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.

Sunday, August 30, 2009

And Yet, She Still Calls Herself His Mother

My non-adopted friends and acquaintances seem to think that what I, as a reunited adoptee, have to say about adoption, is interesting. To most of them, hearing that adoption isn't the wonderful panacea that mainstream media, with the generous help of the $1.6 billion adoption industry, have portrayed it to be is a bit of a shock, considering that all they've heard seems to be the adoption-friendly propaganda that mainstream media spews. One especially open-minded friend, E., told me once, "But isn't adoption demeaning to motherhood itself?" I was pleasantly surprised that someone actually concluded this fact simply be reading my blog and doing some thinking. Of course, E. has children and grew up in a large family; natural family seems important to her, and I don't think that she, like most people, had ever really thought much about adoption, beyond what mainstream media tell us to think. I can relate. Until my own reunion, I pretty much believed the wonderful adoption myths, too, or tried to believe them. Most non-adoption-affected people seem to take natural family for granted, which is wonderful.

Nonetheless, there is a rather predictable story in today's Los Angeles Times, that pantheon of mainstream black and white thought that allows those who believe the supposedly right things to have as much say as possible. And quickly denies those of us who may vary from currently approved thought. I don't remember the last time I saw a disgruntled mom who'd lost a child to adoption portrayed in the Times, but I know there are quite a few of them in SoCal and across the country. Ah, but that wouldn't somehow be politically correct, would it? To allow these moms to talk might well hurt the adoption industry that may be one of the few industries still advertising in newspapers. In fact, p.r. is so good at these adoption agencies that often, the Times and other newspapers will write an article for free, encouraging everyone to think about the adopters and not so much about the natural families who've been broken up by adoption.

These are important things to keep in mind as we think about today's wonderful adoption story, "Adopted teen finds answers, mystery in China." Turns out, a now-teen renamed "Christian Norris" by the woman who adopted him, has, with her blessing and gentle encouragement, of course, returned to China and reunited with his natural family. Turns out that he, whom Julia Norris adopted only a few years ago, was not taken to an orphanage by his parents, but rather, happened to be lost:

He was born Jin Jiacheng in 1991 in Yinchuan, a city in the Ningxia region several hundred miles west of Beijing, to a couple who both worked in a hospital and already had a son. Because his parents could have been penalized for having a second child, he was sent as a newborn to his father's home village to be raised by his grandmother and a 23-year-old uncle, who pretended the infant was his own son. When he turned 6 and was ready to start school, they sent him back to the city.

He had lived only briefly with [his parents] when he somehow got lost, his family says. His father, Jin Gaoke, said they were on an excursion by bus and that he got off for a few minutes to buy food at a market, returning to discover that the bus had driven off . . . The family was wrenched apart by the boy's absence. His mother went into a deep depression. His father and uncle stopped speaking to each other, the younger one blaming the father for losing the child.

As I read this, I am trying to imagine what would happen if that tragic scenario happened to one of my friends or me and somebody's child were separated from their dad and mom and ended up in a foreign country calling some strange woman "mommy." This is, of course, an injustice that a mom and dad should not have to put up with, and the whole situation is tragic, indeed. In China, adoption facilitators must love this kind of thing, although I'm sure that they like it better when the child is younger, so that they may market more infants to the burgeoning Western adopter market. In fact, one might wonder what would happen in China if Westerners did not create such a high demand for children; perhaps the Chinese government would be forced to change their ridiculous policies. Already, some Chinese people are now able to have more than one child, a progression that has happened only in the last few years.

