Wayne Root: Hail the King – Hail Obama

By Wayne Allyn Root, Former Libertarian Vice Presidential Nominee and Best-Selling Author of “The Conscience of a Libertarian”

It’s funny how life works. Even when I agree with Barack Obama, I am still offended by his Big Brother attitude and Nanny State goon tactics. Obama’s actions remind me of a dictator who thinks he knows better than you or me. Last week, President Barack Obama erased any doubt that he sees himself as “King Supreme Ruler” rather than as the elected servant of the American people. Obama declared he would not defend a law passed by the Congress of the United States called DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act).

As a well-known Libertarian-conservative and States’ Rights activist, I believe the federal government has no place in the debate on marriage. If any government should be involved (and I don’t think they should be), it is a States’ Rights issue and should only be decided on the state and local level. DOMA tramples on States Rights in violation of the Constitution.

But Obama’s support of my opinion makes me feel no better. One could respect his argument that DOMA is unconstitutional if Obama was a consistent defender of the Constitution. But Obama is about power and pleasing his biggest political contributors, not upholding the rule of law. If Obama was frank with the American people he would simply state, “I am your king, your ruler. Congress is irrelevant and the Constitution is a meaningless piece of paper. I will tell you what laws are good for you.” Obama knows little about truth. He received an Ivy League degree in speaking out of both ends of his mouth. And a Masters Degree in the art of “weapons of mass distraction.” 

Obama’s decision was pure politics. And a perfect distraction while the economy and global security melts down. The national debt is mounting; cities and states are bankrupt; the dollar is headed for oblivion; gas prices escalate out of control; real unemployment heads for a staggering 20%; the Middle East is in flames; our border is undefended. To a master of deception like Obama, this is the perfect time to distract the media and the masses. Change the topic. Open the fight on another front. Confuse, misdirect, and overwhelm the opposition, while simultaneously rewarding a group that contributes heavily to Democratic causes. Right out of Obama’s favorite book, “Rules for Radicals.”

But don’t buy into Obama’s propaganda. This has nothing to do with the Constitution. If Obama cared about the Constitution, he’d be refusing to support many of his own bills. After all, there is nothing constitutional about Obamacare. Forcing consumers to buy a product (health insurance), with the threat of government (fine or prison), is certainly unconstitutional.

If the Constitution mattered, Obama certainly could not consider giving waivers to opt out of Obamacare to unions across America. He certainly could not attempt to set price controls on doctors, insurance companies, and medical device manufacturers. He could not support Cap and Trade. What role does the Constitution allow for government to take control over private industry?

What about bailouts? Is it constitutional to steal taxpayer money from the treasury to hand out to companies that wrote the biggest checks to your Presidential campaign?

How about Card Check? You think it’s constitutional to enrich 7% of the population (union employees) who happen to send hundreds of millions in contributions to Obama, all balanced on the backs of the other 93% of the population? Is it constitutional to accomplish this by taking away the rights of employees to vote in secret? I wonder if it’s constitutional to be a President and union hack at the same time?

And then there’s Obama’s obsession with banning oil drilling. Recently, a federal judge called Obama’s de facto ban “unreasonable, unacceptable and unjustified.” Obama’s unconstitutional disregard for the rule of law could threaten the security and stability of the entire U.S. economy.

It certainly can’t be States Rights’ that Obama is concerned with. Afterall, he is currently suing the state of Arizona, interfering with their constitutional right to protect their own border and citizens. Amazingly, Mexico has joined the suit. Do you think it’s constitutional for our President to be suing one of our own states, with Mexico as a partner?

So why start quoting the Constitution with DOMA? In the middle of the Great Depression II and a Middle East meltdown, why choose gay marriage as the issue to draw the line in the sand? What would the media’s reaction have been if President Bush had decided he would no longer defend the Civil Rights Voting Act on constitutional grounds? Yet in this case, we hear only deafening silence from the media.

No matter that for the first time, Obama and I are on the same side of an issue. His handling of DOMA is simply an extension of his non-stop Big Brother power grab through the appointment of radical czars; blatant disregard for the rule of law (see his handling of the GM and Chrysler bankruptcies); and implementing rules, regulations, and policies that bypass the Congress and the will of the American people.

Our President can cite his new found appreciation for the Constitution all he wants. But from his actions as President, it’s clear he wouldn’t know the Constitution if it hit him in the face. This man considers the American people “serfs” and himself our King and dictator. As my father, the common-sense blue-collar butcher, used to say, “Don’t listen to what he says, watch what he does.” 

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

100 thoughts on “Wayne Root: Hail the King – Hail Obama

  1. Root Lies

    Root: “No matter that for the first time, Obama and I are on the same side of an issue.”

    Not “for the first time.”

    Root called for an Afghan surge, as did Obama.

    Not to mention that Root and Obama agree on the greater issue of maintaining American military bases overseas.

  2. Brian

    These articles conjure images of Root laying awake at night, nervously twitching, as he plot his next “stick-it-to-the-man” post. Not sure if you heard, but the “well-known” Root (well-known people don’t need to remind people that they are well-known) is the Obama whisperer. He has a near-perfect record of telling people how, in the past, he predicted every one of Obama’s moves.

    Root, and the articles he writes, represent everything that is wrong with contemporary American political discourse. While I am in no way, shape, or form a libertarian, I am disappointed as I have higher expectations for those in third-party/alternative parties than I do for Dems and Reps. We (the royal we) have different responsibilities and have different moral standards. We succeed when we relentlessly criticize without comprising our moral high-ground. These articles are disingenuous word vomit that appeal to the most animalistic and knee-jerk political senses. It’s time for the Root apologists to wake up. You are not doing yourselves any favors.

  3. Brian

    Also, I have a question for all libertarians in the “gay marriage is a state issue” camp. How is a state government decision on this issue and different than a federal decision on this issue? In this sense, how is it more “libertarian?” If you are gay, states are just as likely to infringe upon your rights as the federal government. This is a major problem that I have with libertarians. I believe this policy position is adopted, not with gays in mind (as many libertarians would claim), but rather out of the mindset that right-wingers don’t want to be told by the federal government that they have to tolerate gay marriage.

  4. Brian

    In this sense, what does the size of the governing unit have to do with a rights-based issue such as this?

  5. Robert Capozzi

    wr: One could respect his argument that DOMA is unconstitutional if Obama was a consistent defender of the Constitution.

    me: Or one could view it as a start…

  6. David Colborne

    I have to be honest – I basically agree with Wayne on this one. I’m not a fan of DOMA; I think it not only violates the “Full faith and credit” clause, it also feeds nicely into Brian’s point that “states rights” is far too frequently code for “oppress people on the local level where nobody’s paying attention”. On the other hand, the Executive Branch isn’t supposed to instruct the DoJ to toss in the towel whenever a lower court makes a convenient ruling (Gill v. Office of Personnel Management, for those keeping track at home) against a piece of legislation that the administration doesn’t like, which is basically what Obama did here.

