Constitutional Right to Marry

The following text is an excerpt from the Oxford Guide to American Law edited by Kermit Hall, 2002 p 542

"Constitutional protection for the right to marry dates from the civil rights movement of the 1960s. Loving v Virginia (1974) called marriage a "fundamental right," the rational of the case is unclear because the statute also involved an explicit race based rule. Zablocki v Redhail (1978) defined the constitutional status of the right to marry more clearly. The Supreme Court reiterated that marriage is a fundamental right, which means that rules denying access to marriage must be substantially related to important state interests." (bold added)

The question is this: What important state interests exists that allow marriage for one group (heterosexual) on the one hand, and deny marriage for another group (homosexual) on the other? 

Has the State of California proved any such "important state interests?" I think not.

The challenge is reaching the masses with a simple message.

And that message is this: "Marriage is a fundamental right."

enough said. 

Censored by Apple Computer

I have just been censored by Apple Computer.

I started a new folio of artwork in 2005 that was bluntly interrupted when I was bodily injured by a Brinks truck. Now, in 2008 I am just now able to complete and bring this work to market. There are 25 works in all. They are single, double, and triple nude male figures in various poses and compositions. While I understand this work is not meant for everyone, it is not intended for everyone.

I sent my print order to Apple Print services to get a sample book printed. The layout had text on the cover and a few lines of text on the first text page and some on the very back, all using their template. The rest of the book was the pictures of these completed works.

On July 14, 2008 I received an email from Apple Photo services telling me that my order had been cancelled. The reason they gave was this: "The text on one or more pages was cut off."
I sent a reply query stating that my book had no text other than as described above and was not sure what they meant, since the book was all pictures, not text.

So today, July 15, I get back this reply email from an Apple guy named "Patrick and I'll be assisting you" which says in part "upon carefully examining your order, the printer identified what we deem to be inappropriate content. As a result, your order has not been processed and you have not been charged. I am very sorry for any inconvenience and I apologize for the printer not providing the correct information."

I just responded to Apple Representative "Patrick and I'll be assisting you" as follows:

"So I am being censored by Apple computer for printing a sample art book because the printer deems the content inappropriate. I would like you to explain to me specifically how the content is "inappropriate" and for whom it is inappropriate and who decided. Short of that, I expect my order to be filled as placed."

I haven't received a cancellation of the second order, but was told to expect one by Apple Representative "Patrick and I'll be assisting you".

As an artist who has used Apple products for years and years, and even used Apple products in the creation of these works, I find Apple's censorship "inappropriate."

Apple sells and allows songs with explicit lyrics on iTunes, which are publicly available to millions everyday and they don't censor that audible content. I want a single sample book that would, for now, just be seen by me, and Apple sees fit to censor my visual content, my art? Does this mean that Apple thinks it is OK to 'hear' but not 'see' what they deem inappropriate content?

Does this also mean that Apple will not sell me an iPhone because I will put this Apple censored content on their phone? Or that I will not be allowed to buy a new Apple Computer to make this inappropriate content? Let's hope that they haven't yet developed the technology to live search your computer and iphone. Give them time though, they will.

stay tuned...

California Court Ruling on Gay Marriage: Discussion

I read the entire brief (173 pages) which surgically filleted the arguments against and carefully supported those arguments for with concise logic, reasoning and law.
The language and reasoning used will make it easier for other like minded justices in other states to support gay marriage when it is their turn.
Additionally, this decision gives an indication and precedent (along with Massachusetts) to the US Supreme Court for consideration when the issue arrives at their door.

The brief does not attempt to re-define marriage per se in California. It simply states that Marriage was not specifically defined as "between a man and woman" until the 1970's, and was only ASSUMED to mean as such prior to that time (and any indication otherwise was for the purposes of property rights for a "husband" or "wife."). And regardless of the assumed meaning, it does not support "equality under the law" as written (the court refers to interracial marriage as a first precedent towards marriage equality under the law).

The court recognised, and rightly so, the difference between the civil marriage institution and the religious marriage institution, clearly reaffirming the separation of Church and State. They clarified again that the church does not have to perform the marriage ceremony for gay couples, if they don't want to. (Of course the Church was on the 11 o'clock news saying not to worry, they won't perform the ceremony!)

