.. time to talk? Not sure yet..

 

 

 

 

 

Melanie Nathan
Lesbian mom, “Me  and our  Baby”

 

Today I was picked up by a BLOGGER that sees Gays and Lesbians as lesser Americans Michigan Redneck II –  (yes that is what the blogger calls him/herself)   –  – or so I presume from the postings. 

THIS IS WHAT SHE WROTE ON HER BLOG AND I QUOTE: note her words are in red

THE MICHIGAN REDNECK IS A WOMAN AND THIS IS WHAT SHE SAYS-

Immigration News Daily; Earlier this morning I posted a few articles found in Immigration News Daily. But this one I figure deserves a post of it’s own.

WTF! Binational and UAFA   Posted by michiganredneck on April 25, 2009

Dianne Feinstein Luvs her Them Philippino Lesbos:

Sometimes I just find things that just make me say, “WTF!”. And I feel like posting on such things, but don’t really know how to make a big wordy post.  From now on, I making this a serious when I find issues that make me give the above reaction.

The Feinstein story about the Philippino lesbo got me started on a few searches. I found this one blog by someone who supports the gay agenda who is all excited about the Shirley Bill. This “Although it does not help the myriad (36,000) binationals living in fear or exile” got me to wondering what is binational. So I did a Google Search for binational and some of the things made me say, “WTF, I didn’t know about that.” Like;

America/Canada EPA collaboration with Environment Canada

Binational Migrant Education Program (BMEP)

2009 Border Binational 

Also in the Feinstein/Philippino article was something called UAFA.  I wanted to do a Google Search on that too.  Here is some of what I came up with. This one really shocked me:-  Uniting American Families Act – The Uniting American Families Act (UAFA, H.R. 1024, S. 424) is a U.S. bill to amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to eliminate discrimination in the immigration laws by permitting permanent partners of United States citizens and lawful permanent residents to obtain lawful permanent resident status in the same manner as spouses of citizens and lawful permanent residents and to penalize immigration fraud in connection with permanent partnerships.^[1][2]

The UAFA was introduced during the 111th Congress, to the United States House of Representatives on February 12, 2009 by New York Congressman Jerrold Nadler (D-NY).^[3] There are currently 96 cosponsors of this bill in the United States House of Representatives.^[4]

The UAFA was introduced in the United States Senate on February 12, 2009 by Vermont Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT).^[5] There are currently 17 cosponsors of this bill in the United States Senate.^[6]

Most of the blogging and MSM news on this issue is gay agenda support.  This is an issue that I will be checking up on in the future.  Most of the blogging and MSM results have a gay agenda support of it.  I am surprised that there is barely any Conservative talk on the bill.  When the gay agenda enters into the immigration arena, conservatives leave it alone.  But not me.  Now that I know about it.  I will collect more info and inform y’all.

 How could this “She applied for asylum in 1995 because she was afraid of a cousin in the Philippines who had killed her mother and sister and critically wounded her when she was a teenager.” even be considered a valid reason for asylum? This is nothing more than family issues. Applying for asylum should be based on political issues. The United States should not be the World’s policeman. If one of my crazy relatives was trying to kill me and/or other family members no other country would take me in.

1. Lyn said  in a a response to MICHIGAN REDNECK

April 24, 2009 at 3:24 pm

What did Feinstein win? I mean seriously is there some contest going on to see who can be the most lefty in politics?

Just one more day and one more reason I’m so glad I don’t live in People’s Republic of California.

Unreal. US Senators are elected to serve American citizens and support our laws. Not give amnesty to illegal lesbian immigrants. I’m gonna be dry heavin over this one for a while.

 __________________________________________________________________________________

Melanie responded to the above BLOG as follows. :- Maybe I am naive – but I did take the step of providing my perspective in a reply on the blog and then it went further:-

“Thank you so much for helping us to spread our Gay agenda. It is very kind of you.  Yes we do have an agenda indeed and the agenda is quite simple – Equality for all Americans, including people who have loving relationships with someone of the same-sex.   Now while you are researching and doing all you can to create your own definition of the gay agenda, I highly recommend doing some serious research that makes sense and you will se that our founding fathers ( and that they were!)  were brilliant in their recommendations and dialogues that led to our wonderful and insightful constitution. 

In 1790 George Washington declared, “As mankind becomes more liberal,  (so I guess he expected and wished for it) they will be more apt to allow that all those who conduct themselves as worthy members of the community are equally entitled to the protections of civil government. I hope ever to see America among the foremost nations of justice and liberality.” 

That said, please do not be afraid of gay people – the Shirley Tan case highlights the importance of family.  Her catholic church priest wrote a supporting letter to the Senator, stating what an amazing family this is, how well adjusted the twin boys are, the valuablecontributions they have made to the entire community. This is an example of good family values.   These are amazing people entitled to a peacefull and equal life.  Americans shouldnot have to leave the USA simply because they happen to love someone of the same sex. 

I would like to invite a dialogue with you and help you see that this is really not an important issue for you – but as a lesbian mom it is an important issue for me. I know letting go of this may make your site less worthy if you are unable to continue to assist other conservatives feed into the fear and promote false rhetoric, but truly there are other issues – ones tha do not hurt your fellow Americans. There are issues that you can take up that will remain in keeping of the vision of our founding fathers – PEACE , FREEDOM AND JUSTICE for every single American.

