If you're just as frustrated as I am that the Department of Justice still hasn't prosecuted anyone for their role in the financial meltdown that almost destroyed our economy, Roots Action helps you tell our Justice Department to stop treating banksters as if they should have immunity from prosecution. Some of you may well be saying: what the banksters did was wrong, but was it illegal? Of course, we don't advocate for convictions, but for prosecutions, because civilized people understand that not every prosecution ends the way you'd like it to end, and that when it doesn't end the way you'd like it to end, you don't throw up your hands and abandon the entire system like a four-year-old who doesn't get his way. Also, we have very, very good reason to suspect that banksters did break the law, and not just the laws mandating that they serve their shareholders -- the robosigning scandal could have netted some convictions, but netted only a settlement instead, and telling investors you're not creating financial instruments full of crap while betting against them yourself (as John Paulson appears to have done in 2008) is also illegal. Finally, if you're of the mind that the powerful just get away with whatever they want and there's no use doing anything about it, you might be better off living in Russia.
Meanwhile, President Obama is apparently reconsidering his ban on certain military weapons transfers under the Defense Department's 1033 Program, so CREDO helps you tell him to hold the line on military weapons going to police officers. I know some good folks ask why police shouldn't have any weapon they need to keep the peace, but they need to ask themselves: do police need weapons of war? I would respond not only that they do not, but that they must not. They do not need weapons of war because, regardless of what Donald Trump tells you, no place in America is an actual war zone -- they may seem so from time to time, but anyone who lives in a real war zone will tell you that you don't live in one. And police must not have weapons of war because they do not exist in a state of opposition with the citizenry, but in a state of service to the citizenry, and if they have weapons of unlimited power, they can and will oppress the people. Some good folks will no doubt ask how I justify my belief that citizens should be less constrained in their choice of weapons than the police. While I no longer accept the notion that folks need assault weapons to defend themselves -- really, if it comes to that, you're better off martyring yourself -- I'll still defend a citizen's freedoms before law enforcement's freedoms.
Comments