  7. Robert Capozzi

    Making marriage a federalism issue doesn’t work. Contracts in one state have to be honored in another. I’m for federalism generally, but this sidestep flunks, IMO.

    Call the contract aspect of marriage something different (DP?) and be done with this one.

  8. Wayne Root

    I so dislike the ridiculous arument that States Rights merely means oppression on local level. What States Rights means is the ability to WIN favor on a local level. Do you realize the advantage of States Rights to anyone fighting oppression or civil liberties violations? States can prove the laboratory for winning on these issues. States can do what a big lumbering federal govt can never do- be open minded and willing to experiment or compromise.

    Medical marijuana was NEVER going to be won on the federal level. Neither was gay marriage. But both were fought and won on state level- giving hope to supporters.

    States Rights give you a fighting chance for change. When it works on the state level, it expands to the nation.

    Civil rights were won on the state level. Without those victories, the civil rights movement and desegregation of schools could never have happened nationwide. First it had to be proven successful somewhere…before you got progress.

    If you’re a fan of online gaming…as I am…it had virtually no chance of passing on the federal level…but it stands an excellent chance of passing in California, Florida, Iowa, and eventually New Jersey. Within months of a state passing it, it will gain steam on the national level.

    Only one state- mine (Nevada) allows legal sports gaming…and legal prostitution. You can complain that the other 49 are intolerant or oppressive…

    Or you can vote for freedom by moving to Nevada.

    Nevada also has legal medical marijuana and no state income tax.

    You can live an unhappy life and complain how unfair it is…or move to Nevada.

    If you are gay…better to have gay marriage legal in Vermont than nowhere.

    Because legalizing it on federal level might take 20 years…at best.

    Maybe 30 or 40 or 50 years.

    But you can enjoy it now in Vermont.

    You can bet on NFL games now in Nevada…or wait 50 years for it to come to your state.

    You can buy medical marijuana now in California…or wait for 25 years for federal legalization.

    I am successful in business and life because I understand to always accept small victories instead of nothing…the art of compromise is ESSENTIAL to success. Those who don’t understand small victories or negotiation or compromise will never be successful.

    Or as ancient Chinese proverb goes, “A journey of a thousand miles begins with one step.”

    You can accept states as a living, breathing, constitutional laboratory…and accept some small victories…and still fight for the home run on federal level…using the state’s success as the model for federal passage.

    Or you can gain nothing.

  9. Robert Capozzi

    wr, lab, yes. Panacea, no. Solution for the same-gender legal partnerships, no.

  10. David Colborne

    Wayne, I’m not arguing that there aren’t positives to “states rights”. It’d be nice if each state could choose their own drug policies, among other things. Unfortunately, “states rights” also allowed Jim Crow laws to proliferate and they presently allow states (like Nevada!) to not recognize marriages or civil unions between two people of the same gender. There’s a reason minorities are such big fans of federal intrusion – it’s because it was the federal government that forced states to eliminate miscegenation laws, the federal government that forced states to abandon “anti-sodomy” laws, and the federal government that forced states to get rid of intrusive voter registration documentation, poll taxes, ambiguous literacy requirements, and all the other detritus of Jim Crow. Remember, Eisenhower sent federal troops to Little Rock to force the school district to accept students with a higher melanin count into their schools. Who’d they face? Why, the Arkansas’ National Guard, which the state governor had the “right” to deploy to oppress his citizens.

    At some point, we need to stop pretending the past 50 years didn’t happen and own up to the history of “states rights”. Once we do that, we can then sell what we wish to accomplish through local, state, or federal action, which is always increasing the freedom of all Americans in all ways.

  11. Brian

    I strongly disagree with your assessment that civil rights were won on the state level. It took two very active federal governments to get equal rights for blacks. In the first reconstruction federal troops were used to forcibly ensure equality. Within a couple of years of their leaving, Jim Crow was law. The second reconstruction required multiple Supreme Court decisions (after states were accused of dragging their feet on Brown v. Board) and the use of federal marshals. In neither of these instances were states any kind of “laboratory” for civil rights.

    While some states will obviously institute gay marriage before there is federal action on the issue (and there will be), others will be dragged into the 21st century kicking and screaming in the same way that others were dragged out of the Jim Crow era.

  12. Wayne Root

    David,

    Libertarians need to always remember and argue that civil rights are a God-given and Constitutional right…basic human rights are guaranteed no matter the color of your skin, race, creed, or religion…they do not need to be argued on the state level, nor anywhere else.

    There NEVER was a right for states to descriminate on basis of a school child’s race. That is not a States Right. It is a human right and a civil right guaranteed to all of us by God and the U.S. Constitution.

    I am never defensive in media about states rights. I am proud supporter of both States Rights and civil rights.

    But the right to smoke pot, or play poker online is not guaranteed by the Constitution. Those social and moral issues should be hashed out on the state level. Feds should not get involved because “one size doesn’t fit all.”

  13. Brian

    Smoking pot, playing card games?gay marriage.

    The residual effects of questions regarding marriage are much more substantive than those associated with questions surrounding weed and card games.

  14. Porn Again Christian

    Smoking pot is a basic human right to Steve Kubby, Peter McWilliams (RIP), and many others who need it to save their life and health (including eyesight). Imagine if you were slowly losing your sight or slowly dying from nausea and cancer and the government (state federal or whatever) told you there’s a medicine you can have, but you can’t have it or you’ll go to jail.

    It’s also a basic human right to Rastas, Copts, some Native Americans, and millions of other people who use it as part of their religion. Imagine the government telling you you can’t practice your religion…that you can’t have a church or synagogue, or wear a yarmulke or cross or pray.

    Gay marriage is a basic human right to couple who love each other and have bonded for life every bit as much as straight couples. Imagine some state or federal government saying your marriage is illegal because your wife is the wrong race or your husband is the wrong gender. Both are equally intolerable.

  15. David Colborne

    Wayne, it sounds to me like you and I are largely in agreement. My only issue, and it’s frankly a small one, is that I view states rights as a tool. It’s a means to an end – if they can be used as a more efficient and effective means of providing greater liberty to Americans, I’m in favor of them being used as such and granting them sufficient power so they can continue to be used as such. However, I would no more defend them or speak in favor of them than I would defend or speak in favor of a screwdriver or a power drill. I’m not going to declare that screwdrivers or power drills are awesome when you construct a bookshelf with one, nor am I going to declare that screwdrivers or power drills should be banned because you’re trying to gouge my eyeballs out with them.

    That said, I do agree that, if issues like drug use and online gambling need to be hashed out anywhere, the state level is a better choice than the federal level. I’ll take a small, local victory over a large, federal defeat any day of the week.

