Tag Archives: ron paul

Obama Prepares for Dictatorship

10 Aug

LArouchePac

http://www.larouchepac.com/sites/all/modules/layout/modules/player.swf

The heightened activity in the aftermath of the Norway terror attack indicates the kind of atmosphere where Obama would attempt a dictatorial coup. Everything we do in the coming period will be done to consolidate the forces to prevent that by removing Obama from office without any doubts or second-guesses.

http://www.larouchepac.com/sites/all/modules/layout/modules/player.swf

Those who supported Obama’s fascist coup, have committed high treason. As of today, the House has conceded its legally mandated power to a Hitler dictatorship. Our last and final defense against this coup, is full and total commitment to the sudden restoration of Glass-Steagall.

http://www.larouchepac.com/sites/all/modules/layout/modules/player.swf

The means Obama used to ram through the “deficit bill”, the Budget Control Act, is parallel to the process by which Hitler established his dictatorship. Is this the past repeating itself? No – today it is much worse.

http://www.larouchepac.com/sites/all/modules/layout/modules/player.swf

More info on these topics

The Standard and Poor’s (S&P) Debt Downgrade: What It Means

Bankers Launch Next Leg Of Planned Economic Collapse

T.E.A. Party Terrorists

Council Of 13 To Rule America: Wake Up

Obama sets up facist dictatorship in America with debt deal

Busting Posse Comitatus: Military Cops Arrest Civilians in Florida City

Ron Paul is A Constitutional Hero: He Must Be Elected in 2012

10 Aug

 

Ron Paul is A Constitutional Hero: He Must Be Elected in 2012Ron Paul is a constitutional warrior and the only candidate that will uphold our true governmental system. If he is not elected you will see more of the same oppressive dictatorship that you have sen from our last 2 presidents.

Almost the entire republican lineup is fraudulent in some or all areas, yet they are being held up as our saviors.  Meanwhile the congressmen and senators we elected last round that did not sell us up the river are being called out as domestic terrorists.

We must stand behind those who refused to sell us out. Ron Paul is one of those and he is making his run for president this next election. He has went all in this time by stating hewill not be seeking another term as texas congressman. This is a huge step, he is fully committed and so must we.

So here are a few videos to let Dr Paul do his own talking, Listen up and share this info with everyone you know. Your contry is depending on you!!

Ron Paul has roots with the constitution and with the greatest leaders our country has ever known.

Ron Paul talks about Social Security

Ron Paul on Foreign Policy

What if we changed our foreign policy?

Ron Paul explains the Federal Reserve and how it is destroying our way of life

Check out more on Ron Paul here

Ron Paul and the War on Drugs
Ron Paul and the Love Revolution of 2012

Ron Paul to Congress: Stop Stealing from the American People

My Plan for a Freedom President: Ron Paul

Ron Paul’s Voting Record: What Does He Stand For?

Ron Paul Presidential Debate Highlights (Video)

Why Ron Paul, What Does He Stand For?

Ron Paul: “Crazy old man” or analytical clairvoyant?

10 Aug

Examiner.com

Aaron Alghawi , Brazos County Conservative Examiner

Ron Paul: Crazy old man or analytical clairvoyant?  With GOP contenders battling it out for the chance to face President Barack Obama in 2012, the once “cult-following” of Texas Congressman Ron Paul has turned into a base large enough to consider him one of the frontrunners. Having a massive Facebook following, the second highest 2nd quarter funds raised after former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, and recent poll victories such as the Southern Republican Leadership Conference straw poll; Paul’s more than 30 year old message of individual liberty, sound money and free markets is resonating with an ever larger audience.

Of course with this popularity comes criticism. Too many Republican voters and self-described “Constitutional conservatives”—at least those I’ve come across—have been quick to describe the libertarian-minded congressman as “kooky” and a “crazy old man”. Their primary focus is on foreign policy but some on economics as well. Despite Paul’s fervent belief in Thomas Jefferson’s philosophy of avoiding “entangling alliances”, these conservatives often paint him as a “liberal”. Perhaps liberal in the classical sense like John Stuart Mill, but certainly not in the modern-day so-called liberalism of persons like President Obama, Ed Schultz, and Alan Colmes.

Many rumors are spread by the anti-Paul conservatives. Paul supporters are often referred to as “PaulBots”—ironically similar to author Jason Materra’s term “Obama Zombies” used in the book of the same name—although save for a few kooky and loud conspiracy theorists, Paul supporters tend to be better at justifying their support for the jolly old man than do the Obama Zombies. Paul is often mischaracterized as a bigot, even though there is no evidence to support this ad hominem attack.