 

kazzadraskmedia said

April 26, 2009 at 9:56 am

I’m happy to help you with your research on the Uniting American Families Act (UAFA). If you’re an American, if you truly believe in American values and the right we all have to the pursuit of “life, liberty and happiness”, then I think you can help us support equal immigration rights for all American citizens. WTF — you say!? American citizens need immigration rights? Well, yes we do. You, for example, live up in Michigan. Near the Canadian border. Probably not too hard to meet an attractive Canadian lassie (or lad) up there and fall in love. Want to get married and live with your Candadian sweetie in your own country. If you’re both of the heterosexual variety, snap, get married (heck, just get engaged to get married) and the US government protects your right to be in America with the one you love. Gay and lesbian American citizens (and yes, gays and lesbians are American citizens — which means, according to our founding documents, we are all created equal — esp. the men : – )) do not have the same rights to sponsor their Canadian partners (or, horrors(!) Mexican partners — or Australian, Romanian, Indian, Japanese, Egyptian…you name it). Even those Americans who have been married in a fair-minded country (or state) that permits same-sex marriage cannot stay in America legally with their foreign partner until we pass the Uniting American Families Act (UAFA). Here’s a short list or organizations who will be happy to educate you and your readers further on how you can help: Out4Immigration, Marriage Equality USA, Love Exiles, Immigration Equality, Love Without Borders. You might also want to call Rep. Jerrold Nadler at 202-225-5635 and ask him to give you more information. He is the sponsor of this legislation and has done extensive research on the “gratuitous cruelty” lack of equal immigration laws has inflicted on countless Americans. Sincerely, Kathy Drasky

• 

  kathryn said

  April 26, 2009 at 7:10 pm re: UAFA.

  so it’s a piece of politics that you don’t agree with. that’s allowed, obviously. i just wanted you to know that it’s more than that for some of us. i was born and raised in the u.s. (and still pay taxes from afar…), but because my partner is from paraguay and of the same sex, i can’t sponsor her to come live in my country. so, we live in argentina.

  i support UAFA…just because i want to come home. that’s all.
  -kathryn griess

  Reply
• 

  equality_now said

  April 26, 2009 at 7:16 pm My partner and I- a bi-national same-sex couple, of which one is from a European country- also thought:

  WTF, why can’t we stay together in the US, when our American friend can bring his wife from France to live in his home state?

  We are married and living together in exile in Europe, as many other couples are, as this country ( as well as over 20 countries worldwide) provides equal immigration rights to straight and gay couples.

  The UAFA would merely provide us the same rights as straight couples have. And it would force us to prove our commitment to each other in the same way as straight have to.

  Why are you so opposed to this?

  We would appreciate it if you could explain your arguments.

  Best wishes,

  Lee Danner

  Reply
• 

  Daddyblueyes said

  April 27, 2009 at 12:19 pm Let me put it in terms you can understand:
  WTF You MF, CS,Conservative Right Wing AH.
  I am a Viet Nam Vet, Tax Payer, Home Owner, and member in good standing in my community. BUT yet I am not afforded the same protections under the law a you because I AM GAY.
  If I were you I could sponsor Australian Bride for a permenant resident card, but because we are of the same sex I am not allowed. As far as the Government is concerned we are total stangers.
  The UAFA would simply change the wording of the immigration policy to allow permenant partners to sponsor the same sex partners, we would be held to the same strict regulations as straight couples. There would be no greater chance of fraud than there is with straight couples.

  You mentioned “the GAY Agenda” several times, would you like to know what the GAY Agenda is? Really? Are you sure you can handle it?
  OK so Here it is plan and simple:
  LET US THE F ALONE and let us live our lives in peace, stop dening us our civil rights. Keep your Evangelical Noses out of our business. We will answer to a higher power when we reach the Golden Gates, but we will not answer to you.

  Have a nice day.

  Reply
• 

  Daddyblueyes said

  April 27, 2009 at 12:39 pm After reading “All You Need to Know About Michigan Redneck” I was surprised to learn you are a self proclaimed “Chick” you write like a Dude.
  There may be a “Lesbo’ hiding in there somewhere… :0)
  There may be hope for you yet.

  Thank you for helping spread the word about the UAFA.
  Randy
  California

  Reply
• 

  michiganredneck said

  April 27, 2009 at 1:38 pm Ha-ha Daddy Blues,

  Since I am so thick skinned not only did I allow both your comments to post, you actually gave me a good laugh. And no, I am not laughing at you. I’d like to think I am laughing with you. While I am still trying to gather more info from all sides on the issues I will address the other comments soon. But your’s is light enough that I can comment to you now. Until then, I would please ask that everyone give me time to respond and please don’t jump to conclusions. I stated that I just recently heard about this and want to learn more.

  First, I want to thank you for serving this great country, in uniform . As you can tell from the right hand corner, I am a fan of Barry Goldwater. He was more of a fis-con than so-con. I can’t remember the exact quoting or where I read it, but he did say something along the lines of it not mattering if a person in uniform was gay or straight. I am glad to hear you are a good standing member of your community. I think that is good for both gays and straights.
  I see you wrote “If I were you I could sponsor Australian Bride for a permenant resident card, but because we are of the same sex I am not allowed” before you read the about me. So obviously I could not have an Australian bride. I am not even a big fan of heteros bringing in foreign spouses. There are cases where it may be valid, but generally it seems like one side or the other can easily take advantage of the other. I despise those stupid mail order bride situations. I will address that later.
  As I said, I am still trying to get all views of the UAFA.
  Next off, I am not an Evangelical. Christian yes, Evangelical no. Evangelicals scare me. Since you are not a regular reader, I will inform you that I am a Fiscal Conservative. It may surprise you to know that I get irritated with Republicans who only talk of pro-life stands and for a federal amendment stating of marriage between one man and one woman, yet they shimmy around the issues of welfare and immigration. For the record, I am pro-life. I have nothing against gay people. I am accepting of all people.
  Why should you be offended by the phrase “gay agenda”? Everyone has an agenda. I am more upset by conservatives not talking on the UAFA agenda. Regardless of whether they support it or not, they should say so. I hate chicken shits and hypocrites.
  Lastly, the last comment you entered actually had me laughing. I like to consider myself balanced. I am not the flowery type chick. I do not write flowery words. Too much of a realist. If you notice, the pic included with my comments is of a sewing machine. I write occasional posts about sewing. I don’t think those would be considered writing like a dude. I think modern girls are too sissy. I do not like bimbos or either feminists. Funny how Republicans want women to be old fashioned, yet they would think that someone like Ma Ingalls on Little House would be a feminist. Due to the fact that she didn’t get all primped up. Old fashioned women needed somewhat of a “dude” persona. Men knew that there was a large percentage of leaving the mother of their children a widow. They needed someone who could pull a plow, take care of the farm and support the family should anything happen to him. Sorry, I got off topic.