  16. Jill Pyeatt

    Interesting, Wayne, that I had a different take on Obama’s decision. You see it as a distraction–I see it as just the opposite. Obama has probably realized that this will ultimately fail, because it really is unconstitutional for one group of to people to have a different set of rights than others–so he’s not fighting because there are more important issues such as the economy.

    Here is something I would really like you to comment on, since it’s a flagrant disregard for the Constitution:

  17. George Phillies

    In America, States do not have rights.

    Real Americans have a very clear idea about states rights.

    States Rights is about telling black Americans they cannot attend the schools their tax dollars paid for, because they are white schools. That lasted until the Federal Supreme Court said otherwise and American patriot and President Dwight David Eisenhower sent the United States Army to Little Rock. I’m old enough to have watched it on television.

    States Rights is is about African Americans not being allowed to attend the State University that their taxes paid for, until the United States Supreme Court said otherwise and United States President John F Kennedy sent the United States Army to Mississippi.

    States Rights is about married couples being denied the right to buy contraceptives, until the Supreme Court said otherwise.

    States rights is about prosecuting people for what they did in the privacy of their bedrooms, until the Supreme Court said otherwise.

    States rights is about states defending slavery, which is the right of rich white men to fornicate eleven-year-old girls as though they were no different than the men’s horses, property to be disposed of as they saw fit.

    It is a disgrace that the LNC uses its members dues to display this liberty-hating rose fertilizer from male cows on its web site.

    I support free speech. That’s a restriction on government.

    That has nothing to do with how our private organization, the LNC, spends its money.

    People who want to advocate states rights should line up with groups and people closer to their points of view. The Southern Party. The KKK. The Republican Party. Michael Savage.
    Glenn Beck.

    And if the LNC wonders why it is running short of donations, it should look at the positions its web pages advocate.

  18. Wayne Root

    Jill,

    I watched Judge Napolitano’s video. It was FANTASTIC. I agree with every word. You should know Judge is a friend of mine. I’ve been on his show several times. He’s been a guest on my radio show several times. Great guy. I believe him to be the most brilliant Constitutional expert on TV in America today. I haven’t found too many issues we have ever disagreed on. And once again, he is right on the money.

    Wayne

  19. paulie

    Wayne,

    I think she meant the subject of that video – indefinite detentions even after being acquitted – for one of your columns like this. I think it’s a good suggestion, although of course it’s only a suggestion.

  20. Jill Pyeatt

    Yes, paulie, that’s what I meant. I know you like to stick to economic issues, Wayne, but this is so unconstitional that I thought you might like to comment on it.

    I think this is one of the worst thing Obama has done in his whole term of office, so far. Here are a couple more links.

    http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2011/03/top-counter-terrorism-experts.html

    http://www.aclu.org/national-security/president-obama-issues-executive-order-institutionalizing-indefinite-detention

  21. Thomas L. Knapp

    The Obama administration rigorously defended DOMA in the courts for two years, after previous administrations had rigorously defended it in the courts for 12 years before that.

    Now, the Obama administration has said that it will finally accept the ruling of a court on one clearly unconstitutional section of DOMA instead of continuing to waste taxpayer money appealing that section.

    Was politics behind that decision? Almost certainly.

    Was it the right decision? Absolutely.

  22. Jerry S.

    @21 “It is a disgrace that the LNC uses its members dues to display this liberty-hating rose fertilizer from male cows on its web site.”

    Who you talking about there Prof. P ???

  23. Andy

    “Brian // Mar 9, 2011 at 12:45 pm

    Also, I have a question for all libertarians in the ‘gay marriage is a state issue’ camp. How is a state government decision on this issue and different than a federal decision on this issue? In this sense, how is it more ‘libertarian?’ If you are gay, states are just as likely to infringe upon your rights as the federal government. This is a major problem that I have with libertarians.”

    Saying that gay marriage is a states rights issue rather than a federal issue is more of a constitutional – and decentralist – arguement than it is a libertarian arguement.

    The true libertarian position on marriage, gay or otherwise, is that individuals should be free to form voluntary relationships with whomever they want and they should be able to label these relationships however they want. A person should not have to go to the state to get a marriage license. People should just delcare themselves married or have whatever type of marriage ceremony they want and then they are married. State marriage licenses should be abolished. People were getting married long before state marriage licensing even exsisted (which I believe happened in the 1850’s).

    This issue has become a political issue for two reasons:

    1) Most of the public is so indoctrinated in statism that they automatically assume that one “must” get a state marriage license in order to get married (nevermind the fact that this is absurd).

    2) Certain “benifits” have become attached to getting a state marriage license (although getting a state marriage license brings certain disadvantages as well). This situation would not exsist in a libertarian society because for instance, there’d be no need to file income taxes as married couples because income taxes would not exsist. There’d be no concern about getting Social Security “benifits” after a spouse died because the Social Security Administration would not exsist. If a gay couple wanted to set up a retirement plan that had death benifits they would purchase one in the market place that did not discriminate against gay couples (and considering the number of people who’d want to make money from having them as customers, there’d certainly be some that would exsist, especially given that not everyone is a bigot).

    I’m not gay, and I’m not married, but if I were going to get married I would not get a state marriage license.

    I would encourage gays who want to get married to do it without getting a license, and then to not file taxes and not use Social(ist) (In)Security Numbers.

    Having said this, I am more sympathetic with the pro-gay marriage side than I am with the anti-gay marriage side in this debate. The pro-gay marriage side just wants to be able to form voluntary relationships and to be treated as others who form voluntary relationship but who have a different sexual preference. So as an interim solution, I think that they should be “allowed” to “legally” get married. The anti-gay marriage side is made up of people who want to use government to impose their religious views on to others. The simple act of gays getting married does not infringe on anyone else’s rights, even if it offends some people.

  24. Robert Capozzi

    gp, while I would strongly suggest not using the term “states rights,” it’s clearly a term not meant to mean anything like “natural rights” or anything like them. It’s a procedural “right” for states to exercise legal jurisdiction over its citizens. It’s an enumeration of powers. That’s it.

  25. Thomas L. Knapp

    “I would encourage gays who want to get married to do it without getting a license”

    In Missouri, the penalty for clergy who hold a religious ceremony and call it a “marriage” without a “marriage license” is a $500 fine and two weeks in jail. I don’t recall what the penalty is for the other participants in said ritual.

  26. LibertarianGirl

    RC_Call the contract aspect of marriage something different (DP?) and be done with this one.

    me_ ROFLMAO- um besides being my maiden initials , its also a pretty hardcore pornographic abbreviation . DP – just wouldnt work , and yes that is the sentence i chose to comment on , gimme a break ,ive had a glass or 2 of wine …

  27. Andy

    “In Missouri, the penalty for clergy who hold a religious ceremony and call it a ‘marriage’ without a ‘marriage license’ is a $500 fine and two weeks in jail. I don’t recall what the penalty is for the other participants in said ritual.”

