"Refusing to vote speaks volumes, though its easy to ignore non-voters. No one has ever harnessed the power of that refusal. Ron Paul can do it, by refusing to endorse the Republican, or the Libertarian, or any other candidate, because their policies will continue to harm America, because no candidate is willing to do what this country needs."

47%? How Ron Paul Can Get More

by Andreas M. Kelly

So 47% of the vote will go to the Democrat? Ron Paul can get more, by leading non-voting Americans to stand up and be counted. 42.63% of Americans didn’t vote in the 2008 presidential election. He can easily add his supporters to that figure, for more than 50% of all eligible voters, and take the next step in peaceful revolution.

As many Americans, I became a devoted Ron Paul supporter during his bid in the 2008 presidential campaign. Although my disillusionment with American politics and economics pre-dated my contact with Ron Paul, it came from a different perspective. Probably, it was rooted in an inherited fundamental distrust of the "establishment," which I learned to perceive as being increasingly tyrannical. Through Dr. Paul, I have been able to connect a lot of dots, involving things like economic policy, foreign policy, and civil liberties. As many, I was disappointed, to say the least, that the Republican Party didn’t nominate him, and even blocked his delegates in various states and at the convention. It seems the mainstream media has succeeded in silencing him, at least for this presidential election.

The media, educational institutions and every governmental institution suggest we have a duty to vote, and try to inspire us to vote, regardless of who we vote for. Should I really vote for the "lesser of two evils" in this bipartisan election? Many argue that the Republican candidate, for example, would save a few unborn babies by changing a policy regarding planned parenthood or international funding for abortions. However, the Republican party has proven that it will never take any serious action to stop abortion. Democrats claim their candidate will help the poor, but that help will be short-lived, and, in the long term, harmful to the poor. The ridiculous war on drugs is supported by both candidates, as are the wars against so-called terrorists and dictators on foreign soil, and American foreign military presence all over the world. Neither party will do anything to protect Americans from the continuing debasement of the dollar, or the catastrophic fiscal practices enacted by the Federal Reserve. As for our civil liberties, they will continue to be eradicated up by either candidate, to "protect national security." Thus, "voting the bum out" doesn’t have any effect in modern presidential elections. There just aren’t any substantive differences between the coke and pepsi presidential candidates. Obama may drive the train at full throttle over the cliff; Romney claims he’ll pull back the throttle, but only a tad, and he certainly won’t change direction. Our only real hope is to stop the train, dismantle it, and imprison those who designed, installed and managed it from its inception. Neither party really acknowledges the pending disaster.

What then, are we to do? How do we continue to support Ron Paul? Do we look to Rand? Will Ron run in 2016 at 80, and if so, will he do so as a Republican?

We can’t wait for 2016, Rand won’t or can’t take Ron’s torch, and the relationship between Ron and the Republican party seems meaningless at this point. But, like many Americans with some political awareness and will, I’d follow Ron Paul anywhere. Not because of his ideology, though I agree with most of it, but because he is one of few honest politicians in history, and certainly in my memory. Since the good doctor seems to have abandoned his presidential bid, and is retiring from the Congress, how can he lead us now? In his "retirement," I expect that he will write, speak and lecture, and continue to educate Americans. But what can he do politically?

Ron Paul has captured the attention of millions, who are waiting for his next move. Voter turnout for the presidential election was at 57.37% in 2008, according to Wikipedia; it has been under 65% since 1908. Not voting may reflect apathy, but to paraphrase George Carlin, it also gives us the right to say, "don’t blame me; I didn’t vote for him!"

Refusing to vote speaks volumes, though its easy to ignore non-voters. No one has ever harnessed the power of that refusal. Ron Paul can do it, by refusing to endorse the Republican, or the Libertarian, or any other candidate, because their policies will continue to harm America, because no candidate is willing to do what this country needs. Ron can rally his supporters to join the non-voting bloc, and lead us into the next phase of peaceful revolution. He might even pick up a lot of moderates and undecideds. He can speak on a national stage, and encourage us to refuse to vote in the presidential election. Ron, I implore you: Unite us! Unite the disillusioned and the rejected, vocalize our silent voices, and keep leading us in peaceful revolution!

Link:
http://lewrockwell.com/orig13/kelly-a1.1.1.html