In some ways, this story reminds me of "Daughter from Danang," a documentary that I saw when I was pregnant with my now-six-year-old. In that film, a young woman returns to her home and mother; blatently shown are the U.S. social workers of the 70s, who were begging moms to give away children. If more people would see this documentary, stranger adoption would be a thing of the past. In this film, the daughter who found her mother had lived with her mom until she was five or six, then she was taken by social workers to the U.S. and marketed as an orphan. At this point, I want to ask all moms of small children, either currently or in the past: What would you do if your child was taken to a foreign country and told to be a son or daughter to someone? Would you feel as though there was some kind of injustice? Would you want to press charges against the people who took the child? Would you at least want to sue them? Just as we allow U.S. troops all over the world but would be quite angry if, say, the Iraqis placed their troops in the U.S., we encourage mothers in other countries to give up their babies so that they can be raised in the United States and pretend to be the children of U.S. citizens. U.S. citizens applaud this kind of thing, not thinking much about the families who lose the children. One wonders how many U.S. folks, well-meaning neighbors and acquaintances of Julia Norris, welcomed Jin, a.k.a. "Christian Norris" when he was forced to come to the U.S. and live with a complete stranger, separated from the only family he'd ever known: his natural family. The whole loss of the young Jin by his father was a tragic event indeed, made much more tragic by the fact that he was shipped to another country, away from all family.

One also may wonder what would happen to most of us if we claimed to "fall in love" with a nine-year-old child. I mean, even I, who am quite tolerant of many things, would think that falling in love with a nine-year-old is just weird somehow. While I am not at all accusing Julia Norris or any other adopters of anything inappropriate, there is something about the tone of that phrase and some strange adult saying it to an eight- or nine-year-old that is akin to something that doesn't quite feel right. How would it sit with the government schools, for instance, if some teacher said this to a student? Julia Norris is not the first adopter to publicly claim to have fallen in love with her adoptee, in her case, after "touring the orphanage on a business trip." I have read more than one adopter's claim to have "fallen in love" with some child at the orphanage. And from what I have heard and read, many adopters do indeed take advantage of this stranger relationship and act out on their feelings of falling "in love" with their adoptee, which is sad; again, I am not implying that anything inappropriate has happened with any adopter, but some adoptees have mentioned that sometimes, those kinds of things have happened. I mention this information to point out how different things are in the delusion of adoption. It's okay for a single U.S. career woman to fall in love with a child and take him out of his country and into her home? Doesn't anyone see anything remotely wrong with this? We're talking about a stranger boy who was eight or nine when she met him, not about an infant! It's absurd at best, but the Times, of course, celebrates it and treats it as though it's the most natural and wonderful thing in the world.

In fact, I wonder if the story would have even run if the natural parents of the boy, who have been without their son for over eight years, had demanded him back, with money for damages demanded from the agency that oversaw Jin's adoption. The story paints Julia as a "single mother," a real irony considering that my mom and many other moms have lost a child mainly because they were single moms. The writer is also careful to paint Jin's natural family with the demeaning "birth parent" term, which is one name that many parents who've lost a child to adoption appropriately find to be a proverbial kick in the groin. How would you like it if, after losing your four- or six- or eight-year-old, you found the child years later and you were called a mere birth parent, a breeder, the DNA donor?

Even though the circumstances of Jin's adoption are tragic, his parents are still demeaned to breeders and his adoptress who, in this case did not change his diapers (I say this only because so many adopters claim that they should be called parents simply because they have changed their adoptees' diapers.) is deemed the mother in this situation, the true real mother who has paid for most of his schooling and who will pay for his college and who has watched him grow up, while his family was torn apart by their loss.

Don't look for any Times articles from the articulate moms that I've met on Facebook and MySpace who have lost a child and continue to grieve, always think of themselves as their child's mother, and believe that stranger adoption is a "cruel" and "evil" practice. There are moms like that out there, but they ain't getting published in the Times--that's for sure. And there may or may not be anything wrong with someone to take care of a boy who seems alone, as Julia Norris may be quite good at, but she is not, nor ever will be the boy's true mother.

