Press "Enter" to skip to content

Wayne Root: The Obama Enemies List- Are You Next?

Opinion column posted at LP.org blog:

By Wayne Allyn Root, Former Libertarian Vice Presidential Nominee

Be careful. Be very careful. Obama sees the world as “us versus them.” And he seems to always be trying to punish “them.” If you didn’t vote for Obama, look out — it’s clear that he’s going to try to even the score. He is relentless in trying to punish the groups that he sees as “enemies.” He let that one slip a year ago, when he said in an interview on Hispanic television that anyone who wants to stop illegal immigration is an “enemy.”

Perhaps Obama needs a refresher course on the tragedy of this kind of thinking. As a Jew who lost many relatives in the Holocaust, I remember well the old Holocaust warning: First they came for the Jews and no one said anything…then they came for the mentally disabled and no one said anything…then the gays…then the priests…and eventually when they came for me, there was no one left to say anything.

While Obama has no interest in hurting anyone physically, he certainly is trying to divide us and hurt the finances of people who don’t support him or his policies. In every speech and proposal he seems to divide the country among his voters and…“them.” Are you watching? Are you worried? Are you on the “Obama enemies list?” Word to the wise — start paying attention.

Just days ago Obama spoke to an African American audience and divided the country by race. He exhorted black Americans to “put on their marching shoes” and follow him into battle. Battle? Enemies? What if a Tea Party leader (like me) asked white voters to vote a certain way based on race? Would the media let it slide, or would the Tea Partier be called a racist? What if a Tea Party leader described an election as a “battle?” Would he be accused of inciting a civil war? What if this kind of rhetoric by Obama incites a supporter to hurt or kill someone? Will the media hold Obama accountable?

What if a conservative political leader said the same thing as union leader Jimmy Hoffa, Jr. — “Let’s take these sons of bit__es out!” Would the media ignore or downplay this kind of statement coming from the right? What exactly did Hoffa mean by “take them out?” Did he mean kill them? Hunt them down and hang them? Or perhaps break their legs, as union goons have a history of doing? Why didn’t Obama publicly criticize Hoffa, or question his intent? Instead Obama was not only silent, he was soon busy dividing the nation by race, and using war analogies.

But let’s put aside Obama’s words for the moment. What about Obama’s actions? Are his proposals and policies intended to purposely punish his opponents…aka “enemies?” It sure seems that way. Is it pure coincidence that Obama never proposes a tax increase or spending cut that would affect his voters — the poor, union members, government employees, blacks, or Hispanics. Those groups are untouchable to Obama. In Obama’s America do we now have untouchables like India? In Obama’s world can we ever cut spending on union members, government employees, or minorities? Are Obama’s voters “off limits?”

Obama’s proposals always just happen to be aimed squarely at his political enemies — small business owners (massive taxes aimed at job creators), high income earners (Obama wants to take the income cap off FICA taxes), homeowners (eliminate or drastically reduce mortgage deductions), churchgoers (eliminate or drastically reduce charitable deductions), stock investors (new Obamacare taxes on stock sales), Tea Party members, and now the latest Obama enemies — veterans.

Have you heard about the new proposals aimed at veterans that Obama snuck into his new deficit reduction plans? Obama quietly snuck in provisions to increase the retirement age and dramatically reduce pensions, benefits and health care expenditures for veterans. While some of those proposals should be in the national discussion, I’d ask why now? Why that group? Why not propose the same kind of reform and cuts for government employees? For seniors? For green energy?

The answer is simple. Obama loves to say “it’s just math.” What he really means is that it’s cynical political and electoral math. Obama’s pollsters certainly know that veterans are bitter opponents of Obama.

Ever talk to a military man? I’ve never spoken in-depth to one military vet who had anything nice to say about Obama. Not one. Do you suppose Obama knows that? He most certainly knows he can afford to anger that group, without affecting his re-election in the slightest. Obama knows he has nothing to lose with vets — they already seethe with anger towards him. This is how Obama treats his “enemies.” As Obama’s mentor Saul Alinsky would say–the ends justify the means. The not-so-subtle message to Obama opponents: Dare oppose Obama and risk your comfortable retirement.

But vets should be honored to join a long Obama enemies list – the wealthy, small business owners, homeowners, suburbanites, gun owners, church-goers, stock investors, and Tea Partiers. Those groups are very much against Obama. Result? Every Obama tax increase or “cut” just happens to be aimed at that “enemies list.” Obama makes it crystal clear who he is marching into battle against.

Obama has divided America into enemies and friends. Black and white. Rich and poor. Unions versus private sector. Business owners, stockholders, and homeowners versus those who can’t afford to own. Veterans and patriots versus America apologizers. Sad. Disgusting. Disturbing.

Which list are you on? It’s time to pay attention. Perhaps it’s time to start speaking out, before everyone is afraid to speak out. Who is Obama coming for next?


Wayne Allyn Root is a former Libertarian vice presidential nominee. He now serves as Chairman of the Libertarian National Congressional Committee. He is the best-selling author of “The Conscience of a Libertarian: Empowering the Citizen Revolution with God, Guns, Gold & Tax Cuts.” His web site: www.ROOTforAmerica.com

About Post Author

91 Comments

  1. paulie paulie October 3, 2011

    profit is a powerful incentive structure.

    If you give money to a bum and he uses it to say, buy a knife and mug someone, few could say you are liable in any way.

    Now, if you make money every time that bum mugs people…that may be a different story.

  2. and, to quote one of worst President ever, Billy Blow Job, 1993 -2001, ‘ you know that perjury is not vigorously persued in civil cases’ ………..

    I believe he was caught on video tape with Marsha Lowenski …………

  3. paulie paulie October 2, 2011

    I know, but I was responding to your comment when you said it rarely happens. I didn’t know you think corporate managers often commit crimes, or what a libertarian would consider crimes, against people. I don’t know why you’d think that.

    White collar crime is prosecuted fairly less frequently and less severely than (for lack of a better term) blue collar crime.

    However, as previously stated, actual instances of crime are the tip of the iceberg here; socializing costs and risks while privatizing profit is a much more widespread issue than direct, willful violation of laws on the books.

    No. Why does recompense for damage that you unwittingly funded hinge on whether you make or could have made a profit or not?

    Profit is a powerful incentive structure.

  4. paulie paulie October 2, 2011

    No, that’s not what he’s saying. What he’s saying is that the state should not automatically put a fence around anything to protect it regardless of what is or can be proven.

    Corporate limited liability is like the court telling the prosecutor “even if you can prove that Colonel Mustard did it in the library with the lead pipe, the only assets which can be attached for restitution are whatever he happened to have with him in the library at the time.”

    Exactly.

  5. Thomas L. Knapp Thomas L. Knapp October 2, 2011

    JT @85,

    “You’re saying that someone who’s alleging damage shouldn’t have to prove that the damage is real and who’s responsible for it? That corporate managers should have to prove the negatives whenever an allegation is made?”

    No, that’s not what he’s saying. What he’s saying is that the state should not automatically put a fence around anything to protect it regardless of what is or can be proven.

    Corporate limited liability is like the court telling the prosecutor “even if you can prove that Colonel Mustard did it in the library with the lead pipe, the only assets which can be attached for restitution are whatever he happened to have with him in the library at the time.”

