IMPORTANT NOTICE: WHO WE ARE

THIS WEBSITE http://18millionvoices.blogspot.com/
IS, AND WILL REMAIN, THE ONE AND ONLY SOURCE OF CORRECT INFORMATION ABOUT 18 MILLION VOICES CURRENT AND ONGOING ACTIVITIES.

18 MILLION VOICES PLANNED AND COORDINATED, THROUGH ITS RECOGNIZED STATE GROUPS, THE ACTIVITIES THAT TOOK PLACE IN DENVER ON AUGUST 25th and 26th, 2008 AND THAT ARE DETAILED ON OUR ONE AND ONLY "SISTER PAGE" LOCATED HERE: http://rhrdenver.blogspot.com/

NO OTHER GROUP OR ORGANIZATION IS WORKING IN AFFILIATION WITH 18 MILLION VOICES AND ANY INFORMATION TO THE CONTRARY IS FALSE.

18 MILLION VOICES HAS ABSOLUTELY NO AFFILIATION WITH ANY OF THE GROUPS IDENTIFIED AS "PUMA".


18 MILLION VOICES HAS ABSOLUTELY NO AFFILIATION WITH ANY EFFORTS BEING MISLEADINGLY DESCRIBED AS:

"18 MILLION VOICES PHASE II"
"18MVP2"
"18 MILLION VOICES PHASE 2"
THE WEBSITE "18MILLIONVOICES.NET "

IT IS OUR OPINION THAT THE ABOVE INDIVIDUALS/GROUPS ARE ATTEMPTING TO CAPITALIZE ON THE HARD WORK AND GOOD REPUTATION OF OUR GROUP BY USING THE "18 MILLION VOICES" NAME FOR THEIR OWN PURPOSES.

WE HAVE REPEATEDLY REQUESTED THAT THESE GROUPS CEASE USING THE "18 MILLION VOICES" NAME--THE GROUPS HAVE THUS FAR REFUSED TO DO SO.

WE AT 18 MILLION VOICES DENOUNCE THE DISPICABLE ACTIONS OF THESE GROUPS IN THEIR ATTEMPTS TO USE THE "18 MILLION VOICES" NAME FOR THEIR OWN PUPRPOSES AND BENEFIT.



WE ARE A GRASSROOTS ORGANIZATION THAT DOES NOT FUNDRAISE

We are NOT engaged in any form of fundraising.
We are a grassrooots organization in the most literal sense.

If you are asked to contibute to any organization representing themselves as "18 Million Voices", please know that they IN NO WAY represent 18 Million Voices or our efforts coordinated through this website and we ask kindly that you please contact us immediately at risehillaryrise@gmail.com in the event you encounter such an activity so that we may take immediate, appropriate action.

The Founders of 18 Million Voices, who created this website, are two private citizens who have a background in grassroots political organizing and a strong commitment to advocating for women's rights. 18 Million Voices is not a non-profit, or a PAC. However, the "18 Million Voices" name is, indeed, legally protected and in use by our grassroots organization.

We do not authorize the use of the name "18 Million Voices" by any other group, and do not endorse, nor are we involved with, any efforts but those detailed on THIS website.

Home From Denver

We have returned from Denver, and from a wonderful celebration of Women's Equality Day and Senator Hillary Clinton.

We have created a "sister site" that contains photos, narrative, videos, and press coverage detailing our Denver efforts. Please visit this link http://rhrdenver.blogspot.com to read all about it! And please keep checking back to this site for new details of our ongoing advocacy for women's rights! More to come VERY soon...stay tuned!

Monday, June 09, 2008

Update for all re: response so far...

Thank you for all of the input so far. We are trying to be responsive to all suggestions about content and even style of the site, but, have only so much time to devote, so, please bear with us as we try to address everyone's suggestions.

As far as permits go, it seems our best bet will be to find a co-sponsoring group that is already involved in the permit battle, as it appears the ACLU has already filed a lawsuit on behalf of groups seeking to hold events. We will try to reach out to groups in the coming week, and will post updates here.

In response to all who think Million Women's March is not an inclusive enough name, we are open to all ideas, but it will be difficult to re-name the blog, which is already millionwomenmarch, and our hope was that men would not be too put off to march for their wives', daughters' or mothers' rights. Suggestions are welcome for more inclusive names.

