Thinking Mama

An Article That Sums It All Up . . .

Sat, 13 Jan 2007 07:11:31 GMT

I first started reading Charlotte Iserbyt's work shortly after I read John Taylor Gatto's The Underground History of American Education. She and Beverly Eakman, who no longer writes for News with Views, gave me a real education on why our freedoms are being lost. I could see freedoms dwindling around me, but didn't think too much about it, and didn't know why it was happening, until I read these women. Iserbyt has just written an article that explains in great detail about the Hegelian Dialectic and how the United States is moving closer to Communism. I'd love to dismiss her, and other freedom writers, as kooks and conspiracy theorists, but the problem is that too much of what they're saying is coming true. Right before our very eyes. And not many seem to care.

Are You Being Chipped?

Fri, 12 Jan 2007 21:26:03 GMT

It shouldn't surprise me that mainstream media are keeping quiet about this whole National I.D. thing that's scheduled to take effect in 2008. It shouldn't surprise me at all. Just the other day, I found a Web site or message board or something--I don't want to remember it :) --that praised the government for wanting to screen ALL pregnant women and children for "mental illness." This tells me that people are wayyyy too trusting of the government. And that's exactly what our Founding Fathers didn't want.
Oh, well, here comes the tagging of the sheep.

Thanks for the Hoax

Sun, 07 Jan 2007 06:57:00 GMT

The last entry I posted, which has now been turned to private, talked about a supposed mom who was trying to save her children (twins) from adopters. That story turned out to be more complicated than I'd thought. Turns out, from what I have read in the fine print, that the supposed mom wasn't a mom at all, but was, rather, a rented uterus. The sperm and egg that made the twins had little if anything to do with the rented uterus. Duh! I'd think this was an important part of the story! But it was fine print in a couple of newspapers and not mentioned in others. A uterus renter who pretends to be a mom has lost my respect. However, she does bring up an important point--the supply and demand of babies and baby econ's sad results. Well, I have much more sympathy for the real mom in Florida who is about to lose her child to an adoption agency than for a woman who was paid to carry children for someone else. I just wish that mainstream media would be more honest about things, but then again, painting the rented uterus as a mom makes natural mothers look like raving lunatics and adopters seem like rightful owners. So, perhaps I smell an agenda here . . . . hmmm.

Why I'm Glad That We Homeschool

Wed, 27 Dec 2006 13:19:34 GMT

As I recall, Sandra Tsing Loh's older daughter is around my oldest son's age. In fact, I remember seeing her pregnant at the Los Angeles Times' Book Fair when I was pregnant with my oldest; she was a few months ahead of me in pregnancy. Now, her daughter may be going to the same fenced school that my son could be going to, if we didn't homeschool.

I remember John Taylor Gatto's words about magnet schools, gifted and talented programs, et al. He called them dog and pony shows. Well, I have to agree. And honestly, I thought those things were only a big deal in places like Raleigh. But evidently, Los Angelenos go crazy over this stuff as well, agonizing enough to drink too much when they're trying to find the very best dog and pony show for their progeny:

http://www.cnn.com/2006/EDUCATION/12/26/magnet.school.martinis.ap/index.html

And then, on the same CNN page, is this lovely story:
http://www.cnn.com/2006/EDUCATION/12/26/la.schools.ap/index.html

The illustrious mayor of Los Angeles is forcing his way to controlling the schools. My goodness, this whole mayoral scheme does seem to fit in quite nicely to the whole School-to-Work thing, whatever they're calling it these days. Soon, and I'm not exaggerating here, mayors all over the country will start taking over local control of school boards, encouraging more centralization and less parental control. If one can only imagine. With mayors controlling the schools, it will be much easier to implement the School-to-Work programs, which basically start slotting children into pre-determined career slots as young as elementary school. Children are already not receving basic educational skills--remember that few people these days can read books that were best sellers a century ago. With students being selected for careers, based on projected demand in local communities, at such young ages, the lack of reading skills will become even worse. Arguments based on emotion and not logic, as I've personally witnessed much of lately, will become even more normal and our society will continue to decline. Programs such as diversity training and mental health screening are already overtaking the schools, pushing out things like logic and reading.

But who cares? Our society will become even more full of victims than it already is. The pharmaceutical companies will profit. That's really all that matters, isn't it?

Meanwhile, parents all over the country are dancing and singing to whatever beat the government schools suggest, just as the public schools were set up to make them do.

More Adoption Propaganda

Tue, 26 Dec 2006 06:01:38 GMT

If it weren't so sad, it would almost be humorous as to how our supposedly "fair and balanced" media give us such one-sided views of things. For instance, this article in today's News and Observer portrays the adopters as nothing but heroes. Where's the natural mother of the child? Well, it doesn't really matter, does it? After all, the baby was left at a fire station; under the guise of saving infants from being dumped in a trash can, so-called "Safe Haven" legislation makes those sweet and wonderful firemen, who are so brave, take the place of social workers who are evidently too cowardly to witness the separation of a mother and her newborn. The firemen are not supposed to ask questions, not supposed to help the mom or tell her how important breastfeeding is, not supposed to "judge." The fire fighters are supposed to simply take the infant and call the social worker, seemingly alleviating the social worker's responsibility in separating mother and child. The fire fighter is merely serving his or her community by taking the child, right? And the social worker merely has to pick up the supposedly abandoned child. What a nice racket to find children for desperate adopters, as these people in the story seemed to be. While I am not understating the devastation that the adopters must have been through, having been through eight miscarriages and the tragedy of losing twins further along in a pregnancy, the solution for such a tragic situation, if indeed there is one, shouldn't be in taking someone else's child.

The adopters were so desperate for a child that they would have taken a "polka-dot" one. It is sad indeed that such desperation exists and sad that such infertility exists. I do not mean to downplay the tragedy of the adopters' inability to produce a live child--that is tragic in and of itself. But the tragedy is not cured or helped by taking someone else's baby, even if it was one that was supposedly abandoned and supposedly saved from the trash dump. I'm dubious that the mom had either of those things in mind, but we'll probably never know. This little guy will never have the ability to do what I was able to do--find his natural parents. Such legal abandonment at fire stations, as is all the rage in adoption circles these days, requires no identifying information from mother or father, encouraging the most tragic of all adoptees--the foundling. Foundlings, in most cases, are doomed to be lost from their natural families forever.