  Reply
• 

  oblogdeeoblogda said

  April 27, 2009 at 2:57 pm I am thrilled at all these postings- I bet this lady had no idea about the world out there. Michigan Redneck now has us “lefty lesbos” explaining our existence because she has never met one before, and on her site at that. I bet all of you picked this up off my blog and I am glad you did. Lets keep the discourse sweet and friendly and lets focus on the edification of conservatives as you have all mostly done. I just want to clarify that I am not ooffended by word GAY AGENDA – I am offended by ignorant defnitions as to what it IS> WE WANT EQUALTY that is our ONLY AGenda.

  Reply
  • 

    michiganredneck said

    April 27, 2009 at 3:24 pm Actually “this lady” has met a few lesbians. Don’t know if any of them are/were lefty. After all there is the Log Cabin Republicans . Only knew them as friends of friends. I even had one ask me to dance at a bar. I merely said thanks, but no thanks. I would do the same with a man I was not interested in.

    Reply
• 

  Gregory Graves said

  April 27, 2009 at 10:54 pm Michiganredneck,

  I am a fiscal conservative too. It was one of the hardest choices I have ever made to decide who to vote on for President in the last election. I am however gay and want to be a full citizen (not liberal in my mind, very conservative position). I’d be a Repulican if I weren’t gay.

  I believe literally in the words “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.” Well not as literally as they did pre-1920 when the populous thought men literally meant men and women were not allowed to vote. Also don’t take Creator to mean just the Christian God of Evangelicals and Baptists. My church, Universalist Unitarians has been around since the late 1500’s; this kind group of straight people advocates for gay citizens having equality.

  All that said, the real thing is, imagine, how ever it came to be, you and the one you loved most couldn’t be together. Imagine you paid taxes just like the gal next door, and the government took those words above seriously and let her pursue her life, liberty and happiness–she is able to love and choose anyone in the world–she is not limited as a citizen of the USA. But here you are, locked in to living as a proud American without your partner/family in the good ‘ole USA, or leaving and giving everything up….like your medical license in my case.

  That’s pretty much what the Uniting American Families ACT is about. Just a simple bill to let a US citizen have the one they love in the same home with them. I don’t really it as a big agenda. It is a pretty simple one that almost anyone can understand if they think about living across an ocean isolated from the one they love the most. I do think it should be done legally and those who sidestepped the rules shouldn’t get special favors. Just asking for equal treatment of my own interests–very conservative thing to do wouldn’t you agree?

  Here is the Wikipedia write-up on UAFA. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniting_American_Families_Act

  The House Version of the Bill on Thomas: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d111:H.R.1024:

  The Senate Version of the Bill http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d111:S424:

  I hope we get you on-board to support this bill. It’s the conservative and humane thing to do Michiganredneck…

  (:

  Greg Graves, MD

  Reply
  • 

    michiganredneck said

    April 28, 2009 at 2:07 am Hi Greg,

    Thank you for your level headed comment. I am glad to receive a comment from a gay Conservative. Not that I dislike the comments from the “lefty gays”(paraphrase from Oblog…,)I want to hear from all sides. I brought this subject up to bring it to light and start a dialog. I would love to have this be picked up by Conservatives, both for and against UAFA, whether gay or straight. I have stated on many issues, within the past 2 years that the Republican Party needs to shut up or put up on all issues, social AND fiscal. “Preaching to the choir” has it’s time and place, but those who truly believe what they say would have AND should have the balls to speak out to those who are not part of the choir. While many of the commentors to the UAFA issue probably would not have reason to continue to become regular readers. I would like to invite you to become a regular reader and check my archives. You will notice that I interchange the words Conservative and Republican. There is a reason for this. But sneaky as I am, I leave it up to the reader to figure it out , tee-hee. Oh, where was I? Yeah, I was replying to your comment.
    OK, it was hard for me to choose who to vote in the presidential election. Well maybe not. It was not between McAmnesty and Obummer. I ended up voting for Bob Barr (Libertarian). I just could not get distracted by McAmnesty’s shiny objects (read Sarah Palin and “Joe the Plumber”). Those two did not shit roses, like the Evangelicals acted like. Yet, they were not evil like the libs acted like.
    I am going to be honest here, I do not know a whole lot about Universalist Unitarians. It gives me another something to search about, argh ! Another honesty, I do believe in equality for everyone. But I dissent on Gay marriage. If someone is gay, that’s fine. Live with whom you want. I just don’t agree with that choice or lifestyle.
    I think the laws for hetero international-marriage immigration need to be made stricter, first. I don’t think we should allow situations with some fat, short, old, bald guy sitting at his computer or reading his “bride catalog” wanking off to “Tiana-I coot/hot Russian girl. I wan be bride in America. I cook. I clean. I do what you say. I your girl. You silly boy. You coot.” Let me state that one of my grandmothers was a German “war bride.” God rest her soul. I do not think she was taking advantage of my grandfather. After all, he was a sixth grade graduate from Arkansas. And she was an educated teenager who knew at least three languages, including German. If she were to use a soldier to get to the states, she could have found someone more educated. I do not think my grandfather was trying to take advantage of some Euro-girl. He was very handsome and could have married any Arkansas girl when he arrived back in the states. My grandfather left for the states with his troop without her. She had to come in on a different boat, with other brides. She went through a lot of scrutiny to get on that boat. Again, I got a bit OT.
    But under the UAFA what is to stop me from a possible situation where I were to spend maybe a year in Europe, or other continent, and I become friends with a foreign girl. Under said hypothetical situation, I like hanging out with her. The two of us devise a plan to tell U.S. and her country’s officials that we are “partners” and I want her to join me in the U.S. She arrives in the U.S. as my partner. Somewhere along the way one of us meets a man. One of us is attracted to him. Go through courtship. Gets married. Or even under current laws, I meet a man who is simply a platonic friend. We get married in his country of nationality or tell officials we will get married in the U.S. he gets to the U.S. and we divorce and go on our own ways?
    Thank you for the links. I have read those. Those are the links on this post.
    Regardless of whether or not I end up supporting the UAFA, two VERY important things; I do have empathy for your cause AND most importantly, all of us have a write to our own thoughts and opinions and being able to speak on those.
    BTW, I read somewhere about a gay REPUBLICAN candidate running for something or another in Florida or Cali who is fiscally conservative. I want to check out more about him, and possibly post about him. But him being gay is not a reason to support or not support him. It is where he stands on the issues.