And so I shall end my soliloquy by saying that I could hardly care less that newspapers such as the Times are going the way of the dinosaur. I say that having just witnessed the layoff, after 43 years, of my father-in-law at another major newspaper. I wish him well, of course, but he's one of those real journalist types who believes in mainstream media as if it's God. His intentions are good, but he hasn't experienced rejection of his editorial letters, as I have from the Times because my letters spoke against the sacred adoption industry. Soon after the Times stopped printing my letters, around 2003 or so, I began to look at lots of other things they weren't covering, for instance, Ron Paul. I began to see that mainstream media are not necessarily liberal or conservative, but statist, and built to stay that way, of course. The state and the wishes of the elite, such as familial separation through adoption, is supreme in mainstream media; the Internet has rightly shown that people are sick of this kind of thing, being that so-called alternative blogs are enlightening people to all kinds of ideas; and this kind of idea-spreading via the Internet is so threatening to the elite that they have hired Emperor O. to, among other things, give the Office of the President the power to shut down the Internet. Until that time, however, those of us whose natural families have been ripped apart by adoption will continue to write about what adoption is really like.

Tuesday, August 18, 2009

Random Losses of Freedom

Celebrity adoption continues: "Sex and the City's Willie Garson Adopts" an 8-year-old. I have an 8-year-old and while, fortunately, there are other people who would be closer on my list to raise my children, were something to happen to their father and me, i.e., people I know, Willie Garson, and I'm saying this as someone who's never met him, is probably an okay person to raise a child. And many kudos to him and to Celebrity Baby Blog for mentioning the 8-year-old's natural mother, whom Garson plans to keep in the proverbial picture. But here's the problem I have with this whole scenario: You can't adopt a son! Either he's your son or he isn't. In this case, Willie ain't the dad. That fact doesn't mean that Willie can't take the boy in and raise him and love him and be a father figure to him. But Willie can never be the boy's father and he can never replace the father that the boy has, wherever that dad may be. That said, the father does not seem to be the in picture and no one mentions why. It's obvious that mainstream media likes to label adopters as parents, no matter what, as if you can sign legal papers, profess love, and suddenly be a dad. It's also interesting to read the comments and find that people are so very gung ho about adoption, just in general. Therefore, we can see that the adoption propaganda is working. Very well. I wonder about the 8-year-old's real dad and if he wants to be out of the scene or if he was pushed away. Dads are important, too, and yet mainstream media often like to leave the dads out.

Pot Stores
I have to say that while the economy is sucking, if I may so eloquently describe it, pot stores seem to be thriving. They're popping up all over the San Fernando Valley (SFV), and as I've mentioned previously, there's a discount pot store, the Target of pot (must be pronounced Tar-zhay!), if you will, in our middle-class, normal looking SFV neighborhood. The pot store in our neighborhood, like the pot store I used to visit from time to time in Eagle Rock, seems to have the whole Obama worship thing going. The Eagle Rock pot store was sure that the moment Emperor Obama came into office, there would be no more DEA tax-feeders standing at the train station, staring at what the state of California has said is a legal dispensary of marijuana. Our neighborhood discount pot store, which I have also visited (research!), has a picture of Emperor O. hanging high on the wall, near the ceiling. Accompanying said picture is some Emperor O. quote about leaving pot stores alone. Personally, I fail to genuflect before it. Nonetheless, pot stores have become much more relaxed in the past few months, though I can't help but wonder if the relaxation isn't a bit premature. After all, last Thursday's Los Angeles Times had a story on page A5 that shows what a liar Emperor O. seems to be. Unless I'm missing something here, "Pot stores raided in West L.A., Culver City" has little to do with the Emperor O. quote about leaving California's 420 marijuana dispensaries alone. Ah, but no. I guess it's kinda sorta like Emperor O.'s quote on war, that war with Afghanistan is a "war of necessity," alluding, I suppose, to globalist Richard Haass' War of Necessity, War of Choice: A Memoir of Two Iraq Wars. You know, I never did much like Emperor O., but his telling me, as I heard ad nauseum on NPR today, that the Afghan war is "of necessity" and expecting me to believe it has really gotten my dander all fluffed. I'm guessing that's as big of a lie as the quote about telling the feds to leave California the hell alone, as is prominently displayed in the pot store, although obviously, my words aren't the exact quote.

