At least conservatives admit it

Someone responded to a comment I made about my political and personal beliefs with the comment “I fail to see how anyone could become more conservative over time.”

Things like this are why:

I was initially approached by an editor of The Huffington Post to give commentary about adoption fundraisers, a topic she wished to write despite the fact that she knew it would be controversial. The editor came back to me later and asked for me to draft the piece instead because members of HuffPo thought it would be better if the article came from me. I agreed to do so, even though I said HuffPo readers, especially adoptive parents, would probably take the message better from her since she was one of them.

Less than a week later, I sent the article to the editor.  She loved it. The rest of the team, not so much. It appears as though what I wrote was a bit too “edgy.” However, today the great HuffPo published this bit of overtly saccharin, shallow, misleading, unrepresentative, and problematic take on adoption. – The Huffington Post thinks we’re too edgy @ Land of a Gazillion Adoptees. 

Because liberals love to pretend to be open-minded. They love to pretend that they want to talk about the ‘hard stuff that conservatives won’t’ and to insist they welcome debate and being challenged. But they don’t. If you peel back the thin veneer you find that liberals are not actually one iota more open-minded, welcoming and informed than the conservatives they so love to bash. They are not one bit less bigoted, they just choose different topics to be bigoted about and then smugly pretend that that somehow makes them superior. A conservative might be bigoted and ignorant about ‘sex ed’ or gay rights, whereas most liberals are just as bigoted and ignorant about misandry or adoption.

Liberals are just as interested in pushing their social code of acceptable conduct and beliefs, the difference is that they pretend that they do so as innocent, selfless servants of humanity. That they are simply doing so for the greater good. I have a difficult time respecting this as it is quite clearly simply their beliefs. There’s nothing wrong with having beliefs but there is an issue when you stop pretending that they are your beliefs and pretend that they’re edicts for all humanity and that you are doing a selfless service in pushing them into law/social policy. At least the average conservative has enough self-awareness and honesty to admit that their beliefs are simply beliefs and right, wrong, educated, uneducated, popular or not that they are standing by them simply because they are their beliefs or because the bible told them so. These days I will take “because the bible says so” over the patronizing erudite liberal stance of “because it’s better for you and all humanity, you simply don’t know it yet because you’re ignorant but I will save you from yourself” that seems to coat the majority of their beliefs and motivation.

Liberals are just as willing to silence debate and things that go against their ideals. I’ve seen Huffington Post, a supposed bastion of young liberal leftist publishing, refuse to speak on dozens of topics which should be discussed in favour of rehashing the same tired stereotypes and even incorrect information or overly saccharine feel-good pieces with as little truthful educational value as the worst ‘marriage only between a man and a woman’ feel-good piece they would bash on a conservative site. I’ve seen the process repeated on dozens of supposed open-minded leftist publishing that will post numerous example stories of how uneducated, ignorant and stuck-in-their-beliefs conservatives are while dozens of incorrect facts, statistics and beliefs are published right alongside and portrayed as truthful, up to date, correct and factual. Polite debate or dissention in the comments? Moderated, left forever in the limbo of ‘unapproved’ or deleted within minutes even while it states “The comments below have not been moderated.” Amusing, I didn’t delete my comment so where did it go? 😉

At least conservatives admit it

JM & The Coalition for the Protection of Indian Children & Families

Johnston “John” Moore has been making the rounds on some adoptee / pro-ethical adoption blogs to try and clear up his name and image, which were likely heavily tarnished after his appearance on Dr. Phil’s Oct 18, 2012 episode about the “Baby Veronica” case.

In case anyone missed it, here is the episode. John first appears at around the 18:30 mark and it snowballs from there.

On October 13th he made these comments on Ethical Christian Adoption’s blog post An Open Letter to Focus On the Family and iCareAboutOrphans Regarding Orphan Care here


His second post is particularly disingenuous.

Really one need only watch his Dr Phil appearance to see what a raging bigot he is. At one point he holds up a picture of one of his adopted sons and angrily exclaims over how inappropriate it is that a child like that is being protected by the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA). Like that quite clearly being a fair-skinned, dirty blond with freckles instead of the caricature Injun that John has decided are the only ‘real’ Indians. His adopted child wasn’t really Native because they weren’t red skinned, didn’t wear a headdress, didn’t run around in a loin cloth with long braided hair therefore it was ridiculous that ICWA was applied to them. Even more than a decade after the adoption (that went through) John still carries so much pent-up anger and racism that he was chomping at the bit to appear on Dr Phil to confront any Injun and wasted no time laying into people who had nothing to do with his adoption outside of sharing ethnicity.