There were some interesting connections that I, personally, had never made before. One in particular was on point:
the argument that same sex marriages would destroy the primary purpose and function of marriage which is procreation (child birth).
The court observed, rightly, logically and truthfully, that straight couples more often accidentally conceive, whereas gay couples must plan to conceive and that straight couples avoid conception through the use of birth control. Therefor, the argument claiming the destruction of the primary purpose of marriage falls down, because straight people can get married, but are not obligated under the state marriage license to have children!
Touche!

Much of the brief made intimate references to state and federal law, and reached out across the Nation and the World for other legal writings and rulings that spoke to this topic.

The court also made mincemeat out of the argument of an initiative statute: changes in law voted in by the people. They clarified how any initiative statute that violates the State constitution is invalid.

If the people of California vote to change the Constitution to make marriage only between a "man and a woman", as they will attempt this November, and, should they win, then the ruling will be overturned. And of course, the next step will perhaps be the United States Supreme Court.

The 1st dissent, which was only partial, seemed to be grasping at straws. The legal arguments where empty and without solid reasoning or integral foundation. The dissenter seemed to be providing a bit of kindling to a fire that is being put out.

This dissent supports California's Domestic Partnership Act, which, on the face, is "separate but equal"-though not really equal, because, as it is pointed out time and again, the DPA provides virtually all rights as straight married people. This dissent relied on the Federal DOMA for support.

Further, this dissenter is really upset about using the word "marriage" for gay people. That seems to be the real issue. A label. He provides no legal reason to deny the marriage term for both hetero and homo marriages, and relies only on dictionary definitions and the historical acceptance of the term in the common populace.

The dissent argues that "The concept of same-sex marriage was unknown in our distant past, and is novel in our recent history," -- this isn't entirely true. The historical fact is that gay marriages were common place amongst men in the European aristocracy and religious sects, and were performed by the Holy Roman Catholic Church and other religious practitioners for a "fee" and political favor.

The homosexual relationship was historically common place in society and only began to fall out of favor when the "accusation" of being gay was used as political ammo against an opponent. Women, of course, were excluded from this consideration. What is "novel in our recent history" is the word Homosexual, which was coined in the 1860s. Just because it didn't have a modern term doesn't mean it didn't exist prior to the creation of that term.

The 2nd dissent: is a full dissent and clearly does not like or want the word "marriage" used for gay people. This person thinks that the DPA is enough to give gay people married rights without using the word "marriage" and without creating a socially inferior 2nd class status for gay marriage. That is a "separate but equal" view point. This cannot hold because domestic partners do not have full equality with straight married people under the law.

The dissenter rightly points out that gay people do not have any FEDERAL rights as domestic partners and any rights conferred in this regard for marriage by the state are not and will not be recognized by the federal government. Supporting this point is the fact that the state, in regards to federal tax filings, will have to make separate distinctions from "straight and married" to "gay and married," which in itself is a privacy violation in both the state and federal Constitutions.

The legal arguments focus on what is or is not a protected class, and if gay people qualify for that status under the California constitution. Additionally, the dissenter thinks that the gay marriage issue is improperly decided by this court at this time and should, instead, defer itself until society catches up with the court.

This is really about using the word marriage for gay people, which the dissenter points out is reserved specifically for opposite sex civil unions. If language is specifically reserved for one class, denying another class, who is similarly situated, then that is unequal in the law and the California Supreme Court rightly corrected this wrong.

This ruling by the court is not a step down a slippery slope, rather a building block towards the future for true equality for all citizens under the law of this great state.

Please share your thoughts, concerns, and ideas.

As I Understand It....

Same-sex marriage is not an issue that can be decided by the court, state or federal, because it already IS decided and allowed by the US Constitution, specifically, the 14th amendments due process clause which allows for persons of and in the United States to enter into private contracts.

In deciding any matter before the court, the justices have often looked to the history of a subject to help in guiding its decisions. Therefor, it seems, when this current matter is ever presented before the high court, that the justices will do what they have always done, read the briefs and consult history.

The history of marriage is rich with contractual foundation, structure, implementation and enforcement. Without going into highly detailed history, let us just consider the broad strokes for the purposes of this consideration.

Marriage, first and foremost, was a tribal/community based societal recognition of a man's claim on a female-who, up until the 1900s, was considered, legally, a mans property. This claim was made publicly to the tribe/community through spiritual ritual. This ritual later became a "ceremony" with "religious" blessings and meanings (in the eyes of g-d).

