What Happened to Three Strikes?

The banking giant, HSBC has been in the news a lot. They've had to pay fines in the billions over the past few years. And it's upsetting me a bit that this corporate "person" has committed some very serious crimes and for some reason is not subject to the three strikes rule. Don't we still have a three strikes rule? If so, then HSBC should be given a life sentence, by the letter of the law.

Now, I know that an attorney could easily talk his way around that argument in our court system. But I mean to simply state--and there is no way to really overstate--the absurdity of what goes on in our country. Some of the most devastating, horrific and even treasonous crimes have been committed by this corporate "person". But that "person" is still free to exist and carry on as if no crime had been committed because they gave the government a cut of the profits. If you are a flesh and blood person, you are likely to see a much harsher and more permanent application of the law.

What has HSBC done that is so bad?

The Devastating: In a recent case, HSBC was fined for illegally foreclosing on 112,000 people's homes. In some of these cases, these practices not only illegally took houses away from decent people and caused them grievous financial harm, but it also helped to further depress the housing market. When the proper title to homes are in question, title insurance companies are reluctant to insure them, making houses risky and nearly impossible to sell.

[Photo has been pixelated due to the graphic image]
Sign English translation: ATT: EL CHAPO
DO NOT FORGET THAT I AM YOUR FATHER

The Horrific: HSBC laundered drug money for Mexican drug cartels. So, when you hear of all of the people in Mexico who are found brutally murdered, know that HSBC has played a vital role in helping the murderers conduct business.

The Traitorous: HSBC conducted illegal business with Iran that was forbidden due to economic sanctions on the authoritarian country. Think about this for a moment... when the United States and our ally nations were trying to negotiate a deal with Iran to prevent them from being able to build a nuclear weapon, HSBC was undermining the strength of our bargaining position so that they could make a buck! This is not just an offense against the US government, but it is an offense against all of the people of the world!!!

Iranian nuclear facilities

Republican politicians criticized President Obama, saying that the deal with Iran was "weak". President Obama said that the US got the best deal that we could get. But no politician of either party will point the finger at HSBC and say that they were responsible for undermining our position in the negotiations. With HSBC violating the sanctions against Iran, Iran was under less pressure than they would have been. They certainly would have been willing to give up more for relief if HSBC wasn't already providing some relief from the sanctions, illegally.

When corporations commit horrible crimes, the executives who made the decisions to act illegally need to face criminal charges! Otherwise, the criminal and extremely destructive behavior will continue. When the mortgage crisis was reaching its pinnacle, it was discovered that politicians who were supposed to be keeping an eye on the banks to make sure their operations were above board, were asleep on the job... and getting below market rates on their on personal mortgages from the banks. Those politicians--who acted criminally and failed to perform their job duties--never faced any consequences either.

Considering that corporate crime is extremely costly, destructive and nefarious, would citizens be wise not to make it a primary focus of their efforts? But how can We the People ensure that corporate criminals are held accountable when their cronies in government want to let corporate criminals shirk any accountability? A Citizens' Congress could impose ethics rules on federal politicians that are so strict, that no politician would dare to violate them. And if a politician did violate the stricter ethics rules, they would immediately be removed from office, per a Citizens' Congress established Zero Tolerance policy on corruption.

If you haven't heard of the Citizens' Congress, it's because it doesn't yet exist. But hopefully this article has made a good argument for why we should have a Citizens' Congress. A Citizens Congress could feasibly be formed and operational with just a few months of effort. The continued decline of our country and increased depravity and criminality in government and in business are clear indications that We the People need to engage in politics in different ways in order to effectuate the change we desire but that politicians have consistently failed to deliver on. We need innovative approaches so that our efforts in reforming government can be successful. A Citizens' Congress is one innovative idea that can deliver on major reforms. The old model of supporting and donating to political parties and politicians  has proven to be ineffective.

~R. Charan Pagan
information systems technologist, musician, writer, filmmaker
Los Angeles, CA 90017
http://www.reclaimingourbirthright.blogspot.com/

8 Profound Points About Gun Control That Nobody Seems to Have Considered

America and Firearms: Forever Intertwined

The gun legislation issue is so simple! Or is it?...

