I think the reason it has been so long since my last post is that America's political1 processes have become disgusting, even repulsive. The politicians bashing away at each other is bad enough, but the cutesy and nasty ad hominem used by their wannabe-clever supporters against those who disagree with them on places like Twitter is enough to make a billy goat puke. Anyway, enough of the self-justification for procrastination and on with the point of this post.
Congressman Ron Paul is the GOP candidate I support for president in 2012. In stark contrast to the other candidates who give mere lip service to the U.S. Constitution, Ron Paul speaks and acts as if he truly believes the constitution is a binding specific-performance two-party contract which is not open to being unilaterally changed via strategic misinterpretation by one (the government) party to the contract. The other candidates act as if it's a corruption-friendly "living breathing" document amounting to little more than a shapeless pile of unintelligible socio-political economic manipulation and rhetorical B.S.
Ron Paul is the only presidential candidate honest and courageous enough to candidly discuss the honest money issue, in other words, the blatant and PROVABLE UNconstitutionality of America's monetary and tax systems. He is the only candidate calling for the outright abolition of the FED/IRS root and branch, a subject I have written extensively about elsewhere on this website. And, in my opinion, he is the least fascistic2 of the duopoly government's3 other candidates. He will draw anti-war votes away from Obama, and he will attract fiscal conservatives who despise Obama's in-your-face, because-I-can socialism. The most important groups he will not attract are the Republican party elders, the profit-from-war, police-the-world neocon pseudo-conservative Republicans, and the so-called "moderate" NY23-type Republicans, sometimes called "RINOs".
The question logically arises: who would make the best candidate for vice president, who would make the strongest running mate, for Ron Paul? In my opinion, the answer is the Honorable Janice Rogers Brown, former associate justice of the California Supreme Court, and currently sitting on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals.
First, let's think hard core politics, like duopoly hired guns of the Karl Rove-James Carville-Lee Atwater school of politics might do. From what I can see, she's got it all: she's black, female, smart, educated, libertarian-leaning, charismatic, down-to-earth (humble, self-effacing), nice (as in girl-next-door) looking, good sense of humor, and an interesting public speaker. She would most likely draw a significant number of black votes (except maybe this one) from Obama, and would attract a huge majority of the millions of Sarah Palin supporters, male and female alike. She would be politically ideal.
On a human level, I was spellbound by her Clarence-Thomas-Star-Parker-type personal story as set for in the following paragraph from Wikipedia: "Born in Greenville, Alabama, Brown is an Alabama sharecropper's daughter who attended segregated majority African American schools as a child. Her family refused to enter places of business that segregated blacks. She earned her B.A. from California State University, Sacramento in 1974 and her Juris Doctor (J.D.) degree from the UCLA School of Law in 1977. She worked her own way through law school while being a single mother. In addition, she received an LL.M. degree from the University of Virginia School of Law in 2004. Brown has said that when she was young, she was so liberal in her politics that she was almost Maoist, although she is now conservative."
I first became aware of Janice Rogers Brown when I ran across a speech of hers titled, "A Whiter Shade of Pale: Sense and Nonsense — The Pursuit of Perfection in Law and Politics". You can get an idea as to her intellectual abilities and judicial philosophy by reading her dissent in Omar v. Harvey, No. 06-5126, decided February 9, 2007 in the D.C. CCApp (Circuit Court of Appeals). And you can get an idea of her personality and demeanor as a public speaker from the following video filmed at Standford University Constitutional Law Center.
True, Obama is smart. But only in a cleverly charismatic, manipulative, make-deception-palatable kind of way, not in a self-educated, academically brilliant kind of way as Janice Rogers Brown is. I would give a great deal to watch Obama's face in a debate with Judge Brown. The condescending smile would slowly turn into a frown, and then into a cold sweat as he suddenly realized that this woman was not only every bit as smart as he is, but far better academically educated. Can you imagine a stuttering and stumbling Obama bereft of his precious race card?! It would surely be the entertainment event of any year!
If anyone who reads this knows anyone who is, or knows, someone in Ron Paul's inner circle of advisors, please ask them to suggest to the congressman that he give the judge a call and set up a mutual interview. Paul/Brown — a KILLER ticket for 2012!
RECENT VIDEOS, BLOGS, ARTICLES, COLUMNS, AND STATEMENTS:
: See John's Twitter for one of the web's most eclectic mashups of interesting real-time news articles. I surf the web for interesting real-time news stories and informative tidbits so you don't have to.
Huntsman to Drop Out of GOP Race; Will Endorse Romney - ABCNews - Oh, of course, by all means. Romney is an establishment candidate who supports the debt-as-money oligarchs. That should tell us all something about where Huntsman was coming from, despite his "conservative-ish" rhetoric.
What Is It About Ron Paul? - YouTube video
How Money is Created and How It's Destroyed - Judge Andrew P. Napolitano - a Fox Business Video
Money As Debt - Google video
The Secret of Oz - Winner, Best Docu of 2010 v.1.09.11 - YouTube video
The Shocking Truth Of The Pending EU Collapse [Mirror] - YouTube video
To those who fight for Liberty - YouTube video
1. Always remember, "politics" = person or group A trying to persuade person or group B to obey the will of A, most frequently for the personal financial benefit of A and to the personal financial detriment (higher taxes) of B. That is why deception = the so-called "art" of politics. That is also why "politician" = professional deceiver, and why "political" = deception-based, or having to do with deception. Everybody is competing for political power to steal labor and money out of the "other guy's" pocket and put it in their own. Politicians get votes by promising to be all things to all people. Because that is a physical impossibility, most of their promises of necessity get broken. Because they know this in advance, they are ALL liars to one degree or another. The king is always the most corrupt person in the kingdom. (The first two kings of ancient Israel, Saul and David, were murderers.) The moral of that story is that the One-Ring of government2 Power (over the Other) is inherently evil and inevitably corrupting. NEVER trust it or become complacent about it.
