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/

Don't Play "Feedback Loop (TM)"- A Fools' Game

Feedback Loop(TM)- A Fool's Game

So, the majority of you out there tune into the corporate media news to find out what to be outraged about, the television personality--who is paid to tell you whatever will keep their multi-million dollar paycheck rolling in--gives you the so-called "news" and tells you who you should hate and why, allthewhile, another news channel is telling another set of programmed drones the exact opposite. They get you so infuriated with your political opponents that you will do anything to see that their politicians don't get elected. In fact, you'll spend your hard-earned money to stop them! So you donate your money to a political campaign, hoping to inch forward toward your goal of a more perfect union. The political campaigns then give the money back to the media--in the form of campaign advertisement revenue--to tell you who to hate and why. ...And you don't see a problem with this? Take a look at the game board graphic (above) to see what playing the Feedback Loop (TM) game has to offer us.

What have we learned? 1. Do not give money to political campaigns. 2. Don't watch news that is funded by political campaigns. 3. Don't listen to any of their BS. Otherwise, you are fueling the machine of your own demise.

Why not take a look at some of the issues that we would find easier to agree on? The things that politicians and the media don't ever talk about. Like term limits for the US Congress. Like Congress' salary and benefits. Like sensible campaign reform measures. Like politicians picking winners and losers and then leaving government to go work for the winners. Then the winners--with their new influx of wealth--buying the next set of politicians to make sure they are winners again so they can afford to pay the politicians when they leave government to go work for the winners...

Is there not enough danger in that feedback loop for you not to want to stop whatever you are doing and address it? Let's change the game to one that we can actually win. We start by rejecting the dangerous collusion between the media and politicians. Then we go after the dangerous collusion between government and lobbyists/industry.

Or we can wait for a politician to come along and clean the whole broken system. And I'm sure the media will let us know which politician would be best for the job.

News media fails to report truth about Iraq WMDs
http://www.cnn.com/2013/03/11/opinion/kurtz-iraq-media-failure
http://www.thenation.com/blog/173357/when-nyt-offered-weak-mini-culpa-hyping-iraq-wmd

Fox News misinforms viewers regarding new START treaty
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-april-8-2010/the-big-bang-treaty

News media fails to recognize looming financial crisis
http://www.dailyfinance.com/2009/05/28/the-media-and-the-financial-crisis-journalism-failed/

News media fails to report accurately on health care reform
http://www.aim.org/on-target-blog/national-medias-biased-coverage-of-the-affordable-care-act/

Fox News reports scandals involving Republican politicians as scandals by Democrats
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VnIgRyN3uHA

News stations air Video News Releases (VNRs) produced by government or corporate sources without disclosure
http://www.prwatch.org/fakenews/execsummary
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Video_news_releases#VNR_fines

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

Save Your Breath

United States Congress

Our whole political system is corrupt. And to fix it we need to address issues like Congress' salary. $155,500 - $223,500 a year for a part-time job that used to be voluntary and they have an 10% approval rating. Would you have a job if your employer had an 10% approval rating of your performance?

What about Congress members' budgets? Rand Paul recently returned $600,000 of his budget that he didn't spend. Last year it was $500,000. He should be applauded for such a feat! And if he can do that, why can't the rest of them trim their budgets?

Why aren't these things even being discussed?

Why do we allow Congress members to trade stocks related to legislation that they are debating? As soon as a Congressperson takes their oath of office, all of their stock trades should be frozen. And if they attempt to tip off others with inside information they should be punished harshly. Boehner owns stock in oil companies, Pelosi owns stock in Citibank. They all get rich and who were they serving with their decisions?

Does everything really have to involve a penis to be a scandal now?

Politicians often leave Congress and go to work for the businesses that they voted to provide or deny federal assistance to. Sometimes they go the other way. Doesn't this all seem a little bit too cozy to you?

If we can't all get behind these issues then we really are stupid and perhaps we should just give up.

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

Surveying Our Political Landscape

The US Political Landscape (a dramatization)

In my last blog post, Breaking Down the Political Equation, I recommended that we "stop marching into the voting booth to protect" politicians. I want to be clear that I am not suggesting that people stop voting. It is important for those of us that wish to be proactive to keep informed and vote for the person that best represents our individual ideals and values and whom we believe will best care for the country and the interests of its citizens. We citizens may not agree on the best candidates but it is important in a democracy that most of the citizens participate. I do however think it is foolish to believe that politicians will do anything to fix the country's problems. At least, not without being forced to by the electorate.