When societies became more structured, the set of oral rules that were agreed upon in which to function in this society became "common law". This "common law" was then written and structured and turned into "the law"---which, by the way, was governed and written by the Church. Therefor, it was, in effect, Religious law. With the separation of Church and State, the state enacted laws, borrowed from common law, religious law, and other sources, to create the Civil Law while other laws were created as needed to 'suit' the popular sway of societies monied and politically powered elite (prohibition, baggy pants).

Marriages were performed in religious ceremonies and were understood to be contracts, either oral or written, throughout history. The common man used the oral contract of marriage to secure a female for reproduction of the bloodline, to care for the male in feeding, clothing, intimate needs, household labour, while the male provided for the female and the offspring, food, shelter and protection. The wedding ring was the item of value given to seal this contract. The aristocracy and political religious royals who governed used the written contract of marriage to secure treaties, trade lands, exchange wealth, exact war, secure peace and create political alliances. It was very common for a young child (male or female) to be contracted at birth for marriage when the child became "of age". Any violation of this marriage contract had its repercussions as stipulated verbally, in writing, or by implication.

We can take one reference to this from the reign of King Henry VIII, who, while desperately seeking a divorce through religious law from his Queen, Catherine of Aragon, was reminded by his advisors that if he did not visit the Queen in her bed at night that he, the King, could be called into violation of the marriage contract providing her right to conjugal visits (conjugal visits were not written parts of a marriage contract, they were implied within the meaning of the contract and taken at common law as a stipulation by the parties to the contract of marriage). Additionally, since Religious law refused the King his divorce, he broke away from religious law and the church and instituted his own civil and religious law (the Kings Law), giving him right to break the marriage contract through divorce.

SIDEBAR: I take a moment here to note that in todays world, specifically in the State of California, that a "civil union" that may be recognized by the State for same sex couples in lieu of a valid and legal "marriage" contract requires the exact same legal procedure to break or dissolve that contract, and that legal procedure is Divorce. It seems odd to me that on the front end many people are screaming about the word "marriage" being applied to homosexuals, but on the back end, no one is even whispering about the word "divorce", which is the legal instrument to end the contract of marriage. And in the State of California, this procedure of divorce applies to both heterosexual (marriage) and homosexual (civil union) contracts!
END SIDEBAR

The kings law also dictated the religious beliefs of the people (reformation).

When the Framers established the United States as a sovereign nation separate from the rule of English Law, both Civil and Religious (the Kings Law), the Framers created a government structure through the Constitution of the United States of America that expressly provided for the separation of powers of "church and state"-basically, the state cannot tell the church what to do and the church cannot tell the state what to do, where the state equals the government. The framers also provided in this constitution equal protection under the law for all persons in the United States. The equal protection clause basically provides that every person in the country is equal in the eyes of the law and is afforded the same opportunities, liberties, rights, privileges and protections as everyone else, no matter what. This clause was called into action and brought to daylight when the court declared that "separate is not equal" nor can it or will it ever be.

Today, we have a question before the California Supreme Court, and a question that many others states in the Union will ask, and that will no doubt end up on the docket of the United States Supreme Court. That question is this: Do homosexual persons in the United States of America enjoy the same rights and privileges, including the right to enter into contracts, the right to choice, and the fundamental rights to the pursuit of life, liberty, and happiness, as heterosexual persons regarding the right to enter into a marriage contract under the Constitution of the United States?

This is a question of Law, not a question of religious belief or societal opinion. As a question of Law, as provided by the many protections of the Constitution, specifically the 14th Amendment, the answer is yes.

Marriage is a contract. When Tina Turner belted out "What's love got to do with it?" - She knew from whence she sang. Historically, marriage has the foundation of being a contractual agreement. This is proven through documentation, oral tradition, and practice. It was not until the victorian era in this country that marriage took on the "romantic" implication, meaning and flavor that it has today, where "love" became the impetus to marry. Those persons with substantial wealth recognized the contractual foundation of marriage and put the marriage contract into writing in the form of a prenuptial agreement, which is binding by law.

In the United States, the procedure to enter into a marriage contract requires that the parties to the contract (contractors) file with the State and pay the State a fee. The State in turn gives the contractors a marriage license. This State issued license automatically confers upon the contractors certain State Benefits and it gives the contractors the right, under the law, to engage in the State in the business of marriage. This marriage License is recognized as valid throughout all the States of the Union. When the contractors no longer want to be in the business of marriage-for whatever reason, they must, by law, end the marriage contract. This is done by filing a contract termination notice with the State, also known as a petition for Divorce. This Divorce, when executed, also severs the contractual obligation of the State to the contractors regarding the State provided benefits of the Marriage Contract. Absent this filing to the State, the parties remain "married by law."