What disappoints me more than anything is the supposedly Christian response, for the adopters and not for the mother herself: The church of the adopters raised $6,000 so that this adoptee's birth certificate could be falsified and the child can be "completely theirs," as if we adoptees are products to be bought and sold. Imagine how far the child's natural mother could have gone on $6,000. Where was a church in helping the mother to keep her child? Churches seem often to support adopters, but I don't often read stories of support for mothers who are thinking about giving their child away and decide, instead, to keep it. Shouldn't the churches be supporting natural families? Such issues are rarely if ever brought up in mainstream media adoption propaganda; the natural parents are either vilified or forgotten. I have been reading more and more, however, about adopters being helped financially. What makes the adopters superior to the natural mother, especially if the adopters don't have the money needed to adopt a child?

As an antidote to this one-sided story, I will place this link that encourages moms to keep their babies. What a shame that this little boy's real mom failed to see the site, or to heed its advice. What a shame that the firemen who took this child from his mother's arms was probably not allowed to suggest this site or one like it:
www.keepyourbaby.com

Remember the Garden of Eden?

Fri, 22 Dec 2006 01:31:14 GMT

Not much has changed, unfortunately. Remember how the objective in that particular garden was to, well, you know, just do what God said, as I recall it. Now granted, that's not an easy task these days, but the big thing there was not eating of a certain tree. Eve was tempted by a serpent--some of you might remember his cameo--who told her something like, "You shall not surely die," completely disputing the word of God. Well, guess who won that battle. Not Adam, not Eve, certainly not their descendants. Meanwhile, many women seem not to have changed much in the last few thousand years, listening to deceit and believing it to be true. In this case, it's the deceit of the state, with the fascist help of that wonderful freedom-limiting organization, Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD). From what I understand, what started out as a private effort to curb drinking and driving, the result of one mom's crusade to keep from happening to other children what happened to her daughter, who was killed by a drunk driver.

This organization has mushroomed, and I'm not even sure that the original founder is still with it, into a police state patsy that, last I heard other than the following story, is trying to install breathalyzers in every automobile. Yes, every one. The state seems to have taken the form of a serpent here and, unfortunately, many moms are turning into modern-day Eves, tempting us all to take a bite of the fruit. And because the government owns the roads--and we see how good they are at management when we learn that a gate left open by the Bureau of Land Management led to James Kim's tragic death--it becomes easy to see how an organization that starts out with good intentions can be led down the primrose path toward totalitarianism. Such has happened with MADD, leading me to begin to respect the sign that I saw during college, when all this MADD business was blossoming, that said DAMM, or Drunks Against Mad Mothers.

What's so very sad, however, is that moms go along with this police state, encouraging it, praising it, and truly wanting more lordship by the government, never thinking that this fascist thinking may well lead our children to live in a country that's much less free than the one we live in today, if that can be imagined.

http://my.earthlink.net/article/nat?guid=20061221/458a14d0_3ca6_15526200612211815027222

Supply and Demand

Tue, 19 Dec 2006 23:32:12 GMT

Take a look at how China is changing the rules on exporting its infants:

http://my.earthlink.net/article/int?guid=20061219/458771d0_3ca6_1552620061219-374092061

I suppose that this change rules out the single adopters who find that "China dolls" are just so very cute. For those who think that I shouldn't use that word to describe the Chinese girls that we import for American adopters, an adopter of a Chinese girl herself used that word on a message board I read a couple of years ago. I use it only to draw attention to how some adopters think of their Chinese adoptees.

Notice these quotes from the article:

The China Center for Adoption Affairs has said it is trying to increase the number of children available by creating a new charity to improve conditions in orphanages and "keep infants and young children alive and well enough to be adopted," Harrah's said.

and

The agency said China has pledged to try to make more children available to those who qualify.

and my personal favorite:

The move comes amid a surge in foreign applications . . .

Yet, when I talk about the supply of children versus the demand from potential adopters, especially the supply of those domestic white infants that 40 couples now vie for each one of, adopters seem to skip that part when they write me nasty letters. Of course, most people will read this article and think either that the Chinese are discriminating against the obese, or against gays and lesbians, or against people who have supposed mental illnesses, or whatever. But the real message here lies in the fact that the Chinese government has no incentive whatsoever to stop exporting infants, i.e., to stop their inane policy of limiting reproduction. In fact, the Chinese government now has incentive mainly to tighten the rules, assuring the availability of more children to meet the demand. If there is a silver lining to this story, I suppose it is the fact that children already in orphanages will receive better treatment so that they may be better marketed (and thus receive a higher price in the adoption market?). But then again, didn't we stop this kind of marketing of human beings, oh, well over one hundred years ago?

When Rosie Rules The World . . .

Fri, 01 Dec 2006 06:54:10 GMT

So far this week, I've seen about three instances in which Rosie O'Donnell has expressed her opinion on The View and it's been cast about as though it's the gospel. The most ridiculous, of course, was her view of Kelly Ripa as "homophobic" because Ripa wanted Clay Aiken to get his germ-filled hand off her mouth. Well, I feel much better about being called "antigay" for stating some facts and opinions that actually supported homosexuals, in a "hey-Christians-why-are-you-smearing-the-homosexuals-when-you-do-the-same-thing" kinda way. Oops! My supposed sin was that I forgot to call the homosexuals "wonderful" and "lovely." Or so I guess. I still can't figure out how what I said was "virulently antigay." Neither could Ripa. I think that Duke Selwyn has this thing figured out pretty well:
http://www.newswithviews.com/Duke/selwyn46.htm

Now, Rosie has dubbed herself the undisputable queen of what people should think and, sure enough, The View has a lot of viewers, mostly women, who believe they are receiving a real contrast in views on that show. Danny DeVito should indeed be proud that she deemed his drunkenness "okay." All that matters, really, is Rosie's opinion:

http://my.earthlink.net/article/top?guid=20061130/456fb6d0_3ca6_1552620061201-347283630

Someone Who Realizes . . .

