Malibu Wars (public access to public beaches)

http://www.kcet.org/life_times/transcripts/200112/20011217.htm

Public Access to Malibu Beaches


12/17/01
LC011217

VAL>> ON LIFE AND TIMES TONIGHT --

JESS>> THE BATTLE OVER ACCESS TO SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA BEACHES IS PITTING THE PUBLIC AGAINST WEALTHY BEACHFRONT HOMEOWNERS.

GAY YEE>> CALIFORNIA BEACHES ARE SUPPOSED TO BELONG TO EVERYBODY, BUT COASTAL PROPERTY OWNERS SAY FREE ACCESS ISN'T ALWAYS A GREAT IDEA.

TODD SLOAN>> PEOPLE CAN COME DOWN AND GET INTO THE WATER WITHOUT A LIFEGUARD AND THAT MEANS ANYONE'S FREE TO COME DOWN HERE AND KILL THEMSELVES, I GUESS, IF THEY WANT TO. IT'S PART OF OUR GREAT AMERICAN SYSTEM.


VAL>> GOOD EVENING, I'M VAL ZAVALA.

JESS>> AND I'M JESS MARLOW.

SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA IS RENOWNED FOR ITS BEACHES, BUT THE PERENNIAL QUESTION OF PUBLIC ACCESS TO THESE LOCAL TREASURES HAS FLARED AGAIN. SHOULD ANYONE BE ABLE TO WALK TO THE BEACH ON A PATH NEXT TO AN EXCLUSIVE BEACHFRONT HOME? A RECENT DECISION BY CALIFORNIA'S COASTAL CONSERVANCY SAYS YES.

VAL>> THE WALKWAYS COULD AFFECT HOMES BELONGING TO DAVID GEFFEN, DICK CLARK AND ROCK STAR, EDDIE VAN HALEN, AMONG OTHERS. SOME HOMEOWNERS SAY THE PEOPLES' SAFETY WILL BE AT RISK, BUT COASTAL AUTHORITIES SAY ALL CALIFORNIANS HAVE A RIGHT TO ENJOY PUBLIC BEACHES. GAY YEE HAS THIS REPORT.

GAY>> CALIFORNIA HAS MORE COASTLINE THAN ANY OTHER STATE, OVER 800 MILES OF SAND, RUGGED LANDSCAPE AND ROLLING SURF, BUT MUCH OF IT IS BLOCKED FROM VIEW AND PUBLIC ACCESS BY WALL-TO-WALL DEVELOPMENT AND CALIFORNIANS ARE NOW FIGHTING OVER ACCESS. THOSE WHO DEMAND IT --

SARA WAN>> THIS BELONGS TO THE PUBLIC. THE PUBLIC HAS A RIGHT TO USE IT.

GAY>> -- VERSUS WEALTHY HOMEOWNERS WHO ARE AGAINST PUBLIC WALKWAYS THROUGH THEIR PRIVATE PARADISE.

TODD SLOAN>> WHAT YOU'VE GOT HERE IS A PLACE WHERE PEOPLE CAN COME DOWN AND GET INTO THE WATER WITHOUT A LIFEGUARD AND THAT MEANS ANYONE'S FREE TO COME DOWN HERE AND KILL THEMSELVES, I GUESS, IF THEY WANT TO. IT'S PART OF OUR GREAT AMERICAN SYSTEM.

GAY>> YEARS AGO, CALIFORNIA COASTAL PROPERTY OWNERS PROMISED MORE THAN 1,200 STRIPS OF LAND FOR PUBLIC ACCESS IN EXCHANGE FOR PERMISSION FROM THE COASTAL COMMISSION TO BUILD OR REMODEL THEIR HOMES, AND NOW THE COASTAL CONSERVANCY SAYS IT'S TIME OWNERS MADE GOOD ON THOSE PROMISES.

BUT THE CLOCK IS TICKING. MANY OF THESE WALKWAYS TO THE BEACHES EXPIRE AFTER 21 YEARS UNLESS THE GOVERNMENT ACTS OR A NONPROFIT STEPS IN AND AGREES TO MAINTAIN THEM, AND TIME IS RUNNING OUT.