I often deride politicians for their corruption and poor governance but I will admit that I do admire some politicians--most of whom are unfortunately now out of government--for things that they have done either in their private lives and/or while serving. Not all of them are corrupt and incompetent. But as I survey the political landscape, I see numerous pitfalls that nearly ensure that every politician will be ineffective. I once saw an interview with a politician (I can't remember which one or on which show) who confided that in his first week of serving in the US Congress, his staff had put fundraising events on his agenda. This is our current political reality. Politicians need to raise thousands of dollars daily to fund their next political campaign. Any good-natured and virtuous person may enter government with the intention to change it for the better, but to remain in a position to attempt to positively affect the political system, they are beholden to those that will donate large amounts of money to their campaigns.

That leaves we citizens largely without representation in our own country. We have to clean up the money in politics in order to improve our country and the political system. But how do we do that?

1n 2006, Americans were fed up with Republican scandals and corruption became one of the top issues in the country. In that mid term election, voters elected Democrats who promised to clean up Washington. After winning majorities in both houses of Congress in that election, Democrats had the privilege of changing the rules of Congress. Although Democrats did pass the most strict ethics rules in modern times, the new rules left plenty of loopholes and opportunities for corruption. As often occurs in government, we ended up with half measures and very little change. In my opinion, Democrats fell far short of their clear mandate and to me it is a clear, current example that you cannot send politicians to fix a broken system. Especially when they profit from that broken system.

Voting out one batch of politicians to replace them with other politicians is not a viable solution to our problems. What would actually work is a large voting block of citizens drawing up the reforms we'd like to see in government and then demanding that Congress pass those reforms.

When we citizens unite behind a common cause, we could elect "citizen legislators". Each of these candidates could take an oath not to seek re-election, not to work for lobbying firms or other para-governmental agencies following their term and not to work in any industry or company affected by legislation that they have voted on while in elected office.

Without worrying about re-election, these citizen legislators would be capable of representing the citizens of the country without conflicts of interest. Sending just a few of these political operatives to Washington could actually have a reasonable impact if they stall every non-essential bill until members of Congress re-address the ethics rules and make changes that would satisfy the citizens they are supposed to represent.

Getting citizen legislators elected in a system that is awash in dirty money returns us to the campaign finance challenge. The group, Americans for Campaign Reform, purports that for as little as $6 per US citizen annually, we could fund elections and take special interest groups out of the equation. This seems to be a solution that is well worth looking into. Otherwise, we can only hold our breath and wait for politicians evolve into competent, ethical beings. And the system is rigged to ensure that never happens.

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

Breaking Down the Political Equation



*may not be mathematically accurate

The US political equation, like any other equation, has two sides. When things are not going well in the country, one or both sides of the political equation are out of whack. On one side, the citizens can become uninformed and/or apathetic and vote for incompetent politicians. On the other side, an incompetent government, elected by uninformed/apathetic citizens, will likely become corrupt and do things that harm the country.

I believe that every American would agree that both sides of the equation are out of whack. But which side of the equation are we spending most our effort trying to fix? From my perspective, we spend nearly 100% of our time trying to convince the citizens on the opposite side of the political spectrum to change their minds and vote for the greedy, corrupt and inept politicians that we prefer when compared to the other greedy, corrupt and inept politicians running. Meanwhile, on the opposite side of the equation, government has become so corrupt and dysfunctional that our country has been made a mess. Politicians insulate themselves from losing elections by taking money from special interests and by gerrymandering districts. They line their pockets by taking bribes and kickbacks and by taking advantage of their positions to do things that would land your or me in prison. Shouldn't we spend some effort attempting to fix the way government works? After all, how can you be upset with another citizen for voting for an awful politician who then passed a bad bill when they are almost all awful politicians and they are almost all bad bills?

Even a good bill that has the potential to become a beneficial law can be loaded with earmarks that rob taxpayers to fund politicians' pet projects. A politician that votes against the bill can be blamed for its failure to pass in the next campaign. Or, if they vote for it, they will be blamed for helping to pass a bill with wasteful earmarks. It is a no-win scenario for them and for us.

In 2010, TEA Party Republicans introduced a bill that would ban earmarks. Failing to get adequate support from Democrats or fellow Republicans, the bill failed. But what if we citizens demanded that a ban on earmarks be passed? That any politician that voted against the ban would be voted out of office in the next election? We could get this critical change made. And with a ban on earmarks, every politician could better be evaluated by their voting record without opposition to (or support of) earmarks to confuse the intention of their vote. It would make it much easier for voters to understand what policies their representatives honestly support and which they oppose.

How would you reform government?