But what the anti-Paul conservatives—usually of the interventionist line of foreign policy thinking that is commonly referred to as neoconservatism, though having its roots in Woodrow Wilson—fail to do is actually look at what Paul’s foreign policy positions are and have been and see if they have any connection to reality.  Paul’s years of studying the Austrian School of Economics have had a surprising effect on his analytical skills when it comes to foreign policy.

Recently, Ron Paul supporters posted a video to Youtube entitled “Ron Paul the Master”. It shows a collection of speeches and interviews in which Ron Paul makes some stunning predictions about our current economic woes and even international conflicts of the present. And he does this as far back as 2002. Of course no one gave him the time of day.

Let’s analyze one of these speeches, which begins at 3 minutes into the video and was presented before congress on April 24, 2002.

“Our government intervention in the economy and in the private affairs of citizens, and the internal affairs of foreign countries, leads to uncertainty and many unintended consequences. Here are some of the consequences about which we should be concerned.

The United States, with Tony Blair as head cheerleader, will attack Iraq without proper authority, and a major war, the largest since World War II, will result.

Major moves will be made by China, India, Russia, and Pakistan in Central Asia to take advantage of the chaos for the purpose of grabbing land, resources, and strategic advantages sought after for years.”

This is absolutely true. The chaos gave us many unexpected problems. Al Qaeda’s presence in Iraq grew after the invasion. And the country is now under Shiite control, moving it dangerously close to Iran. In 2002, Iran’s president was the more philosophically minded Mohammed Khatami…but now we have an anti-Semitic loudmoth, Ahmedinejad. Russia has moved into Iran to build an energy alliance. Vladimir Putin, and his cronies in Gazprom and Lukoil would love to gain control of the natural resources in Iran and Russia has been helping the Islamic Republic develop nuclear technology which US intelligence believes is being developed for destructive purposes. Let’s hope and pray they are wrong.

China and Pakistan have certainly taken advantage of the chaos. Not only is their alliance stronger, but the oil contracts in Iraq are going to—guess who—China! Kind of debunks the whole left-wing moonbattery that Iraq was “blood for oil”.

You can find more detail in these articles:

http://money.cnn.com/2007/04/05/news/international/iraq_oil/index.htm

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/28/AR2008082802200.html

http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/world/2010/June/China-Benefits-from-Oil-Deals-with-Iraq/

“Current Israeli-United States policies will solidify Arab Muslim nations, this will include those Muslim nations that in the past have fought against each other.

Some of our moderate Arab allies will be overthrown by Islamic fundamentalists.”

What exactly do you think the “Arab Spring” is? Peaceful democratic people overthrowing dictators? Not quite. The Muslim Brotherhood, a precursor to Hamas, has founded its own political party in Egypt; it is possible these theocrats will gain significant power in the new government. Let’s not forget that Libyan and Yemeni rebels have been linked to Al Qaeda. Just the other day the new Al Qaeda cheif Ayman Al-Zawahiri was lauding the rioters in Syria.

And certainly the dictators—such as Gaddafi and Mubarak—aren’t moderate in the eyes of their own people, but often American politicians have viewed them as such. Useful when we need them, disposable when we don’t as Mobutu Sese Seko and Saddam Hussein once were.

“Many American military personnel and civilians will be killed in the coming conflict.

The leaders of whichever side loses the war will be hauled into and tried before the International Criminal Court for war crimes. The United States will not officially lose the war, but neither will we win. Our military and political leaders will not be tried by the International Criminal Court”

This wasn’t entirely true, Saddam was tried by his own people. But did we really “win” the war. We turned the country over to the Shiite theocrats instead of secularists and now those people are getting close to Iran.

“An international dollar crisis will dramatically boost interest rates in the United States.”

Advertisement

Price inflation, with a major economic downturn, will decimate U.S. Federal Government finances, and exploding deficits and uncontrolled spending.”

Ah yes, remember when that Burger King value meal was around $3.

“Federal Reserve policy will continue at an expanding rate, with massive credit expansion, which will make the dollar crisis worse. Gold will be seen as an alternative to paper money as it returns to its historic role as money.”
Though Bernanke has kept interest rates low, there is the prospect of T-Bill interest rates going up with the forthcoming debt crisis. There has been a dollar devaluation of 40% against the Euro since this 2002 speech, nearly 14% since June 2010 alone according to an article in The Washington Post.