THE SACREDNESS OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT: Supporters of the Second Amendment will always argue about the importance of it. The Founders of our nation expressly wrote  our right to own firearms into The Constitution because they felt it to be of special importance. And although I also agree, I too realize that the Second Amendment is no more sacred than any other right Americans have, including the rights to basic safety, security and peace of mind. Americans have every conceivable right (so long as it does not infringe upon the rights of others), regardless of whether it is written into The Constitution or it is not. And although our Founders and our citizens may find certain rights to be more important than others, none are more sacred than any other. All must be respected.

LARGE CAPACITY MAGAZINES: Limiting the capacity of gun magazines means that a shooter will have to stop to reload more frequently (unless the criminal has decided that obtaining illegal large capacity magazines is a more taboo crime than murder) and give bystanders more opportunity to tackle and subdue the shooter. This makes perfect sense. Except that if there is a prison break and I have to defend myself against a dozen or more felons that wish to do me harm, I don't want to be tackled and subdued while I attempt to change magazines. This is the big flaw in the left's argument about large capacity magazines. The prison break scenario is unlikely to occur but who knows what threats a person may have to protect themselves against? Rioting following an earthquake or other natural disaster, an eruption of gang violence or a drug deal gone bad. It is just not reasonable to punish the law-abiding citizen in an attempt to prevent a criminal from having something that they can get easily on the black market or secondary market anyway. Thirty round magazines for rifles and ten round magazines for pistols is a good compromise.

PEEKING INTO THE FUTURE: I have often criticized peoples' understanding of politics as being very one-dimensional. One way to view the gun issue in a way that is multi-dimensional is to look into the future and build likely events into the calculus of your political decisions. At some point in the future, I'm sure that there will be ray guns that can render someone unconscious from several yards away. The victim will wake up from the attack with no lasting injury, aside from the fact that they may have just been raped. If you think we have a problem with "roofies" and rape now, imagine if a would-be victim would never even have to be in close proximity to the attacker to be rendered unconscious. Whenever there are advances in firearm technology, how they are bought, sold and regulated should be examined to ensure that gun-owners' rights to have and use guns do not infringe on other citizens' rights to reasonable safety and peace-of-mind.

ASSAULT RIFLES: Banning assault rifles is kind of like banning automobiles that can go faster than the speed limit. The statement "Why does anybody need an assault rifle?" is similar to "Why does anybody need a sports car that can go 200+ miles per hour?" I find the look of assault rifles to be very attractive and they are fun to shoot. Even if I never need one for self-protection, I enjoy the look of the weapon and I enjoy shooting them. Shouldn't it be within my rights to own the kind of weapon I find appealing if I am able to demonstrate that I can own the weapon responsibly? How wrong and un-American would it be to say that people cannot own a sports car because they can go too fast and could therefore cause injury or death to others? Nor can you own a replica sports car because it looks just like one that can drive fast? Nobody would accept such restrictions on our liberty and we should not do so with regards to firearms either.

UNDERSTANDING THE INTENT OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT: I am rather certain that if automobiles were around during the founding of the nation, our forefathers would have considered them to be sacrosanct. They may have even been addressed in the Bill of Rights. "The automobile, being necessary for the freedom of travel and an important convenience, the right for citizens to own and operate a motor vehicle shall not be infringed." the language of the Eleventh Amendment might read. But does that mean that anyone can own a car, regardless of age or ability to drive safely? Does it mean that people shouldn't have to obey stop signs and NO PARKING signs? I doubt the Founders would have put every potentially acceptable regulatory measure into The Constitution.

UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES OF OVERLY STRICT GUN LEGISLATION: Recently, the technology to build a plastic gun by use of a 3-D printer was developed. Although the weapon is crude, it is just the start of what is to come. Before long, far more sophisticated weapons will be able to be constructed in the homes of private citizens and strict gun legislation will accelerate those ambitions. When something is made illegal or made prohibitively expensive, alternatives will surface and flourish. In this case, sophisticated weapons that are constructed and traded by private citizens with no governmental oversight. Such weapons cannot be detected by X-ray machines, (assumingly) have no traceable ballistics and have no serial numbers. Dealing with such weapons is going to be incredibly complicated and we are certainly not ready to take on that challenge now or in the near future.