    That’s a pretty messed up law in Missouri. Having said this, there are still ways around it.

    First of all, you don’t really need clergy in order to get married. Two individuals could just exchange vows and declare themselves to be married.

    Second of all, even if one does use clergy for a marriage service (although I doubt that most Christian churches or most traditional churches in general from one of the major religions would hold a gay marriage service), I wouldn’t be suprised if they could get around this tyrannical “law” in Missouri by using a clergy member that does not preach from a 501c3 church.

  28. Michael H. Wilson

    Gee Tom, ya think they might use the internet, or maybe have the minister stand in Kansas while the couple stand across the line in Missouri. Jus’ thinkin’ out loud ya know. ;)

  29. nursetom

    Back in the 1950’s, many of us found ourselves gawking at a new invention called television. There was one show that came on everyday at 4:00 P.M. Buffalo Bob was the master of ceremonies and his sidekick was a mute clown named Clarabelle who communicated with a honker horn. There was also the “peanut gallery” which was a set of bleachers occupied by a group of preschoolers cheering every time Clarabelle honked his horn. The star of the show, however, was a marionette named Howdy Doody. The way it worked was that Howdy Doody spoke to the television audience while Buffalo Bob lead the cheering section in the peanut gallery. Every time H.D. finished making a point, Buffalo Bob would say “Isn’t that right boys and girls of the peanut gallery?” Clarabelle would then honk his horn twice and the studio kids would shout “Yay!” Of course, we never found out who was pulling the strings. Let’s see; a speech making puppet with a cowboy and a clown leading a programmed cheering section; sounds a lot like modern-day politics.

    Accordingly, as I have watched the events unfold vis-à-vis the “war on terror”, and the “road map to peace”, I feel like I’m still watching the Howdy Doody Show. In Gaza, Hamas had taken control of the Palestinian Authority by popular vote. Then the U.S. government continued to push Israel to travel down “peace road” with the leaders of Hamas because they had become the elected officials of the “Palestinians”. The PLO has been gone for about five years and Hamas is still in power; American style democracy in action with Jimmy Carter still heralding his approval and Obama still promising to work harder toward bringing peace between the Jews and the Arabs in the Middle East.

    Wait a minute! Aren’t the Hamas terrorists the ones who perpetrated all of the suicide bombings in Israel and murdered thousands of Jews? Yes. Didn’t the Israeli military take out several successive leaders of Hamas with Helicopter attacks without protest from the puppeteers? Yes. Didn’t the prior Bush administration and the current Obama administration condemn Hamas for its acts of terror? Yes. And now the world community is still congratulating Hamas for its participation in the peaceful political process and condemning Israel for defending herself.

    I feel like I’m still going insane. But it must be alright, because Howdy Doody says that everything is as it should be, the buffalo man is prompting us for agreement and the dumb clown just gave us two blasts on his honker horn.

  30. Michael H. Wilson

    nursetom can you give us a count as to how many Israelis have died and how many Palestinians say since 1968 and if you can maybe you could break it down as to how many children, etc.
    Thanks,

  31. Jerry S.

    @8
    Medical marijuana was NEVER going to be won on the federal level. Neither was gay marriage. But both were fought and won on state level- giving hope to supporters.

    Civil rights were won on the state level. Without those victories, the civil rights movement and desegregation of schools could never have happened nationwide. First it had to be proven successful somewhere…before you got progress.

    { me-over fifty years later and it’s still a failure, Separation of Education and State has, is and should always be the GOAL of a libertarian society }

    ……

    You can buy medical marijuana now in California…or wait for 25 years for federal legalization.

    {me-All libertarians, Greens, Ind. and whoever when speaking about marijuana should say RE-legalization, relegalize. Our education of society is an on going job , From 0-1937 MJ was LEGAL in the Americas with very little trouble. The Fed just shifted their “forced” alcohol prohibition (which was a major failure as most here know, but remember most of the masses don’t know this) over to drugs to keep the federal jobs intact under the socialist FDR still in that (’29-‘4?)depression. }

    I am successful in business and life because I understand to always accept small victories instead of nothing…the art of compromise is ESSENTIAL to success. Those who don’t understand small victories or negotiation or compromise will never be successful.

    { me- should I comment on your business philosophy, probably not. You are supposed to have 7 figures at your disposal at all times. I don’t have that much and probably never will. So by the masses standards you are much more successful than I am or ever will be. However there is something to be said for PRINCIPLES, sometimes in minor party politics they are MANY times more important than anything else. Most can look at DC and see what compromise has accomplished and to a lot of us it’s just UGLY! }

    Or as ancient Chinese proverb goes, “A journey of a thousand miles begins with one step.”

    { me-I had a book once about the teachings of Mao, yes the mass murderer Mao leader of communist China. It attributed this statement to him. Of the entire book I have used this little saying more times than all others combined. Mao was in the same camp with Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, etc., and their bosses the Rothschilds and Rockefellers very BAD men!

    Never doubt government at ALL levels is dangerous to you and yours!

    “…our largest danger does not come from wild beasts or even natural disasters; rather, it comes from other human beings. Humans rob, rape, and kill each other, and these activities are often organized by the greatest threat to human beings: tyrannical governments. According to professor R.J. Rummel of the University of Hawaii, such governments murdered at least 262 million (262,000,000) civilian men, women and children in the 20th Century. With the approximately 40 million murdered during war that brings the total government kill to over 300 million men, women and children in the 20th Century alone.
    That is, governments murdered about six times as many of their own citizens as the approximately 40 million who died in war. This means that of the approximately 300 million men, women and children dead by the hand of government, about 86% were murdered by their own government.
    Those 262 million dead citizens are a lot more civilians than the most ambitious non-government terrorist can ever hope to murder. And currently (as of 2007) in Iraq, Afghanistan, Darfur, Somalia, etc. we are, unfortunately, still counting. ~ Jim Burns

    http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/RM1.RINGS.OF.TEARS.HTM

    Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master. – George Washington
    http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/RM2.RINGS.OF.TEARS2.HTM }

    @12 “But the right to smoke pot, or play poker online is not guaranteed by the Constitution.”

    { me-What a person puts into their bodies is their business, The Constitution and Amendments are to BIND DOWN gov’t not the individual, Amendment IX & X! The individual ALLOWS the state not the other way around no matter what might be the current practice! We the people…}

  32. Thomas L. Knapp

    Andy@35, MHW@36,

    In practice, what same-sex couples have been doing lately is going to Iowa.

    There’s a group here in St. Louis that charters a bus every so often to transport couples and wedding entourages from St. Louis to Iowa and back. I believe they celebrated their 100th wedding so facilitated a couple of weeks ago.

    Presumably St. Louis area limo services, reception halls, bakers, florists, etc. would rather have that economic action here.