There are other Congressional rules that need to be addressed to get government to function properly: reforming the filibuster, strengthening the rules regarding gifts from lobbyists and closing the revolving door between Congress and lobbying firms. Those few changes would have an incredible impact on improving the government.

If thinking of politics as a two-sided equation doesn't really cement things in for you--that our fight is with government and not with each other--then consider this: as an American, I would lay down my life to protect your right to worship and to express your faith--or any other expression--in every way that the First Amendment protects, or to protect your right to vote. I would lay down my life to protect your right to bear arms or to have access to a fair judicial system, should it be required. I would lay down my life to protect your right to have your tax dollars fairly collected, wisely spent and well-accounted for. Shouldn't that be more important than whether we see exactly eye-to-eye on matters of abortion or gun rights or what tax rates should be? I would hope that every American has the same devotion because, if we do, that should bond us like brothers and sisters. Then we can together look at the things that are wrong with the government and correct them. When thinking of those rights that we most cherish, who is the greater risk to them, your neighbor or the government?

If reforming the government sounds too daunting, imagine this: we force all of the money (or at least the dirty money) out of elections. That eliminates most of the corruption. Then, we re-draft the ethics rules of Congress. That eliminates the rest of corruption and eliminates the gridlock, horrible bills, wasteful spending and poor judgment. We get it done with oversight and accountability. I know that it isn't going to be just that easy. It is going to be a lot of work. And it means we all work together to watch what government is doing and keep it in line. But because the work is going to be hard, does it mean that we shouldn't be doing it? Is there one person anywhere who would argue that our efforts are better spent fighting about issues we will never resolve rather than addressing issues we can actually fix?

Click here to read my idea for how we begin to take on such an endeavor. There may be many ways of getting it accomplished. We just need to find the best solution and see it though. I refuse to believe that the status quo is the best we can do. That we can only play the politicians' game. A game that only serves to keep them in power and subjugate citizens to their will. A game that denies us our birthright: a country of our own.

I promise afterward that everyone can go back to fighting like the Hatfields & the McCoys. At least the government wont' be robbing you, molesting you and poisoning you all at the same time. We look at the Middle East and express disbelief at the unresolved conflicts there. But they have real issues over there! Our problems are so minor. We have just need to redirect our efforts.

This message may never get through to the hyper-partisans. Like telling a Bears fan that the Giants are the greatest team ever. But this will make sense to a lot of Americans who, I believe, will soon be the new voting majority.

This is where the Republicans have really failed in the 2012 election. They could have nominated Ron Paul for President. Ron Paul had a chance to beat Obama but even if he lost the election, I think this message of unity and government reform would really carry with Ron Paul supporters. I think it would appeal to large factions of the Tea Party and the Occupy movement as well. And any other pragmatic activists that don't care to classify themselves as any of the above. And, I suspect, a lot of dis-affected Republicans and a lot of fed-up Democrats. All over the country, that's a lot of people and the Republican Party could have positioned itself to be the standard bearer for that group. But it's not too late for them. It may not be too late for the Democrats either. Whichever party embraces the concept of direct democratic action to reform government, and is most cooperative in helping We the People achieve that new directive, will emerge as the stronger party. Realistically, I don't see either party giving up control so that their game can be better scrutinized and refereed. But aren't they supposed to be serving us, rather than the other way around? They have flipped the game and we still haven't caught on.

If you can't see that the government side of the equation is more seriously askew than our side, and more easily-correctable, then I suggest you reexamine your math, science, history, perceptive attributes, sense of reality, etc. The student that wants access to safe, available abortions isn't selling out your future for campaign cash. The NRA supporter that wants to own an arsenal of guns isn't bargaining with corporations and industry to poison our air and water and to protect their own wealth. Politicians are doing these things. When will we stop marching to the voting booth to defend them from other politicians involved in the same schemes? When will we find the courage and conviction to take them on? Can we get control of government any other way?

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

Guns are for Killing People

Most guns are really for killing people. Does anyone really have a problem with that? Does anyone think that there are no people that may need to be dispatched? (The random shootings we've seen present proof that there are.) Are there no people that may need the protection of firearms?

When people ask me why I own a gun, my response is "To kill people." I'm no hunter. But I know that people can be dangerous. And I know that an un-checked government can be dangerous and erode personal liberties. It is the DUTY of responsible citizens to be armed and able to protect themselves and to provide that check on government power.



