Press "Enter" to skip to content

Wayne Root: FOX News + Radio Host on Both Coasts

Wayne Allyn Root next week: appearing on major national media, including “FOX & Friends,” the #1 rated morning show on cable TV.

Root’s media schedule in the past 2 weeks has been busy. Media appearances – 35, as well as guest hosting ‘The Alan Stock Show’ on CBS Las Vegas and ‘The Peter Schiff Show’.

Wayne’s Recent Media Appearances:

Big Biz Show  Nationally syndicated
The Bill Cunningham Show Premiere Radio Nationally syndicated
Captain’s America Show – Nationally syndicated
WXLM AM The Lee Elci Show – Connecticut
WOCA AM Larry Whitler Show – Florida
Guest Host CBS Radio KXNT Las Vegas
Guest Host The Peter Schiff Show – Syndicated
Radio Free Washington
The Matt Bruce Show WSRQ & WVLJ AM Florida
The Kevin Miller Show KIDO AM Idaho
Kim Wade Show WYAB AM Mississippi
Talkback with Troy D WHON AM Indiana
Top Story with Bob Sullivan KOGO AM California
The Lars Larson Show Nationally Syndicated
FOX & Friends FOX News Channel  National TV
The S.E. Cupp Show Glenn Beck’s Insider Webcast

About Post Author

Bruce Cohen

Real Estate, Bicycles, Espresso, Coffee, Chocolate, Jewelry, Tomatoes, Politics, Israel


  1. Thinking outside the (mushroom in the basement) box guys. I like it!

    Now if I can get you to focus on why almost every Sec. of State and/or Sec. of Defense since before WW2 have been a member of the Council on Foreign Relations and/or Trilateral Commission and it is never mentioned by the media. Also why ALL Bill Clinton’s SCOTUS appointees were CFR members?

    Again let’s ask Mr. Quigley and others about the CFR and Trilateral Commission.

    “The Council on Foreign Relations is the American branch of a society which originated in England … [and] … believes national boundaries should be obliterated and one-world rule established.” – Carroll Quigley (Bill Clinton said Quigley was his mentor during 1993 Inaugural Address), speaking of their political goal since the early twentieth century.