Tue, 28 Nov 2006 06:17:03 GMT

. . . that it's okay to disagree?

I recently received the e-mail that's in italics at the end of this entry and, sure enough, it seems as though this woman lives to disagree with me. Well, whatever. At least she does it nicely, or so it seems. Anyway, I did respond to her socialist victim-oriented comments. My guess is that she's a nice woman who's been led astray, by mainstream media, government, and other Fabian Socialist outlets. Honestly, I think I could count the number of strong freedom-oriented women in the world on my right hand, and I don't have extra fingers! Most women, unfortunately, are way too willing to be victims, to allow the government to do their thinking and financial planning for them, and to take whatever mainstream media feed them and make it so. The letter from this woman merely proves my point. It is very unfortunate, but we have become a world of victims; unfortunately, this woman, along with many others, seems to be more than willing to accept the victimhood and supposed cures of the current mental health industry.

From Thinking Mama:
Thanks for your comments.

Regarding the LLLI thing, they contacted me. I make no effort to hide what I've written nor am I ashamed of my views on natural family preservation or my huge skepticism of the mental health industry, which is what Brooke seems to be a paid advocate for. I had to look at the essay again to see what you meant about making fun of someone with PPD. I don't see it.

During the whole time of this LLLI Founders' Dinner controversy, I only talked with one person. (I have since talked with a couple of other people with LLLI, but not about the controversy itself; they all seem nice.) Her name is Judy Torgus and you are more than welcome to talk to her yourself. She seems like a very nice person. She told me that it was the controversy itself, the result of the stalkers themselves, that scared away LLLI. Judy had read some things I'd written and I planned on talking, not about post-partum depression, but about breastfeeding and my experiences with it. Should they have also not allowed me to perform because I am Southern Baptist? Because I have a degree in math? Because I used to date women? What gives? These stalkers, by the way, tried to kick me off of Lew Rockwell's Web site and he basically told them to go away. Fortunately, Lew Rockwell, much to his credit, will not be bullied.

As to why LLLI, who has not been immune from controversy themselves, bothered to allow this particular controversy to startle them so, my guess is that the stalkers made a lot of noise and threatened them in a similar way to how they threatened me. As I mentioned in my essay, they're scary folks.

I would think that someone who spoke up against the victimization of women via the mental health industry is the kind of woman that would be drawn to breastfeeding and all the stuff that goes with it. These days, the breastfeeding woman tends to be a strongly opinionated woman. It's too bad that LLLI didn't have the guts that Lew Rockwell has. When I have money to donate, I know who'll be getting it: A site that encourages free speech, such as Lew Rockwell.

The larger question, however, is why someone with strong opinions who is quite adamant about expressing them is such a threat to some people. When I read or hear about people with whom I vehemently disagree, I tend to either write about it or simply forget about it. I don't stalk and slander, as these people seem to enjoy.

Regarding fertility et al.: Why does someone want to pounce on someone like a cheetah, or whatever it was that person said? I don't believe I've ever said that I wanted to pounce on someone like a cheetah, no matter how inane or rude that person's comment it. Go to www.in-gender.com and you'll find lots of women who have children all of the same sex and want a child of the opposite sex. Is their desire to be trivialized simply because they already have a child? Methinks that people have become far, far too sensitive in these politically correct days. I grew up with a family who had three daughters, the last of which was named a female version of her father's name. When she was born, her mother called the dad and said, "Go ahead and eat your supper; it's another girl." This was a story that all of us heard and it wasn't anything that "victimized" the third daughter, or any of the other daughters. They're all grown and relatively happy these days, as far as I can tell.

Your comments have inspired me to talk even more about post-partum depression. Our illustrious King Jorge has managed to institute a program, little reported in mainstream media, that aims for the government to screen every woman and child for PPD. In the land of the supposed free, such a program is bizarre and uncalled for. Brooke, as with many celebrities these days, is touting how lovely it is to be a victim. It's that kind of thing that ties in so nicely with the pharmaceutical companies and their supposed cures. These pill cures can preclude women from breastfeeding. Hmmm. Ponder that for a moment. I would think that it would very much be in the interest of breastfeeding moms to be very much against this kind of thing. My commentary on the mental health industry, which I've also written about for Lew Rockwell, has made a lot of women think twice about depression and its so-called cures. For that, I am thankful. Again, I'm not saying that post-partum depression doesn't exist, but that it doesn't need to be touted and encouraged, especially by celebrity spokespeople.

You've just read Thinking Mama's response to this:

I was so sorry to hear that other people resorted to insults to express their disagreements with your views. I always find it a real shame when people behave like that.

Couple of things to say, though. Firstly - no, I don't think it's fertility that the critics dislike. I think it's certain attitudes. The woman that Julie criticised, in the post you quoted – Julie wasn't criticising her for being fertile. She was criticising her for talking, publically, about the birth of a healthy boy as something that she was 'devastated' about. Doesn't it seem to you that that really is a rather tactless, thoughtless way to put it? I'm not saying it's wrong to be upset because you had a boy rather than a girl. But, when so many women would give anything to have had the blessing of that birth, is it really appropriate to sound so ungrateful about it so publically? (And in front of the child, too – now, that's just wrong!)

The other, and more important, issue is what you've said about post-natal depression in the past (http://www.newswithviews.com/Vaughan/tricia1.htm). This didn't get mentioned in the article you wrote here, and I know it wasn't the biggest issue that people were complaining about. But it was certainly one of the issues people were raising. Is it possible that this is what actually bothered LLL? Because, if so, I have to say that I agree with them completely. Your whole attitude towards PND was really dismissive and sneering, and the way you made fun of a woman for having it was downright unpleasant and inappropriate.

