SovereignLife Freedom Blog

Okay, I admit it, I don’t vote. I know that politics is not the answer – it’s the problem. However, Ron Paul and his bid for the US Presidency is a special case.

What makes Ron Paul important is the fact he represents a consistent view – Constitutional government – and his steady rise in the polls shows that he has a constituency, even though the MSM have tried to discount it.

No longer though. There is a very good chance he could win the Iowa caucus, and such a possibility is already being discussed in the media. Such a win would push him to solid “top tier’ candidate position and the MSM would no longer be able to ignore him. Sure they may attack him, but his increasing popularity would force them to take him more seriously.

The question would then arise: Can Ron Paul win the Republican nomination? Well, given the typical base of the Republican party, that looks unlikely – unless they wise up to the fact that Ron Paul is the only Republican candidate that could actually beat Obama. Why? Because his support is not just from Republicans, but also independents (around 20% of the electorate), as well as disenchanted Democrats.

So in a face-off with Obama, I believe Paul would fare better than Romney or Gingrich (if he’s still around!).

But what if Paul does not win the nomination – due to the irrational and short-sighted viewpoint of the majority of Republicans? That’s when an independent ticket could suddenly materialise. In fact, when repeatedly asked if he will rule out an independent run, Ron Paul hedges by saying things like, “I’m not thinking about that at all”.

The fact is, if Paul does not win the Republican ticket, then his followers will literally demand he run as an independent. And if he does, that’s when things will really get interesting.

Why? Because as an independent he will attract voters who may ignore him because of his “Republican” label. As an independent he would be able to stand on principle (as he always does) and be a catalyst for potential real change in America – without the “baggage” of being a Republican.

The important point here is not so much whether he wins or not, or even whether politicians can actually make the changes that are needed. No. What really counts is that he would bring to the debating table – and to the consciousness of millions of Americans – issues that really do need to be aired. It is this “educational” function of a Paul campaign that is most important (and I would venture to say it’s what is also most important to Ron Paul), because it brings to the table the really big issues of the day, and would force both the populace and the politicians to confront reality.

There is another issue also. If I were a Republican strategist I would be really worried by Ron Paul. Why? Because to try and prevent him from getting the Republican nomination, and succeed, is only likely to push him to an “independent” run, where he will do even better. Truth is, if the USA is in crisis mode when the Presidential elections are held, a person of the character and vision of Ron Paul (who stands head and shoulders above the other political hacks) could surprise all the pundits, upset the apple cart and do a “home run”.

In this era, nothing is impossible.

For that reason, Ron Paul matters.

The video speaks for itself. Dr Ron Paul, a rare breed of politician – one who actually believes what he says, and who stands on principle. Will America take notice, or is it too late …

A recent lunch with a friend turned up an interesting discussion. We were talking about the concept of “intervention” in another country’s affairs, for the purpose of righting some wrong. My friend was of the opinion that the allies’ incursion into Afghanistan was moral because the Taliban are “bad” – because they do things like cutting off women’s noses, although I couldn’t immediately verify or deny such an assertion.

When I disagreed with the idea of intervention, he asked me, “If you saw a women outside this restaurant who was being assaulted or tortured by someone, wouldn’t you intervene”? And my answer was that this was a completely different situation – a situation where I was in proximity and “could” do something about it.

I then argued that a decision to help someone in such a situation was quite different from one nation impinging on another’s sovereignty in order to right a wrong. What I basically said was that when it comes to different nations we don’t have any sovereignty over them, so any interference is bound to end up in war. And it has.

In other words, I don’t see the state as a moral actor, in the way an individual can be. From my perspective, if I or anyone else is morally offended by how other nations treat their women, or anyone for that matter, then I can voluntarily offer my services to alleviate such suffering. I can make such a choice as a moral “actor”.

The state is something entirely different. It is not moral. It cannot be. Only individuals can be moral. So when one state declares a moral cause then invades another country in order to impose such “morality”, the end result is simply death and destruction.

Another thing I’ve noticed. Those people who so adamantly demand we “do something about it” – whether in Syria, Afghanistan, Libya, or even Pakistan or Iran – present the “morality” argument as if they were actually concerned about the Muslims in those countries. Whereas, in my experience, the very same people have no qualms about the killing of tens or even hundreds of thousands (as in Iraq) of Muslims in order to rectify some moral shortcoming of the government or leader.

I liken this to “crocodile tears” – the tears that are shed for show only, and which are simply a device for feigning empathy. In the same way, those who call for intervention in Muslim lands, in order to “save” them, in fact have no tolerance, empathy or love for such people – and therefore, the morality on display can only be categorised as “crocodile morality”.

This is an interesting short video by Dr Bruce Lipton which makes the observation that money is energy. And just like we have a monetary “budget”, we have a life’s energy “budget”. It’s insightful, so give it a watch …

One of the pernicious results of inflation is that stuff gets more expensive. Or to put it another way, the dollar in your hand today buys a lot less than a dollar did 10 years ago.

If you had put $10,000 in a savings account 10 years ago, given the trajectory of interest rates and deductions for taxation, you would not be sitting on a lot more right now. However, during that 10 years the price of everything would have gone up – so your savings would in fact be worth less than before.

Jeff Clark looks at this reality and offers a way to measure the real gains of any form of investment – by comparing it to gold over the same period. It’s well worth a read!

Start Thinking in Terms of Gold

At least someone is talking sense. Former Mossad chief, Meir Dagan, warns Israelis of the consequences of any rash action against Iran.

Israeli Strike on Iran Will Lead to Regional War

Eric Margolis lays it on the line regards the disaster that was the Iraq war, in his essay:

Who Won The Iraq War?

Judge Andrew Napolitano says it’s now … in this short but powerful video:

With gold moving up and down daily, but with no clear direction in sight, it’s reasonable to ask if gold is still a valid vehicle for investors.

Bud Conrad, of Casey Research, gives his considered analysis and opinion in:

Is Gold Still The Answer For Investors?