Friday, April 26, 2013

Vickie's Corner 04-26-2013 Boycott-By-Me

April 26, 2013
Colorado USA

Charley Presents This Weeks Edition Of ‘Vickie’s Corner” – Hollywood Hypocrisy
By Charley Barnes April 26, 2013 5:33 PM

In the midst of all the gun control issues and debates, many have taken notice at Hollywood and those well known millionaires who make a living on the big screen supporting guns but in real life, are totally against them for the most part. Complete hypocrites? Vickie Downing shares her thoughts this week on Vickie’s Corner.

Boycott-By-Me… movies, books and beer

We boycott in the USA. Boycotts are an easy and virtually painless form of protest. A Boycott-By-Me is usually provoked by annoyance at the political posturing of celebrities. At present, I am cleaning titles out of the movie and book collection and considering a clean sweep of the beer box.

Unlike the rich and shameless whose livelihood depends on an adoring public I have nothing to lose in the arena of free speech so I find it confounding that a large number of high-profile, normally self-serving, self-absorbed celebrities are expressing themselves in language that can only prove detrimental to their general welfare. One can only hope the willingness to jeopardize careers by irritating their fan base is indicative of a high level of moral indignation and passion about an issue and not an exercise in - well - stupidity, for lack of a better word.

*** Movie stars shoot off their mouths...

Sylvester Stallone: Until America, door to door, takes every handgun, this is what you’re gonna have. It’s pathetic. It really is pathetic. It’s sad. We’re living in the Dark Ages over there.

----- Stallone (in my opinion, an actor of dubious ability and the biggest poser/loser of all time) recently suffered the worst opening weekend gross in his 32 year career - talk about a Bullet to the Head.

Mark Wahlberg: Certainly, I haven’t used a gun anywhere other than on a movie set and I’d like to see if we could take them all away. It would be a beautiful thing.

----- Wahlberg’s new stinker of a movie Pain and Gain is touted as a loser. One has to appreciate the acting ability of a kinder, gentler, apparently gun shy Wahlberg when one visualizes him as the foul-mouthed, violent character Detective Dignam in The Departed.

----- You can add actors Kevin Bacon, Matt Damon, Danny DeVito, Sean Connery and Arnold Schwarzenegger to the list of mostly hot-shot-has-beens who promote guns and violence via their movies but advocate for gun control.

*** Beer Foul! Bud-weis-er heir cans NRA

Adolphus Busch IV: I fail to see how the NRA can disregard the overwhelming will of its members who see background checks as reasonable.

----- Busch, the heir to the Anheuser-Busch beer fortune terminated his membership in the NRA immediately after the United States Senate failed to pass background check legislation for firearm sales.

----- Somebody hand him a napkin before he cries in the beer! I wonder if he belongs to the same NRA as everybody else because I understood the majority of NRA members were pleased to see the gun bills fail.

*** King of spooky guys spooked by guns

Stephen King: Autos and semi-autos are weapons of mass destruction. When lunatics want to make war on the unarmed and unprepared, these are the weapons they use... I have nothing against gun owners, sport shooters or hunters, but semi-automatic weapons have only two purposes. One is so that owners can take them to the shooting range once in a while, yell yeehaw and get all horny at the rapid fire and the burning vapor spurting from the end of the barrel. Their other use – their only other use – is to kill people.

----- King, master of the macabre, author of the popular Dark Tower/Gunslinger series has made a fortune depicting blood, gore and violence in his books. Last year King self-censored Rage (a book about guns, youth and violence). King authored Guns, a contentious essay on gun control earlier this year and recently donated a five figure sum to a gun control group in Maine. CBS is heavily promoting Under the Dome, a new series based on a novel by King. Not being a fan of King's books or TV – boycott – no problem.

Actors, authors and silver-spoon heirs pandering to a gun-grabbing demographic are really just preaching to the choir. How wise is it to antagonize and demonize the gun-toting, beer-drinking demographic of their real audience? It has to be a PR nightmare!

Something is seriously wrong in the juxtaposition of money and morals. If one's objection to guns in our society compels one to speak out so stridently against them - where is the integrity in making a fortune exploiting guns and violence by way of one’s trade? It may be just a casual observation but I fail to see how inflammatory anti-gun commentary directed at the largely pro-gun demographic equals big dollars at the box office, the book store or the bar. Do they think we are not paying attention?

One more thing – it is a near certainty the same people who want to control, ban or confiscate guns because of the insane idea that guns are dangerous, scary and promote violence will eventually turn on movies and books for the same reasons. Heads up celebrities! Gun grabbers who do not respect personal property or the second amendment have given no indication they respect intellectual property or the first amendment more so. They will simply become the movie-grabbers and book-grabbers of tomorrow.

When books and movies like firearms are scrutinized by a lower form of intellect and dubbed violent and scary it shall lead to books and movies being banned and confiscated or burned in the streets.

I am guessing beer will make an admirable accelerant.

Source: K99/Charley Barnes Boycott-By-Me

Charley Barnes is a friend and fellow rabble-rousing patriot. He is a DJ at K99 Colorado's Best Country Station. He personally contributes and organizes several charity and fund-raising events in northern Colorado including the Sleigh Riders Motorcycle Toy Run. We met in 2011 when he and a couple of buddies rode their motorcycles across Kansas to Topeka (the home of the Westboro Baptist Blasphemer Church Cult) and gave the WBC a dose of their own medicine. That's how Journey 4 Justice began. J4J teams from across the nation travel to Topeka KS (most of them on motorcycles) and deliver a counter protest to the WBC's hateful message. The difference is: they do it with class. No nasty signs or subversive messages are needed - they simply show up and wave the flags of country, state and armed services. A few weeks ago Charley offered me an opportunity to sound off occasionally on current events in a spot called Vickie's Corner in his little neck of the woods at K99. Is that kool or what?

Source: Holsters iwb- Famous People Anti-Gun Pro-Gun
NY Daily News - Anheiser Busch Heir Quits NRA
Guardian-UK - Stephen King Gun Control Essay
Raw Story - Stephen King Donates to Gun Control Group
Forbes - The Media is an Accomplice in Public Shootings: A Call for a "Stephen King" Law

Thursday, April 25, 2013

Leaders are defined by the convictions they hold

April 25, 2013
Colorado USA

In democracy, the purpose of public office is not to fulfill personal ambition. Elected officials must serve a cause greater than themselves. The political winds blow left and right, polls rise and fall, supporters come and go. But in the end, leaders are defined by the convictions they hold. And my deepest conviction, the guiding principle of the administration, is that the United States of America must strive to expand the reach of freedom.
-Former President George W. Bush

Tuesday, April 23, 2013

We live in a world that practices arbitrary discrimination - so what?