Getting "married" in a religious or spiritual ceremony has no legal weight, meaning, implication or validity. Marriage through religious or spiritual ceremony has only the recognition of joining two souls, or spirits, together as one in the eyes of the deity to which you believe. There is no legal recognition of this type of marriage, therefor there is no legal requirement to dissolve the marriage by divorce with the state.

Goldie Hawn and Kurt Russell, a publicly known Hollywood couple, did not enter into the legal contract of marriage with the State. They married "spiritually", perhaps in a privately held religious or spiritual ceremony. Most people would think that under common-law that they are "married." This is not true. The State of California does not have a common law recognition of marriage. While this publicly recognized couple have been together for a very long time, they are considered "married" in the eyes of society only, but not in the eyes of the law. Were they ever to split, separate or "divorce"-they could just do it. No legal filings with the State required. Their relationship can also be considered as a domestic partnership, though not one legally registered as such with the State (domestic partnership, by definition, cannot be held to apply to homosexuals only). In the State of California, the State will recognize a filing for a different-sex domestic partnership only if one of the partners is 62 years of age or older.

Tom Cruise and Katie Holmes, another publicly known Hollywood couple, married both legally and spiritually. They entered into the legal contract of marriage in the United States, in Los Angeles California, and, they were married in a religious or spiritual ceremony in Italy. Were they legally married in Italy, it would take about 4-8 years for them to obtain a legal divorce through the Italian legal process. In the United States, it would take the mere filing of Divorce papers with the State of California and the execution of the Divorce clauses of their prenuptial agreement.

In the United States, with the separation of Church and State, the State is the issuer of the License for the legal contract of marriage. Not the Church.
While the Church may disagree with the right of homosexuals to obtain such a license and enter into the legal contract of marriage, the Church cannot make the State deny legal licenses for marriage to homosexuals who desire to enter into that legal contract. Nor can the Church make it illegal for homosexuals to obtain such state licenses and enter into such legal contracts.

Under the same separation clause, the State cannot tell the Church to perform the religious or spiritual ceremony of Marriage for homosexuals. The State can perform a Civil Ceremony, which conveys the traditional oral terms of the marriage contract, commonly referred to as marriage vows. This Civil Ceremony is open to heterosexuals, and in the State of Massachusetts, to homosexuals. Interestingly when heterosexuals participate in a Civil Ceremony, the oral terms of their contract are still called marriage vows and their contract is still called a marriage contract, not a civil-union with civil vows-which is the current State sanctioned language reserved specifically and uniquely for homosexual marriages--this begs the question, "What's g-d got to do with it?" Meaning, if a heterosexual can legally enter into and have the contract of marriage without the intervention, participation, sanction, permission, ceremony or approval of the Church, why can't a homosexual as well?


Chief Justice John Marshall, in 1810, while considering a case before the court (Fletcher v Peck 1810) asked the question "What is a contract?" He answered definitively "A contract is a compact between two people." The 14th amendment protects an individuals right under the law to enter into contracts. Marriage is a contract under that law, in which the State has an interest. Marriage is two people entering into a compact. That compact, which is constitutionally recognized as a legal contract, cannot be legally or constitutionally denied to the persons of the United States because of their anatomy or private bedroom activity.

In 1866 in Milligan, the court asked if the Constitution protected "all classes of men, at all times, under all circumstances"

I think, in this century, we are about to find out.

Value of the Self

There is some feeling circulating. It is about deserving.
De-serving
Not serving

Do I de-serve it?
I did not de-serve that.
I de-served that.

When we ask the question or make those statements, what do we really mean? What are we really asking? Meaning must be agreed upon before negotiations begin.

How do we know what we de-serve and don't de-serve? It can be based on situation, circumstance, but most importantly, on value. Value of the self. Self-worth.
Placing value on and within ourselves.
We often look to others to give us value and worth. But all they can really do is validate us on parity within their own value system. No one can give me self-worth and value. That I must give to myself. In order to accept the validating judgement of another, I must first validate myself.
self validate
self value
self worth
self acceptance
self approval

When I have given to my self these things and acknowledge them within and for myself, then this is what others will see and give to me freely. Since I have given these values and traits to myself first, there is no reason for me to self-depreciate when given these things by others.
It is in the act of self-depreciation that we take away the value of our worth and bankrupt our selves, our souls.
Re-written: It is in the act of self depreciation that I take away my self value and self worth. And when done enough times, I end up bankrupting my self and my soul.