  33. Andy

    “But the right to smoke pot, or play poker online is not guaranteed by the Constitution. Those social and moral issues should be hashed out on the state level. Feds should not get involved because ‘one size doesn’t fit all.'”

    These things are covered under the 9th amendment which says:

    “The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”

    Every right could not possibly be listed in the Constitution, so the 9th amendment is just a reminder that just because a right is not specifically listed in the Constitution it does not mean that it does not exsist.

  34. Andy

    “Thomas L. Knapp // Mar 10, 2011 at 1:43 am

    Andy@35, MHW@36,

    In practice, what same-sex couples have been doing lately is going to Iowa.

    There’s a group here in St. Louis that charters a bus every so often to transport couples and wedding entourages from St. Louis to Iowa and back. I believe they celebrated their 100th wedding so facilitated a couple of weeks ago.”

    This is an example of issues where the federal government is not specifically granted power being left for the states or the people.

    I don’t believe that the state governments should have any authority over who gets married either, but it is at least better than having it prohibited at a federal level.

    This is a good example of how when one state passes a tyrannical law that people can go to another state that has more freedom on whatever the issue is.

    “Presumably St. Louis area limo services, reception halls, bakers, florists, etc. would rather have that economic action here.”

    This could be one arguement to get that stupid law repealed in Missouri.

  35. Robert Capozzi

    lg31: …its also a pretty hardcore pornographic abbreviation . DP …

    me: Hah! Didn’t know that! It was meant to be short for “domestic partnership,” which is — I think — the more PC term than “civil unions,” which is my slight preference.

    I don’t care what you call it, just don’t call me late for dinner.

  36. Mike B.

    Ayn R. Key @34:

    That would be way too progressive and socialistic and un-american.

    Wayne says in a Las Vegas Seven Magazine in the November 11-17, 2010 edition:

    “I’m kinda of re-creating libertarianism,” says Wayne Allyn Root. “I’m not just going to follow the traditional roots. I’m a Ronald Reagan libertarian. The traditional libertarianism mixes in too many things that are liberal. That’s why it doesn’t work. It needs to blend with conservatism.”
    _________________________________

    I could be wrong but what do I know..I’m just a George W. Bush Libertarian.

  37. Yes Nevada has no state Taxes

    But they make up for that by getting you other ways. Anyone who is familiar with Nevada should know about SAD. Special Assessment District. A big fat bill by the city/county that forces you to pay for whatever they deem fit necessary. What do you do about it. Better have the money to go to court and fight it, and if your lucky, depends on who the judges are whether you win or lose. Also if you win that time. They can come back again and again and again. I am very surprised NO ONE in Nevada has done nothing to change this. People have lost homes because of this. People who live in HOA has involved people who don’t live in HOA into this mess, because the county got involved. Other HOA’s have been forced to have an assessment imposed to pay for a dog park because the County/City said so. So in turn this is a big fat hidden tax.

    If you don’t have the money to pay for the lump sum bill in one go, you get stuck with this bill in portions at a yearly rate with interest. Also your property get assessed and your property tax then goes up, due to as they call it an improvement. This is a crock. I have brought this issues up over and over and mentioned this to higher authority in office in Nevada I’d like to see this gone.

    I also understand there are a lot of lawsuits against HOA (Homeowners Associations) due to the communism rules that get imposed. I’d like to see HOA gone to. I know some people like them. But I tell you what. I will take my freedom and live with an eyesore across the street over having to be told what color to paint my house. where to put the trash and how high my grass it suppose to be cut. BTW if you haven’t figure it already, No I don’t live in one and I refuse at all cost.

  38. Wayne Root

    Mike B,

    First I made the breakthrough of a lifetime for LP in general…and Nevada Lp in particular. I landed a popular magazine cover…dressed as George Washington, the father of our country. A wonderful, positive image for LP.

    Libertarians should be cheering. High five-ing. I was asked to be on that magazine cover because the media is starting to notice that a Libertarian is EVERYWHERE. They are shocked and amazed. Perhaps you should be too.

    The GOP and Democrats aren’t scared of “pure principles.” As a matter of fact, they don’t even notice them. What the media and voters notice is my big mouth and bigger than life personality. That is what gets you noticed in politics. The LP now has a voice on the national media radar screen.

    By anyone’s standards thats a good thing.

    As far as the paragraph you isolated…

    #1) It’s taken out of context- as the media loves to do.

    #2) No one cares. What mainstream voters notice is a Libertarian was on the cover of their magazine.

    #3) You take one sentence or paragraph and try to denigrate a wonderful article. You sound like our fraudulent opponents in powerful corrupt 2-party system. Study my body of work, not one sentence out of context.

    #4) That “quote” was misquoted. What I said was that “The LP is fiscally conservative and socially tolerant. But that in today’s terrible economic crisis, all most Americans care about is jobs, jobs, jobs, spending & taxes. The LP has made a mistake. The Tea Party became the most popular and fastest growing political movement in one year by stressing fiscal conservatism.
    We need to stress our fiscal conservatism. We were there long before the Tea Party.”

    That was my quote. The reporter obviously mangled it.

    The LP has had a problem in the past. No media attention. So our principles didn’t matter, if no one heard them.

    I’m changing all that…but with major media comes the fact that the media misquotes…or takes quotes out of context…or takes a one hour interview and picks one sentence out of 20,000 words to create a controversial headline.

    That’s the way it is in the big leagues. Get used to it. Because I’ll be quoted and misquoted alot in the coming years.

    The LP finally has a voice…a LOUD voice with a mega phone. Start celebrating. Once in a while you won’t like one viewpoint, or one sentence out of 10,000 words coming out of my mouth. Or I’ll be misquoted completely. Or I’ll even mis-speak once in a while. That happens when you do 1000+ media interviews a year.

    Sometimes I’m dead tired at 5 AM or 6 AM or 11 PM when I do these interviews. But at least someone in the media is interested in speaking to me- so I am honored and take every interview, no matter how tired I am. That’s gigantic progress for the LP.

    Thats okay. It’s far better than being ignored, anonymous and meaningless.

    From now on the LP will get notice. Good or bad, as long as they notice you…you are gaining, things are improving, you have a shot at a seat at the table. You have to get noticed to get ahead in politics, business, or life.

    Yes I’m loud and controversial. But I get noticed in a noisy media world. That’s one heck of an achievement for a third party candidate.

    Stop worrying about every word. That has never worked in 40 years of the LP. If it had, we’d have an entire Congress filled with Libertarians…or how about ONE.

    We have none. Because it isn’t perfect words or “purity” that gets you elected, it’s brand name and a loud megaphone…and as the Tea Party proved…voters want a candidate who believes in a few simple concepts:

    Smaller government
    Lower taxes
    More economic freedom
    Lower entitlements
    Fewer govt employees, who are paid lower compensation
    And they want a candidate who appears to be a patriot who loves America- not a hater or blamer.

