With such a background, it is no wonder that gay people demand the supposed right to take other people's children and call them their own, or the supposed right to allow an anonymous father to help create a child and then shut the dad out of the child's life forever. This is the kind of social entropy that most gay people fight tooth and proverbial nail to keep, assuring us the whole time that taking a child from its natural parents or giving it a step-mom instead of its real father is highly beneficial for the child and for society in general.
The thing about GAPs is that they portray themselves as victims. My desire to have a family was extremely strong and I realized that if I continued only having sex with women, the family thing would not happen for me. I didn't particularly get angry about this law of nature; I accepted it. It certainly helped, of course, that I was brought up in a community where marriage was highly valued. And it helped that I also dated guys. Sure, I'm a lesbian, but I have choices. Although what I'm about to write certainly is contradictory to the crap that women have been sold with the so-called feminist movement: You can't have your cake and eat it too. Those of us who realize this, and who are against the state's expansion of approval for marriage, for whatever reason, are often called bigots and homophobes and other not very nice names by those who claim to be so very very tolerant. Perhaps Jeff Iorillo, another Times editoral letter writer, expresses the GAP philosophy best with his writing:
Prop. 8 supporters like Richard Raddon financed a lynch mob that strung me up, declared me less human than themselves and robbed me of something I previously had. It is certainly my right to identify such people and to close my wallet to the businesses that provide the income they have used against me.
While my ancestors, to my knowledge, have never been on the receiving end of any lynch mobs, were I of an ancestory besides mainly European, I'd probably be laughing this guy all the way to Africa, laughing at his ignorance of the situation that many people faced one hundred or more years ago. To associate the supposed struggle of people who are attracted to the same sex to those who have been beaten, lynched, and otherwise chastised for the color of their skin and their ancestory is quite an affront to those whose ancestors truly have suffered lynch mobs. Not having state approval of your marriage seems quite pale in comparison to actually being lynched and killed because of your color. Right now, the boys and I are reading Mark Twain's Puddin'head Wilson, a book I highly suggest to show how those of even the smallest inkling of African ancestory have been treated. Are gay people afraid of being sold "down the river," as Roxy in Twain's story was? Does Mr. Iorillo actually fear that someone is going to come to his house and drag him out and hang him? Is Mr. Iorillo truly less than human simply because the state won't approve his marriage? GAPs are people who love being victims. Fortunately, there are gay people who are not victims, but we are much too scarcely represented.
To equate the supposed struggle of gay people to that of any race of people who have suffered is bizarre indeed. Nonetheless, the GAPs will continue to do this until they have completely undone the natural family relationships that have been okay for society since it began. If I want to share my life with a person of the same sex, I can certainly do so. In the state of California, there is nothing to my knowledge that can be done by those who have state approval for marriage, that can't be done by those who do not have it. The trouble really began when the state started licensing marriage.
I'm really tired of the GAPs and their intolerance for the beliefs of others. Just the other day, I talked to a lesbian on the phone and she was telling me how the relationship that she'd just gotten out of, with a woman, was one that she'd hoped "to have a family" with. That's how stupid we've become as a society. Two women can do lots of wonderful things together, but having their own family is not one of them. The thing about GAPs, of whom not all gay people are, is that GAPs want to change society and the rules of nature. As my Jewish friends would say: Oy-vay!
Aspie with Attitude
Saturday, November 29, 2008
Mainly, I've written about Prop. 8 on my lesbian blog, but it's certainly time to bring it here. The economy's in shambles, the Constitution is all but gone, but by golly, none of that seems to matter if gay people have the supposed right to marry a person of the same sex. The more I hear from the Gay Agenda Persons (GAPs), the more I'm sick of them. Or as David Manos, editorial letter writer in the L.A. Times, so succinctly put it: The left believes in freedom of speech and tolerance, as long as you march in lock step with their beliefs. I say: Amen!
Monday, November 24, 2008
November is a month of birthdays here at the Gingerbread House. What a pleasant surprise that I received while celebrating one of them today. One of the guests, with whom I used to be in a homeschool group, said that I've "ruined" her zest for adoption. She can no longer be happy when a friend of hers decides to take someone else's child and call it her own. In other words, I'm succeeding in speaking the truth. This one person, a mom of three, can never quite accept the brainwashing of the adoption industry, a $1.6 billion business.
She also mentioned that a friend of hers, who lost a child to adoption about 12 years ago, still mourns for her lost child. "It seems worse than death," said my friend. Perhaps it is, according to the moms who've lost a child to adoption. I'm thankful that I cannot state an understanding of either loss and I hope that I never will experience either. Having said that, I can see how the loss of a child who's out there, somewhere, might be much more difficult than knowing that a child is dead, horrible as that last scenario would be. With death of a child, there is closure; people mourn and are sensitive to a mother's mourning. With adoption, people congratulate the mother for "doing the right thing" by giving her child to someone else. The stress of having a personal mourning that no one else shares, and, in fact, having people tell you that you should be grateful for your loss, seems like an especially cruel thing indeed. I mean no offense to anyone who's lost a child, either by death or by adoption. Having said all of this, I know certainly that I'd rather my child be alive than dead, even if adopted out. I'm not even saying that I agree that adoption is worse than death; again, I don't want to experience either event. I am merely saying here that I understand how adoption, in today's climate of selling children, can be its own special hell that is very close to death of a child. In fact, a child does somewhat die to its natural family in adoption; years later, if a child is resurrected through reunion, things will never be the same as if the child had been left with the family.
I am thankful for my friend's new understanding of the adoption industry. That's how we change the world regarding adoption; one friend at a time.
Wednesday, November 12, 2008
There was some bill, and I didn't read it but just heard about it, or proposition or whatever they call it, in Arkansas on Election Day that forbade single people from adopting. It passed. I'm all for it. Why? Not because I don't think that single people could adequately raise a child; some can. My friend Tish, for instance, had a baby nine months after Caleb and although it's difficult for her and the dad is now out of the scene for the most part, she's doing great. From what I understand, the proposition on the ballot was aimed at preventing gay people from adopting. Why is this good? Certainly not because I don't think that gay people are capable of raising children; we are in some cases. The reality is that many, many gay people don't want to raise children, which works out nicely in many cases. For those who do, however, it should be their own child, not someone else's. I used to think, before I found my parents and did research into the adoption industry, that it would be great if gay people who want to be with the same sex adopted all the children who need homes. This idea won't work, of course, partly because of a previously stated reason, i.e., that many gay people don't want children. However, a more important thing to note is that there are 40 potential adopters waiting for each adoptable infant. Make no mistake: this demand for babies is why the states are trying to increase the supply through so-called safe haven laws, which are backfiring in states such as Nebraska, where people are bringing teenage children to the fire station to abandon because those teenagers cause problems. The demand for children far exceeds the supply. Therefore, we should not add to the demand by allowing more people to adopt. Do I think that the state should have any say whatsoever in the adoption business? Nope. But not increasing the demand for children is a good thing indeed.
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
I celebrated my birthday Monday and I was born on Election Day. We had a wonderful time at the Gingerbread House.
On my birthday, however, we had to take our new dog to have him neutered. Why? Our next-door neighbor, who threatened to call Child Protective Services the other day when our five-year-old would not come to her when she called him . He's been told not to talk with her and instead of going to her, he came into the house and told me about the incident. She has been threatening to call the Animal Control people and of course, being in the police state that we live in, it's easy to turn in a neighbor falsely. True, our dog has barked but no more than other neighborhood dogs. It's clear that this neighbor has something against us and she seems to be trying to get us to sell our house and move. She was a government school teacher for many years and my guess is that she's so brainwashed that she can't stand it that my children are homeschooling. So, she threatens us. And she calls Animal Control. Turns out, in Los Angeles County, if you don't have your dog neutered and licensed, you could end up in jail. That's right:
Failure to spay/neuter an unaltered dog is a citable violation that can result in a $100 penalty for the first offence and $500 for subsequent violations. In addition (sic) failure to license can result in the assessment of a $500 civil penalty, and dog owners could be found guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by a fine of up to $1000 and/or one year in county jail.
Yep. Or as Mr. Thinking Mama put it:
"Whatcha in here for?" said the murderer to another inmate.
"Didn't neuter my dog."
In a police state, everybody is a lawbreaker and the law has a huge advantage because of that. We live in a police state. A neighbor can hold a grudge against you and your dog or your children can be taken away. For the record, almost everyone in the neighborhood seems to despise this woman and she has made a lot of people mad. If she continues to mess with us, we are planning to get a restraining order against her and/or sue her for damages.