  6. JT JT October 2, 2011

    Paulie: “I disagree, but either way socializing risks and costs while privatizing profits goes far beyond crimes per se.”

    I know, but I was responding to your comment when you said it rarely happens. I didn’t know you think corporate managers often commit crimes, or what a libertarian would consider crimes, against people. I don’t know why you’d think that.

    Paulie: “The real question is who has the burden of proof when risks and costs are socialized by a profit-making enterprise.”

    I don’t understand. You’re saying that someone who’s alleging damage shouldn’t have to prove that the damage is real and who’s responsible for it? That corporate managers should have to prove the negatives whenever an allegation is made?

    Paulie: “Am I a profit-making shareholder of LNC inc. if I ever give them a donation?”

    No. Why does recompense for damage that you unwittingly funded hinge on whether you make or could have made a profit or not?

  7. paulie paulie October 2, 2011

    Rarely, and corporate businessmen and businesswomen rarely commit crimes;

    I disagree, but either way socializing risks and costs while privatizing profits goes far beyond crimes per se.

    Are there many cases when people prove they’ve been physically harmed by corporate actions (not their own carelessness) and that harm can’t be covered by the corporation’s and decision-makers’ assets? That’s a real question.

    The real question is who has the burden of proof when risks and costs are socialized by a profit-making enterprise.

    If you give money to the Libertarian National Committee Inc. and its national office employees use it in a way that causes physical harm to other people, are you personally liable for that harm so that you should have to pay with your own stuff, perhaps to the point of bankruptcy? Not in my opinion.

    Am I a profit-making shareholder of LNC inc. if I ever give them a donation?

  8. JT JT October 2, 2011

    Paulie: “Rarely, and this generally does not provide sufficient disincentive for corporations that socialize risks and costs while privatizing profits.”

    Rarely, and corporate businessmen and businesswomen rarely commit crimes; contrary to the suspicions of some people who caricature them as predatory fatcats, it’s really very poor business practice to do that and they know it. And sometimes the crimes they do commit aren’t what Libertarians would consider real crimes anyway.

    Paulie: “The trouble with limited liability is that it strips those harmed or put at risk by corporate actions of sufficient recourse, even though they never agreed to be a party to those risks or costs and don’t stand to share in the profits generated by those actions.”

    Are there many cases when people prove they’ve been physically harmed by corporate actions (not their own carelessness) and that harm can’t be covered by the corporation’s and decision-makers’ assets? That’s a real question.

    If you give money to the Libertarian National Committee Inc. and its national office employees use it in a way that causes physical harm to other people, are you personally liable for that harm so that you should have to pay with your own stuff, perhaps to the point of bankruptcy? Not in my opinion.

  9. paulie paulie October 2, 2011

    I approve of large corporations, just like virtually all pro-market economists do. Because of their structure and access to capital from a great number of investors, they can mass produce and distribute goods throughout the population beyond that of any other kind of enterprise.

    Proponents of this viewpoint call this “economies of scale.” Opponents point out that diseconomies of scale would more frequently outweigh economies of scale without interference of the state in the form of corporate charters, corporate personhood and non-consensual limited liability. While I tend to side with these opponents, I’d be willing to let a true market demonstrate who is correct, absent these forms of state intervention in the market and others I mentioned @72. I am not calling for any government-imposed limit on the size of firms, nor on how many investors can put their money into any venture – provided they are willing to assume the risks (including through insurance coverage).

    Corporate managers obviously can and do go to prison for committing crimes

    Rarely, and this generally does not provide sufficient disincentive for corporations that socialize risks and costs while privatizing profits.

    . Limited liability protects people who buy shares (including a large percentage of middle-class workers) so that they can’t be held personally responsible beyond their investment for bad decisions made by corporate managers.

    I would prefer to see this covered through insurance instead. Insurance companies would exercise oversight over activities of companies and I believe this would provide better safeguard for workers, consumers, and others harmed or put at risk by corporate actions. The trouble with limited liability is that it strips those harmed or put at risk by corporate actions of sufficient recourse, even though they never agreed to be a party to those risks or costs and don’t stand to share in the profits generated by those actions.

  10. LibertarianGirl LibertarianGirl October 2, 2011

    you nailed it. I had explicit conversations with him and he told me while he respected anarchy , he knew it fell apart inasmuch as being able to defend it to the general public…i.e what to do about repeat violent offenders , the criminal justice system among other things…he was also a pragmatist , he was mortified at Lpers that wouldnt support a tax and regulation initiative if it meant keeping people from cages.. he thought to cling soo stringently to philosophy you snub actual progress was retarded(my word , not his)

  11. JT JT October 2, 2011

    Knapp: “My guess is that [Nolan} hopped the fence on a situational basis — best guess from me is that he didn’t consider explicitly preaching anarchism per se a good political strategy, but that he was at least strongly sympathetic to anarchism ideologically.”

    He was definitely sympathetic to it, that much is clear. He had friends who are anarchists and considered them allies. I never asked him point blank, but my understanding from other sources is that Nolan was a minarchist though. For example, Les Antman, a longtime anarchist Libertarian, has written: “In my view, the most practical society will be based on private property anarchism, but if you put me in a room with Libertarian Party Founder David Nolan, who is explicitly a limited government libertarian, you’ll probably find that there isn’t a dime’s worth of difference in our actual positions (with the possible exception of immigration), and our differences are mainly in how we predict societies with libertarian sensibilities will address security, dispute resolution, and collective defense.”

    Paulie: “Can you name who on this site is a leftist masquerading as a Libertarian? Do they support big government on economic issues? Who, and on which issues?”

    I’d very be interested in hearing Wayne’s answer to this as well, Paulie. I’m not expecting him to back it up though.

    Oh, and I don’t want to get into a long discussion about this, but I approve of large corporations, just like virtually all pro-market economists do. Because of their structure and access to capital from a great number of investors, they can mass produce and distribute goods throughout the population beyond that of any other kind of enterprise. Corporate managers obviously can and do go to prison for committing crimes. Limited liability protects people who buy shares (including a large percentage of middle-class workers) so that they can’t be held personally responsible beyond their investment for bad decisions made by corporate managers.

  12. paulie paulie October 2, 2011

    Obama is a bomber,
    The thunder god of doom,
    and Thor gives him a (nobel peace) prize
    On the day he bombs the moon?

    –Rap News

  13. George Phillies George Phillies October 2, 2011

    You can tell that you are *really* on “Obama does not like what you are saying, even though you did not do anything” when you notice a Predator missile coming through your window.

    Perhaps we should launch a betting pool on how long it will be before an American President repeats this action, against Americans on American soil.

  14. paulie paulie October 2, 2011

    Spelling socialism is the leftist version of grammar fascism 🙂

  15. paulie paulie October 2, 2011

    It’s a matter of spelling socialism.

  16. Tom Blanton Tom Blanton October 2, 2011

    paulie @72

    Why do you hate Amerika?

  17. Jill Pyeatt Jill Pyeatt October 2, 2011

    Talk about not being able to have it both ways…

    Wayne, I’ve read several times in your past statements that you don’t remember ever seeing Obama at Columbia, nor do you know anyone who ever saw Obama at Columbia. Your inference, of course, is that he didn’t attend college there.