The pot store story, in fact, lists a whole cadre of characters, in fact, some of them paid by our gigantic California taxes, who helped the DEA to perform these raids, showing that Emperor O. can not only waste tax money for the nation, but also for individual states:
Federal authorities and local police agencies raided two Westside marijuana dispensaries Wednesday as well as the residences of the owners. . . . The DEA, FBI, Internal Revenue Service, Los Angeles County Sherriff's Department, Los Angeles Police Department, Torrance Police Department and Culver City Police Department took part in the raids.

So, you can see that these agencies grabbed a lot of loot, especially having a license to steal from the owners' private residences. I'm ashamed of every last one of these agencies, all of which I am forced to support. It sickens me to know that the LAPD, whose job should be to protect and serve, as their cars say, would be involved in such an unconstitutional raid. But the last paragraph of the story tells the real tale:

Law enforcement agencies have been cracking down on pot dispensaries for some time, but officials did not immediately say what prompted these raids.

Well, I can't tell you what prompted them, of course, but I can tell you who didn't stop them: Emperor O. I kinda doubt he's going to be ending any wars soon either.

L.A. Water

When we moved here, our first apartment manager, Scott, told us that there's always a big controversy about water in Southern Calfornia and SoCal is always fighting with Northern California about water, et cetera. Well, as it turns out, SoCal has used that fight, and the recent supposed draught (How can you tell? It never rains here anyway!) to have another reason for the government and neighbors to snoop and snitch on you. I am quoting here from a story in last Sunday's Los Angeles Times: Among the new Department of Water and Power (DWP) "limits on water use," are these dandy guidelines:
-Automatic sprinklers are limited to Mondays and Thursdays before 9 a.m. or after 4 p.m.
-Sprinklers must not run more than 15 minutes per watering station.
-Hand watering is allowed any day before 9 a.m. or after 4 p.m., but only with an automatic shut-off nozzle.
-Cars may be hose-washed only if a shut-off nozzle is used.
-Water may not be used to wash hard surfaces, such as sidewalks, driveways or parking areas, except for health and safety purposes.
-Runoff into streets and gutters is prohibited.

Now, Mr. Thinking Mama and I try to watch water consumption and we certainly read what's happening in our water bill. We'd read these guidelines--which went along with a changed tier structure, one that strongly encourages use of the guidelines--and I thought that they were mere suggestions, guidelines meant to be followed but not necessarily enforced. Or as my 8-year-old put it when we were discussing them prior to June 1st, when the guidelines went into effect: What are they going to do, give you a ticket? Not only was he indeed perceptively correct but the DWP has also tacked on a $100 fine. Here's the cautionary tale language that the Times reporter uses:
"Try as they might, offenders can't hide the evidence. The previous commodity is already flowing down gutters and driveways, glistening off blades of grass and rosebushes . . . "

In other words, resistance is futile. It's not nearly enough, evidently, that the LADWP is raising our rates. Nope! We must use this opportunity to provide more snitches, for something that used to be a common sight: runoff. Now, I'm not saying that we should waste water and, in fact, nary a drop of mop water here at the Gingerbread House goes to waste, as I take the mop water outside and give it to some needy plants. I'm not saying we shouldn't conserve water; I am saying that the government shouldn't have another excuse to step on my private property and give me a $100 fine for something that I am paying for.

Pot stores and private property are two things that the government should stay far away from. However, as the police state continues to infiltrate our lives, this kind of government and neighborhood snooping will continue:

Since the restrictions took effect, fewer than 30 water users have actually been hit with fines, which begin at $100 for a first offense. Most of the citations issued so far have been only warnings.