I've written more about this at http://goodenoughmummy.typepad.com/good_enough_mum/2006/11/tricia_smith_va.html, and I've tried to be civil and fair in doing so; I'd welcome any comments you want to make. But I think that it's precisely because LLL are supposed to support mothers that it would have been completely inappropriate for them to invite a speaker who talks about post-partum depression in the way you do.

So much to write about, so little time!

Mon, 27 Nov 2006 03:30:49 GMT

Gosh, there's this whole police shooting thing:

http://my.earthlink.net/article/nat?guid=20061125/4567cdd0_3ca6_15526200611251752698596

It happened in Atlanta recently, too! And to a 92-year-old woman in her own home. Her supposed crime? Oops! They got the wrong house! Think it couldn't happen to you? Think again.

Meanwhile, people are being diverted by American Idol, et al. and other so-called reality shows. Therefore, a major headline in the Raleigh News and Observer makes people feel a lot like acquiescing to a police state. After all, it's for our own good, right? I'm especially intrigued by Richard Burr, a supposed Republican, but seeming Fascist, who wholly supports the pharmaceutical industry. Gee, I wonder why he is desperately seeking a flu vaccine?

Here's why I'm glad I'm not living in North Carolina. The N&O, which used to be somewhat reputable, has now cowered to the same scare tactics as the National Enquirer:
http://www.newsobserver.com/102/story/514902.html
And just what will happen if you get too close to a bird, or a human that's been infected by a bird? Look, I'm telling you that, although this is no guarantee, at the Thinking Mama household, we tend to wash our hands often. And we tend not to have contacts with birds. I could go on, but here's an even better critique of this supposed flu emergency. I'm glad that we live in California, where there was only a small article on this National-Enquirer-type hype, and it wasn't the headlines--hooray!
If you want another side of this whole influenza scare, please read Sherri Tenpenny. She is absolutely fabulous!
http://www.newswithviews.com/Tenpenny/sherri12.htm

How is Universal Preschool Socialist?

Sat, 25 Nov 2006 23:52:02 GMT

I recently received this e-mail:

I am also a mother of three, and a preschool teacher. I agree with you, being with your parent(s) is the best education and source of security a young child can have. The fact is, many mothers are single and must provide for themselves and therefore need child care.
> I was home for ten years with my children and the oldest two are definitely independent thinkers. My third began preschool at age two and a half, because I needed to go to school and support our family. I know that he did become aggressive with other children, and know how to manipulate adults through his preschool experience and his mother distracted with homework and time away from the home working. I didn’t start working full time until he was in first grade, but I still see the result of mass child rearing.
>
> As a preschool teacher, I can assure you, most of us are not socialist change agents. When you have a class of twenty-five children, you wonder if a couple of them would have ended up in prison without the attempts made at preschool to give them the respect they deserve as a person. Some children do not have doting parents. Many parents do not understand the importance of reading to their children at all, let alone daily. Oh, and then there are the parents that don’t know how to read at all. For those children, whose mothers are on welfare and must go to school to receive any state financial assistance, what do you suggest for those families? Sitting at their immigrant grandmother’s house watching TV with four or five other little ones who learn how to speak English from commercials, not having any safe place to play in the little apartment building, and not touring the college gardens, grocery stores, or virtually anywhere. That kind of “home-school” looks like autism by the time a child attends Kindergarten.
>
> The purpose behind preschool for all is to give the other half of society a chance, and save state dollars in special education, speech therapists and school psychologists that are trying to fix the lack of attention given to children of less-educated mothers. If mothers can stay home with their children and teach them the alphabet, then we will have the leaders of tomorrow. But how much money are we willing to spend supporting the next generation if they are unable to support themselves.
>
> If caring about society as a whole is socialist, then most teachers would be considered a socialist. Socrates only taught a few, while other children were sold as slaves or given to military men to use as they wish. Is that the kind of society you want to live in?

It's getting weird, folks!

Wed, 22 Nov 2006 03:24:45 GMT

After yesterday's rant about the e-passport, I received a reply that stated:

I dont have a problem with [the e-passport] at all..in fact I think that we should all have to wear specially made flight suits for security purposes when we travel via air. These suits would be fabricated to include you identity. With everyone dressed the same and automatically identified when passing through check points quickens the process and reduces costs. But most important...helps our security while making it very difficult for criminals. Remember...you have nothing to worry about if you have nothing to hide.. But of course that is easy to say for someone that has had a security clearance since they were 19..for 35 years. I would spend more time worrying about the threat and not about the cure. My experience with being in the system has been favorable.

I don't think this guy was joking.

Freedom fighters must be thinking, "YIKES!" But apparently, much of the world feels the same way as this writer.

Freedom fighter Andy Rice sent me this link, which is the official viewpoint on biometric data in passports:
http://travel.state.gov/passport/eppt/eppt_2498.html

And then, what a coincidence, I saw this article today:

http://my.earthlink.net/article/top?guid=20061121/456287d0_3ca6_1552620061121-758831302

Apparently people, including mainstream media, are siding with the previously stated comment from my reader. Suddenly, required chipping of people doesn't seem so science fiction and tin-foil-hattish anymore. Wonder what Nancy Pelosi's going to do to stop this? Or what King Jorge will do?

Answering the Rude Folks . . .

Tue, 21 Nov 2006 11:59:10 GMT

In the following article, I've linked to many of the Web sites that tried to smear and slander me recently. There are so many stories being left out of mainstream media these days that I really don't know where to start sometimes. However, the adoption issue is important to me, being that I was separated from my own natural parents for over 34 years. And I do see it as part of a larger problem, one in which parents are being separated from their children. Familial separation makes for much weaker families. And weak families make for weak individuals. And so, it is an important issue for our society. Unfortunately, mainstream media give us one side of the story, how wonderful adoption is and how it supposedly saves the lives of children. Media don't talk about how adoption breaks up natural families and often causes those who are separated to suffer greatly, both psychologically and physically.