    Now you say he subscribes to the views of two professors (out of how ever many professors who were there at the time) who presented very specific and complicated views, which would infer, of course, that he attended Columbia.

    I’m confused. Did he, or did he not, attend Columbia University?

    Oh, and Wayne, please don’t answer that you’re busy doing interviews and spreading the LP message–I’ve heard you say that enough, thank you.

  18. paulie paulie October 2, 2011

    From a discussion at Ballot Access News which I believe relates to Wayne’s topic here:


    An Alabama Independent Says:
    September 30th, 2011 at 3:33 pm

    I wonder why there are no protesters there representing the Constitution Party or even the Libertarian Party? Silly boy, you ought to know better than to ask such a silly question.

    Paulie Says:
    September 30th, 2011 at 5:28 pm

    Actually, I have read that some of the protesters are self-described libertarians and Ron Paul supporters.

    I’m a libertarian, and I believe there is much to protest in the bailout-ridden wall street world.

    An Alabama Independent Says:
    October 1st, 2011 at 5:40 am

    That some of the protesters are self-described libertarians and Ron Paul supporters may have been because of their objection to the bailout with taxpayers money,and such is okay. But you can be assured they were not there because they know that Wall Street is what is wrong with America today. If we had a true National Bank issuing only interest-free US Currency, we would not need Wall Street – America’s only national and legal gambling institution.

    Paulie Says:
    October 1st, 2011 at 1:40 pm

    But you can be assured they were not there because they know that Wall Street is what is wrong with America today.

    I think that Wall Street is in fact much of what is wrong with America today. The large, publicly traded companies survive because their owners are not liable for their actions due to limited liability granted by the government. If it was not for this, people would only invest in smaller businesses whose operations they could be intimately aware of and which could be insured against legitimate losses and claims.

    This would bring the money back from Wall Street to main street.

    The wall street corporate owner class controls our political system, and the political class rewards them with bailouts, corporate welfare, eminent domain abuse, wars on behalf of corporate imperialist interests, and a maze of taxes and regulations which stymy existing and would-be small businesses from being able to compete against big business. These taxes and regulations also prevent many people who are unemployed, or are employed by others, from starting businesses and becoming self-employed.

    If the political class did not have so much power, there would be nothing there for the corporate owner class to purchase so as to yield influence.

    The tax code, the education system, government red tape and much else conspires to keep people as employees of large corporations or government, or as long-term poor people dependent on government.

    Additionally, the poor are getting screwed big time as well: massive and persistent unemployment, debt, foreclosure, eviction, cannon fodder in endless foreign wars, record incarceration, growing harassment/abuse by militarized police treating poor neighborhoods like an occupying army. The government’s “help” only serves to further trap poor people in poverty.

    Middle class workers and small business owners are on the short end as well.

    The corporate ownership class (particularly those owning large shares) and the government unions are doing well in this economy. The rest of us, not so much.

    Black households now have 5% of the wealth of white households on average, the worst disparity in several decades. Official black unemployment is 16%; probably more like 50% when you add in underemployment and those who have been out of work for so long that they are no longer counted as unemployed.

    Many poor people see the military or illegal activities as their only way to make a living. This destroys their lives and future through injury, shell shock, and criminal records. At the same time war profiteering and prison profiteering are boom industries.

    The government’s immigration restrictions and prohibitions on drugs and on sex work keep large numbers of people in a state of fear and prone to exploitation.

    All of this serves to flow money to those at the top, and they are considered “too big to fail.”

  19. paulie paulie October 2, 2011

    I could imagine them using the drones at some point to attack unauthorized border crossers.

    Border crossers, “terrorists,” “terrorist sympathizers,” drug gangs, wall street occupiers, looters after a natural disaster or terrorist attack or power outage or riot, the uses could be endless….

  20. LibertarianGirl LibertarianGirl October 2, 2011

    Wayne,

    WR_And the leftists masquerading as “Libertarians” on this site

    P_Can you name who on this site is a leftist masquerading as a Libertarian? Do they support big government on economic issues? Who, and on which issues?

    me_ yes wayne it IS equally wrong and counterproductive for a conservative Libertarian to say us “lefties” are faking it just as it is when an Anarchist says the same thing about your particular breed of lib…

    neither side owns this shit

    WR_You are all completely mixed up about what the LP stands for.

    me_anyone trying to define what Libertarians stand for are compleely mixed up.

    we need every single branch on the tree of liberty…

    there is no clearccut , precisely defined meaning , and as long as we keep trying to make it so well cling to the truth we bring like its something we thought of…LOL

    share the message of Freedom , the way and manner that suits you best, with everyone , all the time

    quit saying the messenger is more important than the message…

  21. paulie paulie October 2, 2011

    Does the NYPD have any of these drone things yet? The way they are treating the Occupy Wall Street protests, that would not be good…

  22. Thomas L. Knapp Thomas L. Knapp October 2, 2011

    Paulie @65,

    “I meant used for killing people on US soil.”

    I expect that they’ll wait for a showcase opportunity — one that most people won’t have a big problem with — to do that for the first time.

    Of course, one man’s showcase opportunity is another man’s really stupid idea.

    Recall that Anwar al-Awlaki was not under charge or indictment for any crime, accused only of saying stuff the Obama regime doesn’t like. So it’s not like there’s a high standard for “showcase” here when it comes to killing American citizens.

  23. Robert Capozzi Robert Capozzi October 2, 2011

    wr: In every speech and proposal he seems to divide the country among his voters and…“them.” Are you watching? Are you worried?

    Immortal Philosopher Mickey Rivers: “Ain’t no sense worrying about things you got no control over, ’cause if you got no control over them, ain’t no sense worrying. And aint’ no sense worrying about things you got control over, ’cause if you got control over them, aint no sense worrying.”

  24. Robert Capozzi Robert Capozzi October 2, 2011

    64, 65, on second thought, I could imagine them using the drones at some point to attack unauthorized border crossers.

  25. paulie paulie October 2, 2011

    Sorry. I meant used for killing people on US soil.

    BushObama has a list, he’s checking it twice…

  26. Robert Capozzi Robert Capozzi October 2, 2011

    57 p: How soon before these [drones] are used on US soil?

    me: The technology seems unnecessary in the US. Complete, wholesale suspension of the rule of law and a justice system seems unlikely, in part because the appearance of one tends to pacify the citizenry. More erosions seem likely, however.

  27. paulie paulie October 2, 2011

    Wayne,

    And the leftists masquerading as “Libertarians” on this site

    Can you name who on this site is a leftist masquerading as a Libertarian? Do they support big government on economic issues? Who, and on which issues?

    You are all completely mixed up about what the LP stands for. It was founded by Barry Goldwater fiscal conservatives who thought the GOP was too left on fiscal issues.

    A variety of people founded the LP. Some of them were pot-smoking antiwar hippies. Some were Ayn Rand camp followers.

    From http://washingtonexaminer.com/local/power-profile-ed-crane :

    ….Crane left it all to become chairman of the Libertarian Party with the goal of making it a national force. He remembered walking into the hall at the first Libertarian Party convention in a Denver hotel in 1972 and being stunned by the collection of misfits who shared his ideals.