SARA WAN>> WITHOUT THIS EASEMENT HERE -- AND THIS IS ACTUALLY MORE THAN THE NORMAL TEN FEET. THIS WILL BE EIGHTY FEET WIDE THAT HAS BEEN GIVEN TO THE STATE -- WITHOUT THIS, THERE'S AT LEAST TWO MILES OF BEACH THAT THE PUBLIC CANNOT ACCESS AND CANNOT GET TO.

GAY>> SARA WAN IS THE CHAIR OF THE COASTAL COMMISSION AND A MEMBER OF THE CONSERVANCY. SHE SAYS MANY OF THE EASEMENTS CUT BETWEEN EXPENSIVE HOMES TO WHAT ARE NOW EXCLUSIVE BEACHES, SUCH AS LA COSTA BEACH IN MALIBU.

SARA WAN>> THIS PARTICULAR PIECE OF PROPERTY WAS ACTUALLY EXCEPTED BY THE COASTAL CONSERVANCY, BUT THE HOMEOWNERS IN THE AREA HAVE TAKEN THE CONSERVANCY AND THE COASTAL COMMISSION TO COURT CLAIMING, AS I SAID, THAT THIS IS VERY UNSAFE, THERE'S NO PLACE FOR THE PUBLIC TO PARK, BUT THE FACT IS, THERE'S PLENTY OF PARKING HERE. NO PLACE ON PCH IS PARTICULARLY SAFE.

TODD SLOAN>> WELL, THE HIGHWAY PATROL HAD INDICATED THAT THAT WAS THE SECOND OR THIRD MOST DANGEROUS STRETCH OF HIGHWAY ON THE PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY.

GAY>> TODD SLOAN IS A MALIBU RESIDENT AND LOCAL ATTORNEY. HE SAYS OPENING THE EASEMENT WOULD CREATE A SAFETY HAZARD WITH PEDESTRIANS RUNNING ACROSS THE BUSY PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY TO GET TO LA COSTA BEACH.

TODD SLOAN>> THIS IS AN EASEMENT THAT WAS DEVELOPED AS PART OF SOMEONE'S CONDITION FOR GETTING A PERMIT FROM THE COASTAL COMMISSION TO BUILD.

GAY>> AND SLOAN CALLS OTHER BEACH ACCESSES LIKE THIS EASEMENTS TO NOWHERE WITH LITTLE FOR VISITORS TO ENJOY DURING MUCH OF THE YEAR.

TODD SLOAN>> AS YOU'LL NOTICE, WHEN YOU LOOK AT THIS, THERE'S NO LIFEGUARD STANDS, THERE ARE NO FACILITIES HERE. IT'S SIMPLY A BEACH ACCESS AND NOTHING MORE.

GAY>> SLOAN SAYS THE MONEY USED FOR EASEMENTS WOULD BE BETTER SPENT ON IMPROVING PUBLIC BEACHES.

TODD SLOAN>> PUT THE MONEY WHERE IT'S BETTER USED. GO BUILD THE PARKING UP AT CORRAL --

GAY>> -- THAT'S A PUBLIC BEACH?

TODD SLOAN>> YES. ADD SOME MORE FACILITIES UP ON ZUMA. MAKE THE BEACH AVAILABLE, MAKE IT MORE USER-FRIENDLY FOR PEOPLE WHO WANT TO COME OUT HERE, BUT DON'T BUILD EASEMENTS TO NOWHERE.

SARA WAN>> AND IT'S ALL WELL AND GOOD FOR THE PEOPLE WHO LIVE HERE TO SAY, OH, NO, NO, GO TO ZUMA BEACH. BUT THE FACT IS, IF YOU DON'T HAVE THE REST OF THESE BEACHES OPEN, YOU PUT ALL THE POPULATION PRESSURE ON THE BIG PUBLIC BEACHES. THEN IT GETS CROWDED AT THOSE BEACHES AND, AS THE POPULATION IN THIS STATE INCREASES, THAT WILL GET WORSE AND WORSE.

GAY>> WAN SAYS IT'S NOT THE WISHES OF THE COASTAL COMMISSION OR THE CONSERVANCY THAT ARE BEING ENFORCED HERE. IT'S THE DESIRES OF THE CITIZENS OF CALIFORNIA WHO VOTED FOR THE COASTAL ACT 25 YEARS AGO.