    me- NEVER forget these people are associated with and have funded communists throughout history. Communist KILL their opposition. They don’t let them debate “little” details of liberty on PCs in their spare time. The oligarchy wants to reduce global population. That means people must DIE ! Those people include libertarians and constitutionalists.
    “For a long time I felt that FDR had developed many thoughts and ideas that were his own to benefit this country, the United States. But, he didn’t. Most of his thoughts, his political ammunition, as it were, were carefully manufactured for him in advance by the Council on Foreign Relations – One World Money group. Brilliantly, with great gusto, like a fine piece of artillery, he exploded that prepared “ammunition” in the middle of an unsuspecting target, the American people, and thus paid off and returned his internationalist political support.” – Curtis Dall, FDR’s son-in-law as quoted in his book, My Exploited Father-in-Law
    “The planning of the UN can be traced to the ‘secret steering committee’ established by Secretary [of State Cordell] Hull in January 1943. All of the members of this secret committee, with the exception of Hull, a Tennessee politician, were members of the Council on Foreign Relations. They saw Hull regularly to plan, select, and guide the labors of the [State] Department’s Advisory Committee. It was, in effect, the coordinating agency for all the State Department’s postwar planning.” – Professors Laurence H. Shoup and William Minter, writing in their study of the CFR, “Imperial Brain Trust: The CFR and United States Foreign Policy.”
    “A careful examination of what is happening behind the scenes reveals that all of these interests are working in concert with the masters of the Kremlin in order to create what some refer to as a “New World Order.” Private organizations such as the Council on Foreign Relations, the Royal Institute of International Affairs, the Trilateral Commission, the Dartmouth Conference, the Aspen Institute for Humanistic Studies, the Atlantic Institute, and the Bilderberg Group serve to disseminate and to coordinate the plans for this so-called new world order in powerful business, financial, academic, and official circles.” – Senator Jesse Helms
    “The Council on Foreign Relations is “the establishment.” Not only does it have influence and power in key decision-making positions at the highest levels of government to apply pressure from above, but it also announces and uses individuals and groups to bring pressure from below, to justify the high level decisions for converting the U.S. from a sovereign Constitutional Republic into a servile member state of a one-world dictatorship.” – Congressman John Rarick 1971
    “The main purpose of the Council on Foreign Relations is promoting the disarmament of U.S. sovereignty and national independence and submergence into an all powerful, one world government.” – Admiral Chester Ward – Judge Advocate General of the U.S. Navy
    “The most powerful clique in these (CFR) groups have one objective in common: they want to bring about the surrender of the sovereignty and the national independence of the U.S. They want to end national boundaries and racial and ethnic loyalties supposedly to increase business and ensure world peace. What they strive for would inevitably lead to dictatorship and loss of freedoms by the people. The CFR was founded for the purpose of promoting disarmament and submergence of U.S. sovereignty and national independence into an all-powerful one-world government.” – Harpers, July l958
    “I am delighted to be here in these new [Council on Foreign Relations] headquarters. I have been often to, I guess, the mother ship in New York City, but it’s good to have an outpost of the Council right here down the street from the State Department. We get a lot of advice from the Council, so this will mean I won’t have as far to go to be told what we should be doing and how we should think about the future.” – Hillary Clinton, Secretary of State, 7/15/2009
    “The ‘house of world order’ will have to be built from the bottom up rather than from the top down. An end run around national sovereignty, eroding it piece by piece, will accomplish much more than the old-fashioned frontal assault.” – Richard Gardner – article in Foreign Affairs, the publication of the Council on Foreign Relations
    “A system of world order–preferably a system of world government –is mandatory… The proud nations someday will see the light and, for the common good and their own survival, yield up their precious sovereignty…” – Walter Cronkite
    “Further global progress is now possible only through a quest for universal consensus in the movement towards a new world order.” – Mikhail Gorbachev
    “The New World Order is a world that has a supernational authority to regulate world commerce and industry; an international organization that would control the production and consumption of oil; an international currency that would replace the dollar; a World Development Fund that would make funds available to free and Communist nations alike; and an international police force to enforce the edicts of the New World Order.” – Willy Brandt, former West German Chancellor
    “The Trilateral Commission is intended to be the vehicle for multinational consolidation of the commercial and banking interests by seizing control of the political government of the United States. The Trilateral Commission represents a skillful, coordinated effort to seize control and consolidate the four centers of power; political, monetary, intellectual and ecclesiastical. What the Trilateral Commission intends is to create a worldwide economic power superior to the political governments of the nation states involved. As managers and creators of the system, they will rule the future.” – Barry Goldwater
    “…This regionalization (sic? if even a word) is in keeping with the Trilateral Plan which calls for a gradual convergence of East and West, ultimately leading toward the goal of “one world government’….National sovereignty is no longer a viable concept…” – Zbigniew Brzezinski, National Security Advisor to President Jimmy Carter and Barack Obama’s chief foreign policy advisor
    “The technetronic (sic? if even a word) era involves the gradual appearance of a more controlled society. Such a society would be dominated by an elite, unrestrained by traditional values. Soon it will be possible to assert almost continuous surveillance over every citizen and maintain up-to-date complete files containing even the most personal information about the citizen. These files will be subject to instantaneous retrieval by the authorities.” – Zbigniew Brzezinski
    The final minute roughly of this vid is scary stuff!
    Zbigniew Brzezinski on your(?) future:
    However I seek another path…

    As Libertarians, we seek a world of liberty; a world in which all individuals are sovereign over their own lives and no one is forced to sacrifice his or her values for the benefit of others.