Thus far, we have received only a handful of interest emails, so, as the list grows we will try to put people in touch with one another. Please all be aware, we are not an organized group, but 2 concerned citizens and loyal Clinton supporters, who put up this blog to serve as an organizing mechanism for anyone who would like to see this event happen, as when we searched for information last week a lot of blogs were talking about this idea, but there was no central website for people to start doing anything about making it happen.

Please keep the ideas coming, and we will keep everyone posted about progress.

25 comments:

cbl said...

Hi-
Know that this idea has been picking up steam now that we're in post-primary and thought I would add my thoughts.

I feel the name of the march needs to be as inclusive as possible, aka gender-neutral.

Few ideas:
Rise Hillary Rise - if it's about HER
Recount - if it's about the legality of the DNCs ruling
18 Million Cracks - if it's about every Hill voter - bonus: her words in Sat. speech
Fair Reflection - if it's about the FL/MI votes
Voters In Exile (V.I.E.)...
and so on.

Also - I liked the idea from another poster who said, Let's drop 18 million pieces of paper from the air on Denver.

I know our hearts want to march - we want to DO something but given our demographics, I think folks need to ask themselves a few questions about strategies which would consider how SAFE this event would be...and given the short timeframe - this is a big thing to consider.

For instance,
If we're an older demographic what show of force is appropriate for people's safety, for where we are now? Will 40+ yo really storm the barricades? Will 40+ want to fend off the Obamabots?

If the media doesn't cover demonstrations (and they don't and when they do they stick to the "angry women" soundbite) then what else can be done that will get their attention?

And, if Hillary is our leader - then ask, What Would Hillary Do?...

The piece of paper dropped from a plane idea is modern - stealth marketing and I see how this kind of idea can be very effective.

I would suggest looking into this.

Just my 2 cents...

Amber said...

Hey guys. First, from a legal standpoint, we cannot drop 18 million pieces of paper from the sky. Its polluting and we'd be fined BIG TIME!

Second, we have to be sure that this Movement doesn't reflect poorly on Hillary. I mean, look at how badly many folks talk about the people who lead the feminist movement of the 60s. I realize that Hillary's mistreatment is behind our outrage, but we should not make this about Hillary. It may end up backfiring and reflecting badly on her, even ruining her political career. I love this woman and that is the LAST thing I'd want to happen. I think this Movement (or march) should be about ALL WOMEN everywhere....and that we should state that our reasons behind organizing this event was inspired by Hillary's mistreatment and our outrage over same. Please lets be careful not to tarnish Hillary's name. I do not care if they call ME a "radical feminist". As far as I"m concerned, they can kiss my "radical feminist" a$$. But I DO NOT want this to hurt Sen. Clinton in any way, shape or form (even by name association). Ya know what I mean.

Anonymous said...

Great idea!

-Jesus Crisis

Lori McMaster said...

Hi,
I to think we need to have use friendly name as well and be careful not to tarnish Hillary's name. We can pull this off easily and gather and assemble. We need the permits and the rooms. I am disabled to where I cannot walk a very long distance I so have to rent a little motor something. I am in Washington State and I am 50 years old. I can drive 4 people in my suv; it gets good gas mileage. I think we need several leaders in each state. For instance Washington had eastern western and southern. We can gather and make plans, we can connect with other leaders and our marchers in each state by way of computer and webcam. We all need to positive and focused. Just let me know what I need to do.
Lori McMaster

Lynne said...

Ken Blackwell - Columnist for the New York Sun



It's an amazing time to be alive in America . We're in a year of firsts in this presidential election: the first viable woman candidate; the first viable African-American candidate; and, a candidate who is the first front-running freedom fighter over 70. The next president of America will be a first.



We won't truly be in an election of firsts, however, until we judge every candidate by where they stand. We won't arrive where we should be until we no longer talk about skin color or gender. Now that Barack Obama steps to the front of the Democratic field, we need to stop talking about his race, and start talking about his policies and his politics.



The reality is this: Though the Democrats will not have a nominee until August, unless Hillary Clinton drops out, Mr. Obama is now the frontrunner, and its time America takes a closer and deeper look at him. Some pundits are calling him the next John F. Kennedy. He's not. He's the next George McGovern. And it's time people learned the facts.