April 22, 2013
Colorado USA

If no shoes - no shirt - no service is OK...
If no tie - no jacket - no table is OK...
If no kids allowed is OK...
If no more than 3 high school students allowed at one time is OK...
If no backpacks or coolers or large purses allowed is OK...
If no strollers or wagons allowed is OK...
If no sack lunches allowed is OK...
If no servicemen in uniform allowed is OK...
If no t-shirts with allegedly subversive messages allowed is OK...
If no dogs, cats, birds, turtles allowed is OK...
If no person over/under the age of ??? allowed is OK...
If no skate boards, skates or scooters allowed is OK...
If no camping in the park allowed is OK...
If no glass containers allowed is OK...
If no out of town checks allowed is OK...
If no urinating in public allowed is OK...
If no spitting tobacco on the sidewalk allowed is OK...
If no sunflower seed/peanut hulls allowed is OK...
If no loud pipes allowed is OK...
If no cell phones allowed is OK...
If no dancing in the fountain allowed is OK...
If no person under this ??? height is OK...
If no skinny dipping allowed is OK...
If no smoking allowed is OK...
If no drinking allowed is OK...
If no marijuana (yes Colorado - it is coming) allowed is OK...
If no cussin' allowed is OK...
If no protesting on this corner allowed is OK...
If no cameras allowed is OK...
If no baggy pants allowed (see Shreveport LA) is OK...
If no prescription drugs allowed is OK...
If no thongs allowed on the beach is OK...
If no knives allowed at the concert/on the plane is OK...
If no ID no entrance allowed is OK...
If no guns allowed is OK...
If no boys allowed in the girl's room is OK...
If no girls allowed in the boy's room is OK...


wait for it...

wait for it...

wait for it...

Why is no groom (anatomically gender defined man) - no bride (anatomically gender defined woman) - no flowers NOT OK?

Get my drift? I hate to be the bearer of what is apparently a rude reality check for some but we live in an indiscriminately discriminating world. Most rules/laws/restrictions are arbitrary. Most rules are unfair to somebody. Most discrimination is arbitrary. Most rules governing discrimination are arbitrary in and of themselves.

The list at the beginning is just a small sampling of no-other-way-to-see-it arbitrary business and/or social behavior restrictions. Society discriminates based on apparel or the lack of it or the quality of it. Society discriminates based on height, weight, age, religion, ethnicity, cultural activities and countless other characteristics in spite of laws that say otherwise. Society discriminates based on nuisance factors like noise, smells, language, and erratic behavior caused by chemical influences. There is hardly any rule out there that does not offend some religious body or non-religious body or special interest group or qualify as anti-something-or-other-based discrimination. Virtually all rules are anti-liberty or anti-freedom. Virtually all rules negate some right. The government is the biggest practitioner of discrimination - all while forcing small businesses to comply with mostly arbitrary non-discriminative practices/ordinances/laws - whatever. Talk about hypocrisy!

FYI: If you are crying discrimination these days - you are likely just a whiny-butt and need to get over yourself. In my world - no whiny-butts are allowed. The word NO is not necessarily indicative of discrimination - it is simply one of life's little disappointments most of us cowboy up and overcome starting at about the age of two.

So, if I go into Starbucks wearing an anti-gay/lesbian sentiment t-shirt after they have announced they do not want my pro-heterosexual business can I sue them if they do not sell me a cup of coffee? Because - I am thinking that might be a nice little paycheck for me. Hello... ACLU?

Is discrimination right? Is it fair? Is it proper? Is it socially acceptable? Who the heck cares! Is there some law that says we all get to live in a rose garden?

This is how I operate in polite and often far too politically correct society. 1) If I enter a restaurant or other business with a legally-owned and licensed to carry firearm on my hip or in my pocket and the management asks me to remove the firearm or leave... for some arbitrary you are scaring the sheeple reason... I will politely take my leave, check to make certain I did not miss the no firearms allowed sign on the door and likely will not patronize that business again. 2) If an establishment like Starbucks (yikth!) announces they do not want my business because I do not condone the gay agenda I am not going to patronize that business. 3) If a concert venue says no knives - well, I will not carry my little frog sticker that evening. 4) If the dress code of an establishment does not allow boots and jeans and Harley jackets I will choose another, more tolerant establishment where hopefully the atmosphere is more relaxed and bean sprouts are not on the menu. 5) If there is a little boy icon on the restroom door I am going to keep looking until I find the door with a little girl icon on it.

Discrimination is the prejudicial and/or distinguishing treatment of an individual based on their actual or perceived membership in a certain group or category.

If discrimination is a crime - we are all guilty of it. Without a doubt, we are all victims of it. When one ventures out into the real world - we encounter discrimination at every turn and how we choose to deal with it determines how efficiently we move through the world. If we balk at every perceived offense, we will spend all our time battling triviality.

Hopefully, we all make discriminative choices daily - otherwise we would fill our lives with people with whom we have absolutely nothing in common. Life is about choices. If one did not discriminate between brands or prices then one would likely come home from the store with at least a dozen different brands of toilet paper. Sooner or later you have to discriminate based on quality or price or need - Charmin or economy brand. It's the same with people. When one chooses the young, pleasant checker at the discount store over the old, rather grumpy checker in the next lane - is one guilty of discrimination? When one chooses a seat in the theater and then moves because one does not like the look or ethnicity or age of the people who decide to sit beside one - is one guilty of discrimination? If one chooses to associate with people who only hang out at the country club and agree that only people of a certain caliber should be allowed entrance - is one guilty of discrimination? Likewise, if a guy in a suit enters the biker bar one frequents - and one begins thinking - well hell, there goes the neighborhood - does that make one guilty of discrimination? If one chooses to be a Unitarian over being a Catholic or a Baptist - is that discrimination? So if one chooses to associate with people who do not pose a conflict with their religious beliefs, morals or principles - is that somehow more discriminatory?

What's interesting in the discrimination debate is we rarely hear the road travels both ways - as does the road for prejudice or the less contentious and not as likely to grab notoriety as a headline - the road for tolerance.