    We believe that respect for individual rights is the essential precondition for a free and prosperous world, that force and fraud must be banished from human relationships, and that only through freedom can peace and prosperity be realized.

    Consequently, we defend each person’s right to engage in any activity that is peaceful and honest, and welcome the diversity that freedom brings. The world we seek to build is one where individuals are free to follow their own dreams in their own ways, without interference from government or any authoritarian power.


    These specific policies are not our goal, however. Our goal is nothing more nor less than a world set free in our lifetime, and it is to this end that we take these stands.

    Statement of Principles

    We, the members of the Libertarian Party, challenge the cult of the omnipotent state and defend the rights of the individual.

    We hold that all individuals have the right to exercise sole dominion over their own lives, and have the right to live in whatever manner they choose, so long as they do not forcibly interfere with the equal right of others to live in whatever manner they choose.

    Governments throughout history have regularly operated on the opposite principle, that the State has the right to dispose of the lives of individuals and the fruits of their labor. Even within the United States, all political parties other than our own grant to government the right to regulate the lives of individuals and seize the fruits of their labor without their consent.

    We, on the contrary, deny the right of any government to do these things, and hold that where governments exist, they must not violate the rights of any individual: namely, (1) the right to life — accordingly we support the prohibition of the initiation of physical force against others; (2) the right to liberty of speech and action — accordingly we oppose all attempts by government to abridge the freedom of speech and press, as well as government censorship in any form; and (3) the right to property — accordingly we oppose all government interference with private property, such as confiscation, nationalization, and eminent domain, and support the prohibition of robbery, trespass, fraud, and misrepresentation.

    Since governments, when instituted, must not violate individual rights, we oppose all interference by government in the areas of voluntary and contractual relations among individuals. People should not be forced to sacrifice their lives and property for the benefit of others. They should be left free by government to deal with one another as free traders; and the resultant economic system, the only one compatible with the protection of individual rights, is the free market.


  2. whatever whatever April 4, 2011

    @22 — It’s not that novel. About a year ago a Harlem preacher held a conference on the subject; and Mr. Root was excoriated by the booboisie here at IPR and elsewhere for his initial acceptance of an invitation to participate.

  3. whatever whatever April 4, 2011

    @19, — And don’t forget that in 1979-80 the NSC’s Zbig Brzezinski was setting up the mujhadeen/Qaeda in Af-Pak. Then in 1981-83 he had a professor slot in the Columbia PoliSci department as he was handing over formal control of the operation to his friend Bob Gates.

  4. Daniel Wiener Daniel Wiener April 4, 2011

    Thank you, Tom, for a very novel and fascinating hypothesis, which I agree is significantly more likely than the other conspiracy theories floating around the Internet.

  5. Thomas L. Knapp Thomas L. Knapp April 4, 2011

    Bob @20,

    I could elaborate the hypothesis all day long (for instance, the lives of both his mother and his stepfather include interludes that may not scream “working for the Company,” but at least whisper the suggestion), but I see no purpose in it.

    If he worked for CIA, I’d expect him to have developed personal connections that served him well later, and not necessarily in any kind of corrupt or agenda-driven way. By way of analogy, when I’ve interviewed for jobs and the interviewer was also a former Marine, I seemed to get a friendlier interview (and the job).

    I hate to bring race into this, and I’m certainly not asserting that being black in America is necessarily an advantage in general — but in certain contexts, being a smart, educated, charismatic black person is probably an edge.

    For example, the Democratic Party is looking for a candidate for State Senate in a district with a significant black population, and hey, here’s a Harvard grad who’s teaching Constitutional Law at the University of Chicago.

    Or for a convention keynote speaker who isn’t yet another stodgy old white guy with obvious presidential aspirations of his own, but who needs to have at least some credentials.