    Reply
    • 

      Gregory Graves said

      April 30, 2009 at 2:06 am Thanks for your receptiveness. My family worked hard to go from working class poor family of the depression to get me into med school and to build something to pass on to our posterity/legacy. Not keen on government taking it away after doing the work.

      Responding to your comment about gay marriage and lifestyles, I don’t support a Klu Klux Klan lifestyle, nor being a Communist. I hold our national value of each being able to have equal access despite their choices or circumstances higher than my distaste for those lifestyles (I could go on a long path talking about chosen lifestyle vs. been born this way–lots of prayers and wanting to die because never could convince my sympathetic nervous system that it was a choice). I digress. The idea in the Declaration of Independence, from my study, was government promoting Life, Liberty and pursuit of Happiness for those from checkered protestant and Catholic backgrounds. This was between colonies that very different beliefs no more than 200 years before our Declaration of Independence was written. It was certainly not written by a group of conservatives. They were overthrowing status quo and moving toward englightment. Away from monarchy, oligarchy and theocracy. But people try to compulsively repeat the past. The King of Romania at the time was at the Center of the Universalist Unitarian group. He was tired of people being killed as heretics because they didn’t believe in the trinity but saw God, son, spirit all as one. Imagine…dying over such a thing today… Guess it still happens in the Middle East.

      Allowing Klu Klux Klan members to have their beliefs and practice their rituals is one of my highest values though I vehemently oppose that lifestyle. Conversely limiting others rights and killing people are not acceptable … beliefs and rituals are different matter, they are guaranteed in the Country I support. Now gay marriage. I support that a group of people should be able to declare homosexuality an abomination in their church and refuse to marry anyone they don’t want to. I feel that way about the Klan. But 4 States (Mass., Conn, Iowa, Vermont) and 7 Countries later (Canada, Belgium, Netherlands, Norway, South Africa, Spain, Sweden), heterosexual marriage still looks pretty much the same.

      Look at the science, the most recent UN stats on divorce rates: Canada 2.2/1000 Belgium 2.8/1000 Netherlands 1.9/1000 Spain 1.7/1000 Sweden 2.2 / 1000. US Stats aren’t listed. CDC reports US average is 3.6/1000. Conn. 3.2/1000, Iowa 2.6/1000, Mass. 2.3/1000, Vermont 3.6/1000. Of the 11 provinces (countries and states) that have legal gay marriage, 10 have a lower rate of divorce than the U.S. average and the remaining one ties that average. Don’t forget Galileo was put under house arrest for life because he made the unpopular lifestyle choice of publishing a scientific document showing the Earth wasn’t the center of the solar system.

      Regarding your grandmother and grandfather, would you have wanted to limit their freedom to pursue their happiness. Doesn’t sound like handcuffs were on either party. And you are the wonderful outcome of that freedom to choose. They had things to offer each other. I’m not balding but in your example maybe the balding guy has something to offer the Russian bride and vice versa. Maybe their progeny will be more successful than either of ours. Who am I to interfere with their free will to choose?

      Regarding the rules of UAFA. I would hope they would be the same as for heterosexual couples. Same timeframes leading to rejection of the greencard if a separation of the permanent relationship resulted–this act would require proof demonstrating that was the nature of the relationship, permananent. And if you want to lengthen those timeframes for all, more power to you. I wouldn’t disagree our citizens shouldn’t be used to get into the country. And I wouldn’t support fraudulent use of immigration. Same monitoring should occur for all.

      What else stands in your way of supporting me as your fellow citizen being with the person I love most? And making sure I have a legacy through his progeny. He’s unbearable cute to me. He’s doing very well in his country too. We’ve got other paths to get him here than UAFA because of that. I am cute as well so I’m told. My wisdom, knowledge and family wealth passed to his progeny… Well that is my dream. Sure doesn’t sound worse than supporting the Klan being able to have their lifestyle…which you do I’m counting on.