So, that's much more important to me than who won the presidency. No matter who won, life in socialist Amerika will pretty much continue toward more socialism. On a homeschool list the other day, it was almost forbidden to say anything against King Obama, whom Vox Day calls The Magic Negro. And forget it when I tried to say anything about voting "Yes" on Proposition 8, which I did. I also voted against some proposition that required minors to obtain parental permission before having an abortion. I think that if a person is old enough to get pregnant, she is old enough to make a decision about having an abortion. And I think that if parents want their children to come to them about such an important decision, those parents should have earned trust when the children were toddlers, or earlier. You can't legislate trust between parent and child. You just can't do it.
There was Proposition 2, which seemed to be against animal cruelty, or so it was marketed. It allows the government more control over private property, which people, such as my strange neighbor, seem to welcome.
So, so, so, how does it shake down that King Obama will now reign in the place of King Jorge? King Obama, via Executive Orders, will be able to institute martial law just as well and he'll be able to screw up health care by nationalizing it. He's already voted to do that with the banks.
Oh, but government needs to help out in social issues, such as slavery, said one brainwashed homeschooling mom. Really, I sort of hate learning how these women really look at things sometimes.
As for me, I wrote in Ron Paul. The boys and I and Mr. Thinking Mama were in the polls as they closed. I asked for a write-in ballot and the poll workers had to ask their leader about how to do it. I guess that I may be the only one in my neighborhood who voted for Ron Paul. But I wrote him right in that ballot, proudly, even though he's not officially running. I didn't vote for either of the two-major-party socialists and my children will always remember that I voted for freedom.
As for King Obama, well, he's leading us to socialism, just like McCain, but the difference is that no one really cares. After all, he'll be the first black president! Therefore, no white people can really say anything against him or they'll be branded racist. And I'd love to meet a black person who didn't support him. I hope that those black people exist, just as you can find some women who didn't vote for Hillary.
As King Obama leads us down the primrose path toward Communism, people will throw palm leaves down for him to walk on. Personally, I couldn't care less about his skin color; I care a LOT about the socialism and huge national debt that he will leave for my children, for the health care that he is trying to destroy, and for the nationalized banks, which he has already wholly supported. Sigh. But he's black, so everything's wonderful in Amerika.
Posted by Thinking Mama at 10:33 AM
Saturday, October 18, 2008
Now, before I start this entry, I'd like to say that I've heard from lots of adopters since I've been writing about adoption. I've heard from adopters who wished ill on my children and on me; I've heard from adopters who urged me to adopt a child; I've even heard from adopters who somewhat agreed with me. So, so, so, maybe all that kind of thing is why this letter has me so perplexed. The writer wishes not to be identified, which I completely respect. I'll call her M:
I enjoy reading your blog and was hoping you wouldn't mind my asking you a question.
According to the laws of our and another country, I am an adoptress of two
little girls. Now, I do NOT call myself a parent. I am NOT their mother and
they are not allowed to call me "Mama" or "Mom" or "Mommy" or anything like
that; I am Miss XXX and I am an adoptress. Likewise, my husband is NOT their
father. Our parents are NOT allowed to call themselves grandparents and the
girls are not allowed to call them as such. Our siblings are not allowed to
call themselves Aunt or Uncle. We are NOT their "forever family".
Their mother is dead; she died giving birth to them. We have continued
contact with their father and family, including siblings and uncles, in the
country in which they were born; THEY are their forever family. We visit 4
times a year for 2 weeks at a time and are making preparations to move to
that country so that they can grow up surrounded by their own culture and so
that they can know their family. I am not naive enough to believe that this
will, in any way, make up for having been removed from their country
originally and it will in no way be the same as if they were growing up as
natives, with their parents. I realized too late my mistake in wanting to
raise a child (the adoption had been finalized, but we hadn't yet traveled)
and will spend the rest of my life attempting to make up for it for these
little girls. I wish I could undo the past, but I can't. Before we left the
country with the babies, we met secretly with their father with our own
interpreter and asked him to please take the babies back, that we would pay
for all of the medical care that they needed and support his entire family
for the rest of their lives if he would only take them back and raise them
(it would have taken so little from us to make this possible, and we are not
wealthy by any means). Sadly, he considered them expendable; five children
were enough. If they had been boys, I'm sure it would have been a different
story. And if their mother had survived, I'm sure she would have gladly
brought them back to her bosom.
The problem we are having now is that these little girls, who are now 3 and
have been with us since they were 5 months old (they are twins), are
starting to ask why they can't call us "Mommy" and "Daddy". They don't
understand why nephews and nieces can call their grandparents "Grandma" and
"Grandma", but we won't let them do so. They know they have a Daddy, they
know they have brothers and sisters and uncles. We send letters and pictures
and drawings and there are photographs up all over the house. They know that
they were "adopted". They know other "adopted" children via cultural events
and ask why they call their adopters "Mommy" and "Daddy" but we won't allow
them to do the same. They even know a foster child who calls his guardian
Needless to say, we are not very popular in the "adoption" community, which
is okay with me, but the girls are starting to wonder why they can never go
to so-and-so's for a play date. Why some of the children are starting to
tell them that their "Mommy and Daddy" don't want them playing with them
because their adopters are "crazy". Even though we are only the adopters, we
do love them and it hurts us to see them struggle with this. Sometimes, I
want to cave and just say "it's just a name", but then I read yours, and
others', blogs, and realize that it is NOT just a name and I want to honor
that. I want to honor their mother. I want to honor their father. I bought
the privilege of raising them (when I was doing it, I didn't think about it
this way, as I had bought the story the agency gave us about why fees had to
be charged, but I know now that I DID buy them). I bought the privilege of
reading bedtime stories, kissing boo-boos, making cookies, doing their hair,
teaching them to read. I don't need to be called by a name that I will never
know (I've been in menopause since I was 13; I have premature ovarian
failure and, instead of going through puberty, I got to have hot flashes).
Don't get me wrong, if I COULD be a parent, I would love to be a parent. It
just will never happen, and I was okay with that before I even graduated
from high school. I did, however, want to raise children and thought that
this would be an okay way to do it. I do know that I was wrong, dreadfully,
horribly wrong, but I can't fix it. All I can do is try to do better for
these girls and work to make sure that other children do not suffer from the
naivete of adopters like myself, or even from the adopters who do realize
what they are doing and try to pretty it up.
We are also not very popular in our family, who don't seem to understand why
they are not allowed to take on names that don't belong to them. But, they
are adults and they can deal with it. My only concern is for these girls.
How can I help them around this issue? Do you have any ideas for "names" to
call adopters that would respect the girls' family while at the same time be
palatable to those, like yourself, who were taken/bought/stolen from their
parents? They are starting to just want to be like everyone else, and I'm
sure this will only become more difficult as they get older. What would have
helped you understand this at their age? Am I contributing to the problem
without seeing it? (I am only human and while I am trying, I make mistakes
and will make plenty more before my time on this earth is through.) These
girls didn't ask for this. In fact, they deserve so much better than this. I
know I made the mistake, but is there anything I can be doing to help them?
I would be very thankful for any thoughts you may have and I support your
work wholeheartedly. I believe that this system IS broken. It doesn't serve
the children, and it doesn't serve the mothers. It only serves the adoption
industry and adopters like myself. And I tell my girls that it was wrong,
that my husband and I were wrong (in an age-appropriate way, of course; the
older they get, the more blunt I will become about what it was that I and my
husband did). I was just so naive. I remember learning from the social
worker that their birth certificates would have OUR names on them, and I
actually thought I could just ask them not to change the names of their
parents, to leave them on there. It made no sense to me! I made color copies
of their birth certificates and then changed the copies to put their
parents' names back on there. I know that they aren't "legal" birth
certificates, but they are the truth.
I am so sorry that anyone has to go through that which you and so many
others have been.
> Sincerely yours,
Thinking Mama responds:
Gosh, if you're reeling from that letter, you're not alone. If M. could spread 1/100th of her understanding about the adoption industry to the rest of the adopters in her community, well, that would certainly be a start in stopping stranger adoption, wouldn't it?
M. seems to understand and believe what those of us who have been separated from our natural families by adoption have slowly and steadily been realizing. I admire the strength that M. seems to show; surviving menopause as a teenager and being able to rise from that extremely difficult situation shows great fortitude. Like many women, however, M. believed the lies of the adoption industry. It is hard not to believe those lies, just as it is hard to believe that the government might not have our best interest in mind when bailing us out and turning our banks into Fascist institutions. Anyone who reads through mainstream media's propaganda, whether it be about adoption or about the Federal Reserve, shows a certain amount of true open-mindedness that most people in our brainwashed society, unfortunately, never achieve.
