Obama is perhaps the most divisive President in modern U.S. history. The country is in severe economic crisis — history books will someday call this the Obama Great Depression. Yet our President doesn’t see fit to deal with the economy in general. He doesn’t make big announcements to save Americans in general. He doesn’t have a plan to create jobs for all Americans. Because for Obama it isn’t about America…or the economy…or jobs. It’s all about cold, hard, heartless politics.
Obama sees politics as divided by race. Everything he does is about division. Obama divides rich vs. poor (with his Buffett bill and proposed massive tax hikes on the rich), black vs. white (with his Trayvon comments), gay vs. straight (with his gay marriage announcement), women vs. men (with his demand that women receive free contraception from private insurers). And Obama’s newest “minority of the month announcement” was Friday’s policy aimed at illegal immigrants, particularly young Latinos.
Undocumented young immigrants will no longer face deportation under Obama. This cynical ploy comes only days before both Obama and Romney will be addressing one of the most important and high profile Latino organizations in the country — the National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials conference in Orlando.
To Obama this isn’t about saving the U.S. economy or restoring America’s place as the greatest nation in the world. It’s about pure cynical politics. It’s about doing anything, saying anything, offering any bribe in order to be re-elected. He desperately needs the next four years to finish what he started — the destruction of capitalism, the demonization of the wealthy, the capitulation of the private sector.
The rest of the article can be read here . Wayne Allyn Root (W.A.R) is a former Presidential candidate, the 2008 Libertarian Vice Presidential nominee, and a Tea Party favorite.
I hope to see a lot more of that.
Sounds like me in ’92.
Paulie, that made my day yesterday!
http://reason.com/archives/2012/06/22/former-democratic-party-press-secretary
recommended reading!
@ 60 Mike
Exactly. Tom is reading way to much into a conversational statement.
Both left and right, or neither left nor right, are the same thing for this purpose – we just need to counteract the frequent misunderstanding that we are on the right which ignores our positions on many issues.
How are we ever going to help people realize that we are both left and right…..
Sorry Mark H., but this statement assumes that “we” collectively hold the belief that “we” are both left and right.
The fact is that the belief libertarians are both left and right, as well as collectively attributing this belief to “we” libertarians is wrong. Many libertarians believe that libertarianism in neither left or right and quite a few too many believe it is to the right.
I always cringe when I hear that “we” libertarians believe this or that. Whatever follows “we believe” is usually bullshit – just like what follows “I’m a libertarian, but…” is bullshit.
JT@54,
“One difference could be in military action, but there [Ayn Rand’s] actual stance has been perverted by some people.”
Specifically, Rand came to the United States in the 1920s, after which she:
* Opposed US intervention in World War II.
* Opposed US intervention in Korea.
* Opposed US intervention in Vietnam.
Her reasons for opposing each specific US intervention were somewhat different than those offered by many libertarians, but they were no less sound.
“Official Objectivism” since her death has had two major distorting problems:
First, it has remained an Ayn Rand personality cult, fully dedicated to defending her every statement, no matter how inconsistent said statement might be with her actually stated principles, and with continuing her every personal feud, no matter how unrelated said feud might be to her philosophy.
Secondly, her heir Leonard Peikoff has busted his ass to keep it that way.
@ 55 — Point well taken. Not yet willing to give up the fight for the soul of this party.
Hey Libertarians! Know why everyone thinks you are nothing but right-wingers by another name? People like Root are why. Good luck appealing to independents.
Hilgenberg: “Her personality, her selfish attitude, her style of “liberty”.”
She did have a “selfish attitude,” although I’m sure her conception of the term is different from yours. Her “style of liberty,” assuming you’re putting it in the proper context of politics, is pretty much the “style of liberty” of libertarian minarchists. One difference could be in military action, but there her actual stance has been perverted by some people. Intellectual property may be a difference among some libertarians as well. That’s all I can think of.
Hilgenberg: “I guess because I have seen plenty of quotes from her posted over the years…”
Okay, so you have indeed read some (out of context) sentences. That’s better than nothing on which to form a judgment I suppose.