    “I always knew it was important, from a Libertarian standpoint, to be tolerant of alternative lifestyles, but until I went to that convention, I had no idea just how many alternatives there were,” he said. “There were all kinds of crazies there — gold bugs, Ayn Rand fanatics, anarchists — but they were good people interested in liberty.”

  28. paulie paulie October 2, 2011

    And I welcome Democrats across America admitting Obama is a clueless, incompetent dope.

    You choose. But it’s one or the other.

    Personally I think he’s brilliant…he’s had a brilliant gameplan from day one. And he’s carried it out brilliantly.

    I can only be accused of calling our President brilliant.

    My critics assume he’s an idiot.

    I believe he’s as clever as any politician in modern history.

    I believe both Obama and Root are well above average intelligence.

  29. paulie paulie October 2, 2011

    Empires Bankrupt Nations:

    What Root seems to ignore, or not understand, is that you cannot discuss the economy without discussing war, empire, and the national security state.

    Empires cost money.

    HUGE amount of money.

    BUDGET-BUSTING amounts of money.

    Wayne Root:

    I never ignore. I agree. No idea why you think otherwise.

    In fairness to Wayne this is true. I have seen him address this. I wish he would make it a more frequent theme in his commentaries.

  30. paulie paulie October 2, 2011

    It’s actually funny the gymnastic contortions you are going through to try to not call a socialist…a socialist.

    All because Libertarians think Obama is a fascist.

    Well guess what? You can be both. To achieve socialism, you must get elected. To get elected you have no choice but to go after big campaign contributions from the ultra rich and corporations. Crony capitalism has ALWAYS been a partner with socialism. Nothing has changed. In every socialist or marxist society the rich and powerful control the country and receive all the benefits stolen from the rest of society. That’s how you achieve socialism.

    In the old communist Soviet Union 99% of the people lived in shared misery.

    But the top 1% ran the country, lived in mansions in Moscow, drove Mercedes, and had million dollar vacation homes in the countryside.

    Yet thats socialism.

    I think fascist is actually a more accurate term for this, including for the Soviet system, which only pretended to be socialist.

    Socialism originally meant that the workers would control the means of production.

    The Soviet theory was that the state would control the means of production on behalf of the workers. According to Marxist theory, eventually the state would fade away and lead to actual control of the means of production by the workers. But that never happened. Instead, the state consolidated its hold on power through fascist means, and eventually the communist manager class declared themselves by fiat to be the new capitalist owner class, much as Orwell predicted in Animal Farm.

    Wayne is essentially correct about the 1% in the USSR. Minor correction, however: they did not drive. They were driven, usually in limousines. My mother’s cousin (“second uncle” in Russian) was one of their drivers. He was also in charge of getting the bosses goods and services that were not supposed to exist in the Soviet Union. Before that he also drove trucks across the whole width of the USSR from East to West and back. If you know the conditions of Soviet roads and trucks…..

  31. paulie paulie October 2, 2011

    JT:

    David differed with Wayne a lot.[…] he even said on Lew Rockwell’s podcast not too long before his death that the LP needed to get back to its radical roots. That’s relevant if Wayne is going to make ideological pronouncements about the founders of the LP, as he did.

    LG:

    David saw Wayne as an asset. He wished Wayne would run for a local office , [….] David Nolan ( supposedly on 1 side) got up and went and spoke to Aaron Starr (supposedly on another) more than anyone.

    Too bad there are not more Libertarians like that.

  32. LibertarianGirl LibertarianGirl October 2, 2011

    waynes alot of things , an idiot isnt one of them

  33. Michael Cavlan RN Michael Cavlan RN October 2, 2011

    Wayne Allenn Root is, IMHO flat out lying when he does the Obama is a Socialist bit. I have asked this question, on this point, using things like facts repeatedly. As seems to be the norm, the man just refuses to deal with direct questions.

    Like I said, Wayne Root is an idiot. Sad to see that he is the voice of the Lib Party.

    Oh well- carry on

  34. Thomas L. Knapp Thomas L. Knapp October 2, 2011

    JT@51,

    “David [Nolan] wasn’t an anarchist”

    A better way of putting that might be “David Nolan did not publicly describe himself as an anarchist.”

    Privately, I recall at least one occasion upon which he did so describe himself, at least implicitly (Person, in course of arguing an issue: “I’m an anarchist.” Nolan: “Who here ISN’T an anarchist?”).

    There were, however, psyche-altering substances of various types in play at that time and in that place, so it’s not the kind of thing I’d put in a little book of Quotations from Chairman Nolan or anything.

    My guess is that he hopped the fence on a situational basis — best guss from me is that he didn’t consider explicitly preaching anarchism per se a good political strategy, but that he was at least strongly sympathetic to anarchism ideologically.

  35. JT JT October 1, 2011

    And yes, he did use the term “radical.”

  36. JT JT October 1, 2011

    LG: “No David was not in tune with his whole picture , but I had his ear and despite what u may think , David saw Wayne as an asset.”

    I don’t doubt that. But when it came to ideology and approach, David differed with Wayne a lot. David wasn’t an anarchist, but he was indeed a “radical” libertarian; he even said on Lew Rockwell’s podcast not too long before his death that the LP needed to get back to its radical roots. That’s relevant if Wayne is going to make ideological pronouncements about the founders of the LP, as he did.

  37. Michael H. Wilson Michael H. Wilson October 1, 2011

    How should we identify someone who benefits from the actions of the government? Are they a socialist, free market person or a capitalist?

    Suppose you live in a community that gets most of its water and electricity from a government reclamation project, a community that exists only because other governments have restricted the services your community provides. And that service you provide is made possible by government expenditures on sports facilities.

  38. Tom Blanton Tom Blanton October 1, 2011

    You can always spot a socialist by the way they cling to their tax codes and entitlement programs.

    Wayne Root clings to Socialist Security:

    Social Security can be secured and the debt reigned in with an immediate rise in the age of retirement to age 68 for anyone younger than 55…and within five years raise the age of retirement again to age 70. This phase-in secures Social Security without raising taxes.

    Wayne Root clings to the tax code:

    Since his 2008 campaign as the Libertarian vice-presidential candidate, Wayne Allyn Root has suggested two alternatives to the national sales tax proposal.

    The first option recommends a “reverse flat tax” that would levy a 15% tax on all income up to $500,000 and 10% on all income above $500,000 to reward personal achievement.

    Wayne Root even wants to use the tax code to pay for health care:

    Make all health costs — including insurance — 100% tax deductible.

    In effect, this isn’t much different than Obama’s plan to penalize people with additional taxes for not buying health insurance.

    Root may be right about all the socialists at Columbia University.

    But, what do I know. I’m just a leftist that rejects common sense talk radio wisdom.

  39. Thomas L. Knapp Thomas L. Knapp October 1, 2011

    Wayne,

    It’s one thing or the other.

    If socialism is defined broadly enough to capture Obama, then it straddles the center, which Obama is ever so slightly — a hair — to the left of.

    Ever so slightly — a hair — to the right of center would be socialists like Reagan UN ambassador, Jean Kirkpatrick, Bush 43 Assistant Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, American Enterprise Institute figure Joshua Muravchik, etc. (all members or former members of Social Democrats USA).