Because the truth is that Mr. Obama is the single most liberal senator in the entire U.S. Senate. He is more liberal than Ted Kennedy, Bernie Sanders, or Mrs. Clinton. Never in my life have I seen a presidential frontrunner whose rhetoric is so far removed from his record. Walter Mondale promised to raise our taxes, and he lost. George McGovern promised military weakness, and he lost. Michael Dukakis promised a liberal domestic agenda, and he lost.

Yet Mr. Obama is promising all those things, and he's not behind in the polls. Why? Because the press has dealt with him as if he were in a beauty pageant.. Mr. Obama talks about getting past party, getting past red and blue, to lead the United States of America . But let's look at the more defined strokes of who he is underneath this superficial 'beauty.'



Start with national security, since the president's most important duties are as commander-in-chief. Over the summer, Mr. Obama talked about invading Pakistan, a nation armed with nuclear weapons; meeting without preconditions with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who vows to destroy Israel and create another Holocaust; and Kim Jong II, who is murdering and starving his people, but emphasized that the nuclear option was off the table against terrorists - something no president has ever taken off the table since we created nuclear weapons in the 1940s. Even Democrats who have worked in national security condemned all of those remarks. Mr. Obama is a foreign-policy novice who would put our national security at risk.



Next, consider economic policy. For all its faults, our health care system is the strongest in the world. And free trade agreements, created by Bill Clinton as well as President Bush, have made more goods more affordable so that even people of modest means can live a life that no one imagined a generation ago.. Yet Mr. Obama promises to raise taxes on 'the rich.' How to fix Social Security? Raise taxes. How to fix Medicare? Raise taxes. Prescription drugs? Raise taxes. Free college? Raise taxes. Socialize medicine? Raise taxes. His solution to everything is to have government take it over. Big Brother on steroids, funded by your paycheck.



Finally, look at the social issues. Mr. Obama had the audacity to open a stadium rally by saying, 'All praise and glory to God!' but says that Christian leaders speaking for life and marriage have 'hijacked' - hijacked - Christianity. He is pro-partial birth abortion, and promises to appoint Supreme Court justices who will rule any restriction on it unconstitutional. He espouses the abortion views of Margaret Sanger, one of the early advocates of racial cleansing. His spiritual leaders endorse homosexual marriage, and he is moving in that direction. In Illinois , he refused to vote against a statewide ban - ban - on all handguns in the state. These are radical left, Hollywood , and San Francis co values, not Middle America values.



The real Mr. Obama is an easy target for the general election. Mrs. Clinton is a far tougher opponent. But Mr. Obama could win if people don't start looking behind his veneer and flowery speeches. His vision of 'bringing America together' means saying that those who disagree with his agenda for America are hijackers or warmongers. Uniting the country means adopting his liberal agenda and abandoning any conflicting beliefs.



But right now everyone is talking about how eloquent of a speaker he is and - yes - they're talking about his race. Those should never be the factors on which we base our choice for president. Mr. Obama's radical agenda sets him far outside the American mainstream, to the left of Mrs. Clinton.



It's time to talk about the real Barack Obama. In an election of firsts, let's first make sure we elect the person who is qualified to be our president in a nuclear age during a global civilizational war.

Subject: Kind of scary, wouldn't you think Remember--God is good, and is in time, on time  every time



According to The Book of Revelations the anti-christ is:



The anti-christ will be a man, in his 40s, of MUSLIM descent, who will deceive the nations with persuasive language, and have a MASSIVE Christ-like appeal....the prophecy says that people will flock to him and he will promise false hope and world peace, and when he is in power, will destroy everything. Is it OBAMA??



I STRONGLY URGE each one of you to repost this as many times as you can! Each opportunity that you have to send it to a friend or media outlet...do it! If you think I am crazy,. I'm sorry but I refuse to take a chance on the 'unknown' candidate.

Hillary Supporter said...

I love the name Million Woman March. But if you look it up, it was also the name of a march that took place in 1997 for African American woman.
http://www.cnn.com/US/9710/25/million.woman.march/
That is the link to it. I dont know if this makes a difference. Im ready to get this going. I live in the Texas panhandle, which is the most republican place you can be. But right now, Obama supporters are worse. :) I can fit 7 in my car and we are ready to go!!

-Stephanie
Amarillo Texas

Kathie said...

How about the "18 Million Votes March?"

Anonymous said...