Re-value
After bankrupting myself, I need to find a way to re-value myself. This is called Re-evaluation. Finding what it is inside myself that gives me value. When I find what gives me value, then I re-value myself. Once I re-value myself, my self-worth increases. It is from this increase in self-worth that my value to others can be found. Through my many skills, talents, technical and creative processes, I have substantial worth and value. This worth and value can be purchased by others to increase their value and worth.

Just a Story

Sometimes we need to take a step back and take a look the place we are in our lives and in our world. Even if that step is only for a brief pause. This morning gave me one such moment and reason to do so. I was driving down Ocean Blvd on my way to Venice Beach running an errand. When I passed the intersection at Barnard Way, I saw on the corner lawn an empty wheelchair with a large crumpled pile of something dark in front of it and on the ground. As I neared the other side of the intersection, I saw that the dark crumpled something in front of the wheel chair was a human life. A gray haired human life.

Since it was impossible for me to stop right then and there, I made the mental note to check on the situation on my way back. I glanced around quickly and saw pedestrians walking by and cars driving by without anyone stopping or taking any notice. For all I could tell, the human life was lifeless.

I continued on my way to my friends house to pick up the saturday edition of The New York Times. It seems friend and best selling author Noel Riley Fitch (Grand Literary Cafes of Europe, Biography of Julia Child) had the immortal honor of being named as a clue in the crossword puzzle. Something worth seeing and having to send on to her in London. As I parked the car, I could see the sparkling Pacific Ocean waves and feel the fresh ocean breeze on my face. Just to have a moment like that is worth the effort.

Having secured the paper, I got back into the car and started driving back towards Barnard Way. Once I was at the intersection, I could clearly see that the wheelchair was still there. I entered the left turn lane, turned the corner, made a u-turn and parked in the red zone, flashers on. I got out of the car and looked around. There were people driving by and talking on their cell phones, people walking by engaged in their own minds, people on bicycles riding by without a hesitation in their peddle. Everybody going about their busy lives without a notice or glance to any other human around them.

I approached the empty wheelchair and there on the ground in front was an old man curled up in fetal position, his left leg missing at the knee sported a cotton white stump cover. The clothing he wore was dark, dirty and torn. His gray hair had hints of old blond and his sun worn face was rumpled and wrinkled and covered in 4 day old razor stubble. His eyes held shut and his hands tucked in close to his chin and chest, he was curled and unmoving. I looked at him from a distance of 3 feet. I could not tell if he was breathing or not, though his color and pallor indicated that he was not dead. Of this I took relief. I stepped closer and speaking out loud asked “Are you okay? Do you need any help?” I waited for a response. There was none. I asked again, a little louder “Do you need any help? Are you okay?” I watched him closely for any signs of movement. There were none. Then I saw his chest heave. He had just drawn in a deep breath, exhaled and breathed again. He made sleeping breath sounds, as if in a deep, sound sleep.

It appeared as though he was napping, so I retreated. I did not want to wake him as I was certain that whatever dream he was dreaming was far better than the reality he was living. As I stepped back to the illegally parked car, another car pulled up to the stop-the guy looked at me puzzled. I just made a “napping” motion with my hands and head. Seeing that, the driver turned right around the corner and went on about his business.

I got back into the car and took a good look around this tiny slice of beautiful southern California and wondered just how many lost and missing souls are really here, laying around. The people that are discarded by life and fall to the wayside because their usefulness seems to have expired, or life has beaten them up in some form or fashion and they simply cannot find a way to heal.

As I began to drive away, I thought about how many people must’ve driven by that intersection this morning and how many bothered to stop-just to make sure that the already distressed appearing human was not in more distress. And the answer was clear. Nobody. Nobody stopped. Nobody cared.

In the hustle and bustle that is LA, sometimes it is good just to stop and look around. Just to stop and breathe in a moment, to reflect on the good fortune that many of us have in terms of health, education friends, family, good jobs, and a beautiful place to live.