Quantitative easing most definitely contributed to the high gas prices we see today. If you think it was all the fault of this “Arab Spring”, take a look at the Commodity Price Index some time. This freshly “recycled” dough being put in the hands of speculators causes them to artificially drive up the price of oil and other commodities, some of which are being bought as a hedge against the falling dollar; quite the vicious cycle.

As for gold, when Congressman Paul gave this speech gold was roughly $300 per ounce and today it stands at more than $1615 per ounce; you can check out the historical data on gold prices here.

That’s a whopping 438% increase.

“Erosion of civil liberties here at home will continue as our government responds to political fear in dealing with the terrorist threat by making generous use of the powers obtained with the Patriot Act.

The Congress and the President will shift radically toward expanding the size and scope of the Federal Government. This will satisfy both the liberals and the conservatives.

Military and police powers will grow, satisfying the conservatives. The welfare state, both domestic and international, will expand, satisfying the liberals. Both sides will endorse military adventurism overseas.”

The president today has the power to order the assassination American citizens, as in the case of Anwar Al-Awlaki—traitorous as he may be, this is wrong. The Constitution has rules for punishing those who commit treason. But President Obama has ignored this and has ordered him to be killed if possible with drone strikes in Yemen.
The welfare state has expanded significantly. A new, unaffordable addition to Medicare under Bush 43 was passed. And we saw more than a trillion dollars of so called economic stimulus under Nancy Pelosi and the combined presidencies of Bush and Obama, that’s not even including Obama’s wasteful and unpopular health care overhaul. Not to mention billions of foreign aid to countries, some of which—such as Pakistan—are less than trustworthy.

“This is the most important of my predictions: Policy changes could prevent all of the previous predictions from occurring. Unfortunately, that will not occur. In due course, the Constitution will continue to be steadily undermined and the American Republic further weakened

During the next decade, the American people will become poorer and less free, while they become more dependent on the government for economic security.

The war will prove to be divisive, with emotions and hatred growing between the various factions and special interests that drive our policies in the Middle East.”

The middle east is on fire right now. The Israelis are more concerned for their security than ever before. Meanwhile the Saudi lobby pushes us to deal with Iran, with the hopes that they can beat the Islamic Republic in terms of spheres of influence in this theocratic mess of a region.

“Agitation from more class warfare will succeed in dividing us domestically, and believe it or not, I expect lobbyists will thrive more than ever during the dangerous period of chaos.”

This one is self evident. Class warfare is a weapon of distraction used by those who wish to expand the size of government while fat cats at firms such as General Electric, Goldman Sachs, and BP fatten their wallets thanks to government’s policy of picking winners and losers via loopholes and subsidies. The administration may talk the talk, but just take a look at Obama’s campaign contributions and how cozy he is with Jeffrey Immelt; how GE almost got away with paying no taxes, and how a former Goldman Sachs legal adviser with no judicial experience now sits on the Supreme Court.

In addition, a piece was posted two days later, here, containing more words than in the video, which appears as if it may have been cropped to save time. Some of the predictions in that post, such as a reinstatement of the draft did not come true (thank God), but there is one of note that have somewhat come to fruition

“Some European countries will clandestinely support the Muslim countries and their anti-Israel pursuits.”

If you go on YouTube and read the comments sections on almost any video relating to middle eastern politics, you will find that it is a cesspool of anti-Semitic and anti-Israel rhetoric, and many of the people making these comments are living in Europe. You can take my word for it as a person of Middle Eastern descent who keeps up with these things, or you can check it out yourself. The barbaric theocrats of Hamas are given the benefit of the doubt by many YouTube in the UK, France, Germany and Greece, while the Israelis are fallaciously smeared as “genocidal” and heartless.

Ron Paul’s predictions show a deep understanding of not just economics, but human emotions in the geopolitical world. Those who dismiss him as a “nut” and on the fringe would be wise to thoroughly read this article before making such a judgment. The facts are on his side, and he truly does seem to know what he is talking about.

Dr. Paul concludes with:

“I have no timetable for these predictions, but just in case, keep them around and look at them in 5 to 10 years. Let us hope and pray that I am wrong on all accounts. If so, I will be very pleased.”

Well, 2012 will be ten years in. You weren’t wrong on all accounts Ron, in fact, you were right on a great many of them. We should all be most displeased that these predictions came true.