It is important to remember, however, that neither M. nor I nor any of those of us who've woken up about adoption can force change on those who are still asleep. I can partially understand M.'s plight of having to be around adopters when her beliefs are so different; I can understand it from an adoptee's point of view but not from an adopter's. Her courage in this situation seems especially admirable.
Regarding nomenclature, which, after all, is the question that she asked, I can totally relate to the confusion that adoption causes. I experience this very confusion each time that I go to North Carolina, when I visit the very dear and wonderful friends that I grew up with and they are calling Beauford and Ann, the wonderful people who, like my natural mother and father, were fooled by the adoption agency into believing that I could be "as if" born to them. Needless to say, avoiding the very issues of which M. speaks, I grew up calling Beauford and Ann "dad" and "mom," even though we all knew that they are not my real parents. Having grown up with this particular nomenclature, and having not grown up with my natural mother and father, it often seems strange to call my real father "dad," even though that's exactly what he is. Perhaps there is something about language that is formed before the conscious mind is very developed that makes us cling to the people whom we call mom and dad, whether that nomenclature is indeed correct or not. M., very admirably, is trying to keep things honest with the children that she is obviously very much helping. Remember that she tried to give those children back to their real dad but that he, swooned either consciously or unconsciously, by the adoption industry, refused to take them. Raising those children seems indeed the right thing for M. to do at this point. They are very lucky to have someone so honest in their lives.
Having said that, I can understand that M.'s parents and parents-in-law fully desire to believe the lies of adoption, as most people do. If there is one thing I've learned since I found my real parents it is that the truth is often more difficult to live with than lies. One reason that I think I lost many of my adopted friends when I found my natural parents is that those friends find it much easier to live with lies: They are right. It is often unsettling to speak the truth, as Ron Paul has discovered throughout his campaign for President and his tenure as a Representative. People want the lies; perhaps this is the way that things have always been: Those who crucified Jesus wanted to believe lies over the truth. Perhaps we have a natural tendency to want to believe lies, a tendency that is difficult to overcome. But what about when those lies about your family, the people that you grow up with, the people whom you trust with your very life?
This is the conundrum with which the current adoption industry, a $1.5 billion business, has saddled us. My attempts to tell people the truth have been met with all sorts of dismay, as I have partly described previously. People would rather believe all kinds of things than see the truth. I think it's a part of human nature to want to take the easy way out. It is much easier to believe the pablum of mainstream media than to think for ourselves and do our own research. Perhaps those who do think for themselves have always been ostracized.
Nonetheless, let's get back to the question and to my answer. I have had to come up with my own solution to this problem and it is one that works for me. It is interesting that after I found my parents, I moved across the country, to a place where I'd only visited a couple of times. Here, I can be anyone I want to be. Where I grew up, I'm often known as "Beauford's daughter" by well-meaning and wonderful people. If I lived there all the time, I would have to come to terms with this all the time, as I did as a child. I am convinced that many adoptees accept the lies of adoption simply because they do not want to face the pain of the truth.
Here's the tactic that I am taking. I am mentioning this not to suggest that it be M.'s path, but only to suggest that this is one option. Granted, I moved 3,000 miles away, to a place where I could totally reinvent myself with the truth this time. In other words, I don't have relatives out here and when I talk about my mom and dad, it's my real mom and dad. I don't have to pretend and I don't have to worry about people who might still believe the lies. This option of moving 3,000 miles away is not for everyone. :) When people talk about the adoption industry's version of my life, I will say that it's bothersome. Some people whom I really like do this and I'm not going to stop hanging around them just because they're used to calling Beauford my "dad." On the other hand, it really bothers me and I may hang out with these people less because of it. What will happen if I correct them? If they're older, and many of them are, I figure that it's hard for them and I don't press the issue. But I may, with my children, say something like, "X calls Beauford my dad; a lot of people do, and even though he did a wonderful job of raising me, he's not my real father," or something similar. Sometimes I let it go, but my children and husband know what the truth is. I feel comfortable with this and it may be something that M. may want to try: Letting it go and letting the people who are around those children call the children what they want. As long as the children know the truth, that's all that really matters.
That said, I proudly call people who aren't really my aunts "Aunt." There is one person who grew up with me and is like a sister to me; so my children call her Aunt, even though she is not. Aunt and Uncle are indeed used to indicate relationships with people who aren't blood relatives and as long as we know that's the case, everything is fine. I feel the same way about Grandma and Grandpa. My children know that there are two grandpas and two grandmas for every child; they know who there grandparents are. However, they call a few lucky women "Grandma," even though we all know that's not their real grandma. As terms of endearment, these things work fine. I call my husband, "Daddy," for instance, even though he is not my real dad, of course. :) For sanity's sake, M. might want to take this attitude with people, giving them what they understand but also knowing in her heart and knowing in the hearts of those children that she seems to be doing such a fine job of raising, what the truth really is. As long as she and the children follow this truth, I think that all will be well. What hurt me the most as a child was the pretending. M. is not pretending, although other people around her are, and the children will know and appreciate the truth because of M.'s devotion to it. M. might want to say something like, "X and Y know that you're not their real grandmother, but you are and will always be a special person to them and they want to call you something special." Perhaps you can both decide on a name that works, such as "nana." Another option is, of course, is for M. to distance herself from her family, which may or may not be an easy thing for her.
I hope that I've answered the questions sufficiently; if not, please let me know. I feel slightly awkward answering such questions being that I haven't fully worked out all the name stuff myself. I am still pondering changing my last name to my birth name, but part of me fears changing my identity, whom I've become. This adoption stuff is never easy and the birth certificate thing is horrendous (I try never to use my falsified birth certificate.) and families are often hurt for generations by it. M. seems like a wonderful woman and those children are lucky to have her in their life. I wish M. the best of luck with this dilemma and much good fortune in working out the details. As far as I'm concerned, M. is doing a wonderful thing for those of us separated by adoption, merely by listening to us. If anybody deserves a restful and happy sleep tonight, it's M.
Sunday, October 12, 2008
As we've been traveling around Los Angeles and its surrounding areas this week, I can't help but wonder how many people even understand that we no longer live in a free country. America has become a dictatorship and yet, life goes on. We did see, on the way back from the Santa Ana Zoo last week, protestors peacefully chanting, with a drum playing in the background, at South Coast Plaza in Orange County. They were for Ron Paul! We blew the horn. My children noticed them first, as I was driving. But for the rest of Southern California? I haven't seen much change. In Trader Joe's last night, I noticed people buying regular stuff; we were buying a little extra, for an emergency stockpile. Some people are predicting food riots in a couple of weeks or so. I want us to be prepared. No one seems too concerned that CONgress no longer exists as representatives of the people (I know that the proper senatorial role was deleted long ago, when the people started electing senators, not the state legislators, the latter of which the Founding Fathers set up.)
I heard a lot about World Government and the Mark of the Beast when I was growing up in the Southern Baptist Church. Although we don't attend church as much as I did growing up, mainly because our church is in North Carolina and we are not, I do wonder what preachers are preaching these days. Our pastor, Preacher Kenny, preaches the Bible. Still, so very many people in the place where I grew up believe in the Middle Eastern Bogeyman and Bush's efforts to control said bogeyman. So, so, so, I wonder if anyone is dissin' Bush in North Carolina these days, although he has ushered us into a police state and is this very weekend giving us over to a World Government, as he meets in an Emergency Summit. This economic crisis is just as contrived as the 9/11 crisis, although no one has, technically, lost a life in this particular crisis. Nonetheless, the results will be the same: Less freedom, more people-approved socialism, and more dependence on other nations.
Where are the Christians and why is no one speaking up from the Southern Baptist Conference? Could it be that Bush has bought and sold all the big players? After all, the Southern Baptists couldn't even agree to pull all their children out of the government schools. What a shame. What a real shame.
Take a look at this video and perhaps you will see that the New World Order is upon us. It's too bad that many of the people from my church and community don't have Internet access and rely on mainstream media propaganda to form their opinions. And for those who are behind Messiah Obama and think that his change is good, well, you will get what you deserve.
Tuesday, October 7, 2008
Oh, sure, it's easy to see how we can be distracted from all this bailout bill stuff, which is so very hard to understand, especially the part where King Jorge has encouraged CONgress folks, regular people all, to make Henry Paulson the Economic Dictator of the United States. Regular folks seem fine with it.