THE NON-EXISTENT SLIPPERY SLOPE: The "slippery slope" argument is usually put forth when there is no argument of real merit available. The idea that extending background checks for firearms is a "slippery slope" to the government keeping a gun registry is ludicrous. We have a defense against such an assault on our Second Amendment right. It is, our Second Amendment right! Nothing says that you don't plan to ever exercise your Second Amendment right more than claiming that something could be a threat to it. If the government wants to go to my local gun store to take records it has no rights to, I would be there, with my firearm to tell them that they cannot do it. Are we going to participate in this democracy or are we going to just phone it in? We can be more prudent about where we draw our DO NOT CROSS lines.

PROTECTING DEMOCRACY: Gun owners often declare that their ownership of firearms is necessary to protect the country from the government becoming tyrannical and eliminating our freedoms. Those who support aggressive gun control legislation point out the futility and ridiculousness of armed citizens defending the country from government resources such as Apache helicopters, nuclear weapons,  fighter jets, drones, etc. This is going to take some time to unpack so, bear with me…

[Now, I speak purely hypothetically because I don’t believe that we have a government interested in bringing about tyrannical rule at this time. As much as I feel that government is corrupt, wrong-headed and dysfunctional, I don’t think government is attempting to subvert democracy or declare martial law. I do think that many people in government and those forces that influence government would want to do so if they felt they could. But we are a long way away from that becoming a reality.]

It is erroneous to think that the aforementioned government resources would include the soldiers required to operate the machines and weaponry. Our soldiers swear an oath to the country and to The Constitution, not to the government. No soldier should ever commit acts of aggression towards the citizens of the United States. If the government turned tyrannical and ordered attacks on citizens, soldiers should (and I believe most would) disobey those orders and fight with citizens to restore democracy and order.

If tyranny became the goal of government officials at some point, they could conceivably contract a mercenary army like KBR or Academi (formerly Xe, Blackwater)—provided those American contract soldiers have greater allegiance to their company, their government and/or to money than they do to their country. Our government could also hire foreign soldiers but those fighters would need to be trained to operate the machines and weapons that would make the government such an imposable force.

Looking beyond the hypothetical, I have spent a lot of time thinking about the future of the nation and how citizens can get control of government. I believe that we are long overdue for a revolution of some kind and I am hoping for a non-violent one. I believe that it is not only possible but necessary.

Those who do not believe that gun ownership is a realistic check against government tyranny sometimes bring up the government actions against the Branch Davidians in Waco, TX as evidence of the futility of citizens standing against government. Although the Davidians lost one battle (their lives and compound), they won a very significant battle which was to make themselves an example to other citizens about how the government can treat its citizens. People like me took notice. We saw the propaganda and lies the government told to explain how those people, including women and children died. It further eroded my trust in government and gave me more motivation for finding a way to achieve a non-violent revolution to address what I feel are serious and potentially disastrous flaws in the constructs of government and in how it operates. The killing of the Branch Davidians didn’t spark a revolution, likely because they were an odd group--if not potentially dangerous to the community--they were arguably potentially dangerous to themselves and to the children living in the compound.

The government should have no reason—aside from greedy self-interest—to oppose a non-violent revolution, intended to restore democratic principles that have been perverted by special interests over the years. If the government did oppose such an effort, all citizens of the country would have to ask why the government would oppose common sense reforms that are supported by a majority of the population. People would have to wonder why the government would want to oppose fellow citizens who were simply interested in making corrections to government machinations that would lead to a freer citizenry, more effective government, a more prosperous nation, a more just society: a more perfect Union.

~R. Charan Pagan
information systems technologist, musician, writer, filmmaker
Los Angeles, CA 90017
http://www.reclaimingourbirthright.blogspot.com/