      Thanks for your time in really listening to all of us. That’s true charity/love in my book.

      -Greg

      Reply
      • 

        michiganredneck said

        April 30, 2009 at 3:23 pm Hi Greg,

        I admit to not having all the answers. I wish I did. I will say I am glad that you found someone you care about. There is no black and white answer to any issue that one can name. The prob is that no one can judge what is another person’s heart, regarding the immigration issue of bringing in a spouse or partner to the U.S. Sometimes it is true love, sometimes not.
        I do know for a fact that I do not support gay marriage within the confines of a religious ceremony. As for Civil Unions, I think it should be up to the voters of the ind. states. And whatever the result, no whining.
        I am saddened by divorce rates the world over. But that is a whole other can of worms.
        As for the KKK, obviously I do not agree with what they stand for. But as you say, they should be allowed to say what they want.

• 

  oblogdeeoblogda said

  April 28, 2009 at 2:35 am I take umbrage with your rewritten history here MR (I mean Michigan Redneck); Kindly allow me to remind you of the following:

  1. Your first post about Shirley Tan led to your acknowledgment and so called research that yielded UAFA to your lexicon;
  2. I responded highly offended at your use of words such as “lesbo” and racially charged “Filipino Lesbo;” also your assertion of a Gay agenda as being a negative one;
  3. I wrote you a detailed response, despite my busy schedule, inviting you to discuss this with me.
  4. I then posted everything you said and I commented on in my oblogdeeoblogda.wordpress.com blog;
  5. You then sent me a comment stating you did not have time to answer me, that you would get to it and that you were too busy;
  6. Then suddenly all the good people that came to my Blog, wrote on your Blog too, after visiting mine and being directed to you;
  7. You then communicate only with those who can beat your drum –in great detail, I must add, for such a busy gal who has STILL not taken the time to respond to me, Melanie, the one who started the discourse! – Nor have you apologized for your demeaning and offensive remarks – instead in your response to others- you throw out token remarks such as “I was once asked to dance by a woman and… – … which simply exacerbate your original insults!” What are you running away from? You cannot face me with a straight (no pun intended of course) answer?
  8. The many gay people who have written so eloquently on your site have been polite and stated their positions and all you can do is go off on crazy irrelevant tangents.

  OKAY that all said I now challenge you to answer the following:-
  1. Are you sorry that you used the word “lesbo” and do you plan to continue to use that word? I want an apology and a committment that you will stop that disgusting language includingthe “F” word and WTF – I know you have a 1st amendement right, but for as long as you continue to use such language you hate gay people and want to alienate us – especially now that we tell you its offensive to us
  2. Are you going to continue to refer to the GAY AGENDA and then pretend to be interested in promoting UAFA?
  3. Why the hell cant people fall in love with people from other countries- straight or gay? How do you think you got here? I know you have the word RED in your name – but I did not think you were pure blood native American – maybe I am wrong – only then can you have the chutzpah to be anti spousal immigration.

  Lets leave gay marriage for another day and another time.

  If you do not take the time to answer me, neither I nor my blogging friends will waste their time coming back to your blog, rest assured an honest discussion involves dealing with the things you need to apologize for… Melanie Nathan

  Reply
  • 

    michiganredneck said

    April 28, 2009 at 3:35 am I am just now starting to respond. I really, really am trying to get your comments. There has only person who has responded that is against UAFA. The others support it. And my responding has been going down the line, as opposed to the date I received them. In my responding to them, I am trying to add a bit of humor. You and all the commentors have given me a lot to think about and I thank all of y’all for that. So I just want to lighten the situation. That’s the way I work. Once the situation has been lightened. We both know that if this were another Conservative blog the commentors would be vilified. I am trying to be fair and diplomatic, yet, like Carrie Prejean (Miss California), I can have my own opinion. I will get to addressing exactly what you have addressed soon. And I am sorry that I did not address your comments sooner.

    Reply
  • 

    michiganredneck said

    April 28, 2009 at 4:50 am How and where did I re-write history?

    RE: 1.“..so called research…” How do you know if my research is so called or not? Are you or someone you know hacking my computer to see what search results I am Googling?
    RE: 2.“I responded highly offended at your use of words such as “lesbo” and racially charged “Filipino Lesbo;”” Perhaps I was a bit hasty in using the word lesbo as shortened form of lesbian. What is wrong with the word Philippino? Isn’t that her nationality?
    RE: 3.“I wrote you a detailed response,…”Which I am trying to get to as soon as I can. You do have an advantage over me. You know more about this than I. I should be allowed a little time to learn, via searches, comments and personal contacts.

    Answering questions;
    RE: 1.I want an apology and a committment that you will stop that disgusting language…” Please do not ask/demand for an apology. I have already changed the words. I honestly did not know that people find “lesbo” offensive. I merely assumed it was short for lesbian. Just like hetero is short for heterosexual. As for “…includingthe “F” word and WTF…as long as you continue to use such language you hate gay people and want to alienate us…” The F word and WTF have nothing to do with whether or not I hate gay people, which I don’t just for the record. If you re-read the intro to this post, I am using it for anything that surprises me, gay or not related. As you can tell, WTF is a new series I am starting. Plus, the first three Google search results have nothing to do with gay. They were things that made me say “WTF” Whoa, I didn’t know that. This can include anything, like something I may read about Elvis, like a famous actress he may have dated or silly name for one of his horses. Just an example I could throw out there.
    RE: 2.“Are you going to continue to refer to the GAY AGENDA…” I am going to refer to any agenda I find out about, whether my reaction to it is negative or positive. “…then pretend to be interested in promoting UAFA?” Not once did I pretend to promote anything. I said I wanted to find out about what it was and decide from there.
    RE: 3. Instead of just posting your question and then answering I will plain ol’ address that. People from other questions can fall in love. But we can not just let people in willy-nilly. No, I am not FULL Native American, that is correct. I have done research on my family line, other than the previous example I gave, my other ancestors met in this country.

