S. 2155, the so-called Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer Protection Act, would roll back some key Dodd-Frank protections that Congress passed after banksters crashed the economy. Its supporters claim that by by raising the asset level at which a bank receives additional regulatory scrutiny from $50 billion to $250 billion, S. 2155 would "protect community banks," but that's a pile of rubbish, unless we think big entities like American Express are "community banks." I've said it before and I'll say it again: the small bank's greatest enemy isn't our government; the small bank's greatest enemy is the big bank. And if we want small banks to flourish again in America, we need to stop obsessing about BIG GUMMINT!!!! and start enforcing antitrust laws again. Hell, I'd prefer a Constitutional amendment forbidding one corporation from ever owning another! In the meantime, Rootstrikers helps you tell your Senator to reject the pro-bankster and pro-bailout bill S. 2155.
Meanwhile, Facebook has lately begun an app for kids under 13 called Messenger Kids, and if you're of the mind, as I am, that kids shouldn't be playing around with social media apps before the proverbial "age of reason," you'll be quite appalled at the idea. I can already hear my younger self telling me that I should be more trusting of kids' ability to navigate new things, but my younger self remains in the past for more than one reason! Being a grown-up, I don't want to rewire kids' brains so that they experience their entire childhood through a screen, well before they actually meet and interact with other kids in real time and space, and I'm certainly not into visiting depression and self-loathing onto kids, since that happens an awful lot when kids go on social media before they're ready for it. So the Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood helps you tell Facebook to abandon its plan to indoctrinate children into social media far, far earlier than is healthy for them.
Finally, Free Press helps you tell the FBI to stop using the so-called "Black Identity Extremist" label to go after black anti-racism activists. Even if you could convincingly argue that anti-racists routinely alienate people with their stridency (and you can't), that circumstance would not demand that we use law enforcement to single out folks who protest racism and police violence without committing a crime. I mean, if you think it's a crime, or should be a crime, to criticize police for killing black folks, then you might be better off living somewhere you might be more comfortable, say, an actual police state like Iran. And if you think Black Lives Matter protests are "violent," you may be confusing the police response with the protest. And why is this Administration so gung-ho about getting black protestors but so blasé about white racist protestors who openly advocate separatism and/or overthrow of our government? You have to wonder about their priorities.