So here's my recent article:

http://www.newswithviews.com/Vaughan/tricia13.htm

Here are some of the responses that I've received so far:

Just read your article Material Mom on News With Views (and agree with your thinking.) I am sorry to hear about the horrible comments people have made to you. We live in a very rude society, I'm amazed at the rude interactions I received from strangers just in the course of daily living. I wish you and your family the best. I think a group that claims to support mothers, but takes the side of a hate group over a real mother has abandoned their principles.

I am highly encouraged by people who actually seem to understand what I'm saying:
100% agree!! And I think that Christians have been decieved by the
ancient and modern definitions of adoption. They see Biblical adoption
as being what it is now (and thus something to be admired and desired)
rather than being the announcement of adulthood that it was. If we had
any clue what the Bible really values ... like children knowing who
their parents are ... we wouldn't get so excited about adoption, I think.

And I suppose that if you are infertile, it's easier to hate someone who
/is/ fertile, than to deal with your own pain. Good article!

And what is it that we're worried about?

Tue, 21 Nov 2006 11:43:40 GMT

While people read huge mainstream media articles about whether the state should approve marriage between two people of the same sex (as it places its bothersome and unnecessary hand on marriage between two people of the opposite sex), about the latest evangelist to be caught between the massage table sheets with someone of either sex, or about how great or terrible the economy is supposedly doing, here's what our rulers have been planning for us:

http://www.clairewolfe.com/scarmigpassport01.html

Have you read about e-passports? Have you thought about what these lovely surveillance devices can do to us? Are you as worried as I am?

Just Another Adoptive Parent . . .

Sun, 29 Oct 2006 20:56:51 GMT

. . . who is called a "mother." I've noticed that in many of these cases where it's "mother murders child," that it's actually, "adopter murders child." But of course, mainstream media would rather paint the adopter as a mother, making motherhood in general seem like fertile field for killing progeny. The truth is, more often than not, that an adopter is involved. It's sad indeed, and I must make the point here that not all adopters are murderers--not by a long shot. It's a sad situation no matter what, but my observation here is that adopters are called mothers in most of these murders, mainstream media not even bothering to use the honest adjective of "adoptive" in the headline. Why is that?

http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/10/27/mom.guilty.ap/index.html

Those Obscure Commandments

Mon, 23 Oct 2006 06:01:38 GMT

As many people from www.salon.com have reminded me recently, a comic's words can be much more important than one realizes. I remember Stephen Colbert's work from that strange and wonderful show of the '90s, "Strangers with Candy." I didn't see the movie, and by all accounts, that was probably a wise move. Colbert now hosts "Better Know a District," which, according to the Los Angeles Times, is a "sarcastic weekly skit" on Comedy Central. The L.A. Times mentions parent company Viacom, Inc. only because the article itself is placed in today's "Business" section. An odd place, seemingly, but still, Colbert is nailing the butts of many CongressCritters, not a difficult job, by the way. Most notable to my sick-already-of-the-election self, however, is the following excerpt:

Rep. Lynn Westmoreland (R-Ga.), discovered pitfalls when Colbert asked him about a bill he cosponsored requiring that the Ten Commandments be displayed in the U.S.Capitol.

"What are the Ten Commandments?" Colbert asked matter-of-factly.

I'll take a break here to say that the Ten Commandments are an important part of our homeschooling journey. I figure that's a great place to start a child. Although certain ones, such as the one featuring the Sabbath Day quite prominently, have become somewhat out of vogue as of late, you'll have to admit, no matter what your religion or lack thereof, that they give some nice guidelines. My children have yet to visit the U.S. Capitol, where all the hubris about posting these things occurred. And yet, they visit home each day. Home, to me, seems a far better place for these commandments than any public building, especially those in Washington, D.C. But I'll continue the story . . .

What are all of them?" Westmoreland said, taken aback. "You want me to name them all?"

The June segment showed Westmoreland struggling to name just three. [from thinking mama: THREE!] Westmoreland actually named seven, said his press secretary, Brian Robinson. [thinking mama here: yeah, right!] And the remaining ones, he added were somewhat obscure. [Oh, the obscure commandments--I'll keep those in mind!]

A Bible Belt conservative, the embarrassed Westmoreland has been trying to live down his Commandments performance. No Republican has appeared since.

And who says that Republicans have no sense of humor?

Why Didn't The War On Drugs Stop Him?

Mon, 16 Oct 2006 05:00:04 GMT

A man kills his entire family:
http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/10/15/iowa.family.deaths/index.html

Well, we could blame this one on several things, and surely the reasons are probably more complex than we know. However, the interesting thing to note is that all the draconian drug laws in the world, many of which reside in the United States, failed to stop him from using or selling drugs and they failed to stop him from performing this ultimate tragedy. Still, we give money to D.A.R.E. and other programs that supposedly help people to stop using drugs, all the while encouraging children to follow the doctor's orders and take their Ritalin or Zoloft or whatever. When Nancy Reagan used to tell us to Just Say No, she did not mean for anyone to say no to the pharmaceutical industry.

Just Another Crazy Adoptee . . .

Sun, 15 Oct 2006 00:34:53 GMT

http://www.stephenfitzpatrick.com/adoption/archives/000004.php

If All The Cool Kids Are Doing It . . .

Fri, 06 Oct 2006 04:02:40 GMT

then it must be okay!

http://my.earthlink.net/article/top?guid=20061005/45248340_3ca6_1552620061005-1680054626

It looks as though Madonna is following the latest celebrity trend of helping herself to orphans, bringing them from their country and away from extended family members and showing them life in the good ol' U.S.A. Having a little Cambodian baby or whatever the latest trend in country of origin is becoming quite the status symbol in Hollywood. Making sure that an adoptee looks nothing like you can be quite helpful, especially if you're Angelina Jolie: there's no worry about your pretend daughter looking better than you one day. I'll give Jolie credit though; she did at least finally bother to have her own child, after once claiming that she never wanted her own children. And then, on the domestic front, you have folks like Rosie O'Donnell gladly taking children from moms in the name of gayness and depriving them the chance to grow up with their real family. Because we all know that O'Donnell just didn't have the money to help the child and the mom.