    If you define socialism more narrowly than that, it doesn’t capture Obama in its definition.

    Most politically involved American college kids are socialists, even under a narrower definition, because kids that age tend toward some experimental radicalism and socialism happens to be the version of that that has been dominant/rampant for the last 170 years.

    Most politically involved Americans are socialists under the broader definition. America has been a “social democracy” at least since the New Deal.

  40. LibertarianGirl LibertarianGirl October 1, 2011

    No David was not in tune with his whole picture , but I had his ear and despite what u may think , David saw Wayne as an asset. He wished Wayne would run for a local office , he was pretty certain he could suceed.

    Ya know one thing stands out from the 2010 convention…. David Nolan ( suppsedly on 1 side) got up and went and spoke to Aaron Starr( supposedly on another)more than anyone.David , WAS NOT , a ‘radical’ or anarchist that wanted all others purged. he was a true neutral

    his main complaint about Wayne wasnt that he didnt reflect his veiw of what makes a Lib, but that he needed to shut up sometimes and listen. i.e take the cotton out of his ears and put it in his mouth

  41. JT JT October 1, 2011

    I strongly disagree with some comments Wayne has made here, but if you can read, you know that he obviously didn’t say Barry Goldwater founded the LP. He said it was founded by fiscal conservatives who had aligned themselves with Barry Goldwater, which is true.

    Of course, Wayne doesn’t mention how the late David Nolan, one of the few said founders, was NOT in tune with Root’s view of libertarianism, nor a fan of Root’s plan to attract only disaffected conservatives to the LP (without actually mentioning the importance of joining the LP and/or voting Libertarian in his media appearances).

  42. Robert Capozzi Robert Capozzi October 1, 2011

    39 the: Barry Goldwater founded the Libertarian Party???

    me: No, Root means to use Goldwater as a modifier there.

  43. Robert Capozzi Robert Capozzi October 1, 2011

    38 wr: Did you read Obama’s AUTObiography.

    me: No

    wr: He says he was a socialist in college.

    me: I’d like to see the cite. My quick research is that he didn’t say that, but rather that he gravitated to “Marxist” professors and other radicals. While I was a L in college, I did find the radical profs a bit more interesting, too, even if I didn’t agree with them. Would you share the passage in BHO’s autobio where he explicitly said he was a socialist? Even IF that is true, a lot of liberals spend their youth flirting with or as actual socialists. They evolve, just as you have evolved from conservative to L.

    wr: I was there- and 90% or more of my students were socialists.

    me: Proves zero. Your Columbia experience may have been deeply disappointing to you. Obama has a thin and shaky background. He may have been a socialist, but he says he isn’t now. Functionally, his policies are deeply statist, making the Bush and his predecessors policies worse. I just don’t see what the ideological forensics and circumstantial case against Obama’s background when his policies are obviously more than enough reason to want to see him being a one-term president?

    I hope I’m not giving you the sense that I support Obama in any way. His Administration has been near-catastrophic, particularly the first two years when the Ds had both the House and Senate. It may prove to’ve set the country on a full-blown catastrophic path, depending on whether the private economy cannot self-heal, as it has been these past decades/centuries.

  44. LibertarianGirl LibertarianGirl October 1, 2011

    Hanns Hoppe and 1 other were the only registered LPers in fact and Republican staff wasnt in much greater #’s

  45. LibertarianGirl LibertarianGirl October 1, 2011

    Waynes assertion of 99% socialism I’m afraid is probably quite accurate…at UNLV even , 2 LPers did a study and found that 99% of professors were registered ‘liberals’ . I would bet that applies to almost every University and college , Ivy League or otherwise…

  46. TheQuestion77 TheQuestion77 October 1, 2011

    @40

    correct.

  47. LibertarianGirl LibertarianGirl October 1, 2011

    was he in Nolans basement?? I musta missed that… I thought the LP was founded in response to some craz-y shit Nixon said by a bunch of forward thinkers in David Nolans basement

  48. TheQuestion77 TheQuestion77 October 1, 2011

    @24

    “You are all completely mixed up about what the LP stands for. It was founded by Barry Goldwater fiscal conservatives who thought the GOP was too left on fiscal issues. The LP is fiscally CONSERVATIVE and socially tolerant by definition.”

    Barry Goldwater founded the Libertarian Party???

  49. Wayne Root Wayne Root October 1, 2011

    Interesting that not one of you was at Columbia University, yet you are all guilty of “reckless speculation.” I was there- and 90% or more of my students were socialists. I’m being generous. It was most likely closer to 99%. That isn’t my opinion. It is the exact words spoken by my classmates.

    Robert you are being rather ignorant.

    Did you read Obama’s AUTObiography. He says he was a socialist in college. He said he would not even befriend or hang with someone unless they werre marxists, union activists, gay, black or hispanic.

    That is perhaps the most racist, prejudiced comment I’ve ever seen in print by a major politician- unless you count David Duke.

    I was there in 1981 when my classmates cheered wildly for the attempted assassination of Ronald Reagan. Thats not left wing. Thats not as my buddy Thoomas Knapp would pit it, slightly to the left of center.

    I was there to hear virtually all of my classmates speak of destroying the U.S. system, “taking down” the power elite, redistributing wealth in the interests of “fairness.”

    There were socialists.

    Not sure why it’s so hard to admit. They called themselves socialists.

    It’s actually funny the gymnastic contortions you are going through to try to not call a socialist…a socialist.

    All because Libertarians think Obama is a fascist.

    Well guess what? You can be both. To achieve socialism, you must get elected. To get elected you have no choice but to go after big campaign contributions from the ultra rich and corporations. Crony capitalism has ALWAYS been a partner with socialism. Nothing has changed. In every socialist or marxist society the rich and powerful control the country and receive all the benefits stolen from the rest of society. That’s how you achieve socialism.

    In the old communist Soviet Union 99% of the people lived in shared misery.

    But the top 1% ran the country, lived in mansions in Moscow, drove Mercedes, and had million dollar vacation homes in the countryside.

    Yet thats socialism.

    No different than Obama’s world right now.

    Wayne

  50. George Phillies George Phillies October 1, 2011

    HIT WRONG BUTTON
    Of course, Wayne wrote this just too soon to discuss the American who Obama just had murdered.

    I am referring, of course, to Anwar Al-Awlaki, who was murdered in the Yemen, despite clear intelligence statements that he had no direct connection to any acts of violence, and who was known not to be an Al Qaeda member.

    And now perhaps your preacher will be next.

  51. George Phillies George Phillies October 1, 2011

    Of course, Wayne write this just too soon to discuss the American who Obama just had murdered.

    I am referring, of course, to Anwar Al-Awlaki, who died in the Yemen, despite clear intelligence statements that he had no direct connection to any acts of violence, and who was known not to be an Al Qaeda member.

    And now perhaps your preacher will be next.

  52. George Phillies George Phillies October 1, 2011

    You only had *socialist* professors.

    Wimps.

    One of my Professors was a *Trotsykyite*.

  53. Robert Capozzi Robert Capozzi October 1, 2011

    32 tk, to be clear, I wasn’t suggesting one way or the other whether Root has those specific profs. It is likely that as a poli sci major he had a socialist prof. My narrow point is that Root is not a socialist despite this likelihood. I had socialist profs, and I’m not a socialist, either.