    Add in a positive attitude and a candidate who looks and sounds like a leader…and who is a hard worker willing to shake hands and kiss babies 24/7/365…and you have a winning strategy for the LP.

    Most importantly Mike…stop complaining…stop seeing the glass as half empty…stop trying to snatch defeat fro the jaws of victory…stop denigrating a LP leader that is a workhorse and has credibility in the media…stop begging for anonymous, meaningless and ignored.

    It’s time to accept victory.

    Best,
    Wayne

  39. David Colborne

    The glass isn’t half empty. It’s twice the size it needs to be.

    (I kid, I kid.)

    Wayne, in all seriousness, I think you’ve got the right idea. Get noticed, get interviewed, get the word “Libertarian” on as many lips as possible, and focus on pushing what Libertarians have in common with the rest of America instead of obsessing over what a Minarchist Utopia might look like. That’s just good salesmanship.

    Of course, if I was doing the sales instead of you, I’d do things a little differently – emphasize some topics over others, perhaps use a different approach. But, hey, I’m me, you’re you, and you’re the one in the news. If I want to see my approach applied to the news cycle, I need to stop typing and start working to make that happen. Or, if I’m really lucky, I can try and combine both my love of typing and working and get some good articles going.

    Any thoughts on participating with the LP-California convention in April?

  40. Wayne Root

    David,

    I’m flying to San Juan, Puerto Rico that weekend to give the keynote speech at a major business convention. I’ll be in Puerto Rico for 5 days…then straight to DC for LNC meeting.

    Sorry I’ll miss LP of CA. If I was around that weekend I’d certainly be a keynote speaker there- as I’ve done so many times at LP of CA events. I am always honored to help CA in any way I can.

    I’m just not available this time- for first time ever.

    Have a good time. I’ll be rooting for you!

    Wayne

  41. paulie

    nursetom can you give us a count as to how many Israelis have died and how many Palestinians say since 1968 and if you can maybe you could break it down as to how many children, etc.

    Something tells me that was probably a “drive-by” comment being left on thousands of blogs.

  42. @46

    To Wayne.

    Beautiful, Beautiful. Well put and this IPR needed you to say that for a LONG TIME. I suggest that portion is copied and paste on other blogs in the IPR in case people needs reminding. LOL

  43. paulie

    Wayne, in all seriousness, I think you’ve got the right idea. Get noticed, get interviewed, get the word “Libertarian” on as many lips as possible, and focus on pushing what Libertarians have in common with the rest of America instead of obsessing over what a Minarchist Utopia might look like. That’s just good salesmanship.

    Of course, if I was doing the sales instead of you, I’d do things a little differently – emphasize some topics over others, perhaps use a different approach. But, hey, I’m me, you’re you, and you’re the one in the news. If I want to see my approach applied to the news cycle, I need to stop typing and start working to make that happen. Or, if I’m really lucky, I can try and combine both my love of typing and working and get some good articles going.

    Exactly.

    I’ll put up my standard spiel on that again here later, hopefully it will reach some of my intended audience eventually with repetition.

  44. John Jay Myers

    @46
    “And they want a candidate who appears to be a patriot who loves America- not a hater or blamer.”

    What does this mean? I mean really, most folks would say you are a hater… and you are definitely a blamer… oh just not on the sacred cow known as our foreign policy. I would like you to elaborate though.

    Also in regards to your list there is a whole segment of the population who believe in a more libertarian set of principles, those people don’t have a side to vote for.

    We need to be there to give them one.
    If you put your list in front of most people and said “what Party believes this?”, the answer would be the Republican Party.

    So why be a Libertarian?

    Here are 4 reasons why people should vote libertarian:

    To end the wars and bring our troops home, something neither side will talk about or do, leaving us a huge target market.

    End the Welfare state as quickly as possible, something neither side will take a stand on.

    End corruption in the government, by reducing its role in our lives as much as possible.

    Let people live their lives how they see fit.

    Wayne, your plan targets Republicans who are happy to be Republicans, it will result in zero growth for the party.
    Actually negative growth, because it will turn off a huge segment of the population that want a party with a more principled stand.

    The Libertarian Parties message needs to be the truth, that the two parties are the same, EXACTLY the same, and there is no alternative but to vote Libertarian or not vote.

  45. tObserver

    Once again, Wayne only comments on what he wants to, and ignores the questions which make him uncomfortable.

    Wayne, I’ve been quiet the last couple months to see if I really had been too hard on you, but, I simply don’t see the party’s membership growing. I also don’t see a whole lot more money being raised. I’m a results-oriented person, and I sure would like some answers to why that isn’t happening, since you are plugging the LP 24/7.

    Also, I read that you spent $25,000 to be the LP Chair, but yet, you lost. Perhaps you’ve noticed that you are beloved by everyone?

  46. paulie

    Wayne: voters want a candidate who believes in a few simple concepts:

    Smaller government
    Lower taxes
    More economic freedom
    Lower entitlements
    Fewer govt employees, who are paid lower compensation
    And they want a candidate who appears to be a patriot who loves America- not a hater or blamer.


    John Jay: If you put your list in front of most people and said “what Party believes this?”, the answer would be the Republican Party.

    So why be a Libertarian?


    Paulie: While I personally find our peace and civil liberties positions important (they are what drew me to the LP, and I believe there are millions of young people out there in the same general position and viewpoint that I had in the early 90s when I switched from Democrat to Libertarian….as evidenced by what I saw with the Ron Paul campaign in 2008 and my extensive OPH polling on college campuses in the late 1990s and early 2000s), I think there’s a lot of room in the LP for people who are mad at the Republican Party for failing to deliver on those issues on Wayne’s list.

    I think the “Republican Wall of Shame” ad campaign makes that point to those people in a dramatic and understandable fashion.

    Therefore, I’m galled that apparently many of the very same people who want to target those disgruntled Republican voters who see their party failing to deliver on promises of smaller government object to that ad.

    See the discussion at http://www.independentpoliticalreport.com/2011/03/republican-wall-of-shame-ad-updates/

    We can’t expect those people to come over to the LP if we don’t point out to them that the Republican Party is failing to deliver what they want from it.

    Likewise, I believe there are a lot of Democratic Party supporters who need to hear the message that Obama supports endless wars, torture, indefinite detentions without trial, domestic espionage, DEA raids of medical marijuana clinics that are legal under state laws, taxpayer bailouts of Wall Street billionaire fatcats with billions and even trillions of dollars taken from hard working “Main Street” taxpayers, and much more of what they would call the Bush Republican agenda.

    There are millions of people who support both major parties who need to hear the message that their parties are not delivering the things they want, if those things are smaller government, peace and civil liberties.

    Does the LP have what it takes to give those people that message?