With water conservation officers patrolling only during regular business hours, some self-appointed vigilantes have stepped in. They watch for mysterious puddles, broken sprinkler heads and after-hours hand-watering across neighborhoods and business. Then they send complaints--more than 4,200 so far--via phone, e-mail and most recently on Twitter.

Yep, Twitter.

Doesn't it do my heart good to know that our fine L.A. neighbors may just be a Twitter away from having us fined for $100, or at least from having us snooped upon.

It's interesting that when I was growing up, I heard all this stuff at church about how lucky we were that we didn't live in the Soviet Union. We'd watch films and hear stories about those poor, poor folks under Communist rule. This kind of propaganda was a mere reflection of what was going on in our society at the time: A push to make us so very thankful for living in the free and wonderful United States when people in the Soviet Union, Cuba, and other Communist-ruled places were having such a hard life. No doubt, I'm extremely thankful that I don't live, today, in someplace like Communist China, which would have forced me to give away at least one of my children, or kill one, or abort one. And yes, I am thankful to be living in what I'm assuming is the freest country in the world.

But what happens when that very free country that you grew up thankful to live in turns itself into a state that's much like that of the former Soviet Union, with state-paid volunteer informants on every street corner and no respect for private property or the free market system?

Sunday, August 9, 2009

I Probably Won't Be Doing Any Shows with This Guy

I could certainly get a lot more work if I believed the adoption myths. I am painfully aware of this fact and sometimes, people remind me of it. I often am critical of celebrities who use the money that we pay to see them to adopt someone else's child. I am especially critical of comics who do this kind of thing. I used to think that comedy was the last bastion of truth and I really admired the comics that I have worked with who have been nothing but supportive when I talk about adoption. However, so many comics have adopted lately that I find myself wondering how much of a career I have in comedy. I am up front about my feelings about adoption with comics; there is one I worked with at Canoga Park Bowl who is determined to adopt a child. I told her that I was very much against stranger adoption. I will tell this to anyone who asks. It's interesting though that when I hear from people about what I write, there is a clear line of demarcation: Those who adopt hate me, except for a few, such as this one. They use ad hominem attacks and any other faulty logic to discredit me. Here's what adopter and comic Dana Gould wrote:

Dear Comic Mom,

I greatly enjoyed your response to the LA Weekly's article about Tom Fryckman and Cathy Ladman's adoption story. As an adoptive parent myself, one who has, in your words, "taken another woman's child," I am always interested in learning about other people's views on adoption, especially when they are breathtakingly ignorant and narcissistic.

Like yours!!

Let me just touch on one point. Briefly. A full refutation of your letter would take too long. But, one point, please.

Why do you assume that the decision to adopt is based solely on one's inability to biologically procreate? Can you not see children as anything other than a little genetic mirror? The world outside Brentwood is teeming with children who don't have parents. The "mother" for whom you pine is nowhere to be found. These children NEED a mom and dad. They're called "orphans". They live in big buildings full of other children in the same situation. These buildings are called "orphanages". I bet if you ever set foot inside one and actually exposed yourself to the plight of these children, you’d revisit your narrow, ego-driven worldview and maybe even throw up in your mouth a little bit.

All over the world, people like myself, Tom, Cathy and so many others, take these children into their lives, giving them a family and saving them (sometimes) from grotesque, tragic and unspeakable fates.

My children were in orphanages for the first year of their lives. They live in America now and have blossomed into healthy, luminous, beautiful girls. But you can't see photos my children on a website, Tricia. Because even though my children are from another mother, I value them enough not to pimp them out on the internet to prop up my flabby stand up act.

Like you do.