Crime Requires Some Legislation

 Having said that, I'd love to know how many liberals and non-partisan anti-gun nuts think that we could or should ban firearms in the US. My guess is that it is somewhere around 2%. So, if most of us agree that guns are necessary and an American right, why are we fighting an insane battle over whether we are going to have guns or ban them outright? Again, I see the most extreme and most irrational ideologues shaping the debate. Can we reel the debate in to what is actually relevant? Can we talk about how we can expand gun rights while making it more difficult for dangerous and irresponsible people to get them? Wouldn't that satisfy the other 98% of us? Can we talk about preventing legislation that focuses on the way a gun looks? Can we re-think bans on large capacity magazines and other gun features (essential for protection against a potential large, oppressive force)  to put more emphasis on screening and testing gun buyers?

I'd also like to point out that President Obama has said very little about gun control as president and the one gun law he signed actually EXPANDED gun rights and was endorsed by the NRA. I firmly believe in fighting the battle of preserving gun rights and even expanding gun rights. But can we do it with FACTS and KNOWLEDGE rather than PARANOIA and MISINFORMATION?

The NRA has really gone off the deep end with their wild and unsubstantiated claims regarding Fast and Furious and other lower profile conspiracy theories. We should always be skeptical of government and those in power but believing un-proven fantasies is not a logical or responsible course of action. EVER.



Dang, I wanted to include this quote but according to en.wikiquote.org it is "bogus"



The NRA has a good and important function: to promote RESPONSIBLE gun ownership and gun SAFETY. Unfortunately I feel that they have largely abandon that mission to become a more politically influential organization. Politics and politicians are not going to fix this or any other issue. RESPONSIBLE, KNOWLEDGEABLE and PROACTIVE CITIZENS can. Are there enough of us to come together to find the correct balance? Do you prefer to leave this important task to politicians and organizations whose aspirations are political in nature rather than LOGICAL?

~R. Charan Pagan
information systems technologist, musician, writer, filmmaker
Los Angeles, CA 90017

http://www.reclaimingourbirthright.blogspot.com/

America's Ugly Face

You may have noticed that there are a lot of people screaming at each other and speaking rather disparagingly of one another. We sometimes blame politicians for setting the tone but they are really just saying the things they say to appeal to their constituencies. They demand blood and politicians had better deliver!

America has gotten a very ugly face. I think that the thing we all have to realize is: that person on the opposite side of an issue from you--that is screaming as loud as you are--is doing so because they are as passionate about helping our country succeed as you are. That is why their doing it. Shouldn't that passion and desire to aid our country be something that binds us more than opposition over some issues should divide us?

People, I am telling you that if we could focus, with laser-like precision, on the issues on which we all can agree, we can solve most of the problems and we would all be a lot happier, healthier and wealthier. Is that not a prescription for a better quality of life? It's like we caught a shoplifter and are roughing him up outside while the mob is moving our entire inventory out the back door.


What face would you make if your wealth increased by 62%?

So what am I talking about? For instance, members of Congress can buy and sell stocks, based on knowledge of the company or the industry that they are privy to due to their work in the legislature. In the world we all live in, that is called insider trading and it is against the law. We get thrown in jail if we try it, politicians do it with immunity and their only risk is throwing out their backs as they carry away the loot. What makes things even worse is that members of Congress can actually vote on bills that could affect their investments. If a bill comes up for a vote and it would improve the lives of most Americans, but would hurt senators' and House members' stock portfolio, will they vote against their own pocketbook and for the American people? Or will they vote to increase their own wealth, at the peril of the rest of the country? When you consider that the US is in pretty bad shape but politicians in Washington, DC have never been wealthier, it is understandable that we may have some suspicion about it. Washington, DC became the wealth capital of the country a couple of years ago.

Nancy Pelosi was recently in a strange position. She purchased stock in Visa before a bill proposing to regulate credit card companies was scheduled to be introduced. The bill never made it to the floor of the House and Pelosi's stock went from $44 per share to $64 per share. That made a cool $100,000 that she could toss on her pile. John Boehner owns "considerable portfolio of stocks in oil companies, financial firms and pharmaceutical companies" and we all know how he votes when bills related to those companies come up.

How can we allow this to happen? How can we sit by as our elected representitives use their positions for their own financial gain, while the interests of the American people become secondary, are ignored or are thrown under the bus? I propose that all members of Congress must freeze all stock trades while serving. Any members of the House or Senate that does not go along with implementing this reform would be voted out in the next election. But to accomplish this, we must all stand together. We must direct our attenion on such issues and agree to a truce on issues that divide the nation. Those are the issues that rob us of our power and bolster the power of elected officials. They seem to have figured this out. Why are we so late to the party?

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