This is a terrific idea. I immediately shared it with like-minded people and will really get down to spreading the word tonight! One of our number here pointed me to Texas legislation enacted May 9, 2005:

§ 662.051. WOMEN'S INDEPENDENCE DAY.
(a) August 26 is Women's Independence Day to commemorate the ratification in 1920 of the Nineteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which guaranteed women the right to vote.
(b) Women's Independence Day shall be regularly observed by appropriate programs in the public schools and other places to
inspire a greater appreciation of the importance of women's suffrage.

Added by Acts 2005, 79th Leg., Ch. 19, § 1, eff. May 9, 2005.

It's a sign! (found at http://tlo2/tlc.state.tx.us/statutes Look up Women's Independence Day and click the link.) Yay, Texas!

Nicki. Dallas, Texas

Anonymous said...

I personally like the name of the Million Women's March. But, in order to not leave out men who would like to attend, lets float names...

Hmm...

"DEMOCRACY NOW"

"CLINTONITES UNITE"


I don't know....any thoughts? Something catching and witty

Natasha said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Akron said...

The MIL - HIL March - in support of count ALL the votes -

and what is the EXACT math if they had handled FLA and MI correctly - in terms of pledged delegates?

toni92449 said...

It can't be associated with Hillary in any way. They would love to blame her. You protest against the DNC. They are the ones with the messed up awarding delegate system.They are the ones who have superdelegates who can decide the best canidate instead of the people. They can have a meeting and decide that voters are half and not whole. They can decide that if you take your name off a ballot that you get all the delegates that are uncommited. They are the ones who say that you have to get out and unite the party even though others had a right to take it to the convention in the past. Gee i guess we could go on and on.What i am saying is put the blame on where it belongs the DNC. Do not let them say that she lost him this election. If you name it million women march people will think about farakan. Make the name something about that implies it is about the DNC.

Natasha said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...

I would suggest not using 18 million in the title of the march. While it is a powerful number, if the same media that has berated Hillary all along is monitoring our actions, they will only make smarmy remarks about the turnout. Even if attendance is huge, they are looking for ways to undercut us.

Also, has anyone been able to find any lodging in Denver? I've tried several travel sites and there doesn't seem to be a hotel room in town that week. Some of us (like myself) will be trekking cross country. Any ideas?

Edana Popp said...

How about "Women Count" March? Does anyone have connections to the WomenCount Pac, which supported the Count Every Vote rally in DC? Perhaps the PAC would have access to a permit, and organizational tools.
I think that emphasizing the power of women's votes would protect Hillary, and at the same time would get the point across that we are a group with immense political power.
If Women Count doesn't work, what about Women Vote, in honor of the 19th Amendment?

edana popp said...

Here is the text of an email I just sent to the Communications Director of WomenCount PAC. I'll post any return reply.

Hello Ms Camposano:

I'm writing to let you know about a group of women who are trying to organize a "Million Women March" in Denver during the convention. The group is called Rise Hillary Rise.

In order to protect Hillary from negative fallout from the march, the group is considering other names for their event. I am wondering if we could use "Women Count March"? Would your group, of which I am a contributing member, like to be involved such an event? The two women who put together this blog/website are doing their best, but they really could use some organizational tools.

August 26 will mark the 86th anniversary of the 19th Amendment. If Women Count could join in the planning of the march, we could really show the DNC, the SD's, and the country, that women are a powerful voting group. I think that "Women Count/Women Vote would look great on a banner at the front of the march!

Thank you for your time, and keep up the good work! And thank you for putting me in touch with someone who put me in touch with someone who had a place for me to stay in DC on the 31st. I couldn't have made it otherwise.

Anonymous said...

recreate 68 is a prombama organization from what i understand. I don't think it would be smart to include them.

Natasha said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...

I've been referring it as the Million american march. a peaceful march with signs to make our point.

It'll pick up steam as soon as Dean gets arrested for vote fraud.

Anonymous said...

Or call it 18 million votes march

Anonymous said...

Your Whiteness is Showing:
An Open Letter to Certain White Women who are Threatening to Withhold
Support
from Barack Obama in November

By Tim Wise
June 6, 2008

This is an open
letter to those white women who, despite their proclamations of
progressivism, and supposedly because of their commitment to feminism,
are threatening to withhold support from Barack Obama in November. You
know who you are.