So we go on this week: two of my sons have Cub Scout popcorn to sell, we are still reeling and thankful to be doing so, after an accident on the 101 last week, en route to the Canoga Park Bowl Comedy show, left us with a punctured gas tank and a torn muffler and three healthy children and their happy-to-be-alive mama. Nothing much happened after I ran over the object on the freeway. Sparks flew from the car in front of me, which I saw run over the object. I had about two seconds to react. I could have, of course, swerved to miss it. But what cars would I hit? And my friend Lenard's daughter died after swerving and trying to get back on the highway, her car losing control and hitting a tree, killing her instantly. Would the boys and I have survived a swerve? Likewise, the thought later occurred to me that I could have instantly put on my brakes, to try and avoid the object. That option, however, may have caused the car(s) behind me to slam right into me, possibly injuring all of us. In those two or so seconds, I am thankful that I did not have time to think: I ran over the object. I could tell that something was wrong with the HO's (Honda Odyssey) muffler and as I was calling Mr. Comic Mom/Thinking Mama, I started smelling gas. The smell seemed to increase in intensity. As I took the nearest exit, Woodman Avenue, I had no idea whether or not the car was going to blow up. I tried hard not to think about it. I stopped and got the boys out. Lots of things could have happened but nothing terrible did. Gas leaked at a rapid rate out of my tank. The fire department (thanks, station 102!) was happy to come and contain the gas so that it would not burn. And AAA came and towed the car away. $1200 later, I am more thankful than ever to be writing these words so easily. When I picked up the HO from Paul's, a wonderful automobile shop near the Gingerbread House, he said he'd seen evidence of lots of cars that ran over something on the 101, with devastating results.
So we have a fascist government?
I like to think that fascism can easily be resolved, but death, not so much. On the other hand, fascism is certainly a problem. And whether we're dead or alive, conscious of the fact or not, willing to do something about the situation or not, we now live under a fascist government. I'm thankful to be alive and living under it, of course, as opposed to being dead and living under it.
The real problem is, however, that not many people care about the fascist government or even know about it. People who were ready to burn Wall Street two weeks ago have settled back into their cushy computer chairs. They may even forget about this nasty bailout stuff in a couple of weeks, when the election comes and goes. Not many traitors will be voted out and none will be executed, no doubt. Washington takes care of its own. I greatly admire Brad Sherman, my own Representative, for telling Congress that he and others were threatened, some with Martial Law, if this bill was not passed. Whoever thought that C-Span would be so very ignored?
Things are much better now, of course, now that the government has agreed to take care of everybody and solve all the problems of the economy. That's happening, right? And not many regular folks know that there is no possible government oversight of Paulson, according to this new law. We have all the information in the world at our fingertips, but it seems not to have made us one iota smarter.
Posted by Thinking Mama at 4:54 AM
Friday, October 3, 2008
It shouldn't surprise me that the News and Disturber has run a story that's so very pro-adoption and pro-adopters, calling the adopters, of course, "parents" and not mentioning the inherent damage that adoption itself and separation from his natural family may have caused this young man who died such a tragic death. Instead of reporting truth, the story itself was filled with instances of how his "parents" were trying to provide "nurturing." Only a few paragraphs into the story did I learn that the "parents" to which the author was referring were not parents of Josh, the young man who was killed; rather, they were adopters. Would it have been too honest to report "Adopters tried to provide nurturing"? What about mentioning Josh's natural parents? Was any attempt made to contact them concerning his death? As usual, in adoption-related stories, the lies and harms of adoption were merely swept under the proverbial rug, as if everything was hunky dory and Josh was lucky to have been severed from his natural family and placed with people who pretended to be his parents. Now, for those who are wondering, I do not say that Josh would have been better off with his natural family; perhaps his adopters were much better for him. It is indeed impossible in such adoption scenes to figure out what would have happened and although I have met and corresponded with many mothers who lost a child to adoption and later found that the child was abused in his or her adoptive home, each case is different. But why lie? Did it do me any good to grow up calling my own adopters "parents" and pretending that they were indeed related to me? If adoption is such a wonderful thing, why lie about it? There's nothing wrong with taking in a child who is truly needy, especially if all attempts to keep that child in his or her natural or extended family have been exhausted. But why lie and pretend that the people who adopt can be made parents by legal documents?
The truth is that adoption separates and tears apart thousands of families each year. The harm inherent in the process itself is rarely discussed in mainstream media these days. In addition, the natural parents are usually forgotten or described as abusive and neglectful. We rarely, if ever, hear from a child's natural family when adoption has occurred. One wonders in this case if Josh's natural family even knew about his death.
What a shame that this young and troubled man died, but what else can we expect from a system that rips children from parents and pretends those parents never existed?
Thursday, October 2, 2008
I hate to say it, but it seems as though Congress indeed is this dumb. I'm proud to say that Brad Sherman, our California Rep., with whom I often disagree, seems to be committed to a "no" vote on the now-increased bailout. However, as this story shows, adding even more money to this bailout seemed to entice some Congress Critters to a "yes" vote:
GOP Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen of Florida, said she was switching her "no" vote to a "yes" after the Senate added some $110 million in tax breaks and other sweeteners before approving the measure Wednesday night.
"Monday what we had was a bailout for Wall Street firms and not much relief for taxpayers and hard-hit families. Now we have an economic rescue package," Ros-Lehtinen told The Associated Press.
This lawmaker's stupidity is absolutely amazing! Make the plan more socialist, make the burden more on our descendants, and suddenly, it's an "economic rescue package."
Democratic Rep. Emanuel Cleaver of Missouri was switching, too, said spokesman Danny Rotert, declaring, "America feels differently today than it did on Friday about this bill."
At least this guy, spokesman Danny Rotert, shows his ignorance in grammar (psssst, buddy, it's "feels different" unless people are actually feeling of the bill itself or literally touching something in a different way), as well as in economics.
But Danny, despite his half-witted attempt at grammar, is right about one thing: I'm not receiving nearly as many e-mails as I did earlier in the week. Why aren't people just as incensed? Has the mainstream media's campaign to make an economic dictator out of Henry Paulson, as Will Gregg so eloquently pointed out that this bill will do, succeeded? I've yet to read Ron Paul's name in an L.A. Times or other mainstream article; so, I'm assuming that people are believing the idiotic pablum that mainstream media are feeding us regarding this measure. Or maybe it was the Senate's vote of approval, which included both presidential frontrunners, Traitor Obama and Traitor McCain.
Am I the only one worried about this country? Does anyone else realize that giving our economic reigns, no matter how much security we're promised, to the government places us under the government's control? Does anyone even understand this concept anymore?
Tuesday, September 30, 2008
I am truly thankful that the House narrowly defeated the $700 billion forced socialism legislation yesterday. However, I'm wondering why I'm having to write "narrowly" here. Why wasn't it a huge defeat? My guess is that the CFR and other buddies, who prop up the evil and completely unnecessary Federal Reserve Bank, are paying off some representatives. Or the reps themselves may be such idiots that they're not even getting paid. Listen to Gary Miller guy, from California, of course. I received this e-mail courtesy of Steven Vincent, who sincerely seems to want to end the Federal Reserve.
The Most Arrogant Lawmaker in America?The Most Arrogant Lawmaker in America?
September 30th, 2008 by Don Rasmussen
“If you just solely rely on the phone calls we’re getting from home, listening to people who don’t understand the complexities of our marketplace and what we’re dealing with here, the easiest vote for you to make would be a no vote today. You have to go beyond that.” - Rep Gary Miller R-CA Dist. 42
Obviously any legislator who would listen to the cries of the serfs over Lord Miller’s superior knowledge and commitment to our nation is a fool. Please let his Lordship know about your knowledge of “the complexities of the marketplace” by giving him a call at (202) 225-3201 in DC and (714) 257-1142 in CA.
If you're reading this blog and you care anything about freedom, call Lord Miller's vassals. I just did and it took two minutes. The vassal was polite and said that he would pass along my message. Please call--it's the only way that these Congress Critters are going to know what's going to happen to them in November if they continue to support forced socialism.
Also, take a look at this essay. Ron Paul predicted this financial problem and in fact, introduced legislation to stop it. But, as always, nobody listened.
Another wonderful essay, brought to my attention courtesy of Dan Black, is by the wonderful Lew Rockwell, someone who does understand the "complexities of our marketplace."
Mainstream media, of course, is telling a different story, lamenting that the bill didn't pass. Don't worry, the elite, as Rockwell said in his article, certainly have an alternate plan for forcing socialism on us and controlling our money supply.
|Now this is the way to fix the economy. |
Against AIG bailout - read this
I received this post from a homeschooling group. I absolutely love it! The socialists almost won yesterday with the vote to nationalize the monetary system. The solution, of course, is to end the Federal Reserve Bank, a private entity that has no business regulating our money. However, it is rumored that President Kennedy suggested ending it, only a few weeks before he was killed. The elite bankers have an extremely strong hold on the U.S. economy and threatening that hold could make their lives much more difficult. That's why Bush, who should be against any bailout, is touting this socialist plan as if it were some kind of free market panacea. And the masses, who are often informed only via the propaganda that major newspapers publish these days, believe that it's the "greedy capitalists" that have gotten us in trouble. It's easy to hate the "greedy capitalists," but much more difficult to place the blame on the government, which needs to stop printing money willy nilly and needs to wean itself from the quite toxic tit of the Federal Reserve. Most people have such a poor understanding of economics that they really believe that government schools provide "free" education. Perhaps this whole bailout thing will make people more willing to accept the truth. Perhaps.