Continue reading on Examiner.com Ron Paul: “Crazy old man” or analytical clairvoyant? – Houston Brazos County Conservative | Examiner.com http://www.examiner.com/brazos-county-conservative-in-houston/ron-paul-crazy-old-man-or-analytical-clairvoyant#ixzz1TsE7vAaQ

RON PAUL TO CONGRESS: FREEZE THE BUDGET AND STOP PLUNDERING THE AMERICAN PEOPLE!

10 Aug

by Ron Paul

One might think that the recent drama over the debt ceiling involves one side wanting to increase or maintain spending with the other side wanting to drastically cut spending, but that is far from the truth. In spite of the rhetoric being thrown around, the real debate is over how much government spending will increase.

No plan under serious consideration cuts spending in the way you and I think about it. Instead, the “cuts” being discussed are illusory, and are not cuts from current amounts being spent, but cuts in projected spending increases. This is akin to a family “saving” $100,000 in expenses by deciding not to buy a Lamborghini, and instead getting a fully loaded Mercedes, when really their budget dictates that they need to stick with their perfectly serviceable Honda. But this is the type of math Washington uses to mask the incriminating truth about their unrepentant plundering of the American people.

Ron Paul and the War on Drugs

10 Aug

Doug Weed Blog

July 29, 2011

Ron Paul and the War on DrugsLast month the United Nations issued a report admitting that the worldwide war on drugs has failed. Richard Nixon was the first president to use such terminology back in 1971, and subsequent presidents have been hard at it — all with mixed results.

When I served in the Bush, senior White House, it was the common belief that what was needed was an even bigger hammer for the drug problem. A good combination of focused military power and CIA ingenuity would do the trick. We even invaded Panama. But today, the crisis is worse than ever before with no end in sight. Mexico is only a collateral causality. That country has been ruined by addiction.

Albert Einstein once quipped that “insanity was doing the same thing over and over again, expecting a different result.” Barack Obama and all of the new serious GOP presidential candidates offer only more of the same, proving that our drug policy is indeed insane. That is, all presidential candidates except for one. The one exception is Ron Paul, who would decriminalize drugs.

This was one of the big reasons I was late to sign up for the Ron Paul revolution. I liked what he said about a return to constitutional government, about stopping the endless wars, about balancing the budget, about reigning in America’s Empire and paying its bills at home. But what was with this idea of decriminalizing drugs? Wouldn’t that make it worse?

Actually, studies have shown that it is exactly how we will one day solve the problem. And that’s why even leaders on the religious right, like Pat Robertson, are touting it as a solution.

Imagine us trying to end the use of tobacco in this country by declaring war. Imagine arresting young people selling cigarettes on the street corners. Imagine policemen going into hospitals and arresting people dying of lung cancer and throwing them in jail. Imagine defoliating the tobacco fields of Virginia and North Carolina. Just how far would we have gotten?

Instead, we educated the nation and now the smoke has cleared.

Laws do not solve such problems. Prohibition of alcohol didn’t work either. It created a criminal underclass that corrupted the American judicial system and ran some of our largest cities. Drugs are doing the same thing. Last month we discovered that a single border guard had been paid $ 5 million to let the drugs pass her station. According to a study by a Harvard economist decriminalizing drugs would pump more than $76 billion into the American economy.

Our country has the second highest incarceration rate in the world. Close to 1.5 million Americans are arrested each year for drug use. In the last twenty years almost half of all arrests in America were for marijuana possession or marijuana use. In most states, a three time felon will spend his whole life in prison at a cost of millions of dollars to taxpayers. We are warehousing people on a massive scale. To give you a sense of perspective, in the Soviet Union in1934, just before the Great Terror and the massive killing began in Stalin’s famous Gulag camps, he had gathered close to one million prisoners. This is less than the population of our own prison system in America today.

Now, I am not for decriminalizing drugs because I want to use them. I have never tried marijuana or any other illegal substance, which is interesting when you consider that my name is Wead. But I know that our nation’s war on drugs hasn’t worked. And there is no use pretending otherwise.

I appreciate the good intentions of those who fought this war and their sacrifices and service and their wonderful ideas. For a time, it may have held back the tide and saved lives. But the stakes are higher than ever. Even more lives now hang in the balance.

I supported Ron Paul because of his prescient understanding of the American economy.

His warnings, which seemed farfetched when I first heard them, started happening right before my eyes. Now, I understand that what he has been saying about the war on drugs is equally true.

We are in trouble. It is time to do this right and quit playing politics with such a serious issue. It is time to do the things we need to do and get this done before another generation burns out.