    Obama seems to be the kind of guy who looks for opportunities and then wrings every last bit of juice out of them, advancing as far as he can and as fast as he can. And those opportunities lined up such that he advanced to one of the most powerful positions in the world. Not because he may have worked for CIA and got things rigged by them, but because he’s the kind of guy who, if approached by CIA when he was 18 or 20 years old, would have said to himself “here’s a way I can go somewhere and do something.”

  6. Robert Capozzi Robert Capozzi April 4, 2011

    tk, yes, I was overstating for effect. BHO does have a spotty history and it’s entirely possible that — can I say this? — he may have played some sorta “spook” in those years. (Spook meaning working for The Company.)

    He did have a rather meteoric rise, though. How DID a state senator get to keynote at the 04 D convention, and when — if ever — has THAT happened before? Could be that someone saw a quality. Could be levers were pulled. I have no freakin’ idea.

    I’m still waiting on a technological step function — perhaps in nanotech — that averts your worst case. Praying, actually. 🙁

  7. Thomas L. Knapp Thomas L. Knapp April 4, 2011

    Bob @ 18,

    The idea that Obama is a “Manchurian Candidate” of any kind is not part of my hypothesis.

    I don’t believe that the Communist Party of Kenya groomed him for the Oval Office to advance the dictatorship of the proletariat, nor do I believe the CIA groomed him for the Oval Office to advance Langley’s line on international relations, or anything of that nature.

    I just believe he may have worked in some capacity in the intelligence community during his student years — and I only “believe” that in the sense of finding it more plausible vis a vis Ockham’s Razor, i.e. requiring fewer and more plausible assumptions, than “he is the scion of a secret Kenyan conspiracy to dominate America for Marxist Islamism.”

    As far as what we’re watching is concerned, the Decline and Fall of the United States of America at the very least. Into what (we seem to be somewhere around the banana republic/caudillismo stage of devolution at the moment) and its global effect, are certainly open questions.

  8. Robert Capozzi Robert Capozzi April 4, 2011

    tk, Manchurean Candidates of many flavors are certainly possible.

    Making fools of Rs is pretty friggin’ easy. Not only do they play footsie with birthers and troofers, they get asked whether they believe in evolution, and they often answer “no”…publicly. Now, I’m about as open-minded as they come, but if the GOP is THAT beholden to fringy players, that SHOULD present a massive opportunity for — I dunno – something different.

    Would a creationist really not vote in a primary for an evolutionist?

    Maybe you’re right…maybe we ARE watching the whole ball of yard unravelling before our eyes.

    Are we not men? We are DEVO! 😉

  9. Michael H. Wilson Michael H. Wilson April 4, 2011

    Tom are you working on a screenplay? If not give it a try.

  10. Thomas L. Knapp Thomas L. Knapp April 4, 2011


    I’m not saying that Obama was CIA. I’m saying that that’s a hypothesis of mine, based on the timeframe, locales, etc.

    Personally, I think it makes more sense than the thus far evidenceless claims that Stanley Ann Dunham snuck off to Kenya to give birth and actively covered up doing so, right down to faking local newspaper birth notices that are attributed to Hawaii’s Department of Vital Statistics.

    The intelligence community is well known for keeping secrets on the even off-chance that revealing those secrets will harm its operations.

    To elaborate on the hypothesis:

    Suppose Obama was recruited at Occidental College (which was allegedly a noted CIA recruiting ground in the timeframe in question)

    Suppose that the CIA sent Obama to Pakistan to — once again, not beyond the pale for the timeframe in question — interface with mujahadin who were not especially US-friendly, but whom the US wanted to route some Stinger missiles or whatever to anyway for the fight in Afghanistan, perhaps through a fake “weapons-stealing ring” of US Muslims.

    Suppose that in order to give Obama better cover for that job, they had him travel on an Indonesian passport and faked up “foreign student” stuff on his Occidental paperwork.