Hilgenberg: “The biggest turn off to me are her followers.”
You can’t stand some of her “followers,” so you can’t stand her? There are people I dislike who espouse (or claim to) the ideas of some thinker or other, but I wouldn’t say that I dislike that thinker because of those people. I don’t judge someone based on what other people say or do.
@ JT 52
Her personality, her selfish attitude, her style of “liberty”.
I can’t sahaven’tvn’t read a word, I guess because I have seen plenty of quotes from her posted over the years.
The biggest turn off to me are her followers.
Hilgenberg: “The irony is, I can’t stand Ayn Rand, never read a word, I don’t like Rothbard or the Paleo wing of the liberty movement and I don’t follow WARs style of outreach.”
Out of curiosity, how is it that you can’t stand a writer of whom you haven’t read a word? Are you just talking about personality?
TB @49, I don’t totally disagree with you. However, you’re being pretty damn un-libertarian with your placing of all libertarians together into a nice easy-to-talk-shit about group, and then talking shit.
@ Tom #49
Like it or not, WAR was elected to the LNC, he is a party leader. I meant nothing more than to point out the obvious.
I was speaking to members of the LP, hence the term “we”, again, I meant nothing more than the obvious.
The irony is, I can’t stand Ayn Rand, never read a word, I don’t like Rothbard or the Paleo wing of the liberty movement and I don’t follow WARs style of outreach.
Still not sure what point you are trying to make, other than making a lot of false assumptions.
@26 Tom, I think Mark was saying that he meant Libertarian Party members and leaders of the Libertarian Party. Not “we” in a collectivist sense, and not “leaders” as in rulers.
I’m sure that is exactly what he meant and that is the irony. The LP is a collectivist political cult like all the others with its “we believe…” and the self-appointed leaders that libertarians follow like lemmings. For a group that supposedly believes in freedom and self-rule, libertarians place their leaders on the highest pedestals of all – especially if their name begins with “R”.
Root, Rothbard, Rand, and Ron – all infallible super-humans whose every utterance must be studied and quoted so that the cult members may gain the approval of their leaders.
The LP is a hive of conformists seeking approval from each other with the most popular platitudes of the moment. Those who stray from the approved bromides are called radicals and accused of wanting to turn the cult into a debating society or some other nonsense. Speak of individualism, and the LP collective accuses one of being atomistic.
Ah, but if only the right leader comes along, then we can have freedom as we are led like sheep.
Praise be on high for the Gary Johnson and the Wayne Root, saviors of all things wonderful who will change our world – until the next “leader” comes along.
@47
Oh snap.
I think that the best way to destroy a libertarian society – or to prevent one from happening – is to fill it with people with a non-libertarian philosophy to the point where non-libertarians outnumber libertarians.
You mean like the Libertarian Party?
Austin @ 44. As VP he’d be “President of the Senate” — whatever that was intended to mean. My impression is that for the past 4 years Ron Paul has not been running for POTUS, he’s been running to build an organization for Rand for 2016. I think a run as Romney’s VP, with a likely loss to Obama would 1) be a perfect next move, 2) keep Ron from running in or endorsing a 3rd party (He endorsed Baldwin last time), 3) pull a some energy/potential donors from the Gary Johnson campaign, 4) keep the bulk of his organization from moving to Johnson.
All this is more my impression around what a dad would do for his son, than any keen political insights.
I know I will ruffle some feathers and I do plan on expanding on this soon but I don’t think Wayne is evil, subversive or a GOP “plant”.
I think he just suffers from a complete lack of understanding about the difference between Liberty and conservatism. He is not the only one, a huge percentage of vocal libertarians. Tea Partiers, conservatives and liberals suffer from this lack of understanding.
I doubt Rand would be the nominee. I would be SHOCKED if he was. If he leaves the senate, then it will be back to business as usual.
Zapper@40,
Article in the SLC paper today about Rubio having converted to Mormonism at age 8 while living in Las Vegas NV, but reconverting to Catholicism a few years later (parents didn’t give up coffee and alcohol). Apparently, under LDS practice, Rubio and his parents are still listed as members on the church rolls (once a Mormon it’s difficult to be removed from those official rolls).