Were his appearance not enough, John also belongs to the Coalition for the Protection of Indian Children & Families. Oh it sounds so benign and helpful doesn’t it? They always do.


In fact he’s a founding member. The Coalition takes a very Richard Pratt approach to Natives. Kill the Indian, Save the Man as Pratt stated in his writings. The Coalition wants to protect Indians…from themselves. Their entire mission, as stated, is to amend (obliterate) ICWA:

1. Ensure an Indian child has a ‘parent’ as defined by the law and the parent has properly established paternity under state law.

This is what’s known as the “existing [indian] family doctrine” and is a very controversial part of ICWA that is generally only acknowledged by a handful (such as the Coalition) for good reason. It puts the burden of proof on parents to essentially prove that they are “indian enough” to qualify for ICWA protections and makes it almost impossible for unmarried Native fathers to assert their paternal rights and contest adoptions because unmarried men (Native or not) are not considered part of a ‘family unit’ in any state.

2. Provide fit birth parents of Indian children the right to choose healthy guardians or adoptive parents for their children without concern for heritage.

The second word is key in this statement. Founding and ‘Individual’ members of the Coalition have repeatedly shown that they basically believe that there are essentially no ‘fit’ Native parents, ever. That a child is always better served being adopted by whites.

4. Clarify that the ICWA does not apply to family court disputes, not just divorce proceedings, over Indian children.

This one probably sums up the Coalitions aims better than any other. Considering that ‘family court’ can (and does) mean basically all legal proceedings that deal with children…well…saying you don’t want ICWA in any ‘family court’ means that you don’t want ICWA at all. ICWA is not being applied to cars or small loans or to criminal cases, it’s being applied in ‘family court’ issues.

6. Clarify that an Indian birth mother does not need to consent to adoption in court.

This is pretty standard for a pro-adoption group. They all constantly lobby to have less protections, less independent counsel, less time for first mothers. Requiring that first parents sign away their parental rights in court, in front of a Judge, removes them from the influence of adoption agencies (such as the one John runs), ensures they know their rights and cannot be lied to by agencies. Had this been standard in Oklahoma Dusten Brown would never have signed his rights away. They know this.

Points 5 and 7 deal with lowering the timespan parents have to rescind their consent to have their child adopted. Again, standard pro-adoption / agency lobbying fare. They’ll whittle it down until every state has immediate irrevocable termination of parental rights.

8. Clarify that final adoptions may only be vacated for fraud within limits under state law.

Again they take advantage of people’s ignorance. There basically are no rules for fraud in private adoptions and few enforcements of fraud in foster-to-adopt dependency (foster care) cases either. For examples of this one can look at the class action lawsuit currently underway in Utah precisely because of Utah’s fraud-immunity laws regarding private adoptions. Christopher Carlton’s case is a good example of what many first fathers have and continue to experience. His ex cut off contact under the advisement of her adoption agency setting up a faux “he abandoned the baby and I” scenario, placed his daughter for adoption in Utah and then told him that they’d had a son and the baby had died shortly after birth. Even after this was proven conclusively in court Carlton was unable to overturn his daughter’s adoption. An example of how fraud-immunity is applied in dependency cases is the Sonya McCaul case which saw Tennessee foster parents repeatedly lying and breaking their resource (foster) parent contract and sharing confidential information without consent (a felony in TN) with no consequence or enforcement of said contract or law. Neither the Carlton or McCaul case involve Native children but fraud-immunity stands regardless of whether a child is Native or not and is allowed to proliferate across both private and dependency adoptions and all ethnicities. So to say that adoptions should only be vacated for a fraud that can never be proven and is not even recognized as a crime by most if not all states…..

In the end no first parent can likely meet all the demands of their amendments to ICWA, thus giving their child ICWA protection, which is the entire point of their organization. To make ICWA so hyper-specific that it cannot be applied to any child ever.

JM & The Coalition for the Protection of Indian Children & Families