    Suppose that there may still be people — maybe working in the ISI or some other sensitive positions in Pakistan — who to this very day think that “Barry Soetoro” is a “secret Muslim” who supports his cause even from within the Oval Office.

    If there’s even the slightest chance that Obama saying “yeah, I was a spook” would hang any of its sources out to dry or queer any of its operations or outcomes, the natural reaction of both the CIA and Obama would be “don’t talk about that if you don’t have to.”

    It might even be the kind of thing he’d forego re-election rather than do.

    Far out? Yes. As far out as some of the “birther” stuff? Not even close.

    And then there’s also DC@14’s point: “Delegitimizing the oppsition.”

    The people who believe that Obama is a secret Muslim who was born in Kenya are not going to believe any different, no matter how many documents are produced, not even if Jesus Christ himself descends from heaven on a white horse, blows a trumpet, and says “He was born in Hawaii — really!”

    Obama has no chance of getting their votes, but to the extent that he keeps his mouth shut, lets them make public asses out of themselves, and hopes Republican presidential aspirants are stupid enough to court them, the center probably moves away from those Republican presidential aspirants and toward Obama.

  11. Robert Capozzi Robert Capozzi April 4, 2011

    14 dc, could be. Until Trump reinvigorated the birther narrative, I shared your exact concerns.

    He may just be another wingnut on this issue, making it harder to challenge BHO on substance. I am NOT a Trump fan in any way, but he has been an excellent marketer and self-promoter over the years.

    I’m simply paying attention to the birther issue again, wondering how it might play out. It may go badly, and lead to blowback of the McCarthy variety. It may go well, in a Woodward & Bernstein variety.

    My interest in the issue is like watching a boxing match in which I’m rooting for no one.

  12. David Colborne David Colborne April 4, 2011

    dc, yes, I am NOT a birther. I didn’t think Clinton should be impeached, either. But if children are going to play games, I like it when their games knock statists and statism down a peg or two.

    Except it doesn’t knock statists and statism down a peg or two. Instead, it feeds into the idea that all legitimate opposition to either side is automatically the product of wingnut escapism, like “Birther” or “Truther” conspiracy theories. Oh, you’re anti-war? Well, then you’re probably a “Code Pink” zealot or a Truther. Oh, you don’t like Obama’s economic policy? I bet you don’t even think he was born here.

    It’s all about delegitimizing the opposition. Nothing more.

  13. Robert Capozzi Robert Capozzi April 4, 2011

    tk, if yer saying Obama was CIA, could be. Seems possible.

    dc, yes, I am NOT a birther. I didn’t think Clinton should be impeached, either. But if children are going to play games, I like it when their games knock statists and statism down a peg or two.

  14. David Colborne David Colborne April 4, 2011

    @Robert: Sure, but that’s a big “if”, especially given the release of the birth certificate (albeit not the “long form”) and the contemporary announcement in the local paper. At this point, the “proof” boils down to “establishing reasonable doubt”. That’s fine and dandy and all, but the burden of proof is on the appellant, not the defendant, and the Birthers are playing the role of the appellant on this issue. Right now, Birthers have about as much “proof” as proponents of Intelligent Design or Keynesian economics.

  15. Thomas L. Knapp Thomas L. Knapp April 4, 2011


    If credible evidence emerges that Obama was not born in the US, he’s almost certainly toast in 2012. If it emerges before Super Tuesday next year, I expect that he’ll drop out of the race.

    But, the “birthers” have been vomiting up allegations for lo on four years now, and have yet to publicly present any credible evidence at all for those allegations. At some point, you have to assume that all smoke and not so much as a burnt twig by way of evidence for fire means there’s a fog machine at work.

    I personally have a hypothesis that’s about as far out as the “birther” stuff — but I don’t claim that hypothesis as fact or even as substantially supported theory.

    My hypothesis is that Obama wants certain people to continue to believe that he’s not a “real American” — for exactly the same reason that Valerie Plame wanted certain people to believe that she was an energy analyst for Brewster Jennings & Associates.