Not sure how that plays out in the choice of a VP, but my prediction is Rand Paul for VP . . . (and has been since December).
Robert @36, seems clear to me that the answer is A. Lincoln.
http://1787network.com/2012/06/wayne-allen-root-whose-side-are-you-on/4874
Romney and Rubio … not gonna happen. It would be a losing combination. Rubio alienates more than he draws.
Might be fun though … R money, I bor U.
RC@36,38,
I have yet to figure out how “divisive” is really a useful political descriptor.
It seems mostly like a rhetorical tool of the “my opponent is bad, but let’s not get into details, mmmkay?” variety.
All politicians are “divisive.” They seek to energize their supporters and demonize their opponents both before and after elections (before in order to get elected, after in order to manufacture “popular support” for their policies).
37 ab, certainly Lincoln – in putting down the Confederate Elite Insurrection – would be IMO the most divisive by far. In that case, it was most unfortunate that the slavers pressed the issue.
In that sense, “divisiveness” is not necessarily something to be avoided. Contempt and disrespect is always so.
It is subjective.
We don’t have the media resources to corroborate, but weren’t the Presidents back in the 1800’s pretty divisive too?
34 ap, OK, which prez was the most divisive, then? It’s a tough call for me. Nixon, Reagan, W, and Obama all seem/ed more divisive than the rest, off the top of my head. Clinton, possibly, post Lewinsky revelation, leading to impeachment. In that sense, Clinton would be most divisive.
The more I think about it, this is highly subjective, arbitrary, even. Your thoughts?
@34 Alan Exactly. Bush was pretty damn divisive.
@29 Andy, regarding the end of your comment, I have to ask if you ever heard of the Free State Project?
@31 You have a point except for one thing. There is a difference between public and private property. Since government owns so much property, people who would normally be trespassing on private property are now just another person on public property. So no libertarian will argue to keep the current state of society we live in today and have open borders, but almost all will say that after we have free markets and private property, people can immigrate here pretty damn easily. People wouldn’t need to cross illegally because it would be simple to buy property, get a job, and move.
@28 Tom, didn’t Gary Johnson privatize prisons in New Mexico when he was governor?
@26 Tom, I think Mark was saying that he meant Libertarian Party members and leaders of the Libertarian Party. Not “we” in a collectivist sense, and not “leaders” as in rulers. What I believe he is trying to say is that we as Libertarians should have appeal to those who lean left and those who lean right. But when there are people out there who represent the Libertarian Party that many of us (when he said we) are all a part of, and he sounds like your run of the mill Republican, we (as Libertarians) get mistaken as just Republicans who like to smoke pot and get laid.
As for my own comment, personally, I think we need to attack both the left and the right equally. Both sides are a form of statism. And more importantly, I think we need to stop attacking and blaming, and instead focus on solutions. Instead of looking at Libertarians as the opposition to everything, perhaps we could sell ourselves more with the solutions to everything. Wayne just seems to want to focus all his attention at ONE man, that is the tool known today as Obama. Whereas most small ‘l’ libertarians instead want to focus on the ACTUAL role of government, and the destructiveness of our current system.
As much as I love Gary Johnson and Ron Paul, I understand that electing one man won’t ever truly change the actual problems that faces our society. I will still donate, support, and try to convince others to support people like these, but I know that true change comes from ourselves, and changing hearts and minds on what government should be all about. If we fail in this mission, then all we are doing is electing Libertarians to slow the inevitable collapse of the current system.
Sorry for the rant guys. 😛
“Obama is perhaps the most divisive President in modern U.S. history.”
Probably not a good line for Wayne to lead with, if it’s going to be posted on IPR.
GenE @27,
There’s nothing ambiguous about it. The Constitution plainly prohibits the federal government from regulating immigration before 1808.
The expiration of a prohibition does not create at power, but just to clarify that, see Article 5 which prevents even aconstitutional amendment to create such a power prior to 1808, thus making it clear to anyone who can read English that a constitutional amendment is the minimum requirement for creation of said power.