Here's a good example of arbitrary discrimination in the semi-private/public world we live in. I have a sign on my front door for those who mistakenly believe my front porch is a port of public access and my privacy open to arbitrary intrusion. Can you believe I have actually had a discussion with a particularly pushy religious sort who believed my front porch was public property and my front door a depository for religious paraphernalia which I found personally offensive? But I digress. Basically, I got tired of climbing the stairs to accommodate a host of oddballs rudely and indiscriminately interrupting my day. The sign reads something like this - please respect our privacy - no soliciting, no surveys, no politicians, no proselytizing, no census takers - leave your litter on the door if you must and move on. When I lived a bit further south the sign included no salesman and no preachers - just for clarification. Is that sign discriminatory - you betcha it is and it evolves to include other groups with whom I would rather not have contact. That means if gays start ringing the bell - their name goes on the list. I have considered posting a sign that says if you are not selling chocolate get the heck off my porch but I didn't want to scare the neighborhood kids who stop by peddling everything from over-priced cans of nuts to assorted sports buttons to magazines I do not need for one fund-raiser or another.

The fact of the matter is: no matter what you do it is a certainty somebody out there is not going to like it and it is a certainty that somebody out there is doing something that you do not like. I deal with that every day because more often than not if I take the trouble to write about something and offer my opinion - there's somebody out there who feels duty bound to disagree with it. In fact, I am banking on that very thing most of the time.

So why should a florist (see story below) be forced to provide flowers for an event he/she does not condone or face a lawsuit from two fronts? Would a Muslim butcher be forced to provide bacon for a red neck wedding breakfast or face the wrath of the courts?

Here's the gist of the referenced story: A Washington state florist is being sued by the ACLU on behalf of a gay couple as well as the attorney general of the state of Washington (under consumer law) because she refused to service a gay wedding based on the conflict it poses with her religious beliefs. If I approached a florist and they refused to do flowers for a biker wedding - I would simply take my business to a more accommodating florist and likely do a little adverse advertising - but sue? Nah... it's not like any florist has a corner on the market.

When I had a small business which offered limited customization, I often had to tell a customer that an item was not available in blue or pink or purple - not because I could not do it but because I did not want to do it in those colors. I refused to paint peaches or plums or roses rather than daisies and sunflowers and strawberries. Again, this was not because I could not do it but because I did not subject my product to the whims of the consumer. I often had to tell a customer that an item was not available at any cost two days before Christmas because I would rather get my tree up for the grand kids. I often declined to reconstruct or custom produce items to convey or not convey a religious or cultural sentiment. I guess being uncooperative in that regard could have been misconstrued as religious or cultural discrimination but it was also my business. I repeat my business. Basically I looked at it from the perspective - if you don't pay the bills - you don't make the decisions.

I gotta tell ya I despise this contentious debate and consider it perversely unproductive. I am heartily tired of special interest groups demanding more equality and more recognition and more respect than their due.

Unfortunately, gays and lesbians in the states that have legalized civil unions believe because the government has recognized their union as legal for tax and insurance or whatever benefit purposes that everyone should condone the union including on moral grounds. That's like saying 1) if you ride a motorcycle, legal-licensed-insured - everyone has to condone the biker lifestyle, 2) if you legally carry a firearm - everyone has to condone it, 3) if you legally abort a pregnancy - everyone has to condone it, 4) if you legally spout a perverted message of hate and discontent from a pulpit - everyone has to condone it, 5) if you legally consume and distribute drugs - everyone has to condone it - not only that - they have to accommodate what they consider aberrant behavior. As far as I am concerned if you force a person or business to comply with your legal behavior when they are not mandated to condone said behavior (morality cannot be mandated) then you are treading on that person's rights - or practicing reverse discrimination. Reverse discrimination works exactly like reverse prejudice and reverse racism.

Weddings are allegedly all about love and compassion and great memories... I am assuming that gay marriage/civil unions are all about the same things. Why would you sully that special day by trying to arbitrarily bend a person or business to your will? What good comes from forced acknowledgement of anything unless you are basically tyrannical in nature? If that's the case - happiness and satisfaction will always be impossible to obtain. Tyranny in any degree is not the source of happiness - rather it is a base, subversive satisfaction of the lowest form.

If one requires tolerance - one should practice tolerance.

As far as I am concerned this petty action against a small business owner is nothing more than homosexual headline-grabbing, grand-standing. It is the practice of moral extortion - a bit too commonplace for my tastes these days - particularly in this debate - probably for no other reason than the happy couple needs to fund their Puerto Vallarta honeymoon/vacation. It is shameful.

Almost done. The world is an imperfect place. Unlike government entities, people have a right to choose what they will or will not tolerate. There is no rule that says if the government loves you the rest of the world has to give you warm fuzzies. I am not anti-gay. I am not pro-gay. I am mostly ignore-gay. That's not discrimination - it's disinterest.

With all the flower shops in the world why cry foul because one does not want to play house according to an arbitrary pinhead rule? Hmmm... I wonder if I approached a florist owned by a homosexual and asked for arrangements for a politically incorrect and necessarily insensitive anti-gay agenda rally - how cooperative that florist would be with my blatant disrespect of their lifestyle? Would they refuse to service my request and if so, how outraged would they be when notice arrives from the attorney general and the ACLU that I had filed a discrimination law suit.

Admittedly, that's a fairly far-fetched example because most people do not waste time and money and energy making a mountain out of a mole hill -- well, when I say most people - I mean people who are not politicians trying to make a name for themselves, people who are not has-been actors trying to grab the limelight and people who do not typically identify with contentious special interest groups.

You cry discrimination! I cry sticks and stones! I say Boo-Freekin'Hoo - whydoncha pull your big girl panties up and get on with your life!

Respectfully yours in unfailing allegiance to the USA,
Dissident Daughter
Because: Silence is the most insidious form of consent
Source: Reuters: Washington state florist sued again for refusing to service gay wedding

UPDATE 9/1/2013: Here's yet another example of gayness run amuck - it's disgraceful. Anatomically speaking - Why is no bride-no groom-no cake so offensive? I don't know. I think gays who push acceptance of their lifestyle on others need to get a grip and come to the realization - not all of us care about their sexual preference and a good many of us do not condone it - don't care, don't condone it and if that's pissing on your cupcake - I say again Boo Freekin' Hoo! The gays should be ashamed of themselves. If I were the baker and the florist in this instance - you'd get your flowers and your cake probably free of charge but I guarantee it would be the poorest effort I could make of it.
Source: - Oregon Bakery Threatened For Refusing Wedding Cake for Lesbians Closes Its Doors

Saturday, April 20, 2013

NRA-ILA | Drama in the Rose Garden...

