Aspie with Attitude

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

Tuesday, December 8, 2009

Giving Your Baby Away: It's the RIGHT Thing to Do!

When I think about the fools and idiots that the government schools are producing, I can't help but to think about my own parents at 17. My dad seemed to think it was the best thing to give away his firstborn; my mom believed social wreckers, even though she knew in her heart that she did not want to give away her daughter. Both believed the idiotic lie that giving a baby to strangers is the right thing to do. If there's one thing that government schools do an excellent job of, it's teaching people to go against their instincts.

Despite the maternal instincts of my mother, social wreckers took me away and I never saw my mom again until I was 34 years old. In the meantime, my mom and dad and the brother and sister who didn't consciously know about me, suffered very silently. If I complained or even talked about wanting to find my real parents, I was usually told something to the effect of: Well, it's great that you were adopted by such wonderful people! And yes, I'm quite glad that they weren't serial killers or some such. They were, indeed, pretty nice folks. The problem is that they weren't my family. I've developed some really great relationships with the people that I went to school with and grew up with; however, nothing, nothing at all can make up for the loss of the family that God gave me. I don't even try to write this kind of thing for mainstream media anymore; nor do I write letters to producers telling them how terrible it is to glorify adoption. Nor do I hope anymore that some television show will show a mother who lost her child years ago and still grieves for that lost child. But you can bet that these moms are well represented on the Internet. And they are often quite pissed. And not afraid to say it. Showing adoption as anything less than lovely, of course, would hurt the profits of the fabulous adoption industry, a $1.6 billion business and counting.

Therefore, it's okay when the hip MTV shows a couple's strife and crying as they give their firstborn to adopters (from North Carolina, no less) who promise to write and send cards. Of course, the parents are not allowed to know the physical address of their child in North Carolina. And they're already being demeaned to "birthparents," or breeders. Nor are they allowed to be sad for too long, because, never fear--there is grief counseling available! It hardly seems that any tragedy these days can go unattended by a grief counselor, but my question is: Where were these counselors when they could have prevented the tragedy of mother and child separation?!? And part of me really wants to horsewhip some sense into these idiotic new parents and I'd certainly like to horsewhip the idiots in North Carolina who gladly took a baby away from her mother. If the adopters were so very concerned about the welfare of the child, why didn't they provide financial and emotional support to the parents? No, in this case, the adults all acted like children, with everyone believing all the adoption lies; my parents did the same thing, evidence that in the 60s as with now, the government schools are working just as planned: separating families, one child at a time. It's interesting that the man who adopted me came from a family in which most of the women were married and having children by age 16, which used to be more or less the norm. Read John Taylor Gatto and you'll find that one of the jobs of the public education system in the United States is to keep children as children as long as possible, and to turn them into childish adults. In other words, one of the jobs of the government schools is to make our society into a bunch of spoiled adults who act like children. What better way to control a population?

Of course, the real loser in this situation is the little girl, Carly, who'll grow up surrounded by the lies of adoption and with four adults who seem fully to support those lies. She'll be confused and perplexed and be shown pictures of her real family but no answer she'll ever get will satisfy her as to the reason that she isn't with them. The mother, with her leaking breasts that are supposed to be feeding her baby, will go on pretending as long as she can. No matter how many children she and the father have, no child will ever replace the child they lost by adoption and their family will have a huge hole in it, as if someone died and yet, no one has physically died. That the MTV circus makes money off of this tragedy through advertising, and that people will watch it, is further proof that our society may as well bring back the lions den.

Of course, things will get better for the parents, as they negotiate a new season with MTV: Life Without Baby, perhaps? And one wonders where the parents of Catelynn Lowell and Tyler Baltierra are. Why are they so supportive of losing their grandchild? With adoption being glamorized thusly, one wonders how many other pregnant teens are waiting in the proverbial wings, hoping that they will also get a reality show moment if they decided to give away their baby. And how many will google the very unChristian Bethany Christian Services, a very unChristlike organization whose social wreckers separate many families each day, often by lying to and otherwise misleading the mothers, from what I have read and heard from mothers who've been lied to and misled by this agency. This MTV moment is great advertising for everybody involved, but it grossly neglects the only innocent victim here, the baby who is, as I write this, wondering where her mothers breasts are; the baby who will never understand why she was given away; the baby whose psyche has been permanently damaged by parents who achieved their fifteen minutes of fame and adopters who believed themselves to be such good parent material that they took a newborn from her mother. Let's remember that there are also sponsors willing to pay MTV to be a part of this tragedy and there are people willing to watch it without demanding that it stop. All of which lead to the conclusion that the government schools are working exactly as planned. B.F. Skinner and all his behaviorist friends, who believe that children are blank slates and that a child needs not his or her mother but merely an adult of some sort, must be doing some kind of special victory dances in their graves. Or in their ivory tower offices.