    My reason for that hypothesis is simple: If I see a guy of multi-national heritage (Kenyan father) and international connections (childhood in Indonesia), who attended Occidental College and traveled abroad on allegedly questionable papers before proceeding to an Ivy League academic career with his past fogged up a bit, I assume he’s also spent time in Langley, Virginia.

  16. Robert Capozzi Robert Capozzi April 4, 2011

    tk and dc, if “natural born” means born in the US (and possibly its protectorates), it could be argued that that is a smoking gun if BHO was not born in the US. As far as the public knew in 08, they only were presented with some unproven accusations at the time. EVEN IF they disregarded the Constitution’s rules (which they did not), proof that BHO was not US born and that is the standard for office, then a case can be made that he was and is ineligible for the office. That’s all.

    Lewinsky did come somewhat late in the Clinton presidency, but I’ll take what I can get. IF credible proof is found that says he’s not US born, I think that dings BHO quite a bit. Likely he limps through a lot of legal wrangling to the end of 2012. Maybe he can’t stand for re-election, though. Or maybe he gets severely damaged for re-election.

    I like seeing the comfortable getting afflicted, especially when their policies are pronouncedly damaging to the citizenry. BHO’s policies qualify in my book.

    Could we get someone even WORSE than Obama? Yes. McCain would have been worse, I believe. Palin would be worse. Biden probably would be worse. Hillary, too.

    Life is a series of not-great choices, politics especially so. Hopefully we muddle through until more people wake up and start supporting liberty-minded pols.

  17. David Colborne David Colborne April 4, 2011

    @Robert: Even if it’s true and the Supreme Court ruled accordingly, it doesn’t change the fact that 53% of America voted against the GOP ticket. Consequently, I still don’t think the 2008 Election would magically become undone; at worst, I think we’d still end up with President Biden or something similar.

    As for Lewinsky, I don’t think it really did much to Clinton that his and Hillary’s ill-advised health care reform push didn’t already do. Most of the people that were “outraged” over it were people that were going to be outraged over anything Clinton did because he had a D next to his name on the TV.

  18. Thomas L. Knapp Thomas L. Knapp April 4, 2011

    Thus far, I’ve yet to come across anyone claiming that Barack Hussein Obama II is not the son of Stanley Ann Dunham, herself an American citizen from birth.

    While arguments can certainly be made to the contrary, a fair case can be made that the original intent of the “natural-born citizen” clause in the Constitution is met by that single fact, regardless of what precise longitude/latitude Ms. Dunham happened to be at when he emerged from her womb.

    And, while the case that Obama was, in fact, born Kapi’olani Maternity & Gynecological Hospital in Honolulu, Hawaii may not be airtight, it’s reasonably good, whereas so much as a crumb of credible evidence that he was born anywhere else has yet to be presented.

    Finally, the subject of his citizenship status was brought up in the 2008 presidential campaign, and a minimum of 52.9% of voting Americans and 365 of 538 presidential electors, having duly considered that issue, affirmed that they judged him eligible (that’s the minimum, not the maximum — some who judged him constitutionally eligible may nonetheless have supported other candidates for other reasons).

    I guess that if the “birthers” ever come up with anything besides their fantasies to support their claims, it might still be pursued as a legal matter, and pretty much anything can be pursued as a political matter. But the latter approach, in the absence of the former development, seems pretty fucking stupid.

  19. Robert Capozzi Robert Capozzi April 4, 2011

    also, “impeachment” is a process used to remove a prez for misconduct IN OFFICE. It’s an interesting constitutional question to me whether BHO is NOT eligible to be prez whether that’s an impeachable offense, per se. It might be something the Supreme’s would have to handle. Could they, for ex., rule that an ineligible person being elected is null and void.