Posted by Thinking Mama at 11:31 AM
Thursday, September 25, 2008
The adoption industry, a $1.5 billion U.S. business that's growing each year, has been so successful with its propaganda that most people actually believe that the supply of children who are available for adoption grossly exceeds the demand. If people really understood that, for instance, there are over 40 potential adopters waiting for each adoptable infant, perhaps they wouldn't look so favorably on adopters when they take an infant from its mother. The demand is much higher than the supply of children. Nonetheless, it never hurts to have more white infants, which are more valuable on the adoption market than children of other ethnicities. Many people will, of course, call me racist for simply stating the truth. I'm not stating my opinion here; my opinion is that children should not be bought and sold at all, whether it be through adoption or slavery or just plain old selling a child. The facts are, however, that more adoptable infants bring more money for lawyers, social wreckers, and others connected with this hideous industry. So-called "Save Haven Laws," passed under the guise of protecting infants, swept the country with some federal government help, and now, voila!, people are dropping off all their children when they get tired of said children. I'm sure that the adoption industry social wreckers are wringing their hands over placing a 17-year-old, not an easy task, but there's also an infant and some smaller children involved and those will bring more money, no doubt. People hate to think of adoption as a business. We've all been brainwashed to think of it as this wonderful entity that helps children. Wake up, folks. It's all about money and breaking up families. The people who really run our government have created lots of things that break up natural families, such as government schools, day care, and adoption. The weaker families are, the more powerful government can be. Weak families and propaganda are why King Jorge can go on television, as he did last night, and tell people that the government needs to bail out huge corporations, setting the stage for national debt that can't be paid. One hundred years ago, people took care of their children and one hundred years ago, such a government bailout would have been met with shotguns at Congress. My, how weak we've become.
Posted by Thinking Mama at 11:42 AM
I can't think of an apology to the state that I've ever liked. I read about them all the time though, with the star as people whose ancestors fought in the not-so-civil war between the states, which was basically when the South wanted to secede from the Union, a perfectly Constitutional thing from what I understand, and the North didn't want to lose all that productivity. Of course, it's been revised to have as the main point the whole slavery thing, making white people feel much more guilty than we should and making black people feel far more inferior than they should. But this little p.r. campaign sure has done a lot to make people hate the South.
Nonetheless, it's not at all refreshing to hear that over a century later, the South is producing such wusses as the mother of this man. Actually, I have a bit of admiration for Joseph Pascal Aprea, the 18-year-old man from Malmedy Drive in Holly Springs who had a gun in his car when he picked up his girlfriend. After all, it's his car, isn't it? His private property? Ah, but the state has done such a good job with its government school propaganda that the schools are no longer ours; we belong to the government schools. All of which explains some of the many reasons that my children don't go to government schools. Our local one has a gate around it, like a prison. But even sans gates, this incident, in which a guy was charged and spent the night in jail, merely for having a gun in his car, shows why I don't care to step foot in the place.
Evidently, they're doing a great job these days of confiscating private property, however, making sure that everyone who touches the hallowed ground of a school follows the rules, even when a taxpayer is inside has his or her own car. Oh, that kind of behavior from the government schools doesn't bother me so much anymore. When a tragedy like the one that happened a few months ago at Virginia Tech occurs and people still can't see the value of carrying a gun, well, I don't know what to say. Aprea's mom's comment, however, bothers me more than the government school's decree.
Aprea's mother, Jacqueline Tapp, said this afternoon it was just "a stupid mistake" for her son to leave in his truck the rifle and shotgun he uses for target practice and hunting.
"He just wasn't thinking. He didn't even put two and two together about how protective the schools are now," Tapp said.
It's pretty obvious that Tapp and her allies at the police department have no understanding of private property, economics, or just plain common sense. Perhaps we can see now how easily King Jorge can persuade us to think that the bailout package is going to help the economy. All this government school education and people can't understand simple economics.
A little Red State Update's "Dumbass Party" seems appropriate here, for all parties involved.
Posted by Thinking Mama at 3:21 AM
Sunday, September 14, 2008
Sometimes, it really amazes me how much people have become sheeple in the past few years. Imagine what would have happened 100 years ago if your average small town had tried to pass an ordinance stating how high grass should be on private property. Now, these kinds of communistic ordinances are being passed all over the nation, even in the South. What is somewhat amazing to me is that no one bothers to say: This is my private property! You can't tell me how to cut my grass! Instead, socialists dicker over how high the ordinance should allow the grass to be. Of course, placing this whole high-grass-can-attract-rodents thing makes it a public health issue. Of course, public health translates into socialism quite easily.
I was extremely disappointed to see that Elkin, North Carolina, once a pretty free small town, has spiraled into this socialism, totally disregarding public property:
"I believe if we go ahead and approve this ordinance to get it going and set the standard, we can go back and look at the height again," said board member J. L. Lowe. The ordinance was passed with the suggestion that the planning board revisit the height requirements and that another amendment be added at a later date.
The council also dealt with the issue of response time.
"We are also changing the length of time for residents and business owners to respond from 45 to 55 days, to 20 days," said Crater. "This would allow for 10 days mailing and 10 days to respond to the letter informing of the violation."
In other words, you can get a ticket for something that you do on your own private property. Using true socialist media bias, there is no opposing opinion. There is not even the hint of both sides, i.e., that private property rights supercede such ordinances.
Last September, we were in this little town and I went to the cool, new coffee shop there. I learned that business owners are forbidden to flash lighted signs, on their own private property! And folks there think that California is socialist? Okay, it is in a lot of ways, but I'll tell you this: Our neighbor two doors down often goes for a while without mowing his grass. We live with no homeowners association and there is nothing that I know of in the city ordinances that say he can't do that. Each time I see his grass getting too high for my own personal taste, I celebrate the fact that he's able to grow it as high as he wants. As for the supposed potential rodent problem? We have cats to take care of that.
Sunday, September 7, 2008
Okay, I know: I'm so very much against the current war industry and yet, I'm hoping to edit as many proposals as possible for the upcoming DoD deadline. Am I a big old hypocrite? Perhaps. But I also enjoy editing these proposals and I make money doing so. It's nice, also, to see what kind of scientific products the government is interested in. I can live with myself and I sleep well at night (except, of course, when I write these journal entries in the wee hours of the morning :).
But what about Sarah Palin? If it is true that she has a flag of Israel in her Alaska governor's office, as I've read is true, why? Wouldn't she be better off sporting a copy of the U.S. Constitution? Those little details about her, however, don't bother me nearly as much as whom she's aligned herself with: Warmonger McCain. Personally, I don't like what I've heard about McCain's taking a child from another family and culture and pretending that child belongs to him and Cindy. On a larger scale, however, I don't like that McCain seems okay with the whole unConstitutionally declared war thing. From what I've read, Sarah Palin is okay with this war thing, even going so far as to be proud of her older son for fighting for whatever it is we're supposedly fighting for (can somebody remind me again?). One of my favorite writers, Will Grigg, addresses the disparity of Sarah's refusal to have an abortion with her youngest child, who has Down's Syndrome, and yet her eagerness and zeal for her oldest son in going to serve, well, for what cause? I can't see that this Iraqi war has done much to give me or my children more freedoms. In fact, I feel much less free now, and by the increase in laws, I am much less free, than I was in, say, 2000. There is no longer habeus corpus, for instance, which means that I have no right as a person to defend myself, or to know what the authorities are accusing me of. Many Executive Orders and such have been passed that allow the government to snoop into my phone calls, computer records, and such, without my knowledge. Go ask your local librarian, for instance, how comfortable he or she is knowing that a G-man (or G-woman) may come knocking Monday morning and asking questions about the books that a patron has checked out. The librarian must tell the G-person, and cannot tell the patron that the government has been snooping. With results such as these from our supposed war on terrorism, I can't help but wonder whom the government is most afraid of: A supposed bogeyman in the Middle East or people who bother to think and read in the United States. I think that I know the answer. Perhaps Sarah Palin knows the answer as well. But she's not telling. Instead, she's touting the Republican party line, which claims to protect the unborn, but has little regard for the already born in countries that we occupy. Nonetheless, Republicans all over the country are hailing her, feeling akin to her because she's not yet joined the Council on Foreign Relations (although I'm sure that her invitation is in the mail).