April 20, 2013

The media of course loves it but pseudo-reality-show drama is not what most of America want from leadership - retaliation is often the result of unbridled drama - stay tuned for round two.

NRA-ILA | Drama in the Rose Garden Defying Senate Obama Vows to Win on Gun Control

Quote from the article sourced below: Obama should not have been surprised by what happened on Capitol Hill, however. A CBS poll in March showed that support for gun control had dropped 10 points since December and a Gallup poll in April showed that only four percent of Americans believed that “guns/gun control” is the biggest problem facing the country.

However, as Obama’s Rose Garden performance wore on, it became less a monologue delivered for the benefit of the supporters with whom he stood, and became more an ideological soliloquy for his own indulgence.

Still, Obama is a politician, well-versed in how to mislead through distortion and omission. Thus, early on, he claimed that 90 percent of Americans agree that there should be background checks on firearm transactions and that “most Americans think that’s already the law,” without mentioning that 100 percent of firearm transactions between firearm dealers and non-dealers are subject to background check requirements already, and that only a small percentage of non-dealer transactions are between strangers.

Obama--whom the Washington Post gave Three Pinocchios for lying about the background check issue--also claimed that “the gun lobby and its allies willfully lied about the [background checks] bill” by saying it would implement gun registration. What the NRA had said is that a report from the National Institute of Justice concluded that requiring background checks on otherwise private firearms transfers would be “ineffective” without requiring gun registration. That was not a “lie.” It was, and is, a fact.

Source: NRA-ILA | Drama in the Rose Garden Defying Senate Obama Vows to Win on Gun Control

Friday, April 19, 2013

Vickie's Corner 04/19/2013 A Tip of the Hat

April 19, 2013
Colorado USA

In the midst of the Boston Marathon Bombing, the devastating explosion in West Texas and now the largest manhunt holding an entire city hostage, we all find comfort in knowing there are always “good” people amongst us and we are reminded of that daily. Here is another great perspective from a non-media based friend.

A tip of the hat to the helpers among us

Without a doubt most people have the citizens (both resident and itinerant) of Boston, MA on their minds. Likewise, most people are keeping a good thought for the citizens of West, TX. Aside from the obvious comparison of population and resources, these tragic incidents are stark in contrast. The former is the victim of unspeakably brutal domestic terrorism, the latter apparently the victim of an industrial accident of horrific proportion. In both instances, Americans have responded to the needs of fellow Americans in uniquely typical American fashion. I do not refer to responses of politicians and lawmakers or the current administration. I am referring to the responses of regular Folk – real Americans.

Fred Rogers (aka Mr. Rogers) said, “When I was a boy and I would see scary things in the news, my mother would say to me, ‘Look for the helpers. You will always find people who are helping.’ To this day, especially in times of disaster, I remember my mother’s words, and I am always comforted by realizing that there are still so many helpers - so many caring people in this world.”

The Rogers quote often circulates in the aftermath of a tragedy because its simplicity allows us to tune out the blather of talking heads engaging in seemingly endless agenda-driven rhetoric and mindless speculation. In a chaotic world, recognizing the helpers reminds us that in order to reaffirm our purpose as human beings, we need only lend a helping hand. In the wake of a senseless tragedy Americans are not conservative or liberal or even remotely mindful of politics. In times of crisis most Americans are quick to act, motivated by little more than the desire to help other Americans, some by virtue of their skill and training, others by mere instinct.

The helpers are the people who drop phones and cameras and rush to the hands-on aid of other people. The helpers are the people who load trucks and trailers in the dead of night and carry supplies to a small town in Texas. The helpers are tireless law enforcement officers and first responders who put their own lives on the line and families on hold to come to the aid of their communities. The helpers are the people who open their homes and restaurants and churches to provide comfort for the stricken. The helpers are the people who do not wait for the call but immediately volunteer in some selfless capacity. The helpers among us are the first to donate blood and sweat, money and property to serve their fellow men in whatever capacity they are able to do so.

What brands a people as blatantly and identifiably American is the inclination to help where we can, when we can - at home and in the world at large.

Reality Check: We will only be able to brand future generations as uniquely American in this regard if we teach them to be helpers.

Whatever the politics of the day are in the good old USA, in the end we are all Americans and we should strive to be the most outstanding derivative of that term to the best of our humanely individual abilities.

Here’s a tip of my hat to the helpers out there. You make me proud to be an American.

Source: K99/Charley Barnes A tip of the hat to the helpers among us

Charley Barnes is a friend and fellow rabble-rousing patriot. He is a DJ at K99 Colorado's Best Country Station. He personally contributes and organizes several charity and fund-raising events in northern Colorado including the Sleigh Riders Motorcycle Toy Run. We met in 2011 when he and a couple of buddies rode their motorcycles across Kansas to Topeka (the home of the Westboro Baptist Blasphemer Church Cult) and gave the WBC a dose of their own medicine. That's how Journey 4 Justice began. J4J teams from across the nation travel to Topeka KS (most of them on motorcycles) and deliver a counter protest to the WBC's hateful message. The difference is: they do it with class. No nasty signs or subversive messages are needed - they simply show up and wave the flags of country, state and armed services. A few weeks ago Charley offered me an opportunity to sound off occasionally on current events in a spot called Vickie's Corner in his little neck of the woods at K99. Is that kool or what?

Thursday, April 18, 2013

Texas on my mind

April 18, 2013

Thoughts and hearts go out to Texas

Gun Grabbers use Emotional Blackmail

April 18, 2013
Colorado USA

Charles Krauthammer objected to the Democrats’ perpetual invocation of the children murdered in Newtown throughout the debate over gun-control, calling it “emotional blackmail.”

“If you’re going to make all of these emotional appeals,” he said, “you’ve gotta show that if this had been law, it would have stopped Newtown. It would not have. It’s irrelevant. I wouldn’t have objected, I might’ve gone the way of McCain or Toomey on this, but it’s emotional blackmail to say ‘You have to do it for the children.’ Not if there’s no logic in this, and that I think is what’s wrong with the demagoguery that we’ve heard out of the president on this issue.”