  54. Thomas L. Knapp Thomas L. Knapp October 1, 2011

    Correction: A decade before — the work which Root mischaracterizes was published in 1972.

  55. Thomas L. Knapp Thomas L. Knapp October 1, 2011

    RC@30,

    “I dunno, I had socialist profs in college, too, and I suspect many of us did. Did we all turn out to be socialists?”

    It’s highly unlikely that Root had Cloward or Pivens (sic) as professors (Piven wasn’t even at Columbia when he was), or that their work from two decades before was a hot topic of discussion at the time.

    Matter of fact, if there was a way to truly verify it one way or another, I’d bet money that Root had never heard of either one of them until Glenn Beck got obsessed with them.

  56. Michael H. Wilson Michael H. Wilson October 1, 2011

    @ 29 Wayne writes; “professors who write about a plan to destroy capitalism by overwhelming america with so much debt and entitlements and people on food stamps, welfare, and free meals at school…

    Wayne some on the so called right have taken the same approach and it has been written about in the news. Overwhelm the nation with so much debt that the government would have to cut programs.

    Simply amazing two different opposed groups taking the same approach.

  57. Robert Capozzi Robert Capozzi October 1, 2011

    29 wr, I dunno, I had socialist profs in college, too, and I suspect many of us did. Did we all turn out to be socialists?

    No.

    Even if BHO is secretly an actual socialist, even that doesn’t prove he’s out to wreck the economy on purpose.

    My guess is he’s probably been influenced by socialists, may have toyed with what’s called “democratic socialism,” may admire places like Sweden, but my best guess is he’s just a confused liberal at this point. But it’s just a guess.

    wr: Either it’s purposeful…or he is the most overwhelmed and incompenant fool to ever occupy the White House. He is clueless, helpless and hopeless. He is a dope. You pick. Because it is one of the other.

    me: My understanding is that Einstein was a socialist. All indications are that he was no “dope.” BHO seems like a bright fellow to me, one with misguided ideas.

    Your either/or, all due respect, is false, as they often are.

    wr: Not once…not one time…in 3000 media interviews has anyone heard the argument above and denigrated me…or accused me of being extreme, or reckless, or of “reckless speculation.”

    me: Yes, I’m a L, so I’m used to having a different take on things! To be clear, I don’t find you to be extreme or reckless, Wayne. I said *groundless speculation*. As I said earlier, assuming that anyone who’s had a socialist prof makes him or her a socialist is, sorry, an absurd idea. I want nothing but the best for you, but my feedback is that your attacks on Obama are over-the-top, and in the long run I suspect your career will be enhanced if you dial it back. Yes, you are probably getting some interest on the right-wing circuits for this theme and your high-energy presentation, but I’m sure you know that you reap what you sow. Be careful what you wish for!

    Most importantly, I notice with disappointment that you avoid my point about applying the Golden Rule to politics. I suggest you give it more consideration.

    Just, really, my 2 cents…it’s most definitely not personal, as I like you and what you are doing, for the most part.

  58. Wayne Root Wayne Root October 1, 2011

    @26 Robert

    There is no “groundless speculation.” Groundless speculation is talking about theories that sound extreme- like 9/11. Thats a guess by conspiracy theorists.

    It isn’t groundless speculation to state that all of us at Columbia University studied and talked about Cloward & Pivens- 2 CC professors who write about a plan to destroy capitalism by overwhelming america with so much debt and entitlements and people on food stamps, welfare, and free meals at school…that capitalism toppled and Americans would beg for govt to save them.

    How is that groundless speculation. It was a purposeful gameplan drawn up by two radical Columbia professors…that all my fellow classmates discussed and debated.

    And it was put into play on a small scale in the 1970’s- it bankrupted New York City.

    It has been publicly spoken of by countless radicals and socialists.

    My educated guess was that Obama would try it to destroy our economy.

    I was right. Everything he’s done has the fingerprints of Cloward & Piven.

    But…

    I never anywhere say anything that can get me accused of being extreme or reckless…

    I never get involved in “groundless speculation.”

    So i say in every interview…

    Here is Cloward & Piven’s gameplan. Here is what I predicted. Here are the results- America’s economy is wrecked. The carnage stretches from sea to shining sea under Obama.

    Now YOU decide.

    Either it’s purposeful…or he is the most overwhelmed and incompenant fool to ever occupy the White House. He is clueless, helpless and hopeless. He is a dope.

    You pick. Because it is one of the other.

    And I welcome Democrats across America admitting Obama is a clueless, incompetent dope.

    You choose. But it’s one or the other.

    Personally I think he’s brilliant…he’s had a brilliant gameplan from day one. And he’s carried it out brilliantly.

    I can only be accused of calling our President brilliant.

    My critics assume he’s an idiot.

    I believe he’s as clever as any politician in modern history.

    Not once…not one time…in 3000 media interviews has anyone heard the argument above and denigrated me…or accused me of being extreme, or reckless, or of “reckless speculation.”

    Because it is a fair statement to lay out what I predicted…based on the fact of what I was taught at Columbia University…lay out the factual policies of Obama…lay out the results…and point to two possible conclusions…and ask the audience to draw their own conclusion.

    Best,

    Wayne

  59. Wayne Root Wayne Root October 1, 2011

    @27

    I never ignore. I agree. No idea why you think otherwise.

  60. Empires Bankrupt Nations Empires Bankrupt Nations October 1, 2011

    What Root seems to ignore, or not understand, is that you cannot discuss the economy without discussing war, empire, and the national security state.

    Empires cost money.

    HUGE amount of money.

    BUDGET-BUSTING amounts of money.

  61. Robert Capozzi Robert Capozzi October 1, 2011

    24 wr, all due respect, but just as there are Ls who question YOUR motives with speculation about your “true” intent, your predictions about how BHO would govern is substantially different from HIS intent. I have seen NO evidence that BHO INTENDED to wreck the economy and force millions into poverty. Why assume he’s got malevolent intent? Why not critique his wrong-minded ideas instead, where you need not speculate about his confused ideas? Why engage in demonization?

    IMO, such groundless speculation hurts your credibility with many, L and non-L. Yes, there may well be folks who share your speculation about Obama, but there are likely just as many who — like me — don’t support Obama’s agenda but find it impossible to read his mind.

    Think of this as the Golden Rule applied to politics. Do you like it when others (negatively) speculate about YOUR motives? If not, why do it to others? Or, do you think the Golden Rule doesn’t apply to politics? If so, it sounds to me curiously like a case where one believes that the ends justify the means.

    In my case, I simply don’t agree…

  62. Melty Melty October 1, 2011

    I thought this was gonna be about the assasination of two US citizens… but no.
    That’s what made me feel like the president’s comin for me next. I live abroad, a US citizen. I say things the president wouldn’t like to hear, cuz he lies like a rug. Seein as I have nothing to do with Islam, I guess I’m not a target …yet.

  63. Wayne Root Wayne Root October 1, 2011

    You might want to brush up on my book “The Conscience of a Libertarian: Empowering the Citizen Revolution with God, Guns, Gold & Tax Cuts.”