Dana Gould
Adoptive parent

It'd be really easy to get down about a letter such as this one. After all, he's basically saying that I'm a bad mother because there are pictures of my children on the Internet, or something like that. And of course, he's a great adopter because, supposedly, there are no pictures of his adoptees? And yet, there are lots and lots of people, as Mr. Thinking Mama pointed out, who have pictures of their children on the Internet. And yes, I've pondered this question, and I think I'm doing the right thing. My children certainly love to see themselves on the Internet and usually, I don't talk much about them in my comedy routine, although I often, with their petulance and permission, allow them to do comedy with me. Mr. Gould, by the way, despite his supposed disdain for genetic similarities, talks much in the routines by him that I've heard, about how his family is so screwed up that they should not reproduce. It's funny material and as a comic, he has a lot of success. Again, this information is what I've heard from his videos. Gould also probably depends on comedy for his living; whereas, I do not. Therefore, I have much more creative freedom and I really appreciate that. I can be "flabby" if I want to be. He has, of course, more commercial success, but then again, I can live with myself and I sleep easily at night, both of which are great benefits for me. If I had to tour and that kind of thing, I'd find it difficult. However, I am fortunate and thankful to have Mr. Thinking Mama to help me.

It's easy for regular readers of my blog, many of whom are mothers who have lost one or more children to adoption, to see how Mr. Gould has fallen into the adoption myth trap. He truly believes that he has saved his little China girls (I think that he adopted from China; I'm assuming so, here) from death or some such and he fails to see how his demand, and the demand of other China adopters, are indeed contributing to the problem. There's a mom out there who longs for her child, or children, and Mr. Gould has them. Fortunately, for him, that mom was hoodooed by the Chinese government into giving her child to an orphanage. And it seems as though he believes that by bringing these children to the ever omnipotent America, he has saved these children from a certain doom.

For the record, people have suggested that I, mother of three boys, adopt a "China doll" (not my quote, but the quote of an adopter). I will not, however, increase demand for adoption by taking one of these children and pretending that the girl is my own. Mr. Gould's words are, unfortunately, quite predictable. Fortunately, there are many non-adopters who are listening to me and to the voices of moms in the U.S. who have lost one or more children to adoption. Perhaps the Chinese moms who have lost a child will be silenced, but those of us have lost family members and can speak up are beginning to do so.

Why Try To Make A Mother Out of Someone Who's Not?

Well, those who've been reading my stuff for a while know that I really don't like the Los Angeles Times, and most other mainstream media outlets. At some times, I'm really reminded of my disdain for the Times. Yesterday morning's headlines "A sentence, and hopes, are lifted in '83 killing," started out as a story about a man convicted of murdering his "mother." However, there is now a question of perhaps his being convicted on "false evidence." Turns out, in one of the pictures at the top of the story, that there is a picture of "Mother and Son," but the caption under it says "Dorka Lisker was not keen about adoption at first but became delighted, her husband said." Ah-ha! We now find out that there is not matricide here, but perhaps a murder of the man's adoptress. The picture, by the way, shows that detached view that so many adoptresses have, that "I'm holding this baby and trying to look pleasant" view that I'd probably have if I were holding someone else's baby. Let's face it: Children are often somewhat disgusting if they're not you're own. In adoption, children are often given to strangers and the strangers feel obliged to love them. Many adopters these days will even say that they love their children as much as or more than if the children were actually their own. This is dubious. I can say, however, growing up with people who loved me a bunch did not make up for the loss of my family; no amount of love can do that. Although both murder situations are tragic, being accused of murdering someone's mother is different than being accused of murdering someone's adoptress.

Even though adoption seemed to figure prominently in the Times' story, according to the picture and its caption, the Times insists on making the adoptress into a mother, not even bothering to call her an "adoptive mother," which would certainly have been more honest. Nope, there are only mere shreds of honesty at the Times, which also eagerly tries to make mothers out of Jamie Lee Curtis, Joan Didion, and others. And so, it doesn't seem to bother anyone at the Times' offices when they fail to state the truth. I guess that's why Times readership, like that of its New York namesake, is going south. I can hardly wait until its readership is so low that it must go out of business. Sure, my father-in-law was just laid off, after 43 years as a photographer, from another big city newspaper. It's very sad for the employees, yes, but as for truth and diverse opinions, losing mainstream media's propaganda machines could hardly be better.