Nonetheless, Sarah Palin, now on the payroll of the Republican Party, will continue "Defending Our Nation, Supporting Our Heroes, [and] Securing the Peace," earning the supposed trust of countless numbers of supposedly conservative women around the country.
If you lie down with dogs, you'll more than likely get up with fleas. Whatever Sarah Palin may have said or done previously, whatever tiny bit of respect that she may have once had for freedom, she is now lying with some of the most vicious and uncaring dogs in the country. She's barking what she's told to bark. And she's being what she's told to be.
Many thanks to Jim for alerting me, through his wonderful blog, to this specific Will Grigg column.
I'll leave you with a question: Sarah Palin may or may not have much to do as Alaska's governor, but she makes a good living doing it. I can only imagine how much she's traveling these days as Republican lapdog. Can't conservative women see that a woman who is running for Vice President doesn't have much time to be there as a mom? I don't know what it's like yet to have older children, but I know that an infant and a small child (as her younger two are) take a tremendous amount of time. I do three comedy shows close to my home each week and edit proposals at home and still, I feel as though I don't devote enough time to my children. How can Sarah Palin raise five children and run for Vice President?
Okay, I haven't left yet. I have more questions for so-called conservative women: My friend Tish was telling me recently about a "really conservative" woman that she knows who has cancer. It's especially sad because this woman has two small children. And she works full-time, said Tish. Wait a minute, I said, if she's so conservative, why is she working full-time? This Sarah Palin thing has brought up a similar issue: So, why is it that conservative women these days think it's okay to ship their children to a government school all day and go to the workplace? That's the question I'm leaving you with.
Friday, August 29, 2008
First, let me get this off my chest, so to speak. I think that Sarah Palin is totally hot. And not just because she's in Wikipedia, although a good Wikipedia mention to someone that I'm attracted to never hurts. She is an MILF for sure! She has five children and a husband and I'm sure that she thinks she's straight. I could see myself with a couple of drinks (after which, as I've mentioned previously, I become straight myself). I would take her in my arms and kiss her and get her to be a Ron Paul supporter, all in one night! I've already read that she admires Ron Paul; getting her to give up this silly VP idea may be easy. Back to the cabin, though, we'd be, I think, just two totally straight women kissing and trying to rub the snow off each other's nose. Really. In a cabin. Surely there's a Governor's Cabin somewhere in Alaska that she and I could take the children to. Then, after all eight together (her five and my three) are in bed, well . . . there is all that snow to rub off.
Well, except that she's sold out to the Neocons. Bitch! Don't they all? Damnit. It's not just that she's straight (or so it seems--has she actually said it?), it's that she can stomach being in the room with John McCain! And why didn't McCain think about doing a bit of talking to Ron Paul about the Vice Presidency? Could it be that my opportunity to be with Sarah in the Alaska's governor's cabin was lost when McCain picked her to be his VP? No doubt, she is loads better looking than Joe Biden; so, I'd certainly want her face all over the L.A. Times for the next four years. But still . . .
At the very least, she'll get a book deal. Those of you who've been reading my blog know how upset I am about all these undeserving people getting a book deal, such as John Edwards' mistress (but not, of course, the mother of his child, at least that what his p.r. people are saying) and the woman who got herself arrested in Raleigh. But Lord, Lord, I get rejected for a book deal and comedy show by the f'in' LaLeche League because of my blogs and articles. So, would I, hot as Sarah Palin is, be able to rub off snow successfully with her if she got a book deal and I didn't?!? On the other hand, if she gets a book deal and I can do the cabin thing with her, then, why, I can write a book. I can have a book deal about having an affair with Sarah Palin! I LOVE it! Sarah Palin, I have officially invited myself to your Alaska governor cabin, baby!
Um, Sarah, if you're reading, I must mention that for many reasons, not the least of which is that you'll have little time for us to do the Alaska governor thing if you become VP (and you might even lose the governor's cabin) , I don't want you to become VP of these United States. Why? Alaska's pretty dark and cold in the winter; so, you've got a cushy job. Why leave it? What does the Alaska governor do anyway, other than say no to the feds when they want to drill? Also, you've got five children to homeschool. You are conservative, aren't you? Then, get your behunkas off the campaign circuit and take care of them youngin's, one of which is an infant, as I recall. I'm not saying women shouldn't work, but I am wondering if you'll hire a nanny and do all the crappy Washington stuff that VPs have to do, if you become vice president; and remember, you can easily be a president with McCain as old as he is, if he gets "elected." Good Lord, Sarah, I about went crazy trying to edit a proposal for NASA today and do something with my children instead of sitting them in front of the television for a few hours. How the hell do you do the governor thing and take care of those children? Or is it more boring to be a governor of Alaska than a proposal editor, as I imagine may be the case? Anyway, I saw a picture of you signing a bill with your baby in the sling. As a mom who took my third son with me on stage in a sling when he was an infant, I totally admire that.
But you'll get a book deal, even just from this VP nomination thing. And you know what? That will make me want to do the cabin thing even more with you. Except maybe we'll do it in Charlottesville. In fact, wouldn't it be great if you were in Washington and I was in North Carolina? But then, there's the whole pot thing. If you're into pot, we'd be able to do that kind of thing better on the West Coast. A friend of mine who's about our age, Sarah, (and I really hope that you're reading right now, or else, I'll feel awfully foolish because I've started writing as if to you, Sarah) this friend was telling me that because pot was legal in Alaska, the people that she used to babysit for while she was in high school--those folks grew pot! So, surely, Sarah, you have had at least a bit of experience with pot when you were in high school. You're probably cool with what nature gives us, even though you hang with the Neocons these days.
And I read that you led your basketball team (oh, how absolutely butch of you!--I'm diggin' it!) in prayer and that you got up at 3 a.m. to hunt moose with your father (a daddy's girl--again, I'm diggin' it. And I'm wondering if you've never been attracted to women. I've rarely known a girl who hunted moose with her father who didn't have some lesbian tendencies, but maybe that's just me.). You are some kind of woman. You deserve to do more with your life than be a VP. But I know, there is that book deal thing.
Anyway, I'm cool with the book deal thing, Sarah. I really am. Even if you get VP. I'll meet you at a cabin here on the West Coast, or in Charlottesville, VA (surely Clinton had the feds to pay for some kind of weekend hideaway in Charlottesville while he was in office--you can check on that for us). It snows in Charlottesville. And I'm from Raleigh. So, we can find a way to rub snow off each other's noses, whether on the East or West Coast.
another thinking mama
By the way, for everyone (and Sarah), take a look at my latest video, Sperm in a Sock. You can also see it at You Tube.
Sunday, August 17, 2008
The road to hell, it is said, is paved with good intentions. While I'm not saying that Mary Rider is going to hell or anything, I am saying that her supposed good intentions leave quite a bit to be desired. In this News and Disturber story, Rider is called a "gentle Garner dissident." She is a mother of eight, one of those children being a mere three years old. Nonetheless, Rider chose to get herself arrested. While I respect her stance regarding the death penalty--she claims that the state has no right to take someone else's life--I do not respect the way that she got herself into trouble. It makes a good deal of sense to me that she has a master's in social work. There is hardly a less useful degree than social work and hardly anything that we need less in our society than those who busy themselves with other people's business. Nonetheless, Rider evidently swallowed all the progressive goobledygunk that was, no doubt, taught to her in her busybody studies at UNC and she has lots of pity on those whom she deems less fortunate than herself. Like many well-meaning supposed liberals, Rider refuses to see prostitutes as the businesswomen that they really are; instead she wishes to place her nose into their business and "help" them:
She said she used to drive down Garner Road and see prostitutes waiting for rides and wonder what she could do to help them. Now she's beginning to see a bit more of what they go through. That she said is not only an opportunity -- it's a gift.
As a former topless dancer, I realize that the selling of sex and women's bodies, whether it's through modeling, dancing, or having the actual sex, is a choice that women make. Why should I feel sorry for those who make that choice?
And if I wanted to see what prostitutes "go through," I would certainly give the profession a try. What passes for progressive thought classifies people in two categories: those who do work deemed proper by those who fancy themselves qualified to deem it, and those who do work deemed improper. The latter category, of course, provides a multitude of people to feel sorry for. What happens with pity is that we begin to believe that there's a certain class of people who can't do. In other words, instead of looking at prostitution as the choice that it is, Rider and her cronies see prostitutes as forced, somehow, to make money selling sex. And as a bonus, Rider, as a trained social wrecker, probably sees no harm at all in the taking of babies from mothers by the $1.5 billion U.S. adoption industry. Therefore, university-trained, socially-accepted jobs, such as government school teachers and lawyers are just fine, but more practical jobs, such as prostitutes and topless dancers, are not.