Bill Clinton to Obama: Forget congress, raise the debt ceiling yourself

10 Aug

 

Yesterday Bill Clinton suggested that President Barack Obama ignore congress and just raise the debt ceiling limit himself. He would supposedly invoke the 14th Amendment to the Constitution as his rationale and let the courts decide the issue. Obama demurred.

This is all no accident. Having worked in the White House I can tell you that no former president, let alone one whose wife is the Secretary of State, would sandbag the White House by making such a statement without checking in for instructions. My guess is that Clinton called and told the White House what he was going to say and why and what impact it would have. And the White House mulled it over and decided it would work for them. Either that or the White House asked Clinton for help and this was his answer. “Hey, I appointed your wife Secretary of State. Time to step up.”

What is going on? Several things. First, the statement shows that Clinton is very much in Obama’s camp. This is important because Clinton was the last president to balance the budget. His economic stewardship is looking better and better when compared to the runaway spending of the Obama administration with its $1.2 trillion annual budget deficits. This puts Clinton and all of his prestige on the line with Obama and his European style neo-socialism. Second, it serves as a threat to an already diminished U.S. Congress. “The President might just do this without you.” Third, this illustrates just how dangerously close we are to abandoning the Constituion altogether. More and more this is a nation ruled by the celebrity of the presidency and the national media.

TIME magazine recently devoted a cover story to the debate. By any standards, we are in the midst of a constitutional crisis. How did this happen? How did we wake up one morning to find our system of government changing right underneath our feet?

As a student of history I can say that this should come as no great surprise. This is what happens when there is a severe economic downturn. The last Great Depression saw the rise of communism and fascism in Europe, with Stalin and Hitler and the death of more than 100 million people. In this, perhaps the second worst depression in world history, we in America are experiencing some of the more traumatic political changes. To be sure we don’t have jackbooted soldiers goose stepping down Pennsylvania Avenue but we are seeing the unthinkable, national leaders playing loose with the great American Constitution and freely, even joyously abandoning the free enterprise system. While European governments are turning to the private sector and backing away from the Welfare State, France, for example, reducing its payments for social services across the board, America is moving forward at a rapid pace.

In 2003, President George W. Bush launched a $1 trillion – off the books – war in Iraq. In 2008 he bailed out the banks, which in turn gave their executives $1.3 billion in bonuses with those same tax dollars that very same year. The move ran up record annual deficits of $500 billion. In Europe, when governments nationalized banks they were proudly called “socialist” governments. Francois Mitterrand, was the “Socialist” President of France. Slow to catch on, the American media and public continues to refer to George W Bush as a “conservative” Republican president.

Upon his election and with a full Democratic House and Senate behind him, President Barack Obama rolled out a stimulus package the likes of which the country had never seen. At a price tag of $787 billion, the President promised the plan would create and save between 3- 4 million American jobs. “Shovel ready jobs,” he called them.

At first there was a knee jerk reaction in the media and the nation. Didn’t such massive spending guarantee a revitalizing of the economy? Questions remained about whether it was right on wrong in the long term but all seemed to agree we would get a bump. In July, 2009, Newsweek proclaimed, “The Recession is Over.” But in fact, Newsweek was over. And the recession was still ongoing with unemployment higher than it ever was under Bush. Then came outcries of corruption. A USA Today study showed that counties who supported Democrat Barack Obama for president received twice as much money as counties who supported his Republican opponent. Recently, Obama joked, “I guess shovel ready wasn’t very shovel ready, was it?” Numerous university studies have concluded that zero jobs were created.

Bill Clinton’s comments yesterday seem a bit like a lifesaver being thrown to a drowning man, the downing man being Barack Obama. The last president to actually balance the budget was saying that he would just raise the debt ceiling arbitrarily. After all, we can’t default. Meanwhile on the floor of the House of Representatives, Congressman Ron Paul made the point that we default all the time. When we allow the Federal Reserve to print money we are defaulting by knowingly and deliberately paying Seniors diluted dollars. We are cheating our contract with them, defaulting on the promised payments. The numbers are the same but what they can buy is now much less.

There was the Greenback default of 1862. There was the Liberty Bond default of 1934. The national media would have you believe that this is mostly a congressional problem now. But history is not so easily duped. With Obama in the White House and controlling the US Senate, and with his unprecedented spending and borrowing and creating of new money, he needs a way out as much as the congress or this will be seen for what it truly is; the Obama Default of 2011.