    Reply
• 

  Keith Almli said

  April 28, 2009 at 10:24 am Free speech, quit wining.

  Reply
  • 

    michiganredneck said

    April 28, 2009 at 1:22 pm Hi Keith,

    I like you and all, I think your a great person and do a great job forwarding the Conservative message. And please do not think I am chastising you or anything. After all, I did ask for help with a Conservative voice in this issue.

    But I will say that this blog is and always has been open to discussions from all sides. I still want to hear from Conservative DEEP THOUGHTS on this specific cause. I hope you are willing to come back once you learn about the UAFA and let everyone know your thoughts, whether pro or con. Everyone needs to think for themselves, regardless of what political side they are on, on any issue.

    Reply
• 

  oblogdeeoblogda said

  April 28, 2009 at 12:42 pm Good answer to the the host Michigan Redneck – I appreciate it and your visit to my site – now let us put that behond us and concentrate on a discussion about UAFA and other issues, of American Equality.

  I wrote this on my BLOG http://www.oblogdeeoblogda.wordpress.com

  Thanks I really appreciate your post, your apology and your willingness to engage and remain open; it takes a strong person to do that! What do you think of Specter? Looks like he is seeing the light too…actually he always has -its just that he has now chosen to move into it!

  Reply
  • 

    michiganredneck said

    April 28, 2009 at 1:02 pm Hi Ms. Nathan,

    Or would you prefer me using your first name? I was always raised to more formal names towards people of professions such as law, medical, religion, etc.

    That being said, I am quite hungry. Bought a fish, on sale at that, yesterday. I should probably cook it, knowing fish that is on sale . Every time I plan to get up to stick it in the toaster oven, something happens on the internet. Yeah for live feed on Yahoo, NOT! But I will get back to you soon about what you have said, i.e. Specter and other stuff. Maybe I will send an email sometime. I do guard my privacy, and my email addy will let people know my real name. I am the same way with everyone. I have learned my lesson, even in Conservative and/or Republican situations.
    I will sometime write a post on the UAFA. Most likely in series’. Sort of like a follow along online diary. Look at me, planned to be quick, oops.

    Reply
  • 

    michiganredneck said

    April 29, 2009 at 1:12 am I am and always have been open minded. I do believe in American equality for everyone. I do not think anyone should be considered more or less of American. I think everyone’s voice should be just as loud as the next guy or gal, regardless of ethnicity and/or orientation. But at the same time, if someone disagrees they should be allowed to say so.

    What do I think of Specter? Hmm…From what I have been seeing, I think he is correct on the Republican Party moving to the right…on social issues. Wrong on the fiscal issues. I think the Republican Party is moving left and/or silent on fiscal issues. This whole “Compassionate Conservative” irritates me. I was not too keen on George Bush’s Faith Based Initiative. Even if monies do go to Religious Organizations, it is still MY tax dollars. Certain Religious groups may give money to causes that I don’t believe in, like immigration related. I should have the right to give to what Religious Organizations I want. Since I am more pro-adoption than pro-life, meaning that don’t just stop at pro-life, but do something about like helping bio mothers find loving families for the child. Back to Specter. In this current unemployment and economy situation, I am against the H1 and H2 B programs. Specter supports H-2B.

    “Looks like he is seeing the light too” Exactly what do you mean by “too”? I have never been much into social issues. I have beliefs, but I separate those between religion and politics. As for other things, I will never been won to the other side.

    Reply
• 

  Chad T. Everson said

  April 28, 2009 at 12:50 pm Hey this looks like a healthy debate! This is the way I look at it, what you do in your bedroom is only your business and the other adult you get nasty with. However, once it enters into the political arena, Katey bar the door.

  If you want to infringe on the rights of others while seeking your own rights, then you have to get ready to rumble! This is exciting to see such a vibrant and interactive discussion here on this great blog.

  Michigan Redneck, your a good friend and blogger and I salute you for eliciting a great response. Remember, you do not have to post all comments, but I applaud you for doing just that!

  Hey regardless of their Socialist Squirrel status or sexual orientation, it is great to have the discussion. However, when it gets Nuts as Socialist Squirrels often do, you no longer have to respond. Just move on and keep getting out there great content and message you are delivering.

  I would take this response as a pat on the back, you are hitting them where their political agenda hits the road. Bravo! Keep getting Grizzly!

  One thing that you are finding is that you have felt all alone, but you have not submitted to Grizzly Groundswell blog networks in a while. Of course you are going to feel alone if you do not network with fellow conservatives that give a shit.

  That is one things those of the political pro Gay agenda have over us. They move this message and agenda forward in a pack mentality. The Grizzly Groundswell actually has learned from those of our enemies in the political agenda realm.

  Hey I am sure on a personal level we are all Americans and I am sure I can stand around my Raku kiln and bullshit with about anyone. But, this is a political agenda, and it deserves opposition because there is no end in sight of the demands this agenda lusts after. It demands rights that erode others liberty. So that is why this is such a flash point issue.

  So battle on, but don’t loose your sense of humor. This is all politics and anyone who takes it beyond that will be dealt with in like measure under the rule of law.

  Get Grizzly Michigan Redneck, I hope this great opportunity has shown you who your friends are.