Articles That Will Wake You Up

Thu, 28 Sep 2006 12:38:49 GMT

I receive lots of wonderful e-mails from people. I wanted to place these two in my journal because together, they pretty much sum up what's happening in these united States. The first is from Josh, a really nice guy that I worked for and with when I was living in Manhattan one summer during college. The article goes along well with my latest LRC article, "When Mommy Is A War Hero":

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/09/25/olbermanns-special-comment-are-yours-the-actions-of-a-true-american

I don't usually send out articles or websites involving political discourse; but enough is enough. Please read the attached.

The situations in Afghanistan and Iraq are getting worse, much worse, rather than better. American soldiers, and Iraqi soldiers and civilians are being killed and injured on a never-ending basis. The parallels to Vietnam have always been there, and they grow stronger every day. It's time for one more parallel --

Get out. Now.

Josh

The next is from someone who has been sending e-mail to me regularly for a while now. I'm posting it because it sums up nicely what's happening to this country. Devvy's article mentions the despicable legislation that will show our schools for the prisons that they really are. And yet, how many parents will rejoice at this legislation? How many will actually believe that their children are safer? If this bill passes the Senate, parents should be pulling their children out of the government schools in droves, but then again, most parents are too busy paying taxes and watching reality television to notice the realities that are happening with their own children. Think about it, parents, if your children are with someone else for seven or eight hours each day, that someone else has a LOT of influence over your child. Anyway, here's the e-mail that I received. Please look these things up on the Internet!

For Devvy's article: http://www.newswithviews.com/Devvy/kidd216.htm

Does anyone not see where this is leading? The war on terror is transforming this country into a police state. Bin Laden didn't legislate away your freedoms....your Congress did. You know if you tell a lie long enough people will begin to believe it.

And it won't be long before the "enemy combatant" bill will pass in which all they have to do is suspect you and they can haul you off in secret, torture you, with no lawyer and no trial. Now who do you think are the terrorists?

The war on terror was planned way before 911. Just go to Google and type in:
"Project for the New American Century" and read what the Neocons were saying back in 2000. All they needed was a New Pearl Harbor. I guess they got what they wanted. All they needed was an inside job.

Want to learn more go to Google and type in "Northwoods Document". This 12 page declassified document will explain what they are capable of doing.

And if this is not enough type in "Agenda 21"

And although this last one is not an article, but a video, I found that it contained some interesting information. I haven't known that much about Jesse Ventura, or Kinky Friedman for that matter, but after watching this video, I want to know more:

http://www.jonesreport.com/articles/270906_ventura_youtube.html

When Mommy Is A War Hero

Thu, 28 Sep 2006 05:11:34 GMT

I'm not, by nature, a war or military aficionado. There was a time, a few years ago, however, when, as scared as everyone else after planes smashed into the World Trade Center, I thought that a war on terror was, possibly, a good idea. It seemed important to defend our country, our children, ourselves, from those supposed terrorists. And after listening to one too many neocons on the radio, I thought that maybe, much as I don't like war, this particular one was necessary.

You can find the rest of my latest article here:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/shore/shore11.html

More Government Waste . . .

Sat, 26 Aug 2006 11:43:41 GMT

Fellow writer Michael Rozeff has written an excellent article about NASA and government spending on the space race:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/rozeff/rozeff100.html

Here's what I wrote to him:

I just wanted to let you know that I highly appreciate your questioning of the bizarre space race program and your analysis of the history behind it. Like most sheeple, I had never really questioned the space program. My first bit of delving into it came last year when I read John Taylor Gatto. He also has been critical of it. And yet, when I was growing up in the 70s, the "New Math" that I was being taught in the government schools was supposedly heavily based on the results of NASA and its efforts. Supposedly.

Funny how I've just ordered a math book for my homeschooled five-year-old that has that high-tech teaching tool, the abacus.

Thank you again for a great column!

Of course, we've all been conditioned to believe that the space program is absolutely necessary. And my children absolutely love going to the Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena when they have their open house each May. And yet, I could hardly think of a more useless job for them than working there.

Planes, Trains, and Automobiles . . .

Fri, 25 Aug 2006 09:05:12 GMT

We're just spoiled brats if we want our freedom to travel!

While I've gotten the requisite e-mails and message board comments this week, some of them believing that because I don't support the draconian measures of the current administration, I absolutely must support the draconian measures of, say, the Clinton administration. These people have assured me that I am a "spoiled brat" for wanting to take my bottled water on an airplane (and to those folks, I say, try taking three children under six on a plane without water--by the way, airplane water, as I've experienced it, is just horrid) and that I should get over this thing about wanting to fly across the country to see my family, or whatever. Well, we all may soon start living like the Amish, and I am beginning more and more to admire their simplicity. But is it spoiled to want to do what modern technology and business have allowed us to achieve? Am I a brat for wanting my own water, without having to ask the flight attendant for water every ten minutes?

I think not. And I'm finding that many people agree with me. I have heard from some pretty interesting folks lately.

Andy, who is a Captain at Delta Air Lines and a Retired U.S. Marine Lieutenant Colonel, brings up some excellent points:

IF all passengers (and Thursday, 8/10/06, all crew members for a little while) give up liquids at the security checkpoint...

And IF TSA ensures the security of goods and supplies delivered to airport concessions, (INSIDE THE SECURE AREA OF THE AIRPORT) such as Starbucks and Bath and Body Works, so that no explosive components can end up in the coffee and lotions, etc....

THEN WHY DOES TSA NEED TO CONFISCATE LIQUIDS AGAIN AT THE BOARDING GATE???

I submit it is an ADMISSION that either (1) the security checkpoint missed a lot of liquids and gels, or (2) TSA is worried that they are allowing dangerous goods to be delivered to airport concessions.

There is no other explanation as to why coffee, bought from airport concessions in the SECURE area of the airport, must be confiscated at the gate. If these liquids were obtained inside the secure area, they must, by definition, be safe, musn't they????