    If we don’t point out to them that their current parties are failing them, who will?

  47. Mike B.

    Wayne,

    1.) I do not question your passion, drive or your commitment in fact I applaud you for that and I think the LP could learn a thing or two from you.

    2.) Okay, so you say that reporter for Las Vegas Seven took your words out of context but most of the time when I watch you on TV or listen to you on the radio, I can close my eyes and listen and I would think I was listening to conservative republican commentator mimicking conservative talking points about President Obama or how liberals are destroying this country.

    No doubt President Obama is terrible president especially regarding his failed economy policies but so was President Bush, i.e., two wars, erosion of our civil liberties, illegal detention, Medicare drug prescription program, doubling the national debt while in office, creating another beaucracy called Homeland Security Dept. to name a few.

    Question #1: Why do you insist on saying that you’re a libertarian conservative or a Reagan Libertarian? I never heard Harry Browne for example attach an adjective to libertarian when self-identifying his political leanings.

    Question#2: If in 2012 the American electorate votes in a Republican president will you be as equally critical of him or her as you are of Obama and not just on economic issues.

    Both major parties are authoritarian in nature and are deeply entrenched in statism and will never change.

    My beef with you is you come across as too one-sided. Conservatives are just as hypocritical as the Left.

    Question#3: Why aren’t you writing articles about Julian Assange or Bradley Manning?

    Look from a marketing standpoint being visible is good. Getting our brand out is great but not at the expense of watering down or down playing our principles so as not to offend the sensibilities of people whom you wish to convert to libertarianism.

    Remember our slogan the the “Party of Principle”

    Embrace and defend all tenets of libertarianism not just the economic parts of it.

  48. @53

    OK, tObserver you have all the answers. How many guest appearances have you done on the media in the last year for the LP? The last week? Bet it is a lot fewer than WAR has.

    How much money have you raised for the LP personally? How much free advertising have you gotten for the LP in the last year?

    You say you are results oriented, not process oriented apparently. OK. What concrete results have you personally achieved for LP? How many voters have you converted? How many have you contacted in the last year via any mechanism (personal contact, phone, published articles, media)?

    What I see is a large percentage of trolls on this blog sitting in front of a computer screen carping on one of the few heavy lifters that this party has.
    Before your criticism of WAR is to be taken seriously, you need to transition from tObserver to tParticipant to tContributor.

  49. Observer

    @ 53: See, this is an example. Legitimate questions are asked, but not answered. This thread isn’t about me, it’s about Wayne.

    I asked first. When I get good, solid answers, I’ll be happy to answer yours.

  50. Ayn R. Key

    Wayne @ 46

    When you replied to Mike @ 44, he was replying to ME @ 34. I notice you never touched on MY point.

    So, what is the Wayne Allen Root position on Wikileaks, Assange, Manning, etc?

  51. Michael Cavlan RN

    Per the OK of Paulie. Annother opportunity to ask Wayne Root the unanswered question. This is my fifth attempt to ask this of Wayne Root.

    Per an earlier conversation with Paulie. From a “lefty” supporter of the Campaign For Liberty.
    Also, for the sake of name dropping and “street cred”, I once spoke at an End the Fed Rally in Minneapolis, with Rand Paul.

    This post has been pared and adjusted from the original. In a more respectful tone. Still hard hitting but in a more respectful tone.

    This is a copy and paste from the previous Root article of “progressive model of tax and spend is dead” that he wrote.

    It was unanswered then and still remains.
    So-Here you go

    Wayne Allan Root makes commentary that need to be challenged.

    Comments like Barack Obama is surrounded by a “Socialist Cabal.”

    Obama is surrounded by corporatists. People of the calibre of Timmy Geitner. People with very direct connections to Goldmann Sachs.

    People with ties to Goldmann Sachs are not noted for their “socialist” sensibilities. People like George Soros are not filled with Socialist revolution.

    George Soros and Goldmann Sachs have made a boatload of money from the foreclosure crisis. From the misfortunes of poor folks. Not a very socialists endeavor is it?

    Of course George Soros has lots of money. To fund politics. So does Robert Murdock, Dick Army and the Koch Brothers.

    In a classic example of divide and conquer.

    Mr Root also makes the case that Ireland and others face a deep economic crisis. He says that it is based on the force of Trade Unions and a society that has all those “bennies” being given away to unworthies.

    I lived in Ireland for 15 years. I still have family there. So I have a rather deeper and more immediate contact to what is really going on there than Mr Root. Good old WAR.

    The crisis in Ireland was caused by…….

    BANKERS, DEVELOPERS and other wealthy folks having very direct ties to those in government. In the Fianna Fail, Fine Gael and Labor Parties.

    They pushed to help fuel the economy and real estate bubbles in Ireland.

    Which mirrors pretty damned close what is happening in the United States.

    Ireland does not practice quantitative easing. Unlike the US government.

    So when the bubble pops here, it will hit much harder.

    Maybe then Wayne Allen Root will awaken to reality. I doubt it though.

    Because then Fox News would not have him on the air. Someone has to lead the divide and conquer strategy that the corporate elite have working “both” sides of the one money party system with two corporate wings.

    Consider this a very direct challenge to Wayne Allan Root.

  52. Bill Wood

    Michael, I’ve seen your posting (5 times) What is the question you want Wayne to answer?Are you wanting Wayne to point out why he thinks Obama is a Socialist?Are you asking him to solve Irelands problems?

  53. paulie

    @61 The portion @ 60 that I read as being in the form of a question:

    Comments like Barack Obama is surrounded by a “Socialist Cabal.”

    Obama is surrounded by corporatists. People of the calibre of Timmy Geitner. People with very direct connections to Goldmann Sachs.

    People with ties to Goldmann Sachs are not noted for their “socialist” sensibilities. People like George Soros are not filled with Socialist revolution.

    George Soros and Goldmann Sachs have made a boatload of money from the foreclosure crisis. From the misfortunes of poor folks. Not a very socialists endeavor is it?

    I suppose we could ask Mr. Cavlan to rephrase his point about Ireland in the form of a question.

  54. Jill Pyeatt

    Since we’re queing up questions for Wayne, I’d still like to hear a comment about Obama’s Executive Order okaying prisoners to be held indefinitely at Guantanmo, even after they’ve been acquitted.

  55. Bill Wood

    Thanks Paulie, so the question would be about George Soros and Goldman Sachs making money. I know people who bought 750,000 homes and they were foreclosed so I guess who is poor and who is rich is in the eye of the beholder, lol.

  56. Michael H. Wilson

    @ 46 Wayne writes; “…voters want a candidate who believes in a few simple concepts: …Lower entitlements”.

    Do you have a source for info showing voters want lower entitlements? Would you please let us know who that is?

    Thanks,

  57. Steven Wilson

    Humans follow strength and clarity. Without the use of force, human will can do anything.