Sunday, December 6, 2009

Supporting the Serial Adoptress: It's All About the Gifts

Recently, a female comic that I'd heard of, although never met, died. She had lung cancer and I don't think that she smoked. She was only in her late fifties and from all accounts, she was quite a funny comic. Someone on a comedy list passed around a video of her and in the interview, she talked all about how unfair comedy is to women. "We've already got a woman comic," she said that so many producers tell her regarding shows. Her whole thing during the interview video seemed to be about providing a voice for female comics who would otherwise have no voice. I've been doing comedy in and around Los Angeles for over six years now and I've yet to have anyone say any such thing to me. I'm not saying that it doesn't or hasn't ever happened, but I've experienced only shows in which funny women were just as respected as funny men. Of all the things that I wish to solve in this world, female victimization in the comedy and job world isn't one of them. Frankly, I don't see enough of it to find it much of a problem, and I say that as someone who took her then-infant around to many comedy shows only five years or so ago. Sure, I was thrown out of the Laugh Factory for breastfeeding, but that was certainly not because I was a woman per se. When I was pregnant, I was wholly welcomed into the Laugh Factory.

I mention this kind of thing because I find the taking of one woman's child by another woman, deemed to be superior, as one of the greatest insults to women ever. I'd much rather fight that battle than the supposed prejudice regarding a job or comedy show. For those who wish to discriminate against women or whomever, there are always other jobs or comedy shows or whatever. However, taking away a child from a mother is usually an event that has permanent implications, both for the child and mother; and there's no replacing a child. Taking a child from his or her mother is one of the cruelest forms of degradation to women and my unadopted and un-adoption-brainwashed friend, E., easily recognized this easily after reading my blogs, as do others unaffected by adoption. However, Parade, America's Fabian Socialist magazine, tries hard to brainwash the common folk. With propaganda sheets in almost every major- and medium-market newspaper, Parade tries hard to focus on the globalist agenda, which has, for many years, included the breakup of natural families and the recycling of children to families deemed more worthy by the social wreckers who place themselves as gods over the lives of children whose parents are willing to listen. Therefore, it does not at all surprise me that today's installment of socialist propaganda includes an article by adoptress, mother, and "Contributing Editor" to America's Fabian Socialist rag, Jacquelyn Mitchard, entitled "The Richest Woman in Town."

The article goes on to show what lengths this serial adoptress will go to in order to prove how worthy she is of other people's children. Mitchard, who through "birth and adoption," claims ownership and parentage of seven children, although she is not clear on which children are actually hers and which she's taken from another mom. Interestingly, Mitchard has so much control over her financial situation that her assistant must tell her that she and her husband--who, like most adopter husbands, simply goes along with his wife's indulgences--are broke. I can't help but wonder if some of her adoptees have parents who are doing financially better than she at the moment. Nonetheless, Mitchard and her DH are bound and determined to take two more children from their country and their mom, whom Mitchard has already demeaned to a mere "birth mother." The mother's sin, in this case, was not necessarily having children out of wedlock, as was the case when my own mother was robbed of her firstborn, but rather, the new adoptees' mother contracted AIDS. Oh well, too f'in' bad, at least according to Mitchard. Or to put it more appropriately: I, American adoptress, deserve to be called mommy much more than some African woman who has untreated HIV. Even if she weren't broke, I doubt that Mitchard ever considered sponsoring the mother and children so that the family could stay together, perhaps bringing the mom for some medical treatment in the United State. Nah.

Unfortunately, this kind of I'm-entitled-to-your-child attitude pretty much sums up American adopters who see themselves, even flat broke, as far superior to real mothers, especially those dying in other countries. Yep, Mitchard, who claims to not "really know how we're going to make it," has opened her home to two more children who'll have a much better life with a trampoline and used dolls than they would with their mother and extended family. Yep, it's all about the gifts, even if they're slightly used. Interestingly, the same out-of-money excuse has propelled many a mom to give up her child both in the United States and abroad. Oh, but I guess when you're the Contributing Editor of Parade magazine, and you have no idea that you're about to be broke (of course, she blames it on those nasty investor-types who take your money and make bad investments), you're still a good candidate to take two children from their dying mom (hey, I guess maybe she'll die more quickly now! I certainly would if someone took my children). Of course, Mitchard insists that her two new adoptees conform to the positive adoption language that America's Fabian Socialist Magazine uses. Natural family ties are gone and all the Mitchard household children are the two adoptees' "brothers and sisters." And of course, Mitchard will insist on replacing the mom, even before she dies, by asking the girls to call her and her husband "mom and dad." Ah, adoption: the lies of it are lovely, aren't they?!? Meanwhile, I and many other good writers (see my list of links) are not heard in mainstream media because of our outlandish views on adoption. It's worth remembering that the LaLeche League canceled my appearance at their national convention and a book publisher canceled my book contract because I support natural families' staying together. In a globalist village, don't ya' see, everybody is everybody else's child and nobody has any real natural family ties. Funny how I used to teach B.F. Skinner's Walden Two, which supports the concept in the previous sentence, to my first-year English students at North Carolina State University. My students were appalled by the idea of recycling children and severing natural family ties. Ah, but that was ten years and many pro-adoption articles ago. I'm sure they've mellowed into a more politically-correct and globalist way of thinking by now.