WAR wrote …our President doesn’t see fit to deal with the economy in general. He doesn’t make big announcements to save Americans in general. He doesn’t have a plan to create jobs for all Americans.
Damn good! Leave me alone!
It’s really simple on immigration, you people.
If you do not have permission to be here, you are trespassing and either should leave, be removed, or be imprisoned. Determination of that permission for public property is delegated to the federal government, and retained by the people for private property.
Such is the proper respect for property rights.
If libertarians are going to advocate for open borders and unfettered immigration on one hand yet demand respect for property on the other, they’re talking out of both sides of their mouths and contradicting themselves, even worse than el-Wayne-o.
“Tom Blanton // Jun 18, 2012 at 10:00 pm
There is no such thing as privatization of prisons. Government outsourcing the operation of prisons is not privatization.
There won’t be privatization of prisons until there is privatization of law enforcement. Privatization being where government no longer involves itself in any particular endeavor.
Outsourcing has nothing to do with libertarianism and everything to do with corporatism and/or crony capitalism.”
It sure would be nice if you could sit down and explain this to our Presidential candidate, Gary Johnson.
“Tom Blanton // Jun 18, 2012 at 10:00 pm
There is no such thing as privatization of prisons. Government outsourcing the operation of prisons is not privatization.
There won’t be privatization of prisons until there is privatization of law enforcement. Privatization being where government no longer involves itself in any particular endeavor.”
Yes, this is true, and it solidifies my point from above.
“Outsourcing has nothing to do with libertarianism and everything to do with corporatism and/or crony capitalism.”
True.
“Open borders” in a socialist/fascist state is a misnomer as well. and it’s not really about freedom when it comes from the Democrats or Republicans, they see it more as expanding the number of slaves.
Their true thought here is something like, “There’s 5 million immigrants here illegally. Great! That’s more people we can tax and control. Let’s get them dependent on government, and be sure to rig the system as much as possible so we can keep them in low paying jobs. Also, don’t forget to send military recruiters into the neighborhoods where they live. We need more cannon fodder for our foreign wars of aggression.”
I think that libertarians should drop the terms “open borders” and instead call for free market borders. Open borders is too confusing and it doesn’t really explain the real libertarian position, which if we had a pure libertarian society, would mean all borders would be regulated by the free market rather than by a coercive government. The first thing that you’d have to have to have free market borders would be an actual free market, not a socialist welfare state or corporate fascism (both of which describe the current territory we call the USA). If we lived in a pure libertarian society land owners or groups of land owners would determine what the “immigration” policy was on their land, some would chose a policy which was very lax, others would chose a policy that was very restrictive, and others would fall somewhere in between the two extremes.
I’ve wondered if the only way for a libertarian society to last would be to have the following policy: Everyone inside what I’d label “The Libertarian Zone” signs a contract where they agree to not initiate force or fraud against others. If they do initiate force or fraud against others, they would be granted a jury trial and if convicted, could face deportation from “The Libertarian Zone.” “The Libertarian Zone” may have to have some kind of border around it, with the only purpose being to keep out non-libertarians (as in collectivists and control freaks as well as anyone who prefers to be lead around by collectivists and control freaks). The way to enter “The Libertarian Zone” would be to read a short paper about what “The Libertarian Zone” is and then sign a contract swearing that you will not initiate force or fraud. Maybe a small bond would have to be posted to pay the cost of a possible deportation trial, and the bond could be returned to the individual if they decide to leave “The Libertarian Zone” (and if they decide to come back, they post the bond again, the bond could also be posted by anyone in “The Libertarian Zone” if they want to bring somebody into it if the person in question is not already a resident of “The Libertarian Zone”). All residents of “The Libertarian Zone” would have to post bond as well, and all residents of “The Libertarian Zone” would have to sign non-initiation of force contracts, including those born in “The Libertarian Zone” (although they would not have to sign the contracts themselves until they are old enough to understand what it is they are signing).
