Where should I go? Who shoud I hire?

I think it is time to advertise, publicize and otherwise get folks to read my proposal to change the us versus them politics that exist in America by publicizing my book. So far I have tried to tell people what is in the book and get their attention. Last night I drafted the followind “blurb” which doe not quite tell them but teases them:

“You would think that if I told you there was a way to smooth out the business cycle, stop poverty in it’s tracks in America, and not spend a tax dollars to do that and more that people would be clamoring at my door for more I formation, for details. The way to do this will also stimulate more voters to vote. The way to do this will gradually eliminate the vast bulk of the welfare state. And , I repeat the way to do all will not cost the tax payers a single penny nor will it create inflation. But, no one is clamoring at my door for details. Perhaps I have chosen to tell the wrong people. Perhaps I have not found the right words to explain the way to smooth out the business cycle, stop poverty in America in its tracks, increase voter participation in elections, and begin dismantling the welfare state without spending a single penny or causing inflation. Indeed, these are only the tip of the iceberg of positive economic, political and social improvements which will result in the way to smooth out the economy, stop poverty in its tracks at no cost to taxpayers.

That way I have named Democratizing Money. If at all interested read my Kindle book by that title. Then you get a politician’s attention and demand to know where your annual tax free $20,000 is. T. Edward Westen is my name and Democratize Money Monetize Citizens is the Kindle book I authored with answers to some of your questions.” https://www.amazon.com/Democratize-Money-Monetize-Citizens-Proposal/dp/1549614487

I wrote this last night and then slept on it. I would still face the same obstical of getting people to read or at least know what the basic plan is. So, another approach is needed. I think I need to hire a publicist or ad agency or promoter to do the selling. At 99¢ per e-book, of which Kindle gets the lion’s share, I am not looking to get rich. No, I really think the idea has merit and to back that up, I need to invest some money in some agency who will promote the book/idea. So, where should I go, whom should I hire. HELP!


A flaw in the plan or a flaw in Democracy?

This plan, https://wordpress.com/post/democratizemoney.wordpress.com/17 , to give every citizen in the United States of American $20,000/year in new money is a plan for a universal basic income as well as a way to democratize the creation of money by monetizing citizens. Everyone should receive equal amounts of new money. Rich and poor alike, middle class, you name it, but regardless of some needs or qualification test, every citizen should receive new money. If any identifiable section of Americans does not receive the payments it will create haves and have nots—a basis for conflict. Those excluded will be resentful.

But the plan put forward requires citizens to vote, do jury duty and any other kind of civic duty that is customary. Yes, that is a flaw in the plan, or it is a flaw in democratic governance. Democracy works poorly, but it works most poorly when the citizenry is uninformed and not participatory (low voter turnout for example). Most empirical studies of citizens show that significant numbers are uninformed abut politics and government if not ill informed. Democracies need citizens to vote, and communicate with office holders. If a universal basic income is put in place that does not given citizens an incentive to participate, evidence shows participation deteriorates, That can result in upheaval at some point (rioting in the streets for example). This is because those who govern are too far removed from the people’s wants and needs. They get reelected until the people take to the streets (or some equivalent of taking to the streets). Requiring people to vote to receive a universal basic income is an attempt to get some of the people to focus on issued at least during election campaigns. Perhaps this is a feeble attempt, but it is an attempt.

This author is proposing a flawed universal basic income to attempt to keep some citizen participation in government. For, unlike people’s economic wants, political wants are often of secondary wants, at best, compared to people’s economic and personal ones.

I have read the Department of Justice memo setting forth the policay of not indicting a sitting US president: https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/olc/opinions/2000/10/31/op-olc-v024-p0222_0.pdf

I have set down some thoughts about the Department of Justice Memo establishing the “policy” of not indicting a sitting US president. I am not going to refute the memo point by point. Rather I will present a set of presumptive reasons why a sitting president must be indicted if evidence suggests and a grand jury finds a true bill.

Part of the rationale by the Department of Justice memo for not indicting a sitting president is that it would result in some functions of government not being performed. Other than an immediate military response to foreign aggression the Justice department overstates this “issue.” Most government operations carry on without even awareness by the president or even of that agency’s or department’s head. So unless the president is a complete twit or nitwit, I am relatively confident he or she could rise to the occasion in case of military threat from abroad–even a nuclear one. If the president is a complete twit, the 26th Amendment should have been employed.

To over simplify the Justice Department memo also stresses that indicting a sitting president would look bad abroad. Prestige and image are so important that we should continue a person who has met all the criteria for an indictment from a grand jury or a finding from a prosecutor? In the simplest legal terms, “give me a break.”

Go back and read the Declaration of Independence. The charges against the King were that he was above the law–unaccountable to anyone for his actions. Clearly Americans did not fight a war to institute a head of state that is above the law-unaccountable, indictable. So, any failure to hold a president accountable is a violation of one of the fundamental pillars upon which this nation was forged. Three paragraphs in the Declaration of Independence directly apply to the twit today:
“He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.” “He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices…” Note, the asking for personaly loyalty as he did James Comey. AND “For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:” Note, the taxes he has imposed are though tariffs which we pay in our purchase of those goods.

In the United States no other head of a unit of governments, agency, state, local unit of government or government corporation has immunity from indictment, arrest, trial or imprisonment. The president should not have this kingly privilege either.

The Department of Justice asserts, and again I over simplify, that indicting a president interfere with the separation of powers doctrine. Nonsense. Only the executive branch is involved until trial. To assert that the Judicial Branch is interfering when the case goes to trial is also foolishness, for the Judicial Branch depends upon the Executive Branch to execute decisions coming out of court cases/decisions. I seem to recall President Jackson noting this in a Georgia Indian Removal case, “John Marshall has made his decision. Now let him carry it out.”

The bulk of the Justice Department memo is built on case law. However, the memo, originally written as a consequence of, shall we say, the criminal al Richard Nixon, is hypothetical. All officers of the Court, employees of the government, appointed or merit, take an oath to uphold the law and defend the Constitution. If there is evidence persuasive enough for a grand jury to make a true finding and issue an indictment, then any person who has taken an oath to uphold the law and is in any position to act, must execute that indictment with all due haste or be liable for failure to meet the terms of their oath.

That those working in the Justice Department are either civil servants or hold political appointments from the president make the argument of breaching separation of powers all the more absurd. A note on The Declaration of Independence and naturalization laws and the encouragement of immigration. Specifically the current occupant of the White House is guilty of the same grievance King George III was in 1776 and earlier.

So, to not indict and try a sitting president is contrary to the very reasons the Founding Fathers gave for separation and founding a new nation.