Monday, April 4, 2016

Chief Prosecutor

We are in a box. Everyone who gets out of line spends a night in the sweat box. Everyone vies to put someone else in the box. The people in the box pull the load, while the people who vie to put them there ride free. The longer they ride free, the higher they ride and the more divided and fatigued the load pullers become. We need ways to pull down the free riders and make them pull their own weight. We need ways to flip the wealth and power of evildoers that confangle, regulate, bureaucratize, and constantly change the rules and redesign the box to their advantage. To do that, we need to think outside the box.

The returns on investment for those hollow souldeads who buy politicians, contribute to their shady "charities," and shill with offshore bank accounts are too high and too easy. They have infested all political parties and were bound to have, and nearly have, murdered the republic. How can those returns be curved back to diminishment, to give ordinary people of good will and good faith a chance to sustain a free republic?

Well, slow down all offshore shenanigans by taxing all outbound money flows. Make it less remunerative to buy politicians by imposing a progressive retail tax on all political contributions. Stop allowing deductions for charitable "contributions." (Many churches have become as corrupted as all the other institutions. The good ones can do without the tax dodges.) In some cases of serious rule violations, yank licenses and impose mandatory fines and forefeitures.

Maybe the U.S. should establish and elect an independent Chief Prosecutor, whose sole functions would be to take care to recommend impeachments, to prosecute violations of the Constitution, and to seek fines and forfeitures on account of violations of the national trust. Require that all such Prosecutor's business properties and accounts be placed in a blind trust, and require that he/she seek no remuneration while in office other than as provided for the office.

The people do not often get a common view of the evils of the rulers. Even less often is a clear view joined with a real opportunity to set matters right. Now, as never before in the last 100 years, a lot of people are waking to the evils that are all around. Now, as not since 1860, these people sense a time and a need for fundamental change that does not seek to destroy the republic, but to give it new life.

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

Re: " Cruz has done this to himself by going back on his own words in 2012. He said born on the soil of 2 citizen parents and that he was ineligible."

Well, I have spent more than a few hours searching to try to find any viable support for this pernicious, recurring, fishwife like gossip. So far, nothing.

I did find where Cruz has qualified his position on birthright citizenship for anchor babies, such as for babies born of touring non-American parents. But I have found nothing that suggests Cruz ever opined that a person, to qualify as a natural born citizen, must have been "born on the soil of 2 citizen parents." Nor, apart from unsubstantiated gossip, have I found anything of the sort.

I suppose one could play Three Card Monty and claim that to be naturalized means something other than to be required to apply to become a citizen after one is born and to take an oath of loyalty.

For example, one could play games with the meaning of "naturalized," depending on whether one prefers a general, specific, custom, or time-dependent definition. For example, one could argue that everyone who is a citizen at birth by virtue of a statute as opposed to common law is "naturalized." One could then abstract a construction to argue that one who is a citizen made so by statute cannot be considered a natural citizen.

However, to do so, one would need to discount the common law customs under which the British Colonial Founders were familiar at the time. Under those precedents, people who were made citizens at birth by virtue of statutes most certainly could be, and often were, considered to be natural born subjects and citizens.

One who is willing to play such Three Card Monty may even then argue, with pretense of a straight face, that Cruz, by admitting he was born a citizen only by virtue of a statute thereby "admitted" that being eligible for the presidency requires that he have been "born on the soil of 2 citizen parents."

Problem is, that manner of argumentation would be more fitting for a carnival barker and would likely get one sanctioned if presented to a real judge.

So, do you have a cite or reliable source to support spreading this notion? So many frauds and falsehoods get repeated, until lofos believe them because they want to believe them. So a reliable source would be appreciated.

I would agree that someone needs to ask Cruz: Did you ever admit a citizen would be ineligible to become President unless he was born on the soil of 2 citizen parents? If yes, when did you change your mind, and why?"

Then, maybe some fact checker would search it out and give us actual cites.

Meantime, Republicans, Conservatives, and Conservers of Liberty are supposed to be the adults, i.e., the reliable purveyors of facts, not malicious gossip. So where's the source?

Personally, I lean Trump, but I want him and Cruz to deal, to prevent the Establishment from feeding Americans another poison pill candidate. But even though I lean for Trump, I much prefer facts over frauds painted as facts. I fear Trump supporters will coat Trump with a reputation for fraudulence if they don't start getting more accurate with their facts.