    It predicted (3 years ago when I wrote it) that Obama was a socialist pro-big government true believer who would force millions onto welfare and food stamps, work 24/7/365 on behalf of unions, and leave the economy in shambles.

    Then I predicted there would be a dramatic response- a Citizen Revolution.

    That revolution I predicted would be led by conservatives, Libertarians, right leaning independents, small business owners, gun owners, homeowners and Christians- all working together.

    It’s all happened – it’s called the Tea Party.

    And the leftists masquerading as “Libertarians” on this site just cannot stand it. You are seething with anger.

    I’m proud of my predictions. You can’t debate them. They happened exactly as called.

    I only wish that I wasn’t so right. Because I feel sick for the tens of millions of Americans affected by this financial tragedy that didn’t have to happen.

    But yes it all happened.

    And you’re right- I do feel friends and partners with all fiscal conservatives and entrepreneurs and business owners. We are in the same boat together and must fight together to remove Obama before there is no economy left to fight for…or any capitalism left to defend.

    You are all completely mixed up about what the LP stands for. It was founded by Barry Goldwater fiscal conservatives who thought the GOP was too left on fiscal issues. The LP is fiscally CONSERVATIVE and socially tolerant by definition.

    You’re confusing my stands on fiscal vs. social issues. The economic issues that are in the headlines today have nothing to do with social issues. This isn’t about gay rights or stem cells or abortion.

    On one topic that is- by far- the most important and ONLY topic to 99% of Americans- the economy- the LP is by definition fiscally conservative. So why would my siding and joining arms with all fiscal conservatives bother you?

    This is not about social issues.

    This is about one issue- the economy. With side issues such as taxes, spending, entitlements, affirmative action, school choice.

    On all of those issues, the Libertarian viewpoint is very much akin to the conservative and Tea Party viewpoint.

    It’s that simple. And we all need to work together on those issues.

    That’s called smart politics.

    By the way, in case you still don’t get it, I’m an American first, a capitalist second, a small business owner third, and of course, a father and family man. All of those are more important than “politics.”

    I want to save all those things I hold dear.

    No one- even those in politics- should possibly hold political labels above what is right for their family, country, or the economy.

    None of this has to do with socially liberal views. It only has to do with financially and fiscally conservative views of the LP.

    And I am clearly defending that side of the political spectrum- just as all Libertarians should.

    And in every possible interview I’m criticizing Republican mistakes from the past, and pointing out where current GOP Presidential candidates fall short on those issues too.

    And most importantly, I’m making a name for myself and the brand “Libertarian” in the national political debate.

    Best,
    Wayne

  64. Root's Teeth Are Awesome Root's Teeth Are Awesome October 1, 2011

    What’s the point of “being invited back,” if one’s partisanship is pro-GOP rather than pro-libertarian?

    And let’s get real — Root is rallying the base against Obama (i.e., for the GOP), rather than for the LP.

    This is so, even if Root does ask to be introduced as “Mr. Libertarian.”

  65. Robert Capozzi Robert Capozzi October 1, 2011

    btw, Root’s partisanship seems about right to me. As a pundit, one cannot be TOO partisan else he won’t be invited back.

  66. Robert Capozzi Robert Capozzi October 1, 2011

    13 wr: If it’s not on purpose [BHO’s poor economic stewardship], it’s the greatest coincidence in world history.

    me: While I don’t consider myself “leftist,” and I’d like to think I’m not “tone deaf,” I still haven’t figured out what makes liberals tick, Obama included. My guess is he really believed, for ex., stimulating “green jobs” might have actually worked to beef up employment rates.

    It is certainly possible that BHO wants to tank the economy on purpose, but I don’t assume it. I also didn’t assume that Bush wanted to, either. I think both wanted to get re-elected, and both thought they could “kick the can down the road” on more major challenges to the economy’s LT prospects. I find both to be myopic and both act(ed) expediently.

    A big theme I’ve seen liberals using recently is to suggest that GDP growth was fine under Eisenhower when marginal tax rates were 90%. I find this an incredibly shallow stance, much like explaining blowback to conservatives.

  67. Tom Blanton Tom Blanton October 1, 2011

    I am proud, honored and thrilled that what I’m writing and saying resonates with common sense independents, Tea Partiers, and conservatives.

    There’s a reason for that. It’s because the rants are all boilerplate right-wing talking points repeated over and over on talk radio that are specifically designed to rally the conservative base for the GOP.

    Sure these conservative rubes want to hear Wayne Root repeat their daily mantras. It fulfills the need they have to feel outraged by the other tribe.

    The problem is that Wayne Root isn’t selling libertarianism. He’s selling Wayne Root.

  68. Michael Cavlan RN Michael Cavlan RN October 1, 2011

    Folks

    I am really sorry that this idiot is the apparent voice of the Libertarian Party.

    Seriously. I really am sorry. No more need be said.

    Carry on. Wall Street occupations are building.

  69. Jill Pyeatt Jill Pyeatt October 1, 2011

    W & E-FR@17: Very well said.

  70. War & Empire = Financial Ruin War & Empire = Financial Ruin September 30, 2011

    Root: Obama is wiping out the income, assets, and life savings of every entrepreneur and small business owner I know.

    Idiotic nonsense.

    Root talks as if Obama, personally, is wiping out savings.

    In reality, the U.S.’s bipartisan overspending has caused the debt and inflation that’s threatening the value of the dollar.

    And much of that overspending is due to the trillions wasted on our wars and the “national security” state over this past decade.

    These bogus, endless “wars” against “Islamo-fascism” and “terror” are destroying our economy.

    9/11 should have been treated as a criminal matter. The response should have been international cooperation (led through Interpol) to find, capture, and Constitutionally bring to trial the guilty parties. Terrorists should be treated as criminal gangs, not cause for “wars.”

    Instead, 9/11 became an excuse to build a bloated and expensive empire. Which, like all empires, will collapse of its own weight, and bring about financial hardship for generations to come.

    Obama, Bush, the prowar Fox News/Tea Party cheerleaders, the businesses engaged in war profiteering — all of them played their part in America’s impending economic collapse.

  71. Thomas L. Knapp Thomas L. Knapp September 30, 2011

    Yes, Wayne, your ability to get media attention is definitely a worthwhile skill.

    But what you do with that is also important, and what you are doing is what talk radio did circa 1992-1996: Rant and rave about how a centrist Democrat — maybe a hair to the left of Reagan, but certainly to the right of Nixon — is “the most left-wing president in history.”

    The result was that said centrist Democrat was re-elected with a larger percentage in 1996 than in 1992 …

    … and if not for the two-term limit would probably still be president today, and whose chosen successor won the following election but lost the court fight.

    Is there some reason to believe that that strategy will work better for you than it did for Bob Dole?

  72. JT JT September 30, 2011

    Wayne: “I let the LP title do the Libertarian branding.”

    Great! Obviously taking that approach in your 1,000+ interviews a year is strengthening the LP given the dramatic increase in party members and money.

    Given that you’re Chairman of the LNCC, will you be urging on radio or TV that people vote for Libertarian candidates in 2012 instead of Democrats and Republicans? Or will you let that title in the intros do the branding also, unlike
    Republican Party and Democratic Party officials who get on radio or TV?