Even if the threat were real of smuggling explosive components through the security checkpoint, there should still be a presumption that concession items INSIDE the secure area are safe.

Also consider the fact, that only about 30% of cargo on airliners is scanned for explosive materials.

Another Point

If the real threat was the mixing of potentially volatile and reactive liquids on a jet, THEN why did every major news outlet show video of TSA agents forcing passengers to pour all liquids into the same trash can??? Wouldn't that action necessarily make the trash can a potential bomb at the airport security checkpoint???

BTW (3 items)

(1) On Thursday 8/10/06, TSA agents in Atlanta made my First Officer's toothpaste, contact lense saline solution, and after shave surrender at the security checkpoint. I know I felt a lot safer knowing he couldn't overpower me and brush my teeth inflight with his potentially deadly toothpaste.

(2) On Friday, 8/11/06, a member of Delta's Board of Directors and his wife, were delivered by car to our jetway in Norfolk, on the ramp. They bypassed the TSA checkpoint and the TSA search at the boarding gate. The only exemption I have seen for liquids is UNIFORMED crew members, not BOD members. Even the uniformed crew members must go through the security checkpoint, except at some pilot and flight attendant bases. Even though we are exempt from the liquid rule, now, we still have to go through the metal detector and have our bags XRAY'd. My crew had to go through security at Norfolk that morning, but the BOD member did not. The obvious question is how does a BOD member get the authority to bypass mandatory Federal Government screening in an Orange Threat Level? George Orwell may have said it best, "All pigs are equal, but some pigs are more equal than others."

(3) Last Sunday, 8/20/06, at the New Orleans airport, my copilot witnessed this and attempted to do something about it. (I was not with him at the time). A TSA agent arrived at the checkpoint. TSA agents are required to go through the checkpoint just like everyone else. The agent took off one shoe and placed it on the XRAY conveyor belt. "One Shoe Lou" then walked to a computer, without going through the metal detector. He piddled there for a moment. Then he walked around the metal detector to retrieve his one XRAY'd shoe and put it back on his foot. That was the extent of his screening. My copilot told this story to a New Orleans Police Officer at the checkpoint. The Police Officer spoke to a TSA supervisor about it, in the presence of my copilot. The supervisor's response went something like this..."Well sometimes we can't get shoes without a metal shank and we take them out. Sometimes we can't get one of them out, so we just take that shoe off. BESIDES, HE'S CRAZY." The Police Officer shrugged her shoulders and went back to her seat. The Copilot said that explanation made no sense. The officer was unaffected by his concern. I know I felt safer after hearing that story a few minutes later.

An Old Story

A few years ago, after 9/11/01 but before TSA started protecting the Fort Meyers, FL airport, this was witnessed by a pilot, whom I flew with the next week. He told me this story. A National Guardsman arrived at the security checkpoint to stand duty for the day. The airport security folks ensured his weapon was loaded by forcing him to send it through the XRAY machine. When he emptied the pockets of his camouflage utility uniform, you guessed it, a deadly nail file was found attached to his fingernail clipper. The security agent broke the nail file off the clipper and put the file in the trash can. He then handed the soldier his M-16, and the soldier proceeded to guard the checkpoint for the rest of the day. Truth is stranger than fiction, sometimes.

You ain't kidding! Especially if the truth somehow involves the ineptness of the U.S. government. Now, don't you feel safer knowing that the "social security," as my now-five-year-old used to call it, is protecting you?

Roger, who's old enough to know better, is still fighting for freedom. What's not to love about these words:

I am a 65 year young oldster, who lived during the 40's and grew up in the 50's and 60's. These were, indeed, tough times for our ethnic brothers in this country, but it was a time of respect for our liberties and rights, even if we did not always extend these rights to our minority citizens. Hopefully this is changing more each day (but sometimes I doubt it)!

I was a police officer for twenty years in the late 60's until the eighties. I respected and protected the Constitution as did most of my co workers. Never would I have searched a car or a home without the most scrutiny by the court officers and my superiors, of my intentions. I treated people as I wanted to be treated.

Now I watch as people and attitudes are changing, as submitted in your article. These are not just the youngsters or last generation individuals. But many are old friends and people, my age, I used to respect. The Policeman and the citizen are now, "Us and Them."

Let's be honest, when and if the terrorists of the world, or of our country, decide to attack us again, it will certainly happen. No amount if preparedness can stop this. It is a joke for our political masters to spend billions and tell us they are successful in their deterrent efforts. All they have done is spend billions of dollars that could have fed or protected the health of millions of people in the world. The only reason we have not sustained another attack of some kind is "the terrorists are not ready yet"!! This is the world we live in, get used to it.

Thomas Jefferson's quote, "Those who would give up some amount of liberty for security, deserve neither," says it all.

If I were master or king (used to be called President) every law-abiding citizen in this county would carry a gun and be trained in its use and misuse. He would know how to protect his home and family and be will to do it. It is obvious to me that the men that replaced me in the fraternity of the Policeman, can no longer protect us, we must take that chore on our own shoulders. We must learn to take our knocks and roll with the punches when necessary. Not relinquish our rights and freedoms to the masters in Washington who guarantee our safety if only they can take a few more tools in the way of Constitutional protections and just spend a few more billions.

Lets face it, the Constitution and our "Bill of Rights" are not just a few pieces of paper. They are a record of a dream. A record of blood spilled. A record of graves dug. They have one purpose. Not to protect us from terrorist, or renegade governments, or invasions by aliens of earth or sky. Nope, these two documents have only one purpose, "to protect us from our own government, and the politicians on our own soil." This seems to be an unpopular attitude these days, but if anyone ever opened a history book they should know it is not treasonous but patriotic to grab hold of our Constitution and never let go!

Now what are our Masters going to do to someone like Roger, someone who really believes in freedom and the U.S. Constitution, and well, treating people as he wants to be treated? The new words are "consensus" and "for the common good," whether you're a policeman or a government school teacher. If it sounds, smells, and looks like socialism and communism, then it probably is socialism and communism. What are you doing to keep you and your descendants free?