  Chad Everson

  Reply
  • 

    michiganredneck said

    April 28, 2009 at 1:55 pm Thank you Chad,

    …For being a Conservative with a concise voice. Well HoosierArmyMom left a was clear and concise also. I have read your comment fully. As I told Ms. Nathan, I am hungry and trying to cook my fish. As any long level-headed comment deserves a feedback, I will get back with you as soon as I can.

    Before I go “Remember, you do not have to post all comments, but I applaud you for doing just that!” Yes, even when I don’t agree, my unspoken rule is that as long as no one is threatening or violent, most all posts are allowed. But I understand if some bloggers opt to be more stricter. Free speech on all sides. Free to choose what gets part of the convo. So long as it is the people who choose, NOT the gubmint!

    Reply
  • 

    Chris said

    April 28, 2009 at 7:57 pm Mr. Everson,

    I hope you don’t think me a Socialist Squirrel, but here goes.

    In your love letter above to MR, you did have a few kernels that are worth replying to:

    “If you want to infringe on the rights of others while seeking your own rights, then you have to get ready to rumble!”

    This is interesting for you to say. It seems, from reading the rest of your post, that you believe that those who are advocating for immigration sponsorship rights for Americans in same-sex relationships are infringing on your rights. If I am wrong in this, I apologize. However, if I am correct, as I think I am, then exactly which rights are we supposedly infringing upon?

    I can tell you which rights current laws infringe upon – the rights of my American husband. My American husband cannot sponsor his legally wedded spouse for immigration as you would be able to yours (assuming it was a woman). My American spouse cannot receive Social Security death benefits should I die first (nor me his), as you can should your wife die before you, even though we’ve been paying into the system just as you have. I could go on – there are 1,138 rights in all that we don’t get that you do, but I hope you get my point.

    “But, this is a political agenda, and it deserves opposition because there is no end in sight of the demands this agenda lusts after. It demands rights that erode others liberty.”

    Again, exactly which of your liberties are being eroded by my American husband having rights that you currently enjoy? Why exactly does this deserve opposition? We’re not looking for what some may call ’special rights’. We’re demanding equal rights. We see our relationships as equal to yours, and demand rights from our government that honor that equality.

    I have recently come across, thanks to Melanie Nathan, a fantastic quote, written in a letter from George Washington on March 12, 1790, addressed to “The Roman Catholics of the United States.” In it, he writes:

    “As mankind become more liberal, they will be more apt to allow, that all those who conduct themselves as worthy members of the Community are equally entitled to the protection of the civil Government. I hope ever to see America among the foremost nations in examples of justice and liberality.”

    I suggest you read the whole letter, study its historical context, and can see that we are, in essence, akin to the 1790 Roman Catholics. We are law-abiding, tax-paying, positive forces in our community, just as (I hope) you are in yours. Why, exactly, are we not equally entitled to the protection of the civil government?

    I hope I wasn’t too ‘nutty’ for you to be able to reply and offer some examples as I have asked for them. This is a learning experience for me, too, and I look forward to hearing the replies of the apparently more socially conservative who contribute to and enjoy reading this blog.

    I would consider myself a fiscal conservative – I don’t want to see the government, big business, or even charitable organizations take my money and waste it. I’d rather they spend it on the things that matter to me, and even on those that don’t, I want to see it spent efficiently and wisely. I don’t like to see people breaking the law, nor do I like to see them no pay for doing so. But this country was founded on a principle of equality for all, and as I believe strongly in this, this tends to override many of my fiscally conservative tendencies. I am what you would probably consider a social liberal, although I consider myself socially moderate at most.

    Reply
    • 

      michiganredneck said

      April 29, 2009 at 12:29 am Chris,

      On the Geo Washington quote, to paraphrase Bill Clinton, I think it depends on the definition of Liberal.

      “I would consider myself a fiscal conservative – I don’t want to see the government, big business, or even charitable organizations take my money and waste it. I’d rather they spend it on the things that matter to me, and even on those that don’t, I want to see it spent efficiently and wisely. This is exactly why I think political parties need to stay out of social issues. I have nothing against politicians talking about their social views, but it should not be a litmus test. It is also why I, and others, find myself leaning toward the Libertarian Party. They don’t care about social issues. That is up to the church and families. It is like the old school Republican Party.

      In terms of your responding to Chad, I think it is good for all of us to be able to have conversations agree or disagree. I think all sides come into the convos with their own condensed views of an issue, along with their own condensed views of what others may or may not think. When a conversation takes place with everyone from all sides, we may or may not change our views, but at least we know where the other side is coming from.

      Now we may or may not agree, but this is why I am against the Hate Crimes Bill. I could get into that more on another post, but to summarize, ALL crimes are motivated by hate. It actually patronizes “minorities.” I believe any moron has the right to speak out on their hate. Then others can pick up on this and speak out. That is true power to the people! Oh God, I sound like a Ron Paul-er.

      Reply
      • 

        Chris said

        April 29, 2009 at 4:51 pm MR, on the Geo Washington quote, he did say ‘liberal’ (small ‘l’) and ‘liberality’, which some online dictionaries define as “the quality of being broad-minded”. In his day, it was broad-minded to extend equality to Roman Catholics, something that we would say, well, of course! In our day, LGBT’s who are upstanding members of our civic community deserve the right to equality just like the RC’s of the 1790’s did. As society becomes more broad-minded, we will allow equality to more and more whom we realize deserve it.

        As to Chad and his like-minded friends, I encourage him in my post to talk about his beliefs and to explain himself as I have done with mine. Talking points and inflammatory rhetoric, which both sides of every issue use, do nothing to advance the discussion. I’d like to hear what exactly his list of supposed lost liberties looks like, especially when put up next to my husband’s list.