[ there you go! public access to public lands. End ol Discussion ]

SARA WAN>> THE PUBLIC OF THIS STATE MADE A VERY LOUD, STRONG STATEMENT WHEN IT WENT TO THE POLLS. IT SAID ONE OF THE REASONS WE WANT TO PROTECT THE COAST IS SO THAT WE CAN GET TO IT. AND IF THE PUBLIC CAN'T GET TO IT AND THE PUBLIC CAN'T SEE IT, THEN, PARDON ME, WHY WOULD THE PUBLIC WANT TO PROTECT IT?

JESS>> GAY JOINS US NOW. WE'RE TALKING PUBLIC BEACH, BUT ALL BEACHES ARE PUBLIC, ARE THEY NOT?

GAY>> SUPPOSEDLY. THERE ARE SPECIFIC GUIDELINES, BUT PRETTY MUCH SO. THE PROBLEM IS, SO MANY OF THESE HOMES ARE WALL TO WALL TO WALL TO WALL THAT THERE'S NO ACCESS, SO --

JESS>> -- SOME OF THEM HAVE ALSO BEEN BUILT WELL OUT ONTO THE BEACH TOO?

GAY>> ABSOLUTELY. SO WHEN THIS WAS DONE IN THE 1970'S AND IN THE 1980'S, THE AGREEMENT WAS, OKAY, IF YOU WANTED TO BUILD ON THE BEACH, IF YOU WANTED TO EXPAND THAT HOME, YOU WOULD HAVE TO GET A PERMIT AND THE COMMISSION WOULD HAVE TO OKAY. PART OF THAT OKAY WAS TO AGREE TO SOME SORT OF EASEMENT THAT WOULD ALLOW PUBLIC ACCESS EITHER PERPENDICULARLY OR LATERALLY ON THE BEACH.

VAL>> NOW YOU SAID THERE'S ABOUT 1,200 OF THESE EASEMENTS THAT COULD BECOME WALKWAYS THROUGHOUT CALIFORNIA, BUT NOT ALL OF THEM WOULD MAKE GREAT WALKWAYS OR WOULD BE DEVELOPED.

GAY>> SARA WAN SAYS IT WOULD BE VERY UNLIKELY THAT ALL OF THEM WOULD, BUT AT THIS TIME, THEY ARE GOING TO TRY TO TAKE AS MANY AS THEY CAN FOR FEAR THAT THIS OPPORTUNITY WOULD GO AWAY BECAUSE THEY TERMINATE AFTER TWENTY YEARS. MOST OF THESE CAME ABOUT IN THE 70'S AND THE 80'S.

JESS>> THERE'S VERY STRONG POLITICAL PRESSURE BY THE OWNERS OF THOSE PROPERTIES, IS THERE NOT?

GAY>> WELL, PRESSURE IN THAT THESE ARE VERY, VERY INFLUENTIAL PEOPLE AND, IN THAT LA COSTA BEACH AREA, THERE WAS QUITE A FIGHT. THERE WAS A LAWSUIT AND ONE OF THE THINGS THAT SARA WAN HAS BEEN ASKED OVER AND OVER AGAIN, IS IT WORTH IT TO COME UP AGAINST THESE VERY WEALTHY INFLUENTIAL HOMEOWNERS AND TO HAVE TO FIGHT ONE LAWSUIT AFTER ANOTHER LAWSUIT AFTER ANOTHER LAWSUIT? HER RESPONSE IS, ABSOLUTELY, THAT IS PUBLIC LAND.

VAL>> WOW, WE'RE IN FOR AN INTERESTING STRUGGLE THEN. GREAT STORY, REALLY. I HADN'T HEARD ABOUT THAT. THANK YOU SO MUCH, GAY.
-------------

Exhibit 1:
Public VS rich-homeowners in Malibu, for access to public-land (beaches)

Exhibit 2:
Public VS Big Brother (US Govt), for access to public-land (desert)

I just saw something on KABC tv (LA local station) today, where the Malibu fight is coming to a head. The 2 groups squaring off. It would be useful, to study how this fight patterns out. It would give the Exhibit 2 people (us), an idea of trying to win our "war".

I think it's appropriate to reprint a recent post of mine "Welcome to the Machine". It says it all. Money/Power ("the law") vs Little Guy.