Got Taxes?

Mon, 21 Aug 2006 05:39:13 GMT

Dan has made me think about how much in taxes we pay:

{The IRS} …an evil monster that would devour the Constitution, and provide the money for an incredible array of unconstitutional bureaucracies attempting to control every aspect of one’s life. Today, the IRS is unquestionably the most morally depraved organization in America. It dares, for example, to condemn efforts to avoid its clutches as “tax-cheating.” Yet it is logically impossible to cheat a thief. The moral categories of “lying” and “cheating” do not apply when one has a gun at his head. Just as no one has a moral obligation to tell a thug in an alley about the $100 bill tucked in his sock when the thief demands at knife point you give him all your money, so no one has a moral obligation of any kind whatsoever to disclose to IRS thugs all of his or her assets. The obligation is purely prudential: you give the mugger your wallet because you don’t want a knife in your ribs, and you pay the IRS for essentially the same reason.

--Dr. Jack Wheeler, The Death of the root of all evil, Strategic Investment, July 23, 1997

--------

Taxed To Death (and then some!)

Tax his land,
Tax his bed,
Tax the table
At which he's fed.

Tax his tractor,
tax his mule,
Teach him taxes
are the rule.

Tax his cow,
Tax his goat,
Tax his pants,
Tax his coat.

Tax his ties,
Tax his shirt,
Tax his work,
Tax his dirt.

Tax his tobacco,
Tax his drink,
Tax him if he
Tries to think.

Tax his cigars,
Tax his beers,
If he cries, then
Tax his tears.

Tax his car,
Tax his gas,
Find other ways
To tax his ass

Tax all he has
then let him know
that you won't be done
till he has no dough.

When he screams and hollers,
Then tax him some more,
Tax him till
he's good and sore.

Then tax his coffin,
Tax his grave,
Tax the sod in
Which he's laid.

Put these words
upon his tomb,
"Taxes drove me
to my doom..."

When he's gone,
Do not relax,
It's time to apply
The inheritance tax.

--------

Accounts Receivable Tax Building Permit Tax
CDL license Tax Cigarette Tax
Corporate Income Tax Dog License Tax
Federal Income Tax Federal Unemployment Tax (FUTA)
Fishing License Tax Food License Tax,
Fuel permit tax Gasoline Tax(42 cents per
gallon)
Hunting License Tax Inheritance Tax
Interest expense Inventory tax
IRS Interest Charges IRS Penalties (tax on top of tax)
Liquor Tax Luxury Taxes
Marriage License Tax Medicare Tax
Property Tax Real Estate Tax
Service charge taxes Social Security Tax
Road usage taxes Sales Tax
Recreational Vehicle Tax School Tax
State Income Tax State Unemployment Tax (SUTA)
Telephone federal excise tax
Telephone federal universal service fee tax
Telephone federal, state and local surcharge taxes
Telephone minimum usage surcharge tax
Telephone recurring and non-recurring charges tax
Telephone state and local tax
Telephone usage charge tax
Utility Taxes Vehicle License
Registration Tax
Vehicle Sales Tax Watercraft registration Tax
Well Permit Tax Workers Compensation Tax

COMMENTS: Not one of these taxes existed 100 years ago and our nation was the most prosperous in the world, had absolutely no national debt,
had the largest middle class in the world and Mom stayed home to raise the kids.

Well, all I can think of here, living in the lovely tax-friendly state of California, is how that I recently saw an episode of The Andy Griffith Show, in which Opie wants to help a seemingly homeless man. Andy tells him that's what taxes are for, to help people who are less fortunate than we are. I'm guessing that this show was taped in the late 50s or early 60s and it's hard to believe that even then, the attitude was that it's okay for the government to steal from people to help the poor. When I was growing up in the South in the 70s and 80s, it was common that the church would take up an offering for a family who needed an air conditioner or whatever. That kind of thing doesn't happen so much anymore. There are government-approved charities, but not much individual help. Maybe the words of Andy Taylor, written by a Hollywood writer of some sort, sunk in to the good people of the South and they have managed to let the government do the Robinhood scheme of taxation instead of choosing voluntarily to give to the poor. It's terrible that people are so brainwashed regarding taxation. If people really thought about what the government is doing extracting money from us, there would probably be some blood in the streets.

So Happy I Burned the Toast!

Wed, 16 Aug 2006 16:57:26 GMT

Please feel free to comment on my latest LRC article here!

As if hearing from my compadre in creative writing, Andy Duncan, a few weeks ago wasn't enough, this morning I received a very nice e-mail from Paul Woolverton, whom I used to work with at WKNC. Paul's e-mail included some very nice information about how my latest LRC article is doing. In case you haven't read it yet, here it is:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/shore/shore10.html

Evidently, the article made its way to the growing-in-popularity www.digg.com. Here's what Paul had to say about it:

So I can't sleep and I'm trolling Digg.com and there's this story on the Digg front page about the Constitution.

click...

It's by "Tricia Shore"?

could it be the same Tricia Shore I knew at WKNC around 1987 or so who used to do the request show on Friday nights before I came on at midnight? OMIGOD there's her picture with three kids!

Hope you're well. I'm doing OK, working at the newspaper in
Fayetteville, NC.

So you can see why I burned the toast. I mean, wow! Digg is more popular, or so I read the other day, than the New York Times Web site. And well it should be! So that's why I'm sending this to the thinking mamas list, the comic mom list, and almost every other person I know, including my husband's friend Bill, who is planning to fly soon (as part of his plan to move his family to North Carolina) and I thought he might be interested in the article itself.

I also wanted to thank the many thinking mamas list folks who responded to my article last week. It was that huge response, including the very nice and succinct, "You go, girl!" from Diane, that inspired me to write the LRC article. So gosh, THANKS!

As long as I'm here, I may as well tell you about a couple of other interesting articles I've seen lately. One is by freedom-fighter Ron Paul:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul338.html

Another is one that's changing my life. I LOVE this information on iodine:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/miller/miller20.html

As always, please feel to comment!