I think that the best way to destroy a libertarian society – or to prevent one from happening – is to fill it with people with a non-libertarian philosophy to the point where non-libertarians outnumber libertarians. We could have a libertarian society right now if all of the non-libertarians simply left and went somewhere else, or if all libertarians in the present territory known as the USA could all go some place where all of the non-libertarians could not initiate force and fraud against us.
There is no such thing as privatization of prisons. Government outsourcing the operation of prisons is not privatization.
There won’t be privatization of prisons until there is privatization of law enforcement. Privatization being where government no longer involves itself in any particular endeavor.
Outsourcing has nothing to do with libertarianism and everything to do with corporatism and/or crony capitalism.
Whether the Constitution authorizes the federal government to regulate immigration is one question – it is implied in Article One, Section 8 which says:
(Congress shall have power) “to establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization,”
and Article One, Section 9 which says:
“the Migration or Importation of Such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited prior to the year One Thousand Eight Hundred and Eight…”
I presume Mr Knapp gets his notion that “the Constitution not only does not authorize, but strictly, plainly and unambiguously prohibits any federal role whatsoever in regulating immigration other than being allowed to levy a small head tax” from Article One, Section 9.
Apparently Mr Knapp has failed to notice the date mentioned – 1808 – as the terminus for this prohibition on the federal government.
I will accept that the Constitution does not unambiguously grant power over immigration to Congress, but it clearly does not “strictly, plainly and unambiguously” prohibit the federal government from regulating immigration.
How are we ever going to help people realize that we are both left and right when we have leaders kissing up to the right and demonizing the left?
Boy, that’s a loaded question.
“We”?
“Both left and right”?
“Leaders”?
Thomas Knapp said: “Was it the right thing to do?
Absolutely.
It would have been nice if he had pointed out, by way of justification, that the Constitution not only does not authorize, but strictly, plainly and unambiguously prohibits any federal role whatsoever in regulating immigration other than being allowed to levy a small head tax, and then said that since it’s unconstitutional his administration isn’t going to enforce it.
But as long as a cynical political ploy moves things somewhere toward that ballpark, it’s a win for liberty.”
I gauran-damn-tee you that Barack Obama doesn’t give a rat’s ass about the Constitution or about individual liberty, and his actions here had nothing to do with either.
This is kind of like privitizing prisons. It sounds like a libertarian reform, but unless you combine it with repealing all laws against victimless “crimes,” and unless you prohibit private prisons from donating to political campaigns or engaging in political lobbying, and unless you enact court reforms like Fully Informed Juries and JAIL for Judges (Judicial Accountability Initiative Law), the results of prison privitization are not necessarily libertarian.
Obama doens’t want all of these people in the country because he cares about freedom, or because they are all fire breathing libertarians, he wants more pawns that the ruling political class (which he is a part of) can manipulate. He wants more welfare recipients (more people dependent on government), more poor and desperate people who will be open to joining the military, and more cheap labor for the corporations (who can get away with paying below free market wages because the tax payers will be forced to pick up the tab for their healthcare and education, etc…).
So saying that Obama is doing the right thing for freedom has little to no bearing in reality. Obama is not motivated by the same things that would motivate you.
I wonder how many thousands of Townhall readers will join the LP, make a financial contribution, embrace libertarianism, and vote for Gary Johnson after reading this Root article.
I hope LPHQ has extra staff available to deal with the vast numbers of new Libertarians that Wayne has recruited with this incredible article.
TK @ 22: ” In the meantime, does anyone happen to know whether or not the Libertarian Party’s presidential nominee has yet withdrawn his support for a scheme to conscript every employer in the United States as an unpaid enforcement agent of said unconstitutional regulations?”
Good question. I’d like to know the answer, myself.
Was Obama’s move on immigration a cynical political ploy?
Absolutely.
Was it the right thing to do?
Absolutely.
It would have been nice if he had pointed out, by way of justification, that the Constitution not only does not authorize, but strictly, plainly and unambiguously prohibits any federal role whatsoever in regulating immigration other than being allowed to levy a small head tax, and then said that since it’s unconstitutional his administration isn’t going to enforce it.