  73. paulie paulie September 30, 2011

    Why is this […] on the LPUS site?

    All LNC members can post at will to the LP.org blog.

  74. Wayne Root Wayne Root September 30, 2011

    Steven,

    Every word I write…every speech I give…every media appearance…every national radio interview…all starts with the word Libertarian…as in my introduction as “LP Vice Presidential nominee” or “America’s leading Libertarian” or “Mr. Libertarian” or “Chairman of the LNCC”- all various ways I am introduced by the media…

    And every interview ends with the same titles…and usually the question “So, are you running for the Libertarian Presidential nomination Wayne? We need you.”

    I’d say the name Libertarian gets quite alot of mentions with that introduction and that ending about 1000+ times a year.

    In between those intros and endings…I’m just me- Wayne Root the individual. My job is to talk to people and tell them what I think. And I do that. I let the LP title do the Libertarian branding.

    And no it doesn’t happen in a New York minute. I’m a patient man. I’ve been the hardest working man in LP politics for 3 years and over 3000 interviews. MAYBE…just maybe…by 2016 it will result in my success getting elected…or producing a remarkable showing for LP…and maybe by 2020 that showing will build…and lead to an election.

    But for a third party…that’s the kind of relentlessness…work ethic…commitment…tenacity…long term planning…passion…and chutzpah it will take to finally breakthrough.

    A journey of a thousand miles begins with one step.

    Best,
    Wayne

  75. Steven R Linnabary Steven R Linnabary September 30, 2011

    Why is this diatribe on the LPUS site?

    There is NOTHING in the essay that promotes the LP. There is nothing about the LP, nor is there any discussion of libertarian principles.

    It is nothing more than another over the top anti-Obama piece that lacks direction or even a coherent message.

    And THIS is supposed to bring media attention and millions of dollars in new donations?

    PEACE

  76. Wayne Root Wayne Root September 30, 2011

    Nice to know the tone deaf leftist libertarians on this site haven’t a clue that Obama is wiping out the income, assets, and life savings of every entrepreneur and small business owner I know. It gets worse every day.

    If it’s not on purpose, it’s the greatest coincidence in world history.

    But we all know exactly what is happening- every day brings a new assault on people with money. Demonize, target and punish- Obama’s mantra.

    And while you complain about my opinions, you can hear me on about 20 radio shows discussing them over the next few days- including nationally syndicated Lars Larsen Show tonight…and The Bill Cunningham Show on 400+ Premiere Radio stations on Sunday night.

    I am proud, honored and thrilled that what I’m writing and saying resonates with common sense independents, Tea Partiers, and conservatives.

    And proud the media continues to show interest in what I have to say. My opinions attract more media than any Libertarian in history. So all of you are obviously missing something. It’s called common sense.

    Wayne

  77. Thomas L. Knapp Thomas L. Knapp September 30, 2011

    @9,

    And of course, Alinsky didn’t say “the ends justify the means.”

    He considered the question of whether ends justify means a very complex ethical matter, and wrote an extended piece on it, crafting no fewer than 11 of his “rules for radicals” to specifically address that question.

  78. Root = Obama Root = Obama September 30, 2011

    Root says: “As Obama’s mentor Saul Alinsky would say–the ends justify the means.”

    Yet Root is quoted in the New York Times as saying: “Guilt? I don’t have any guilt. I think zero about why things are. I just accept what they are and find a way to take advantage of them.”

    http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/21/magazine/21Gambling.t.html?pagewanted=print

    Sounds like Root’s main beef with Obama is that Obama is doing exactly what Root tries to do — “take advantage/ends justify the means” — but that Obama is more successful at it.

  79. JT JT September 30, 2011

    Wayne has chastised many Libertarians for rhetoric he deems too extreme. Yet mentioning the Holocaust in a column about “Obama’s Enemies List” and relating it to his “kind of thinking” (despite the throwaway line that he doesn’t want to hurt people physically) isn’t extreme rhetoric? That sounds pretty extreme to me, but apparently he doesn’t think so.

  80. Robert Capozzi Robert Capozzi September 30, 2011

    Fanning the flames of paranoia is no way to advance peace and liberty.

  81. NewFederalist NewFederalist September 30, 2011

    Perhaps NOTA is looking better. 😉

  82. Thomas L. Knapp Thomas L. Knapp September 30, 2011

    I’m a military vet. I’m sure I could come up with something nice to say about Obama if I really wanted to. Wayne has spoken “in-depth” with me, but not about Obama I guess.

    Here’s the thing about veterans: The only thing we necessarily have in common is that we served in the armed forces.

    One of my best friends — unfortunately now-deceased — was a 20+ year Air Force veteran — a pilot who flew missions in Vietnam and who was medically retired as a colonel and Air National Guard unit commander after a heart attack.

    I’m not sure how he would have felt about Obama, but if he hadn’t liked him it would have been because Obama was too centrist, not left-wing enough.

    Here’s a prominent military veteran talking about Obama:

    Illinois gave us Abraham Lincoln. That state may have now given us a second Abraham Lincoln.

    Pretty complimentary, I’d say. The guy who said that flew 35 missions over Austria, Czechoslovakia, Germany, Hungary, Poland and Italy in 1944 and 1945, earning the Distinguished Flying Cross after having twice limped damaged B-24 Liberators back to safety. He was also the Democratic Party’s 1972 nominee for President of the United States.

  83. Michael H. Wilson Michael H. Wilson September 30, 2011

    I just spent a couple of hours with a friend of mine who is a retired army sergeant. I don’t think he “seethe[s] with anger towards” Obama.

    And I think it is unfortunate that you are trying to capitalize on the problems many veterans have for your or the LP’s benefit. In my book that is not very honorable.

    We should be helping the veterans by ending these foolish wars forever and bring all our troops home from abroad.

    Every time you get on the radio, television or write a column for a paper mention the need to bring the troops home.

    Btw there was a study done in Portland, OR a few years ago about kids on the street and the preliminary result as I recall showed that about half came from military families that had broken down.

  84. Tom Blanton Tom Blanton September 30, 2011

    I just figured out who Wayne’s target audience is – deaf people who can’t hear these same rants 24/7 on right-wing talk radio shows. Well, assuming people that want to hear this stuff can read.

    So, remember folks, Obama hates you and is coming to get you. Just like Hitler did to the Jews. Come 2012, be sure and vote GOP. If you don’t, Obama will be re-elected and he’ll put everyone who isn’t an America apologist or a Marxist into concentration camps. Vote GOP, or else!

  85. Michael H. Wilson Michael H. Wilson September 29, 2011

    Well Wayne once again you attack the man. You seem to have it in for Obama personally.

    I happen to be a veteran and while I disagree with the policies I do not seethe with anger at him.

    If a veteran was a non combat vet there is no reason that person should not see some cuts just as much as the general population.

    Lots of veterans have never been in combat. Fact is some who were in a war zone never saw anything close to combat. Lots of officers rotate through a war zone so they can pick up some more ribbons to wear on their chest and quickly get the hell out of the way.

    Then there are the vets who were in combat who are not getting what they need and never will. I’m about 30 miles from a military base with about 34,000 personnel attached to it and if you should happen to go to the nearby VA hospital… Well I don’t think I need to say much more.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

one + 2 =