        A final note: I don’t know that any of us have truly been concise. Mr Everson rambles around how much he misses you on other blogs without offering anything substantive. Your HoosierArmyMom friend is not terribly concise, either. It’s like they are trying to come up with a reason to oppose this legislation that uses facts, rights, etc., and can’t. Like you, I’d like to hear, from either a fiscal conservative or a social conservative, an actual reason why this bill that keeps families together and Americans in their homes and jobs should not become law. Isn’t that the basis of the ‘family values’ folks – to keep families together? and isn’t that the tenet of the fiscal conservatives – to keep Americans in their homes and jobs? How does sending an American into exile do either?

  • 

    michiganredneck said

    April 28, 2009 at 11:48 pm “Hey this looks like a healthy debate!” Yeah, except I wish some So-cons had come on to defend whatever their positions may be. That is my problem with the So-cons in the Republican Party. They are willing to say one thing within their circles, yet when they are given the chance to speak with another side with another view, poof.

    “One thing that you are finding is that you have felt all alone, but you have not submitted to Grizzly Groundswell blog networks in a while. Of course you are going to feel alone if you do not network with fellow conservatives that give a shit.” You are correct there. As you know, I had gone into hiatus, again for a while. Somehow, I have to figure out how to be able to work on my sewing and blogging.

    Reply
• 

  oblogdeeoblogda said

  April 28, 2009 at 1:14 pm Thanks for the update on my blog, I will approve it as soon as I can. That said yes e-mail would be great – I am not afraid to have my name out there – I used to be – maybe that is my naivity because I live in a community where there is no prejudice – or at least I like tio think so; maybe it is limited. Here we all champion common causes such as poverty, the environment, fair treatment for all under the law. By the way I also believe that our borders should be strengthened so that illigal immigrants cannot get through so easily.

  That said, I do not think children should suffer; once there is a de facto situation – that is if it “IS” then children should come first and all else forgotten. It is not a reward to keep children with their mothers and/or fathers, it is a G-d given right, regardless of borders.

  So if two things could happen in conjunction – give children their intact families and allow Americans to live in America including all American kids, regardless of so called “anchor-baby-syndrome” and at the same time firm up borders, then over 100,000 families would be united again and illigal immigration will decrease dramatically.

  Especially now with Swine flu – its extra important to protect our borders.

  So we think alike – except I do believe in amnesty together with closing borders TIGHT!

  Reply
  • 

    michiganredneck said

    April 29, 2009 at 1:39 am “By the way I also believe that our borders should be strengthened so that illigal immigrants cannot get through so easily.” The prob is that neither side wants to get serious about the borders. They both have reasons to be for it, behind closed doors (read ass kiss to lobbyists).

    I really do have empathy for the children. Don’t get me wrong. The Libertarian in me says that everything really needs to be thought out. Unfortunately, there are many outside our borders who know our laws and take advantage of it. Of course there are American women who live in trailer parks, going out to the bar, pick up some guy, any guy, get knocked up, check off father unknown, collect welfare. Then repeat for the next three or more generations. I think if we get rid of the welfare system, a lot of probs can be solved. Again, both parties advantage from keeping people on welfare.

    “Especially now with Swine flu – its extra important to protect our borders.” Yes, you’re correct! I have not talked about that because so many other bloggers and news sources are talking about that. I try not to repeat something, unless of course it is something that I have strong beliefs on. Other than that, I try to find things others are not talking about, or their is not conservatives talking about it.

    “…except I do believe in amnesty together with closing borders” Amen, not that I agree. But at least someone who is pro-amnesty is willing to use that word.

    Oh BTW, I see you spell out “G-d” instead of God. Here you are allowed to use any word, just nothing threatening or violent. If that is your personal choice, that is fine. But if you are doing that for my benefit, don’t worry.

    Reply
• 

  oblogdeeoblogda said

  April 28, 2009 at 2:24 pm Please call me Melanie.

  Reply
• 

  oblogdeeoblogda said

  April 29, 2009 at 12:01 am I concurr with Chris; and find MR’s point about “poof…. ” interesting;yes, seems away he went! Chris I am so glad you were directed here from my BLOG; and that you are so established in your truth that you are able to come back and revisit the comments. I challenge Mr. Everson to return here and answer the big question : “Again, exactly which of your liberties are being eroded by my American husband having rights that you currently enjoy?” If he fails to answer, it is clearly unanswerable and in that event MR, you will see completely unfounded/

  MT thanks for keeping this dialogue alive and allowing the discourse; its unusual and rewarding – that said I hope a lot more join in. But more than anything else I hope Mr. Everson eturns to back up his tstaements and answer these questions, because if he does not you will either be truly lonely or have succeeded in finding some new friends. Melanie.

  Reply
  • 

    michiganredneck said

    April 29, 2009 at 2:13 am In Chad’s defense, not that he needs, I do know him via internet and know that he is busy. Not that any of the commentors who have come back aren’t. We all choose when and where we want to respond. That being said, I will say he does think on his own and his views on many issues are well thought out. I think he will be back, in his own time. The ones I was talking about regarding “poof” are regular readers or other conservatives who may have just landed here.

    “…either be truly lonely or have succeeded in finding some new friends.” I hope to neither be lonely AND also have some new i-net friends. And I hope that everyone can converse on any issues that I may post on. I hope that everyone can keep it civil, when disagreeing. In girl scouts we used to sing a song about make new friends and keep the old…

    Reply

• Leave a Reply

   

  Share this:

  • Email
  • Facebook
  • Reddit
  • Twitter
  • Print
  • Google
  • Tumblr
  • LinkedIn

  Like this:

  Like Loading...

  Related