It's just this kind of attitude that explains Rider's jail sentence. While I do admire her ability to stand up to the state and not pay court penalties, I can't help but wonder why she got herself arrested in the first place. And what good such an arrest will do in showing anything to the state that she supposedly abhors. Still, I can even find myself somewhat okay with the whole thing, if it weren't for this tidbit in the article:
This week she missed her daughter Veronica's first day at Exploris Middle School.
For those of you who haven't checked out this fine globalist piece of work, it comes straight from the United Nations playbook, financed with taxpayer money. Yep, it's an "independent public school," which means that Rider and other so-called progressives are sending their children to this place to be indoctrinated all day in globalist thinking, with little respect for the U.S. Constitution, or for the U.S. itself. I can hardly think of a better way to be a statist than to go to such a school. If she were really interested in defying the state, she could do so more easily, and teach those eight children how to truly be independent thinkers, by either homeschooling or sending them to a private school. Ah, but that wouldn't be very progressive of her, would it?
And then there's the whole idea of mommy in jail. Personally, as much state abuse as I see and write about, I don't want to find myself in jail. Ever. I don't particularly see how a jail sentence could help any of the causes that I espouse, some of which may indeed overlap with Rider's causes. And what's happening with those children that she's raising while mommy's serving time? This kind of thing reminds me of those career-oriented women who become lawyers and such and hire nannies to take care of their children while they traipse off to their jobs as if they were child-free. These women often think that they're showing their children, daughters especially, that mommy can do it all. Meanwhile, their babies care only that mommy is not there most of the day. I can't help but wonder what these children will learn as they grow up with mommy's being absent most of the time. In Rider's case, she's traipsing off to jail for her cause, giving her fingerprints and DNA to the state that she supposedly dislikes. In addition, she probably won't be able to buy a firearm legally to defend herself from said government. And how much is the state going to change as a result of her jail sentence?
I can't help but wonder how much Rider campaigned against or resisted the Real ID, perhaps a more ominous threat to the state of North Carolina than even the death penalty.
Sure, there is a part of me that wants to do more to abolish this police state that we live in. And yes, I think that state power is out of control. And there's no doubt that if the state kills innocent people in the process of the death penalty, that is indeed a horrid thing. But the state kills many innocent people in many ways. Every day. It's hard to see how my getting arrested would help this cause.
Oh, but like successful prostitute Rielle Hunter, Rider will probably get a book deal out of it. Arghhh!
Sunday, August 10, 2008
For promotion of the upcoming film, The Women, Parade, America's Fabian Socialist magazine, interviewed Meg Ryan, Annette Bening, and Eva Mendes. I read that Meg Ryan had gone to China, as is the trend with many wealthy L.A. women these days, and picked out a China baby. Now, do I think that babies should languish in orphanages? No. But let's face it: China's system of adoption and abortion, which takes babies away from perfectly fine moms and sells them to Westerners, will never change until and unless Westerners stop the demand for those babies. Meg Ryan's taking of one of those babies, and the press that this receives, tells American women that taking some mom's child in China is okay, that it is, in fact, desirable. Like most adopters, she underplays what's really happened to the child that she took:
" . . . adoption is just the way that I met my daughter. We have a different story than 'I went to the hospital . . . ' But it's just as mysterious and enormous."
I can't help but wonder if the child's real mother feels this way. And here's something for Meg to think about: We meet our children while they're in the womb. We meet other people's children when we take them away from their families.
The $1.5 billion adoption industry will have a hard time finding better press than they receive when such celebrities as Meg Ryan take a child and act as if the child is her own.
Right now, Ryan's China girl is three and my guess is that when she's older, Meg will take the girl back to China, as many adopters do, for a look how lucky that you are to not be living here tour.
What's not mentioned, of course, is the loss that the girl's family will live with for the rest of their lives.
Friday, August 1, 2008
Sometimes I don't write for a while in one of my blogs; sometimes I pay more attention to one than the others. Sometimes I pay more attention to life than to writing. It all depends.
I ran across this story the other day and couldn't help but note that the potential adopters, whose goods were returned, were supposedly elated that the baby was returned to its mother. Wow, I can't help but wonder if that's what they really said. If it is, then that's the first time, I think, that I've heard an adopter glad to have a baby go back to its mom. Maybe things are, indeed, looking up in the world. The adoption industry is certainly being called with this incident.
Posted by Thinking Mama at 9:31 PM
Sunday, July 27, 2008
Save the Plastic Bags!
I was in line at Trader Joe's last night, salivating and almost reaching an orgasm (almost) because they have plastic bags. For those of you who are still mourning the loss of plastic bags at Whole Foods, as I am, you can still get them at Trader Joe's, for a while anyway. The guy who checked us out said that Trader Joe's would soon be doing the same. Sigh. This supposedly green sky-is-falling action from Whole Foods has made us have to start buying the big old plastic garbage bags to use in our various trash cans around the house. Thus, our trips to Whole Foods are now less economical: We now have to buy bags instead of getting them "free" with our groceries. Whole Foods was on to this ruse and offered plastic bags by the 500-bag box for sale, of course. I'm not saying that we shouldn't get rid of plastic bags or that they're not nasty to the environment, but if they're so terrible, let us find alternatives. Nonetheless, the guy who checked us out seemed okay with what he'd just heard: The U.S. government is planning a ban on plastic bags by 2010. That the U.S. government would ban anything seems ridiculous to me. But then again, the government is ridiculous these days anyway. I felt a shiver of totalitarianism come over me, especially considering that the guy who told us this news didn't seem to mind that the U.S. government is doing such a ridiculous thing. Look, I recycle and I try to reduce waste, but I don't need a government to tell me to do it.
I thought that this Trader Joe's hearsay might be exactly that, but then I read in this morning's Los Angeles Times that L.A. County is phasing in a ban on plastic bags. Beautiful. The totalitarianism continues. I love this guy's rebuttal, though.
North Carolina Uses Taxpayer Money Wisely--Again!
I'm almost ashamed to tell people I'm from North Carolina. Anymore, that is. You can't buy raw cow's milk there and you can't buy pot legally. But really, is this kind of thing necessary? A guy is busted for growing pot on his back porch? Who are these sheriff's deputies who get off on taking away people's private property? Arghhhh! Evidently, the government school brainwashing is working. Or these sheriff's departments are getting LOTS of federal money for nosing into people's private property. And the real bitch of it all? Nobody seems to be complaining.
As much as I miss my friends and family, I really don't know that I want to live in such a state. On the other hand, we returned from North Carolina to find that California has banned cell phone use while driving, unless you've got a hands-free device. Bluetooth dealers are in heaven. This ridiculous law gives the police one more reason to stop you, but it doesn't help at all with crazy drivers.
Wednesday, July 23, 2008
The boys and I recently returned from a trip to North Carolina. No TSA agent felt us up, we could take anything we wanted without fear that someone would search us, and we didn't have to worry that something we said may set off a TSA agent, those people who often find it hard to find a job elsewhere. We haven't flown in over two years and we have no plans to do so. When we drove to North Carolina last September, we were in a hotel and I saw on the news that TSA agents had killed a mom of three. Needless to say, I was glad that we were driving. Nonetheless, people still acquiesce to the TSA and pay for the privilege of doing so. I don't know why. The government is bankrupting the airlines, giving flyers no choice but to fly in an atmosphere that Nazi Germany only dreamed of. People are lining up to be searched. It's no secret that the TSA agents are doing lots of things that they shouldn't, including feeling people up. It's strange even that there is no freedom of speech in line to board an airplane. Jokes are equated to bombs in that they are not tolerated. Make no mistake: This kind of thing isn't about stopping any supposed terrorists. It's about controlling the herds and seeing what we will put up with. I've reached my saturation point. I hope that others will soon reach theirs. Here's an excerpt from the article to which I linked:
For arguing with a TSA agent, Robin Kassner wound up being slammed to the floor. She's filed a lawsuit.
"I kept begging them over and over again get off of me ... and they wouldn't stop," Kassner said.
And it wasn't enough for another woman to show TSA agents nipple rings that set off a metal detector. The agents forced her to take them out.
Mandi Hamlin said, "I had to get pliers and pull it apart."
In Chicago, people like Robert Perry are subjected to exhaustive security checks. He was patted down, his wheel chair was examined and his hands were swabbed, all in public view in a see-through room at the security checkpoint. Perry, 71, is not alone
"It's humiliation," Perry said.