"They fought Nascar's law, & the law won. And, they didb't have anything to go back to"
..money. the kind of fame, that trasnformed Richard Petty & Junior Johnson into icons,.. stock car racing's unique
appeal grew out of an anti-authoritarian ethos [ like off-road, authority=Big Brother ] ].. generated by individuals.. who took cars off the assembly line & pushed them miles beyond their limit [ race cars]. Tim flock was the best of that wild bunch."
-- ESPN SportsCentury, Tim flock (NASCAR legend)

"If racing were outlawed, only outlaws would race"
-- sticker on a Class 5 support truck

from http://www.yakrider.com/Poetry_n_Essays/Essays/welcome_to_the_machine.htm

Welcome to the Machine
.a look at control, dominion, and taking

-------
Well, the illusion of being separate organisms who need to control has prevailed. In this country, as in most or all so-called "civilized" countries, all land is
owned. (But "civilized" seems for all purposes to be a euphemism for dominion by human intellect.) The fact of land ownership lends a great irony to most
four-wheel drive vehicles. A person pays $30,000 for an off road vehicle because advertisements show a flannel-shirted adventurer enjoying the beautiful
freedom available off road, driving over mountain tops to view the next horizon and its wide-open, breath-taking beauty. This lone sports-utility-vehicle
driver splashes through creeks and drives over hills into the sunset. He is an explorer, a rugged and free individual who loves the earth and freedom enough
to pay $30,000 for it. The tragic comedy that they never tell you is that he is not allowed to drive over those mountains. They are owned. The rugged and
free explorer will be in reality trespassing on either 1) a rancher's private property, or 2) the government's land. There is almost nowhere he may go.

Its odd, but I haven't met anyone who knows when or how various state and federal governments acquired all the non-private lands. At some point,
payments, agreements or votes must have been involved?? But, the fact is, there is no where one may go to live without going through the theater of
"buying" it, that is, paying for the illusion of ownership of some land. If you weren't able to buy it for yourself, you are trespassing. In the U.S., the
various governing authorities feel they ultimately "own" all lands in practicality, because if they want the rancher's land, they will take it. Protests, courts,
threats notwithstanding, they will have it in the end if they want it. In the U.S.A. this is called the Law of Eminent Domain; it is deceptively subtitled "the
greatest good for the greatest number." But, the ones who define "the greatest good" do so on their own scale of values, which are usually monetary.

...
Back in 1892, a man, W. A. Duncan, wrote in the Cherokee Advocate:

"Business knows no pity, and cares for justice only when justice is seen to be better policy. If it had
power to control the elements, it would grasp in its iron clutches the waters, sunshine and air and resell
them by measure, and at exorbitant prices to the millions of famished men, women and children."

This reminds me of a movie I saw recently called The Milagro bean-field War, in which a town of simple farmers in New
Mexico had the natural water supply (a creek) confiscated by the local government so the creek's water could be controlled
and sold back to them. Irrigation trenches leading from the stream to the a small farm fields were shut down, and signs
hung on them strictly prohibiting private use of the water as illegal, under penalty of law. The town's families were
thereby impoverished; those who took and controlled the water were enriched. This kind of thing is accepted as normal
and somehow necessary. But it seems to me a form of mental illness - declaring dominion over a natural resource in order
to force your fellow man to pay you for it. Later, take a look at the essay by Peter Phillips, Ph.D. on the threat of the
privatization of the earth's natural water supply for control, taking, and profit.

Near where I live there are small ranches or homes, some very modest, but on a few or several acres of land. The people
living out there are told they own the land, but that the local water district owns the water under their land. They are not
allowed to dig a well on their own land because that would be stealing the water which has somehow been claimed by a
"water district." Instead, they have to buy their water from this self-proclaimed water authority. A little headway has been
made by people in adjoining ranchlands who fought for the right to dig wells on their own properties. (They are in a
different "water district" that was forcing them to pay more for the same region's water.) Their hard-won battle has gained
them this: they can dig a well, and after their labor and personal expense is finished, the water district comes out and
places a meter on their well and charges them for the water that comes out of it (but at a reduced rate!!)
...
Reading about that, it suddenly occurred to me how the American Indians got screwed out of any land to live on freely -
they made "deals" with this new race that came and wanted to acquire the land. For an American Indian this would mean
this visitor wanted to live on it - no problem. You see, the Indian had no concept of "owning" land - it was as ridiculous a
concept as fleas "owning" the dog they live on. We come from the earth, we live on the earth, we die on the earth and the
earth goes on. We spring up for a time from this environment because we are this environment.