Source: National Revue Online - Krauthammers Take Gun Control Push Consisted Emotional Blackmail

Monday, April 15, 2013

Boston USA in our hearts

April 15, 2013
Colorado USA

When I was a boy and I would see scary things in the news, my mother would say to me, ‘Look for the helpers. You will always find people who are helping.’ To this day, especially in times of ‘disaster,’ I remember my mother’s words, and I am always comforted by realizing that there are still so many helpers - so many caring people in this world. — Mister Rogers

Too bad we do not have this type of rhetoric going viral - instead we have conspiracy theories circulating compliments of mainstream media with CNN leading the charge. It is sickening and shameful.

Yes this quote is correctly attributed to Fred Rogers - Look for the Helpers
Bio: Fred Rogers

Celebrating 100 years of unbridled escalation

April 15, 2013
Colorado USA

When the tax code was created in 1913, it was about 400 pages.

Today, it is over 70,000 pages.

That means every year for the last 100 years we have added approximately 700 pages of indecipherable gobbledy-gook. Sigh!

Excessive taxation ... will carry reason and reflection to every man's door, and particularly in the hour of election. --Thomas Jefferson 1798

Food for thought... expel them

April 15, 2013

Term limits might help weed out those whose goal in government is permanent control over others, as their tenure would be brief. Abolition of the Sixteenth Amendment would deny the federal government the right to tax our incomes and force it to live within more reasonable means, and have less money to use to tamper with out liberties. Abolishing the Seventeenth Amendment would return election of senators to state legislatures, thus assuring that the Congress respected the limits on its powers. Expelling from Congress all members who vote for legislation subsequently found to be unconstitutional and requiring every member of Congress to identify and certify under the oath the specific grant of power in the Constitution that forms the basis for each vote taken on each piece of legislation would keep their hands off our freedoms. ~~Judge Andrew Napolitano, A Nation of Sheep

Friday, April 12, 2013

Boycotting Bad JuJu Jane... again

April 12, 2013
Colorado USA

I do not hate Jane Fonda. I was taught not to hate indiscriminately. I do not know Jane Fonda or her work (yawn!) well enough to hate her. But, I do despise the woman with every fiber of my being and yes, this is based solely on her actions and words during the Vietnam era and her lack of sincere attrition since. Old remorseless Jane used to make me angry but I got over that a long time ago. Now I exorcise bad juju Jane with lethal sarcasm whenever an opportunity to do so presents itself.

It is hard to ignore old Jane when her face pops up all over the internet and social media. That's when I know she is up to her old pranks. Sigh! I fervently wish she would do or say something original rather than subject the world to the same old crass and contentious remarks which are either vulgar or disrespectful and when she's having a good day - both. Jane is a no talent has-been trading on aberrant behavior financed by the fame and fortune of other people for far too long. She has no class and capitalizes on that shameless characteristic whenever she has something to promote. Keep in mind old Jane is old enough to be my mother (no disrespect intended to my lovely, classy, talented, ageless Mom).

Needless to say, anytime Old Hanoi Jane pops up, there will be Veterans and friends of Veterans calling her out for her decades old crimes. In response to Larry Reyes, a Navy veteran and founder of the Boycott Hanoi Jane Playing Nancy Reagan Facebook page ol Jane said, Get a life.

Then... In a statement to The Hollywood Reporter, Fonda said of her casting: If it creates hoopla, it will cause more people to see the movie… I figured it would tweak the right. Who cares?

So - there ya go. Hoopla. That's it. Old Jane knows why she has been brought in.

The movie slated for release in the Fall of 2013 is titled, The Butler and described by imdb as: A look at the life of Eugene Allen, who served eight presidents as the White House's head butler from 1952 to 1986, and had a unique front-row seat as political and racial history was made. I found the story line itself intriguing but it would have been better served by casting unknowns. Just reading the names of the all-used-to-be-star-cast was a snooze fest. When was the last time you actively pursued seeing a movie with Jane Fonda, Robin Williams, John Cusack, Oprah Winfrey, or Vanessa Redgrave? And then we have Mariah Carey and Lenny Kravitz? How the hell did Alan Rickman get cast as Reagan? This movie is not about the Reagans or the other presidents and I warrant that the people who do see it will be thankful that most of the has-beens have only bit parts or cameos.

Aside from dubious casting for this movie I think bringing in Hanoi Hoopla Jane to play First Lady Nancy Reagan is just bad juju. The makers of this film are of the mind that hoopla will actually generate ticket sales. What? Among what far-fetched demographic I ask?

Let's conduct a amateur analysis based on a reference point significant in the story - Reagan's term of office. Ronald Reagan was president from 1981 to 1989. Eugene Allen served as butler in the white house from 1952 to 1986.

I am going to use a loose stat that most movie goers are in the 18-24 age range. Now I am going to bump that age group to 25-32 simply because I suspect the first group are less likely to purchase a ticket to see a drama based on a character who served in the White House while they were still in diapers. A 24 year old today would have been born in 1989 - the last year Reagan served. The demographics of the second group does not make them seem any more likely to buy a ticket for this movie as they were still adolescent at the time-frame of the story. A 32 year old today would have been born the first year Reagan served - 1981. Neither one of these demographics work for me. I am fairly certain most in the 18-32 age range might recall Reagan as a president, the first lady not so much and Jane Fonda not at all.

Here's what I think a reasonable demographic might be: People my age (mid-50s) and older (mid 60s - stretch it a bit to the mid-70s) are likely the most reliable demographic for a movie of this type (based on the era and historical drama factor). I think it is also safe to say that people my age and older are not a sought after audience for film makers so why would they target such a market? Let's go one step further and base the analysis on the popularity of Reagan and Fonda among the third demographic. Reagan plays well in most conservative camps. Fonda does not. I think the movie might attract a moderate number of liberals based on the story line. Most people in the third demographic (conservative and liberal) remember Reagan well and more importantly Vietnam. A good many of this age group are Vietnam Veterans or family and friends of Vietnam Veterans. Again, Fonda does not play well with Vets (no pun intended - ok maybe it was).

So how does casting the iconic equivalent of Medusa for this demographic translate to ticket sales?