Perry was also taken to a see-through room by a TSA agent when his artificial knee set off the metal detector.
Friday, July 4, 2008
It being Fourth of July and everything, I figured I'd write something about freedom and then I looked at the computer and noticed that Jesse Helms had died. He was 86. You can read more about it in the Raleigh News and Disturber story. I know that a lot of people had qualms with Senator Helms, a.k.a. Senator No, but I admire the way that he stood up for what he believed, seemingly regardless of what other people said or thought. That kind of integrity, whether or not I agree with what he said, is sorely needed in today's world:
Helms became known as “Senator No” for his constant battles against everything from increased government spending to civil rights legislation to communism to the National Endowment for the Arts. Helms was even willing to wage war against fellow Republicans if he felt they were straying from the conservative agenda, particularly in the area of foreign policy.
I wouldn't exactly call him a Ron Paul, but I can't help but like somebody who's against funding the National Endowment for the Arts. Even when I was a graduate student in poetry and all my liberal poetry friends prayed for government money so that they could write poems against, well, the government, I was never one to want the government to fund anything. My solution to the problem was to find a job so that I could support my poetry writing; I did find this job, by the way.
Nonetheless, I am disappointed, but not surprised, to learn that Helms and his wife fell prey to the adoption industry, falling for the rhetoric of the same agency that took me from my mom and gave me to strangers. Turns out, they adopted a nine-year-old boy who wanted "a mom and dad." The child, of course, already had a mom and dad, as we all do. That child, who became a male adoptee of the Helms family, had been brainwashed by the adoption industry, who'd told him that he didn't have a mother and father, a bold-faced lie, and who'd told him to look pretty so that maybe someone could would want to be his mother and father. The little guy who'd been lied to said that he wanted "a mom and dad" in a newspaper article, the Helms family saw the article, and called Greensboro. There's nothing wrong with taking in someone else's child, but you're not ever going to be that child's parents, no matter what legal documents or adoption propagandists say. Knowing how this particular adoption agency lied to my own mom, and to the people who adopted me, I can't help but wonder how they lied to the parents of the adoptee that Jesse Helms and his wife raised. As with Bill Friday, President of the UNC system, Jesse Helms probably thanked the evil Children's Home Society (CHS) of North Carolina profusely by paying them lots of money over the years. Today, CHS has a $4 million budget. Do you think that with this kind of budget, recruitment of mothers to give their children away is going to end anytime soon?
Nonetheless, Jesse's adoptee was nine years old and probably remembered his real parents. Somehow that's not as bad as infants who are taken near birth, as I was, and given a new identity and told all their lives that the strangers who took them are their "parents." Still, I was disappointed to hear about this whole adoption thing with Jesse Helms and even more disappointed that almost every article mentions this adoptee as Helms' "son," which he is not. Once again, it's not that the Helms family took this boy in that bothers me; I admire that part. It's that they pretended that he didn't have parents and that they were his parents--that's the part that I have problems with regarding adoption.
May the unrest that Senator Helms experienced during his life now cease and may his soul rest in peace.
Thursday, July 3, 2008
I do plan to talk about the adoption thing more, but first, I simply must pass this story along. Here's a quote that pretty much explains the victimhood of all parties involved:
Aaron Ferguson says in papers filed in Manhattan's state Supreme Court that he has suffered from anorexia for about six years. He says his supervisor repeatedly exhibited "hostile behavior" and made "vile," discriminatory and hurtful comments.
The comments included, "Anorexics are sick in the head," and, "Anorexics should not be able to work," his court papers say.
Ferguson's lawyer, William H. Kaiser, said Thursday, "The things that were said in front of my client were hurtful, and once they knew he had a problem with it they should have stopped."
I feel like kicking all these folks in the back part of their anatomy, no matter how skinny or fat. It scares me that people in the workforce are so very insecure that they cower at the first supposedly harmful comment. If people are being mean to you, here's a novel idea: Find a new f'in' job! Look, it's the same things with people who claim sexual harrassment. There are lots of jobs out there, especially for good workers of all stripes. But it's so much easier to stay the victim, isn't it? Ask the feminists.
Posted by Thinking Mama at 9:56 PM
Thursday, June 26, 2008
One thing I discovered when I found my mom and dad, and when I began to delve into the $1.4 billion U.S. adoption industry, was that some of the most bitter comments came from other adoptees and mothers who'd lost a child to adoption. Having said that, there are some moms who understand that they were victims of this industry and there are some adoptees who also understand. I've even heard from some adopters and potential adopters who, instead of berating me, began to see adoption in a different light than they previously had. By far, the most open-minded are those who have not been through the adoption mill and had their natural family broken up by adoption. My friend Elizabeth is one of these people and I so appreciate her truly open mind regarding adoption. She sent me this article; if you're at all interested in adoption, I suggest that you view it. Here's what I wrote the author of the article (my comments were abbreviated on the site itself):
I'd suggest that one way is to stop calling natural parents by the derogatory term "birth parent." I have one mom and dad and always have. It's too bad that the state of Virginia told my Wilmington, N.C.-born-and-bred natural mother that "it's as if you never had a baby" when she asked for the copy of my true birth certificate, the one that she signed. I can only legally receive my falsified copy, although I know who my real mom and dad are. It might also help if the $1.4 billion U.S. adoption industry would stop marketing adoption as a way to cure all problems, whether of adopters or of parents who may not yet feel ready to be parents but who are,
nonetheless, going to be. I'd enjoy it, for instance, if the general public realized that over 40 potential adopters were waiting for each adoptable child. The adoption industry has marketed itself so well that most people are sure that the supply of children is much higher than the demand for them, even though the opposite is true. It would be nice if the natural family were not booted out of their child's life when the adopters see fit to take over, as so often happens. And of course, it would be nice if the government saw fit not to falsify our birth certificates in the first place.
The problem, Roberta, is one that so many adoptees proliferate: that of saying how wonderful adoption is. I have a wonderful life and had a pretty good childhood. The people who adopted me were pleasant and well-meaning. But that doesn't negate the horrid pain of separation that I experienced as an infant, when social workers took me away from my mother. My pain, and the pain of many adoptees, is never shown on the happy adoption stories that mainstream media present. In fact, I have experienced, especially in the past few years, a real campaign by mainstream media to shut me and other honest adoptees up, to silence the horrid realities of adoption.
Until people stop thinking that separating a mother and child via adoption is a wonderful thing, people will continue to accept things such as falsifying birth certificates. I suggest that your efforts to "reform" the adoption industry be focused on stopping mother and child separation in the first place. Then, the birth certificate issue would take care of itself.
Reunited Adoptee and Natural Mother
Los Angeles, California
Roberta, like so many adoptees, seeks not to end the pain of adoption, but to make it somehow seem better by seeming to make adoptees have a bit more say in the process. It didn't surprise me one bit that she, like many people who are affected by adoption but refuse to think that adoption is anything but wonderful, called me "bitter." She also, if I'm reading her letter correctly, fails to note that my childhood was pretty happy, despite being separated from my natural family. The fact that I had a happy childhood, however, did not diminish my desire to find my parents. Nonetheless, I think that Roberta proves exactly what I was talking about in my letter to her regarding adoptees: Unfortunately, she and many adoptees have chosen to believe the adoption industry's rhetoric and she seems to refuse to examine any other side of things.
Again, I'm sorry for any pain that I caused by copying and pasting and publicizing any e-mail or links to anybody's Web site. We had just returned, within hours, from a trip across the country and I was in a hurry.
Note: I am happy to say that this blog entry seems to have received a lot of views and I've gotten some nice comments from people, including an adoptee who gets it. I absolutely love it when people begin to understand what's going on! And that's what it's all about, isn't it? I also checked out Roberta's Web site and it seems to be filled with those who want to believe the adoption is wonderful fantasy. Roberta did ask that I remove her e-mail from my blog, which I am happy to do. Although people have done a lot of quoting from me, I always try to oblige when people want me to remove something that I've written about them from my blog. I'm guessing that my blog has sent her some traffic, but then again, I'm guessing that she doesn't want that publicity either. So, if you want to find her Web site, you'll have to do it from the link that's posted earlier in this blog entry; to my knowledge, posting a link to someone's article is not a sin of any sort. As always, I mean no harm to anyone with my writing.
To answer my friend Elizabeth: Yes, the government falsifies birth certificates and seals the original ones. Occasionally, a state government will throw adoptees a small bone and give limited access to the original, truthful, unamended birth certificate. Funny how when the non-adoption affected understand what's going on, they also see how horrible adoption, in its present form, really is.