    I’m not a lawyer or a constitutional scholar, but we could imagine that Obama’s only “misconduct” was if he KNOWS he’s not eligible, furthering a fraud. He may not know, or he could argue he doesn’t, since he was not conscious at his birth.

    Kind of an interesting conundrum, on its face…

    I would say that the Lewinsky affair was good for America, since it largely neutered Clinton. I’m not a birther, but maybe birthers are actually doing us all a service of sorts….

  20. Robert Capozzi Robert Capozzi April 4, 2011

    dc, agreed, even if BHO is somehow not eligible to be prez, is it worth the energy to pursue his ouster? Unlikely.

    OTOH, the attempt to dethrone Nixon paid some dividends for a while. It did demystify the presidency a bit, taking it down a peg.

    I do find it somewhat interesting that Trump is playing the birther card. Trump is a marketer, and he seems to think it’s a marketable point. I’ll pay some attention to that, at least from an optics perspective.

  21. David Colborne David Colborne April 4, 2011

    All right, all right – let’s feed the trolls.

    Assume (pretend) for a second that Obama, in fact, was not born in this country (or possibly even on this planet) and thus is actually ineligible to serve as President of the United States. What happens?

    Well, he’s already been sworn in, so, per the Constitution (Article 2, Section 4), there are only two ways to remove a sitting President:

    1. Resignation
    2. Impeachment

    Now, an impeachment requires 2/3 of the Senate to vote in favor of it; since the GOP doesn’t even have a majority there, there would have to be some truly damning evidence against Obama to convince the vast majority of Democratic-affiliated senators to proceed with one. Not surprisingly, I don’t think Obama would resign anytime soon, so impeachment would be the only path available that could potentially lead him out of office.

    However, since we’re living in Imaginationland, let’s pretend that Orly Taitz found out something so heinous, so shocking that well over 2/3 of all senators immediately felt compelled to impeach Obama post-haste. Now what? Well, according to the Constitution (Amendment 25), the Vice-President (Joe Biden!) becomes President. Fun!

    Ah… but what if Biden was in on this? What if he’s also impeached too? Well, in the event that both the President and the Vice-President are vacated, the Presidential Succession Act of 1947 comes into play, which states that the Speaker of the House becomes President. Currently, this would be Jim Boehner, who would immediately become our first Orange-American President. Alternatively, if Obama was impeached a year or two ago, we would’ve been graced with President Nancy Pelosi.

    Now, would somebody be kind enough to explain to me how any of these chuckleheads would be an improvement over our current leadership? Would Boehner decrease our involvement in foreign wars? Would Biden reduce our reliance on bailouts? That’s what I thought.

  22. AroundtheblockAFT AroundtheblockAFT April 4, 2011

    Instead of imbedding reporters in Wasilla, maybe someone would care to win a Pulitzer by checking into Barry at Columbia?

  23. whatever whatever April 4, 2011

    More good news for Mr. Root: A newly-released document backs his assertion that there is something very strange about Barry Obama’s (purported) time at Columbia.

    Records from the Student Clearing House show even more shocking evidence. In his memoirs and multiple speeches Obama wrote that he studied for two years at Columbia University September 1981-May 1983. He admitted that in summer of 1981 he traveled to Pakistan to visit his friends, but repeatedly claimed that from September 1981 until May of 1983 he resided in New York and studied at Columbia University. Taitz ran a check of his years of attendance at Columbia University and found out that Columbia official records show him attending Columbia university only for nine months September 1982-till May 1983 (Exhibit 3), which means that the President of the United States lied to the whole nation about his whereabouts for a whole year September 1981 until September 1982.

  24. Not only the “KING” of Vegas now he’s
    the Hardest working man in “SHOW” bizzzzness !

    James Brown died. So that moniker is open and available!

    I would be impressed if he was ALSO proclaiming this at each station –

    End All Foreign Aid Including Israel:


    The EXTREME Ballot Access Rules:


    End the American Empire, Bring Our Troops Home!


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

19 − fifteen =