I might add that this third demographic is not as easily fooled by Hollywood hi-jinx. They are certainly not impressed or intimidated by the bloviating, egotistical self-importance emanating from Hollywood types these days. However, BOYCOTT does play well with this demographic set.

I am reminded of a line from a Jack Nicholson film, As Good as it Gets. Melvin Udall said - Go sell crazy someplace else; we're all stocked up here. Yep, that about sums it up. Banking on hoopla stirred up by bad juju Jane to equal get-rich ticket sales for what promises to be an all hype and no substance movie is simply insane. I say all hype and no substance for one glaring reason - hoopla is the marketing strategy. I, for one will pass.

Finally, and I know this is just a shameless parting shot - If I had to cast no talent Hanoi Hoopla Jane in a historical part - I would pic Marie Antoinette. Of course, Jane is too damn old to play Marie who was only 38 at the end of her days but I would plop down my money just to see the ending. Grin.

Boycott Hanoi Jane Playing Nancy Reagan Facebook Page
Fox News Jane Fonda Tells Veterans Get a Life

Molon Labe

April 12, 2013
Colorado USA

Molon Labe

Molon Labe is a greek phrase roughly translated to "Come and take them!"

Molon Labe - Come and take them
Molon Labe is reportedly the defiant response of King Leonidas of Sparta to Xerxes of Persia at the battle of Thermopylae in 480 BC. Xerxes requested the Spartans and their allies to lay down their weapons and their lives would be spared. The legendary response has become a classic expression of defiance. It is akin to "over my dead body", or "From my cold, dead hands".

Greek Spelling: ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

Pronunciation: Mo-Lone La-Vay

The words "MOLON LABE" in Greek as they are inscribed on a monument at Thermopylae.

With a wink and a nod...

April 12, 2013

Napalitano - Liberty, the Victim

Thursday, April 11, 2013

It is that simple

April 11, 2013
Colorado USA

It is unconstitutional for the Senate to hold an up-or-down vote on the Second Amendment:

The Senate intends to vote on changing the Second Amendment without any pretense of going through the constitutional amendment process — none. ... The Second Amendment exists as a protection for us against usurpation by Congress and the rest of the federal government. The Second Amendment protects an individual right and it’s that simple. -- Mark Levin

Befuddled Senator inspires fear with his ignorance

April 11, 2013
Colorado USA

In whom do you place your trust in these trying times? I am referring of course to the absurdity of politics and the questionable integrity of politicians, especially those who might have overstayed their usefulness.

Being fairly steadfast in their beliefs and firm in their convictions most conservatives and I suspect even a fair number of liberals find it extremely annoying when a politician says one thing and does another, makes a promise and fails to deliver, lies to our faces and then claims he is misunderstood which essentially brands we-the-confounded as simpletons.

I respect the military service and sacrifice of Senator John McCain although I feel his service is often exploited for purposes that only serve to diminish it. He has represented the great state of Arizona since 1987. He is a Vietnam Veteran and hero. I believe he is a good man. He is also a politician, one I trusted for a time -- but no more.

RE: Quote from interview on Face the Nation on CBS last Sunday McCain seemed genuinely befuddled by a proposed filibuster over gun control legislation saying, "I don’t understand it… the purpose of the United States Senate is to debate and to vote and to let the people know where we stand."

Of course, one might point out that a filibuster is simply extended debate… often, very enlightening. It is a technique McCain endorsed in 2007 when he voted in favor of maintaining the filibuster against a bill to increase the federal minimum wage.

Somewhere along the way the senator has forgotten that his job is to represent the interests of the people who put him in office. The stance he took to convince the people of Arizona to elect him to office, is the stance I venture they would have him maintain. I find it hard to believe that gun friendly Arizona would have him consider any legislation that compromises the second amendment.

On gun control in 2007 with the Presidency in the cross-hairs:
USA Today: Republican presidential candidate John McCain declared… he believes in "no gun control," making the strongest affirmation of support for gun rights in the GOP field since the Virginia Tech massacre.

The Arizona senator said in Summerville, SC, that the country needs better ways to identify dangerous people like the gunman who killed 32 people and himself in the Blacksburg, VA, rampage. But he opposed weakening gun rights and, when asked whether ammunition clips sold to the public should be limited in size, said, "I don't think that's necessary at all."

Now no-gun-control McCain says, "What are we afraid of? … If this issue is as important as we all think it is, why not take it up and debate?... Everybody wants the same goal to keep the guns out of the hands of criminals and the mentally disabled.”

Yes, I will allow that most of us wish lawmakers would do something to enforce the laws we have, punish the guilty and address how to keep guns out of the hands of assorted wacko birds (criminals and the mentally disabled)… but the gun control legislation before congress at present does not do that – does it?

What are we afraid of? We are concerned about our rights Senator McCain. We have to be because you are not. Having been labeled domestic terrorists by a large contingent of your cronies – honest, law-abiding citizens know they have been singled out for the whipping post erected by a government gone awry.

There are many people who will remember McCain as a hero but I will not. I know a few real heroes of the Vietnam War. They are nothing like McCain. The Vietnam Vets I know are steadfast and true and principled.

McCain? Sadly, a man I once admired will simply fade away in memory as just another blowhard politician.

And while I am at it, although this question presents a whole other trust issue -- I just want to know Senator McCain - what happened to build the dang fence?

Source for quotes: On the issues
USA Today - McCain 04-19-2007
Face the Nation on CBS

Wednesday, April 10, 2013

Coming Soon! Shamnesty Day in the USA!

April 10, 2013
Colorado USA

In a somewhat irreverent exercise of the first amendment:
Illegals march on DC like bonafide citizens demanding legal status

I am not certain that the first amendment actually applies to people who are in the country illegally but given the perverted use of the word illegal by the powers that be to mean the exact opposite of unlawful, one cannot blame illegals for taking advantage of what appears to be a constitutional loophole.

Bill of Rights - Amendment 1: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Personally, I believe any shortcut to citizenship for illegals is unfair to real citizens of the USA. It is also unfair to real immigrants who have done the work required to become real citizens. I mistrust the concept that the easy way in leads to a better way for all. I mistrust the concept that the majority of illegals actually aspire to be legal. Sure we have a token number of well spoken, bright and intelligent poster child illegals currently being exploited by agenda-driven lawmakers. They are the ones who have benefited from the system and profited from a decent education but I soundly reject the unsubstantiated idea that those few are representative of more than a moderate percentage of illegals. Besides, those token few should have no problem acquiring citizenship by the standard method. Illegals demanding to be recognized as viable citizens and expecting the gift of citizenship by mere right of their unauthorized presence in this country does not play well in my world of: if–you-want-it–you-earn-it. Showing up for work and actually doing the job are two entirely different things – aren’t they?