Ron Paul and the Love Revolution of 2012

10 Aug

Huffington  PostRon Paul and the Love Revolution of 2012

Robin Koerner

Publisher, WatchingAmerica.com

It is often said that a convert to a cause is more fervent than those born to it. That is probably true about me and my “conversion” as an immigrant to this great country.

In that spirit of passionate desire for my adoptive land to become everything it was meant to be, may I humbly suggest, America, that Ron Paul is Your Man.

Just a few years ago, I was excited to follow Obama’s success in the hope that he would undo the worst of the un-American shenanigans of the Bush administration, including the abrogation of rights of American citizens, the killing of citizens of lands that don’t threaten us and the wholesale transfer of wealth from those that create it and play by the rules to those that do neither of those two things.

Perhaps I was a little caught up in the excitement, but my intentions were good.

As it has turned out, in most things that matter, Obama is not even Bush-lite: he’s more like Bush-plus. I’m not questioning his moral intent, but simply looking around me at new wars, continuation of laws that remove Americans’ basic rights, mass transfer of wealth from the working man to the large subsidized groups, including financial corporations and unions, that fund the old political game.

The old, tired, self-defeating left-right paradigm of American politics is about two teams that want to shape the world in one way or another, but both sharing the desire to impose their view on others, and both, therefore, with an interest in maintaining those fundamental aspects of the modern political settlement that allow politicians and their favored institutions to operate outside the most basic confines of the Constitution that was supposed to make the USA a Republic that protects life, liberty and property of all individuals.

Indeed, the two-party system, and all the unstated assumptions shared by both sides, does more to undermine practically the principles gifted by the nation’s Founding Fathers than any other single political structure in the USA (except perhaps the Federal Reserve, which acts secretly and without political accountability).

Ron Paul transcends the left-right pseudo-divide.

He is almost unique in that he doesn’t want to make a country of the left or a country of the right. Unlike every other politician, he doesn’t need me to agree with him on anything — except that I should be free to decide on what to agree or disagree with him about.

Ron Paul’s world is quite different from that offered by almost any other American politician. In his world, neither the president nor the Congress gets to impose their preferences on 300 million citizens through the monopoly of force that is government, because Paul knows that the government has no such authority. Paul’s world is a world based fundamentally on the principle of non-aggression, which is simply, “I may disagree with you but I do not get to use force, including the force of law, to impose my will on you as long as you harm no one.” This principle is a philosophical one. It precedes politics — and that is why it allows Paul to transcend the bankrupt left-right paradigm.

It is this true freedom that, paradoxically (given how most of us disagree about most things) promotes true unity, as division arises only when some people feel imposed upon by others. The promise of a more united nation under Obama (remember?) came to nothing, because Obama’s politics, like Bush’s, are as much about promoting a particular kind of world, which inevitably benefits some at the expense of others.

Ron Paul is one man who doesn’t want to do that, because America was not created for that purpose.

Moreover, if one were to score American politicians on a) integrity, b) philosophical understanding of humanity and governance, and c) understanding of economics by looking at their speeches, votes, books and predictions, Paul would be among America’s Very Best.

The huge movement behind Paul is demographically diverse, and has attracted people who used to think that they were on the left, as well as people who used to think they were on the right — before they found out that what really matters, and what America was designed to preserve, is bigger than both left and right.

But here is the most unlikely, telling, astonishing, and ignored fact about Ron Paul: Paul’s campaign logo (one of a few created spontaneously by his supporters for his 2008 run) has the word LOVE in it.

It actually has the word LOVE, picked out in big red letters from the word “Revolution.” “Love Revolution,” no less.

Politics based on Love?! Can you imagine any Western politician putting that in a speech and not having his or her audience shift in their seats uncomfortably at the strangeness of what they were hearing?

And yet, there it is, “LOVE,” right in the middle of his logo in big red letters.

Love is expansive, accepting, free. It is also kind. (When did you last hear that word in politics?) Love says to its object, “As you wish,” and a Paul presidency would say to its citizens just that: “It’s not government’s job to decide for you. Your life should be as you wish.”

Now, that is true “free love,” 2012 style.

As I ache to see America become the nation that was always meant to be, since 2012 will be the last American presidential election that I will not be permitted to vote in, I can only hope that my adoptive countrymen will take their astonishing opportunity to choose not just a political revolutionary, but also a philosophical one.

In electing Paul, Americans have the chance to say to each other, live and let love — a politics of non-aggression in its profoundest sense.