They could not believe anyone could be so arrogant (to the point of insanity, it must have seemed) as to mean one could
"own" this environment. But Westernized societies have invented two notions that make this insanity, this delusion, seem
utterly normal. The first is the notion that we are separate from our environment and somehow at odds with it, so we need
to control it. Humph! What your body is, is an organism shaped by this environment to live it, experience it, survive by
it. No other organisms, whether plants or animals, feel a neurotic need to assert dominance over their environment. Only
humans feel apart from it. This is based on another ridiculous notion is that we "came into this world" as if we were
previously alien souls popping in to earthly existence for a visit called "life." But in fact we do not come into this world,
we come out of it, much like apples come from the apple tree. We are the fruit of this environment we call earth, and the
fruit is the tree, it does not conquer the tree.
...
An old Cree Indian Prophecy will apparently prove true in America. They said: "Only after the last tree has been
cut down. Only after the last river has been poisoned. Only after the last fish has been caught. Only
then you will find that money cannot be eaten."
...
"[W]hen we got organized as a country and we wrote a fairly radical Constitution with a radical Bill of Rights, giving a
radical amount of individual freedom to Americans, it was assumed that the Americans who had that freedom would use it
responsibly.... [However, now] there's a lot of irresponsibility. And so a lot of people say there's too much freedom.
When personal freedom's being abused, you have to move to limit it." (Bill Clinton 3-22-94)

Likewise, in an issue of USA Today dated March 11, 1993, the president expressed a love of dominion, saying, "We
can't be so fixated on our desire to preserve the rights of ordinary Americans . . . ."

Again, this essay is NOT a political preference issue. All political systems, every political party is part of maya, the great
illusion. This is to raise a big question mark against the whole notion of control, dominion, and taking. This has not to do
with any one political personality; it has to do with the notion of any party thinking they have the wisdom for ruling others
well or deciding what the common good is. The old Taoist sage, Lao Tzu, said you should rule a country as you would
fry a small fish -- too much poking ruins it. But we have found ourselves to have made a system in which "the good" is
defined by the corporations who produce and/or support a politician to best represent their interests. Historically, it is only
after the corporations exhaust the resources of the society working for them (and then fail under this illusion of being a
separate and higher entity) that "the Strong Leader" can appear and make political postures for his own aggrandizement
and legacy. After economic collapse there is a Mussolini, and Hitler, a Chairman Mao to "take the public's best interests to
heart" and provide the tyranny necessary for their own good.

I saw a quote from Michael Hoffman, who noted how often, "...tyranny comes in the name of 'public safety,' which just
so happens to be the shibboleth of the 12 man junta who ruled France and instituted the Reign of Terror --they called
themselves, "The Committee of Public Safety." It's always "for your own good."



"Go for the Gusto, Go for the Overall"
-- Robby Gordon, SCORE off-road champion
 

Catawampus

Well-Known Member
A lot of very interisting stuff here. I love the statement, "can't be so fixated on our desire to preserve the rights of ordinary Americans" unfortunatly how true that statement has become. I am interested on your take on some of these items?

Peace

Kim
 

JrSyko

Jerry Maguire
I found tons of insightful info in here that can be used a number of ways. I espcially liked the part about buying a $30,000 dollar 4x4 to use and then finding out there is no where to use it. Has anybody ever tried to maybe get the car manufacturers involved in the fight to keep the spacs protrayed in their ads open? If not, sue them for false advertising! Maybe Martin or Paige can offer more insight.

Secondly, the part about the First Amendment made me think has anybody tried to use our right of Freedom To Assemble as a means to keeping some of the deserts/forests open? It might be a strech but hey, if O.J. can get off, than maybe there is a chance......

I can't believe that I am giving you guys help! Ahhh whats happening to me?! I think the part about the beach struck a cord with me!



See ya in the dirt!
 