2. In reality, there is no such real thing as "government". It is not a rock, a tree, a river, or even a cloud. It is mere behavior, an established social order, a dominance-based pecking order. With other animal species, it is often called "dominance hierarchy". In the case of humans, the term "social hierarchy" is more often used. As Frédéric Bastiat said, "Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else." As H.L. Mencken said, "Every election is a sort of advance auction sale of stolen goods." As General Smedley Butler has written, "War Is A Racket". In reality, "government" is merely the dominant individuals in the inherently evil and inevitably corrupting stupid-human pecking order struggle known as "politics"1. These disordered-by-definition dominant individuals merely call themselves "government" so the hoi polloi masses will view them as being intelligent enough and moral enough to follow and obey.
3. Fascism = private economic enterprise under centralized governmental control. — Webster’s New World Dictionary of the American Language, Second College Edition. I would expand that definition: fascism = private economic enterprise under centralized governmental control, in which “government” is used as a “business” tool by private interests. Another way of articulating the same idea is: fascism = private ownership of government.
John Flynn defined the word thusly: “Fascism is a system of social organization in which the political state is a dictatorship supported by a political elite and in which the economic society is an autarchial capitalism, enclosed and planned, in which the government assumes responsibility for creating adequate purchasing power through the instrumentality of national debt and in which militarism is adopted as a great economic project for creating work as well as a great romantic project in the service of the imperialist state.” [As We Go Marching, p. 161, 2nd ed.] — John T. Flynn (1882-1964) American Journalist and Author
"Fascist" = scumbag4 "businessman" who uses the police powers of government (via bribes, special-interest legislation, holding office himself, etc) to corruptly increase profits and eliminate or reduce competition for his (or her) business/es beyond what they would be in a genuinely fair and free marketplace comprised of willing sellers and willing buyers.
MANY Democrats and Republicans are fascists, especially the ones in Congress. To paraphrase Jesse Ventura in a conversation with Willie Nelson and Alex Jones, the DEMS and GOP are like professional wrestling: they pretend to be adversaries in public. But behind closed doors, they're good buddies, hanging out with each other, making business deals and having dinner together at fancy restaurants and at each other homes and mansions, all the while using the coercion-based police powers of "government2" to enrich themselves.
There are five basic groups of political activists: 1) fascist "liberals" who use "government2" to enrich themselves, 2) illiterate lemming "liberals" who only spout meaningless "leftist" talking points, 3) fascist "conservatives" who use "government2" to enrich themselves, 4) illiterate lemming "conservatives" who only spout meaningless "right-wing" talking points, and 5) illiterate, apathetic, passive/aggressive disordered underachieving loser types who feel some sick sense of personal empowerment by trolling talk strings and spouting illiterate low-IQ drivel in an effort to distract and destroy meaningful and intellectually honest truth-seeking conversation.
4. It bears constant repetition: explaining the words "scum" and "scumbag" as an epithet used in self-defensive demonization against select individuals and/or ideologies. Hey, what can I say? I have considered the matter carefully in another essay. It is a long-proven statistical fact that negative political ads are in fact effective. And since the so-called "Left" uses lies, half-truths, demonization and the politics of personal destruction as standard political strategies, failure to engage in a little "turn about is fair play" merely makes it easier for the various assortments of disordered illiterate fascist control freaks to destroy individual freedom. As I said on my blog homepage, "Some folks just think they're smarter than everybody else, a higher form of life than everybody else. So, instead of engaging in good faith discussions about specific ideas, they simply resort to deception, sophistry, unspecificity, undefined terms, manipulation, demonization and the politics of personal destruction AS A MATTER OF PREFERRED STRATEGY to get their little spoiled-brat control-freak way. Such behavior is anathema to intellectual honesty, an open mind, a kind heart, free inquiry, the freedoms of thought and speech, and the free flow of information. It MUST be eternally warred against if humankind is to entertain a realistic hope of ever reaching its full spiritual and intellectual potential." To avoid the violence which is directly related to repression of free speech and the crushing of polite and civil discourse, I believe it is essential to engage in strategic tit-for-tat with wannabe-clever manipulative demonizers by openly calling them what they are: the anti-freedom, anti-Golden-Rule scum of the earth (aka "scumbags"). Accordingly, it doesn't bother me in the least to do so. No less brilliant a person than Jesus of Nazareth himself referred to the scumbags of his day as "hypocrites", "blind guides", "vipers" and "whitewashed sepulchres". To paraphrase Ann Coulter, Jesus was not some moron driving around in a Volvo with a "be nice to people" bumper sticker on it. So, having read The Art of Political War and Other Radical Pursuits by David Horowitz, I don't have any problem with calling "scum" what it is. Surely a huge majority of people, especially black people, would agree that any person or group who sincerely believes in slavery or pedophilia, by way of example, qualify as "scum". Point made.ShareThis