I know this morning I took an extra minute to take stock of myself-for all the illness and tragedy that has been in my life for the past 3 years, for a brief moment I was able to step out of my own turmoil and focus on someone else. In doing that I felt connected to my certain self once again.

Airport Shoes

August 15 2006

I am not sure how the American People as a whole tolerate the submission of their rights to the American Government when it comes to air travel. I only know that for me, a non-sheep, that I cannot tolerate it at all. Going through airport security now is a humiliating experience that I feel every time I travel. I flew in October right after September 11, 2001, and I can honestly say, that today, the experience of air travel is far worse than then. First it started with jackets, belts, metal objects. Then it came to shoes. Take off your shoes. I cannot even begin to tell you how I think of the humiliation of asking an otherwise dignified human being going about their lives, to remove their shoes and demand that they walk in the dirt of countless unknown others.

Take off your tennis shoes, your dress shoes, your combat boots, your handmade leather shoes, your high-heel shoes. Take them off. Just take them off. This all happened after the idiot Ramirez tried to light his shoe lace on fire. A shoe bomb. Cool idea for a movie, bad idea for reality. The concept of placing explosives in your shoes and using a shoe lace as a detonation device is creative. The problem for me of course, is finding an explosive stable enough that you can walk on it and have it not blow your feet off.
I can see Harrison Ford, Tom Cruise, Steven Segal or even Bruce Willis working frantically against the clock to wrestle that pair of shoes from the feet of the bad guy and pitching them out of the bullet busted window-just in the nick of time. Though, the way those guys work, the bad guy gets tossed with the shoes and a mid-air explosion soon follows that rocks plane but does not destroy. And the bad guy gets what he wanted in the first place, suicide by explosion.

But really, for the hundreds of thousands of people who fly every day, must the government really treat every single citizen as a potential criminal? Yes. Yes they must. Because short of doing that, the tax paying sheep do not physically see their government doing anything active about the "terror threat". This is the one place where they see the government 'doing something'. The sheep say ‘I don’t mind as long as I am safe.’ And I, a non-sheep, must ask, what is safe, really? Safe from what? Getting blown up in the sky? What about maintenance concerns and plain old accidents? How are we protected against that? They ask us not to take certain items in carry-on luggage. But they do not guarantee that the check-in baggage will not be robbed or that it will arrive at the proper destination. There have been countless reports of passengers check-in baggage getting robbed by the very baggage handlers that are suppose to be “secured” employees. They are thieves. As thieves, they also have the corruption of mind to do more sinister acts besides stealing from baggage.
So, I wonder what the government really expects and hopes to avoid in asking its traveling class citizen to remove their shoes?

It seems more psychological than preventative. Another way to maintain the control of the people through emotional fear and panic, then through rational thought and critical thinking.
Keep the people in fear and they will lie down like sheep.

Today, it was flip-flops. Today, they would not even allow a bottom-only covered foot to pass through without x-ray scrutiny. Take off your shoes. You must. It is now the rule. No exceptions. Before, when I would refuse to take off my shoes, they merely took me to the side and took my shoes for me. That I could tolerate. At least then, I could sit down. They had the responsibility to remove my shoes, take them to the x-ray machine, and wand me looking for “nothing.” How do I know they are looking for nothing? Because I ask. I ask them, “what are you looking for?” and more times than not, the reply comes back, “nothing.” In those instances, I respond, “then why are you searching me?” I always get the look indicating “uh, I dunno, it’s my job?”

Like every American, I work for my travel funds. I pay a high price to fly, and also pay the government to search me without cause, to fondle my breasts looking for booby traps, to take my shoes from my feet, leaving me barefoot and without the dignity that a pair of shoes gives to any human being, all in the name of “national security.”
I have decided for myself that I will travel barefoot. With just a pair of socks on my feet. I am sure that, as a result of this, someday soon they will have a “barefeet-only” security requirement. No shoes-No socks.

Though, each time I pass through the security check-points and am told to remove my shoes, I am reminded of the Jews who suffered in the Holocaust. After September 11, 2001, I was in Washington DC at the Holocaust Museum. It was my first time there and I can say, that it is truly a humbling, mind numbing and soul breaking experience. As I was walking through the museum, I came upon an exhibit of shoes. Piles of shoes. Piles of empty shoes. Hundreds and hundreds of them. My mind was overwhelmed. My soul connected and I knew in that moment that the people lost their power when they took off their shoes.

The American people have lost their power against a government that is no longer 'of the people, by the people, for the people'.