I
know that it's probably a bad time for this. Your disappointment at the
electoral defeat of Senator Hillary Clinton is fresh, the sting is new,
and the anger that animates many of you--who rightly point out that the
media was often sexist in its treatment of the Senator--is raw, pure
and justified.

That
said, and despite the awkward timing, I need to ask you a few
questions, and I hope you will take them in the spirit of solidarity
with which they are genuinely intended. But before the questions, a
statement if you don't mind, or indeed, even if (as I suspect), you
will mind it quite a bit.

First,
for those of you threatening to actually vote for John McCain and to
oppose Senator Obama, or to stay home in November and thereby increase
the likelihood of McCain winning and Obama losing (despite the fact
that the latter's policy platform is virtually identical to Clinton's
while the former's clearly is not), all the while claiming to be
standing up for women...

For
those threatening to vote for John McCain or to stay home and increase
the odds of his winning (despite the fact that he once called his wife
the c-word in public and is a staunch opponent of reproductive freedom
and gender equity initiatives, such as comparable worth legislation) ,
all the while claiming to be standing up for women...

For
those threatening to vote for John McCain or to stay home and help
ensure Barack Obama's defeat, as a way to protest what you call Obama's
sexism (examples of which you seem to have difficulty coming up with),
all the while claiming to be standing up for women...

Your whiteness is showing.

When
I say your whiteness is showing this is what I mean: You claim that
your opposition to Obama is an act of gender solidarity, in that women
(and their male allies) need to stand up for women in the face of the
sexist mistreatment of Clinton by the press. On this latter point--the
one about the importance of standing up to the media for its often
venal misogyny--you couldn't be more correct. As the father of two
young girls who will have to contend with the poison of patriarchy all
their lives, or at least until such time as that system of oppression
is eradicated, I will be the first to join the boycott of, or
demonstration on, whatever media outlet you choose to make that point.
But on the first part of the above equation--the part where you insist
voting against Obama is about gender solidarity-- you are, for lack of a
better way to put it, completely full of crap. And what's worse is that
at some level I suspect you know it. Voting against Senator Obama is
not about gender solidarity. It is an act of white racial bonding, and
it is grotesque.

If it were gender solidarity you sought, you would by definition
join with your black and brown sisters come November, and do what you
know good and well they are going to do, in overwhelming numbers, which
is vote for Barack Obama. But no. You are threatening to vote not like
other women--you know, the ones who aren't white like you and most of
your friends--but rather, like white men! Needless to say it is
high irony, bordering on the outright farcical, to believe that
electorally bonding with white men, so as to elect McCain, is a
rational strategy for promoting feminism and challenging patriarchy.
You are not thinking and acting as women, but as white people. So
here's the first question: What the hell is that about?

And
you wonder why women of color have, for so long, thought (by and large)
that white so-called feminists were phony as hell? Sister please...

Your
threats are not about standing up for women. They are only about
standing up for the feelings of white women, and more to the point, the
aspirations of one white woman. So don't kid yourself. If you
wanted to make a statement about the importance of supporting a woman,
you wouldn't need to vote for John McCain, or stay home, thereby
producing the same likely result--a defeat for Obama. You could always
have said you were going to go out and vote for Cynthia McKinney. After
all, she is a woman, running with the Green Party, and she's
progressive, and she's a feminist. But that isn't your threat is it?
No. You're not threatening to vote for the woman, or even the feminist
woman. Rather, you are threatening to vote for the white man, and to reject
not
only the black man who you feel stole Clinton's birthright, but even the
black
woman in the race. And I wonder why? Could it be...?

See, I told you your whiteness was showing.

And
now for a third question, and this is the biggie, so please take your
time with it: How is it that you have managed to hold your nose all
these years, just like a lot of us on the left, and vote for Democrats
who we knew were horribly inadequate-- Kerry, Gore, Clinton, Dukakis,
right on down the uninspiring line--and yet, apparently can't bring
yourself to vote for Barack Obama? A man who, for all of his
shortcomings (and there are several, as with all candidates put up by
either of the two major corporate parties) is surely more progressive
than any of those just mentioned. And how are we to understand that
refusal--this sudden line in the proverbial sand--other than as a
racist slap at a black man? You will vote for white men year after year
after year--and are threatening to vote for another one just to make a
point--but
can't bring yourself to vote for a black man, whose political views
come much closer to your own, in all likelihood, than do the views of
any of the white men you've supported before. How, other than as an act
of racism, or perhaps as evidence of political insanity, is one to
interpret such a thing?