Saturday, August 1, 2009

No Picture Necessary

Usually, I'm a huge picture taker, but I hope that the following words will explain adequately what I have to say.

Some China adoption group recently caught wind of me, evidently. I received the usual "What the hell are you thinking, idiot?" e-mails from adopters, heard nothing from natural mothers and fathers who'd lost a child to adoption (not unusual when they're halfway across the earth), and nothing from those sweet China dolls (one of them described their adoptees this way) who may never know anyone in their natural family. The adopters, let it be known, speak for all of us separated by adoption. And if you don't believe that, well, you're in for a surprise. The adopters have the final say in everything. Nonetheless, one of them wrote me and asked what I would do with all the "unwanted" children, as if they were sitting in droves in China and the U.S. The first thing I'd do as adoption czar is to return all children to parents who actually want them. My guess is that, if we listened to the parents instead of, or even in addition to those who want to adopt, the adopters would have to return 95% of their adoptees to someone in the child's natural family. That leaves about 5% of adoptees who are truly unwanted.

My own personal story is like many others: Certainly, it's not one of being unwanted. It is one of being wanted by my mom and possibly even by my dad, who was shut out of the picture early in the process, but being coerced by the adoption industry, who assured my adopters that my mother had been given "two chances" to keep me. My mother was assured that if she loved me, she would give me away. Only in adoption is such faulty logic so steadily adhered to.

Nonetheless, we all believed the adoption lies, my mom and dad going on not to tell my half-sister and half-brother, respectively, that I even existed. I grew up knowing that I may well have a brother or sister and lots of other real relatives. I was contrary when it came to adoption, except for the times that I felt I had to lie to myself, and I eventually came to see through the $1.6 billion per year adoption industry, which buys and sells babies many times each day. Do you really think that all those babies in China are unwanted? And do you really think that continuing the demand from Westerners, from which 40 potential adopters currently wait for each adoptable infant, will stop the Chinese government from having their crazy and evil requirements on family planning?

Nonetheless, these adoptees will find it much harder to find their families than even I did. And it seemed, at one point, that I would never ever find them. While I am thankful to know who my family is, I cannot overlook the problems of having been separated from them for so very long. Earlier this week, I was dissed by a relative, I'll call Relative X, who blatantly and lovingly kissed and hugged my brother, got in her truck, and left me standing without so much as a wave. Later, my brother and father, who were supposed to be attending my sons' birthday party, called right before the party to tell me that they would not be attending, after telling my children that they'd be there. It would be very tempting for adopters to say at this point, and many will, "See? That's what happens when you have a reunion with people who didn't want you." But indeed, adoption in and of itself has produced these bizarre situations. After reunion, natural families experience a wide range of emotions for the rest of their lives. The family can never fully recover. And there are always scars. The alternative, of course, is living a lie, which I am thankful that I no longer do.

Please don't think that the elite are not aware of what they do in stranger adoption; this kind of thing has been planned for a long time and breaking up families is just one of the many distractions that we have to what's really going on in the world. I think about how much stronger my own natural family would be had we not been separated by adoption and while there would, no doubt, be pain and strangeness, I would be in the pictures of my family instead of in the pictures of a stranger's family, trying to fit in.

You can certainly bet that the New World Order currently being forced upon us would not be happening if our families were stronger. Adoption has probably broken up more families than divorce. And yet, mainstream media continue to tell us how wonderful adoption is. And many people continue to believe it. Those of us who have been separated must continue to speak out, or else the adoption nightmare will continue to expand to many more families.

You can also read a bit more about my experience with my natural family this week at my Comic Mom blog.