Theodore Roosevelt said: In the first place, we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in good faith becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed, or birthplace, or origin. But this is predicated upon the person's becoming in every facet an American and nothing but an American... There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn't an American at all. We have room for but one flag, the American flag... We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language... and we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people.

They [the illegals] march in support of an immigration reform bill that could be presented to lawmakers as early as Thursday of this week. The Senate's Gang of Eight is set to present an alleged bipartisan bill that will get shamnesty done once and for all – all illegals that is. Isn’t it just like a do-gooder lawmaker to hand out awards for everyone whether justly deserved or not? Once again this is likely a piece of Pelosiesque legislation that has to pass before we can see what’s in it. Make no mistake this path to citizenship is basically the road to a voting booth. Illegals should know that their over-zealous political benefactors in DC will go MIA as soon as they have imported their vote.

The classic greeting Welcome to the United States of America should carry the old adage be careful what you wish for as a disclaimer.

We have a pathway to citizenship in this country. It is not easy. Why should it be easy? Citizenship in this country is more than a piece of paper and a label – it requires participation and contribution and dedication. Purveyors of the myth telling how easy it is being a citizen of the USA – make me laugh. Somebody should tell them [illegals] that the drawbacks of legality may not be equally offset by the benefits of legality.

Heads up potential USA citizen-probies: Life in the USA as a documented legal citizen is a barrel of laughs filled from a bucket of tears and frustration and taxes. Here is a short list of the least you can expect from life as an official citizen of the USA… now you get to be registered, documented, numbered, licensed, regulated, deregulated, disarmed, judged, integrated, inspected, immunized, verified, stamped, authorized, unauthorized, fined, exploited, frustrated, indoctrinated, dismissed, demonized, challenged, probed, reported, objectified, insured, and best of all --- taxed, taxed, taxed out the wazoo. We welcome you to the lines at the DMV, the airport, and Social Security Administration and encourage you to sit down for a chat with the IRS.

By all means, march on! Please be advised that with citizenship the rights you demand today are the ones you will have to defend tomorrow. As a legal citizen you only get one vote. Despite what you may have heard, nothing in this country is a free ride. With legal USA citizenship you immediately acquire the status of American Infidel and become the official enemy of foreign countries you unwillingly support with your hard-earned tax dollars. Check the flag of your fathers and your ethnicity at the door because in the USA nobody cares about origins or ethnicity, except perhaps as fodder for protest and political rhetoric.

I say again… get legal, live the dream if you can find it, and become successful… so that your friends in DC can redistribute your wealth. Lots of old, crotchety, ill-tempered United States of America citizens need you to contribute your fair share to our retirement. March on!

Respectfully yours in unfailing allegiance to the USA,
Dissident Daughter
Because: Silence is the most insideous form of consent

P.S. Now go read this article by Michelle Malkin which explains how ignorant one would have to be to actually desire shamnesty... and how clueless one would be to actually offer amnesty... just sayin'... Object Lesson: Temporary amnesty never dies
“Temporary” amnesties never die. They just keep rolling and rolling along, producing new waves of cheap votes for Democrats and cheap labor for Big Business. American sovereignty, RIP.

Source: 04/03/2013 Illegals to March on Washington
USA Immigration Reform

Monday, April 8, 2013

A woman I admired: Margaret Thatcher

April 8, 2013
Colorado USA

Margaret Thatcher 1925-2013

I always cheer up immensely if an attack is particularly wounding because I think, well, if they attack one personally, it means they have not a single political argument left. - Margaret Thatcher

Friday, April 5, 2013

Vickie's Corner 04/05/2013 - Compromize One Right...

April 5, 2013
Colorado, USA

Charley Barnes Presents ‘Vickie’s Corner’ – Compromising One Right Jeopardizes Every Right

By Charley Barnes April 5, 2013 3:46 PM

It’s Friday and time for “Vickie’s Corner.” Vickie Downing is a good friend of mine I met through Journey 4 Justice in 2011 and I started this feature because not only is she a fantastic writer (get the Websters handy) but she loves our Constitution and takes their values very serious; regardless if she personally believes in them or not. This week is another great example of extruding common sense.

The president paid a frivolous visit to Colorado this week. Sequester Be Damned. He was here compliments of an estimated one million tax payer dollars to stroke the head of his gun-grabbing minions saying, “I've come to Denver today in particular because Colorado is proving a model of what's possible.” Obama added that the state in regards to gun control has shown “practical progress” which in loosely translated liberal lingo means “we have only just begun.”

Thankfully, the president was not here long enough to screw up the Rockies opener. But! To use a baseball euphemism, the bases are loaded. In other words, team Obama is all set to smack the second amendment clean out of the state.

On first base is the Governor beaming in the limelight of ill-conceived gun control legislation signed into law which includes universal background checks complete with extortion fees and a magazine ban none of which can be enforced without - dare I say it - universal gun registration.

On second base are assorted spoiled sport Colorado republicrats wagging the naughty finger at the good guys aka law enforcement (sheriffs in particular) who refuse to enforce laws that conflict with their oath of office (sworn to and on behalf of the good people of Colorado).

On third base is the president hanging out with UN Goon Ban Ki-moon waving the UN Global Arms Trade Treaty like a rice paper fan while they discuss how to ban old folks (aka silver-haired military veterans and those pesky patriots) from owning guns. Confiscator general Ban Ki believes all 50+ers suffer from ACF or “attenuating cerebral faculties” whatever the heck that means. If the Global ATT does not affect the domestic use of firearms why are we talking about gun totin’ senior citizens?

In between innings bureaucratic concessioners are hawking everything from extortion insurance to exorbitant ammunition taxes to outright firearm bans. Fans of the gun-grabber in chief are cheering him on chanting “nobody needs 15 rounds.”