See,
black folks would have sucked it up, like they've had to do forever,
and voted for Clinton had it come down to that. Indeed, they were on
board the Hillary train early on, convinced that Obama had no chance to
win and hoping for change, any change, from the reactionary agenda that
has been so prevalent for so long in this culture. They would have
supported the white woman--hell, for many black folks, before Obama
showed his mettle they were downright excited to do so--but you won't
support
the black man. And yet you have the audacity to insist that it is you
who are the most loyal constituency of the Democratic Party, and the
one before whom Party leaders should bow down, and whose feet must be
kissed?

Your whiteness is showing.

Look,
I couldn't care less about the Party personally. I left the Democrats
twenty years ago when they told me that my activism in the Central
America solidarity and South African anti-apartheid movements made me a
security risk, and that I wouldn't be able to get clearance to be in
some parade with Governor Dukakis. Yeah, seriously. But for you to act
as though you are the indispensible voters, the most important,
the ones whose views should be pandered to, whose every whim should be
the basis for Party policy, is not only absurd, it is also racist in
that it, a) ignores and treats as irrelevant the much more loyal
constituency of black folks, without whom no Democrat would have won
anything in the past twenty years (and indeed the racial gap favoring
the Democrats among blacks is about six times larger than the gender
gap favoring them among white women, relative to white men); and b)
demonstrates the mentality of entitlement and superiority that has been
long ingrained in us as white folks--so that we believe we have the
right to dictate the terms of political engagement, and to determine
the outcome, and to get our way, simply because for so long we have
done just that.

But that day is done,
whether you like it or not, and you are now left with two, and only two
choices, so consider them carefully: the first is to stand now in
solidarity with your black brothers and sisters and welcome the new
day, and help to push it in a truly progressive and feminist and
antiracist direction, while the second is to team up with white men to
try and block the new day from dawning. Feel free to choose the latter.
But if you do, please don't insult your own intelligence, or ours, by
insisting that you've done so as a radical political act.

KimK. said...

I agree with cbl (1st comment)..
We need to clarify our intention- what we are trying to TRULY achieve here- and use a name for the group that will best represent our goal, and help us attain our objective.

In my mind, the objective that we ALL have in common is to have Hillary elected as President of the US in 2008!
Why pussyfoot around this?

Let's name it like it is.
How about calling the March:

Competency Counts- Millions March for Hillary.

(This would be a play on words of regarding the necessity to count the votes..the INCOMPETENCY of the DNC... And, the fact that we want Hillary as Pres because she's the more COMPETENT candidate.

I consider myself a feminist, and would love the opportunity to march for this cause, in and of itself.
But, focusing on the task at hand- we want the SuperDelegates to reassess their decision to select Obama as the nominee.
NO- In fact, there are millions of us who protest this (ridiculous) assessment, and there are millions of us who DEMAND Clinton be our Democratic nominee, simply: because she is the most competent.

This has nothing to do with race- this has to do with competency.

If both Obama and Clinton were white men.. Clinton would have been elected, based simply on competency.

I also happen to like the name,
Rise Hillary Rise for the march.
I think its important that we make clear that millions want Hillary to be selected by the SD's as our nominee.

And, my own viewpoint is, if she's not given the Democratic nod....I wish that she would run as an Independent. She'd probably be elected in the GE.

Steedeo said...

To Tim Wise the last post in this blog.

If you think anyone would take any of your pyscho-babble seriously for one minute and if you think women think that way, your crazy.

I am excited about this March because to be quite honest women in this country have been second class citizens, low wages, low social security. I have been living from paycheck to paycheck every since I started working at age 18.

So don't tell me. My only regret is the Equal Rights Amendment didn't pass.

Once we have sorted out this thing at the Denver Convention and Hillary is in the Whitehouse, we'll get that done too.

THE WOMAN WHO ROCKS THE CRADLE - ROCKS THE WORLD!!!!!!!.....

Steedeo

Steedeo said...

MARCH FOR TRUE DEMOCRACY.

Anonymous said...

I think that the Million
woman March is too much like the controversial Million Man March.....I think it should change for the March itself....Maybe the Million Voices March or Voices Rising