Catawampus

Well-Known Member
In the name of fighting terrorism, many of our civil liberties are being heavily compromised. Americans have the right of freedom to assemble and freedom of speech, but courts are slapping heavy penalties often maximums on protestors, even for first offenses. The last I heard there is a bill sitting on Governor Davis desk right now ready to be signed to protect the right to assemble and protest and it establishes monetary limits ($100.00), and time in jail (2 days) for non violent civil disobedience. Presently, as an intimidation practice, local law enforcement and courts have abused their powers by slapping the maximum crime and penalty on protestors. People are not willing to express their opinions in public and protest their disagreements with such grossly unfair penalties. (What country does that remind you of?) I hope Davis will sign it, and I am sure other states will follow. It will prevent local law officials (often from pressure from local political leaders) from slapping protesters; for example in recent cases, with 6 months of jail and having to pay $5,000 for a first offense of simple non-violent civil disobedience. We need now, more then ever, for people to express their opinions publicly, be it against the war effort, ocean pollution, or against closures of our public lands. Has anyone heard if Davis had signed the bill?

Kim


<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1>Edited by Catawampus on 09/13/02 02:23 PM (server time).</FONT></P>
 

martininsocal

Well-Known Member
Kim- do you know anything about what happened to the phantom duck of the desert, Rick Seiman, et al back in the 80's? They simply protested (peacefully) the closure of a public road on the one day they chose to ride it out of historical significance for that particular day? how much money, time, jail, etc...they were exposed to? Check it out. You want to see the how the otherside deals with protesters against their ideals? Very eye opening. Another thing you need to understand is theer is a very fine, but definite line between legally protesting and criminal acation. here are some examples:

-Tree sitting...on public land...on private land. I think we can all agree that tree sitting on public land should be a legitimate and legal protest because everyone who is an American should have the right to express their desires for the use of Public lands. On private land, it is nothing more than trespassing andthe personis doing it to deprive you af the right to use your land for the prupose you own it, theft of property rights.

Protest ride...on public land...on private land. A simple one day even to protest the loss of a trail or road will most likely not change or alter the outcome or final decission(that has been made) on public land. (most likely the same with private) On private land, you are trespassing if you do not have the owners permission to use the property, especially if the land is fenced or signed closed.

Tree spiking-land ownership does not matter. This is done not to protect trees, but to harm humans who may have a desire or a true need to remove a tree. This is a chrime against man, not a protection act for nature. As Kim can point out, there are lots of trees that need to be removed due to bug kill, disease, etc... The spread and associated death of more trees occuring because trees are not removed would be significantly higher if a group was spiking trees to prevent their being cut down and the disease and/or bugs from being eliminated.

Picketing in front of an office/Walking the protest line. Absolutely an easy way to draw attention to a cause and get some media coverage. Very visable with little adverse affects. When is it wrong? When you refuse to let others do their jobs/cross the line, etc... some people do not share your beliefs, some do, but that doesn't mean you have to punish everyone because you do not like something. Taking over offices, Hijacking Buses/Planes, etc...to force others to bend to your phylosophy is wrong. Several have mentioned freedom, goes without saying here.

I guess that is long enough...

If your gonna go, go BIG
 

Catawampus

Well-Known Member
The ’80 are light years behind. Our civil liberties we not nearly as threatened as they are today. I tried to find information about the case – many Sahara Club members handcuffed and taken to jail. What were the charges (trespassing?) and fines? I am curious about this event being you brought it up.
I have many recent events I can site in Costa Mesa, Long Beach, Los Angeles, San Francisco, and across the nation, where the “controlling authorities” served injustice. You stated several different protest methods but I do not know where you stand. What I am concerned with is the abuse of authority by local political figures, law officials, and courts. Dictating their policies and agendas by making it difficult for citizens to express their disagreement. I am sure you must know by now I am against any violent methods to get messages across, but I do understand the reality of situations when the desperate pleas of people are ignored - violent tendencies escalate. You probably also realize I am more concerned by the motives of the individuals rather than the results. I believe the results are often not the true indication of the original objective - humans are hopelessly flawed.
I heard an interview on the radio yesterday with the late Topac – a rapper. He told a story where a hungry man knocks on a glass door where behind it are many people eating off a table filled with food. No one listens to the knocking. How many days must go by before the man will just knock, how long will it take before he realizes that just knocking is not going to work? Today people are being intimidated from just knocking! Now change food in the above analogy to a man parked outside a gate of a closed public area.
I mentioned the above bill on this behalf - Let the people speak, and if our leaders are “For the People” then they will listen. If they are not - then we must vote them out! History will reveal that these times are when our "leaders" failed The Constitution of the United States. History has shown that the greatest advancements in this country did not come about from the kindness and generosity of our political “leaders”, but form the people of the United States that spoke out against injustice.

Kim
 
Top