To the cheering section I say, I will protect your first amendment rights with body, soul and gun whether I agree with your words or not. However, the argument over gun control has nothing to do with “needs” or for that matter an “arbitrary number of rounds.” When you whittle down all the loose rhetoric based on knee-jerk reactions to admittedly distressing current events - it is about rights. Not just my rights. They are your rights, too. When we forget, ignore or impugn the rights of others – we ALL lose. Rights Reciprocity is Rights Equality. You cheer as my right to keep and bear arms is compromised for no good reason so I reserve the right to laugh out loud when the powers that be infringe upon the right to free speech which means you get to sit down and shut up. Sadly, that means all of us get to sit down and shut up.

Source: K99/Charley Barnes Compromising One Right Jeopardizes Every Right

Charley Barnes is a friend and fellow rabble-rousing patriot. He is a DJ at K99 Colorado's Best Country Station. He personally contributes and organizes several charity and fund-raising events in northern Colorado including the Sleigh Riders Motorcycle Toy Run. We met in 2011 when he and a couple of buddies rode their motorcycles across Kansas to Topeka (the home of the Westboro Baptist Church Cult) and gave the WBC a dose of their own medicine. That's how Journey 4 Justice began. J4J teams from across the nation travel to Topeka KS (most of them on motorcycles) and deliver a counter protest to the WBC's hateful message. The difference is: they do it with class. No nasty signs or subversive messages are needed - they simply show up and wave the flags of country, state and armed services. A few weeks ago Charley offered me an opportunity to sound off occasionally on current events in a spot called Vickie's Corner in his little neck of the woods at K99. Is that kool or what?

Thursday, April 4, 2013

Politically Expedient - Tactically Ineffective

April 4, 2013
Colorado USA

A Colorado Sheriff Responds to President Obama
Sheriff Shayne Heath - Elbert County Colorado

Sheriff Shane Heath - Elbert County Colorado

Source: You Tube -

Sheriff Justin Smith of Larimer County CO

April 4, 2013
Colorado USA

For all those who've asked, below is a copy of my prepared remarks from yesterday.
On behalf of all the elected county sheriffs that you see standing around me, I want to thank you for attending this briefing today.

I am Justin Smith, the sheriff of Larimer County.

We are here to provide a voice to the millions of honest, law-abiding Coloradans who were ignored by their governor as well as the majority party in the state house.

We watch as the President, New York billionaire mayor Michael Bloomberg and the leaders in his party now are throwing their political clout behind continued efforts to impose more and more gun control laws on Colorado.

While these dedicated County Sheriffs stand here publicly for the rights of their citizens, the president, later today, hiding behind the walls of the Denver Police Academy, will surround himself with a handpicked audience of gun control supporters and police employees coerced to attend his political rally as he declares victory along with Denver's Governor, John Hickenlooper.

We are here to remind you that the voices of the 62 elected Colorado Sheriffs were silenced by the leaders of the majority party in the state house. Your governor found it too inconvenient to allot even 15 minutes to hear the concerns of the Sheriffs of his state.

One should logically ask - Why. Why was it too inconvenient to listen to an opposing viewpoint? The answer lies in Agenda Driven Politics. Gun control advocates were keenly aware that they had a short window of opportunity to exploit the emotions surrounding the tragedies in Newtown and Aurora.

Polling showed them that citizens were desperate to DO SOMETHING- DO ANYTHING and in the words of Rahm Emanuel, they don't want to waste a crisis. The president and Mayor Bloomberg watch the polls. They now realize that the emotional response they were counting on to pass their agenda has now made a turn. Just this week, CBS News released the results of a poll showing that fewer and fewer Americans support additional gun control laws and the trend is continuing downward.

The president and Mayor Bloomberg are desperate. They have watched their window of opportunity close. You see, a thinking, reasoned citizenry is much harder to fool.

Colorado Sheriffs know what dangers their communities face. We enforce the state laws to protect our citizens from those who would want to steal their property or harm them and their families.

While the gun magazine ban and the background check law may, I repeat may, have been well intended, the truth is- the way they were written, they simply went too far. We understand, we've actually read the bills. There is nothing in those two bills that would have prevented the violence in Aurora or Newtown. Even the authors of these bills recognize that.

In the last two weeks, Coloradans have personally witnessed another example of tragic violence, when pizza delivery driver Nathan Leon and Department of Corrections Director Tom Clements were murdered by a parolee mistakenly released early from the Colorado Prison System. Make no mistake, Evan Ebel had no business being outside the walls of a Colorado prison. Ebel was well known within the prison as a danger to guards and certainly a danger to the public. Now, the woman charged with knowingly violating the current state laws by arming Evan Ebel, has been released on bail. The problem isn't that we don't have enough laws to protect our community. The problem is that the system doesn't hold criminals accountable for their crimes.

What would actually help? Officers need access to the information that would allow them to disarm felons in Colorado. Under the current system, officers on the beat have no access to a database, a list, of those prohibited by state law or federal law from possessing firearms.

Rather than mandate that citizens of my county, fleeing a wildfire, conduct a background check on their friends before placing a shotgun in their friends care for safekeeping, while they watch their homes burn- why not create a database for local police officers so they can know, so the community can know who is prohibited from owning a gun. That's just common sense!

If the president wants to be a part of the solution to this epidemic of violence in our nation, he needs to be brave enough to step away from the staged media events like he's holding later today. The president and our governor need to do what county sheriffs do each and every day- sit down and listen to the opinions of those who have different viewpoints than you do.

What hasn't worked in cities like Washington DC and Chicago, won't work in Fort Collins, Colorado either.

Only with that change of course will they start to make any noticeable difference in curbing this epidemic of unacceptable violence they that we witness far too often in our nation today.

Source: Sheriff Justin Smith (facebook page)

Wednesday, April 3, 2013

Let's be perfectly clear

April 3, 2013
Colorado USA

Somebody call the IRS

April 3, 2013
Colorado USA

Yep! Cha-ching! We know that law enforcement will be forbidden to round 'em up and ship 'em out so somebody PLEASE call the IRS so that we can acquaint these people with what it allegedly means to obtain legal status in the United States of America. Hand over your guns, stop your whining and we will let you pay taxes!

Illegal Immigrants to March on Washington Demanding Legal Status...

Here we go again. On April 10, thousands of illegal immigrants and their lobbyists will gather on the National Mall to support an immigration reform bill that the Senate is expected to introduce this month. Every time Congress debates immigration, large crowds gather in various major cities nationwide. Through their sheer numbers, they hope to persuade legislators that they deserve to live legally in the United States.

Source: 04/03/2013 Illegals to March on Washington