But as long as a cynical political ploy moves things somewhere toward that ballpark, it’s a win for liberty.
In the meantime, does anyone happen to know whether or not the Libertarian Party’s presidential nominee has yet withdrawn his support for a scheme to conscript every employer in the United States as an unpaid enforcement agent of said unconstitutional regulations?
I understood his reasoning behind the radio flub but this is over the top.
How are we ever going to help people realize that we are both left and right when we have leaders kissing up to the right and demonizing the left?
Good ‘ol Wayne, at it again.
Also, Wayne says that President Obama sought to divide Gays and Straights by his stand in favor of Gay Marriage. Why is that more divisive than the so-called conservatives who used anti-Gay marriage initiatives to get out the vote in 2004?
If Wayne Root has a problem with Pres. Obama’s minor concession to reality on the immigration issue, he must have a bigger problem with Ronald Reagan, who openly advocated Open Borders in his 1980 campaign announcement.
What President Obama has done in regard to children of undocumented immigrants is much less than the immigration reform that Pres. Reagan signed in 1986.
But Marco Rubio will not win Hispanic votes for Romney. Mexican Americans in California do not look to Cuban Americans in Florida for leadership. And Cuban Americans are already predominantly Republican.
This column is not so much racist as it is Wayne Root trying to be clever – with an idea that has already been widely discussed in the media.
Of course Libertarians should be very wary of Sen. Rubio. About a month ago, Sen. Rubio proposed a unanimous consent motion to have the Senate resolve in favor of inviting Georgia (former Soviet Republic) into NATO. If Georgia were in NATO, the US would be obliged to come to Georgia’s aid in case of a border dispute with Russia.
A single Senator objected to Sen. Rubio’s motion, and it died. The single Senator who objected was Rand Paul (Rep-KY).
@13 Hispanic voters as individually are generally not as dumb as Republican global warming deniers, birthers, truthers, “Saddam’s a-bombs are in Iraq-ers, et tedious cetera.
They are certainly smarter than the investors who say Republicans should be preferred, and fail to look at the D and R Presidential performance on boosting the stock market.
Why is WAR endorsing a Big Government statist like Romney?
Wild
About
Romney
White Angry Republican
We Are Repulsed
@4 & 12
I just re-read the article and will admit I glossed over that paragraph the first time around.
How would a Hispanic on the ticket give Romney the edge? I don’t think many typical Hispanic voters would fall for such an obvious ploy. I don’t think their as dumb as your typical kneejerk liberal that fawned over Obama.
I believe Wayne.
A Hispanic on the ticket will insure Republican victory in November.
Is that really so controversial for Libertarians to say?
What do you expect him to predict, Johnson will win?
Wayne is Jewish/Semitic. Not Aryan.
@5 it may be white as the driven…, but it comes from birds.
And the response on the LPF Facebook page
Adrian Wyllie posted in Libertarian Party of Florida
The chair will entertain a motion calling for…
Adrian Wyllie 7:19pm Jun 18
The chair will entertain a motion calling for the resignation or removal of Wayne Allyn Root at the next LPF EC meeting.
This certainly sounds racist to me. All Romney needs to do is pick a token Hispanic, and he’ll win. Oh.My.God.
Revolution?
Aryan?
Do you support White?
There goes conservative-friendly libertarian-leaning Root regurgitating “Conservative Talking Points” again.
Of course, conservatives are pure as the wind-driven snow.
Wow…..Wayne will you be as equally critical of Romney if he gets elected POTUS?
From the article:
“In the interest of full disclosure, I am the Chairman of the Libertarian National Campaign Committee. This isn’t an endorsement. I am making a recommendation as a political pundit, analyst, and strategist only.”
If Wayne isn’t careful, people are going to think he doesn’t like Obama.
He certainly seems to infer that Obama’s decision regarding immigrants last week was bad. Groan and *facepalm*
As far as I’m concerned, this is Root’s second endorsement of Romney. Thanks for mentioning your party and candidate in the article. Stay classy.