    Harry Browne was such a person. He talked to people instead of at them. He treated all people the same.

    The voters in Missouri that I talked with have no clue what Root stands for besides point spreads and Las Vegas. For all of his media, that is what people know of him. His passion for amway cannot hide his lack of clear objectives.

    The objective must be clear and a good leader lets the people decide when it’s time to follow.

  58. Andy

    John Jay Myers said: “Wayne, your plan targets Republicans who are happy to be Republicans, it will result in zero growth for the party.”

    I totally agree with John Jay Meyers here.

    Libertarians won’t get anywhere if we just sound like Republicans, and this includes “Republicans who really mean it.”

    If people just want somebody who sounds like a Republican, then they can vote for Republicans.

    I want less taxes and spending, but one of the reasons that I want less taxes and spending is because much of the taxes and spending goes to fund wars of aggression abroad and a domestic police state at home.

    The first part of the statement that I made above appeals to conservatives, but the 2nd part of the statement is an example of how it can be spun to appeal to liberals and to show them why they ought to favor less taxes and spending.

    Many conservatives will rally against the public welfare system, but then they will enthusiatically support big military budgets and foreign wars of agression and a domestic police state.

    A lot of Republicans have found that they can talk about limiting government, cutting taxes and spending, supporting the Constitution, etc…, during election time and then once in office they ignore all of this stuff. They will sound almost like a Libertarian on the campaign trail, but once in office they help make government bigger and bigger. However, the key here is that they will sound “almost” like a Libertarian. They’ll talk about cutting taxes and spending. They’ll talk about the public welfare system and government employee unions. They may even talk about gun rights. However, there are certain things they WON’T DARE SAY. They won’t talk about (re)legalizing all drugs. They won’t talk about ending US military intervention abroad and bringing all of the troops home. They won’t talk about cutting military spending. They won’t talk about eliminating the Patriot Act, the Department of Homeland Security, the TSA, the CIA, the NSA, or any other act or agency which is supposedly making us “safer”. They won’t say that gays should be able to get married, and that prostitution and porn should be legal. They won’t say that people should be free to gamble with their own money. They won’t talk about how big corporations are in bed with big government. And they won’t dare talk about ending the Federal Reserve System.

    I found out about the Libertarian Party back in 1996 after I stumbled upon Harry Browne speaking at the Libertarian Party’s National Convention in July. What impressed me about Harry Browne and made me want to join the Libertarian Party is that he did NOT sound like a Republican or a Democrat. He was clearly offering much different that the two major parties, something that was just as different from being Republican as it was from being a Democrat. If Harry Browne had sounded like a Republican (or a Democrat), I wouldn’t have joined the party, and I may have changed the channel before his speech was over.

    I don’t believe that sounds like either of the major parties is going to get us anywhere. If those of us who want the Libertarian Party to be successful want it to actually happen then we’ve got to make it clear to the public that we are offering them something that is totally different from either the Republicans or the Democrats. We need to make it clear that we are just as far from being Republicans as we are from being Democrats.

    I say all of this as somebody who has quite possibly done more one-on-one outreach to the widest possible spectrum of the population than anyone else in the party for the past 10 plus years. I’m not talking about going on TV shows or radio shows (although I’ve done both), and I’m not just talking about posting stuff on-line, I mean talking to people in person one-on-one where the other person can talk back. I’m talking about all over the country, in all types of areas (big cities, suburbs, medium towns, small towns, rural areas, and north, south, east, and west and all points in between). I’m talking about all economic groups, age groups, races/ethnicties, religions, political persuasions, etc…

    So when I talk about this stuff I’m not just some guy sitting behind a computer screen spouting off without really having any personal expierence or knowing about which I am speaking. I am a voice that has got much expierence behind what I say and these are my observations.

  59. Andy

    “Harry Browne was such a person. He talked to people instead of at them. He treated all people the same.”

    Harry Browne did manage to get media coverage. He was on a lot of talk radio shows and quite a few TV shows, including some of the big ones like “Hannity & Colmes,” “The O’Reily Factor,” “Tim Russert,” etc… Harry never sounded like a Republican or a Democrat, and the party did grow during both of his presidential runs. I realize that the party has (overall) gone downhill since then, but I think that Harry Browne was on the right track. A lot of the people that Harry Browne brought into the party (such as myself) went on to become hardcore libertarian activists. Harry didn’t do this by sounding like a Republican or a Democrat, he did it by sounds like a Libertarian, as in offering people a real alternative that was totally different from what the two major parties were offering.

  60. paulie

    I want less taxes and spending, but one of the reasons that I want less taxes and spending is because much of the taxes and spending goes to fund wars of aggression abroad and a domestic police state at home.

    Exactly!

  61. John Jay Myers

    “I want less taxes and spending, but one of the reasons that I want less taxes and spending is because much of the taxes and spending goes to fund wars of aggression abroad and a domestic police state at home.”

    Greatness.

  62. Michael Cavlan RN

    Paulie

    Thanks. Yes you put the question of Goldmann Sachs and George Soros (and the Koch Brothers and Dick Army) correctly.

    How can a “socialist” surrounded by a “socialist cabal” be wealthy Bankers, making money off of poor folks loosing their homes in the foreclosure crisis?

    Oh and if Mr Root does answer this, I will not accept the “Michael Moore” is a socialist and he supports Obama bullshit line.

    Michael Moore has made boatloads of money, from working class people paying to see a movie that is a “critique” of capitalism.

    Michael Moore can call himself a Socialist, it does not make him one. I can call myself an Englishman but it does not make me one. Someone could call me an Englishman (fighting words to this Irishman BTW) but that does not make me one. What would make me an Englishman is, well being English.

    So Wayne Root calling Oily-Bomber a socialist does not make him one.

    It makes Wayne Root a liar. Or not very smart.

    Take your pick.

    Yes, this is again a very direct challenge to Mr Root. To quote Mad Stephen, the Irishman from Braveheart.

    “The Lord says “stop stalling and answer the fooking question.”

  63. Andy

    “paulie // Mar 11, 2011 at 12:09 am

    Andy @ 67 – I’d like to post that as an article, what do you think?”

    Cool. The only bad thing is that I usually type fast and don’t proofread so I may have made some errors or not said some things as effectively as I could have had I taken more time.

  64. Observer

    Correction for my last sentence on 53:

    Perhaps you’ve noticed that you are not beloved by everyone?

  65. Andy

    “People with ties to Goldmann Sachs are not noted for their ‘socialist’ sensibilities. People like George Soros are not filled with Socialist revolution.”

    This is because socialism/communism is a scam. It has been backed from the beginning by the big bankers to consolidate the wealth into the hands of the elite and to therefore con the public back into serfdom.

    Read about it in “The Creature from Jekyll Island: A Second Look at the Federal Reserve System” by G. Edward Griffin or “None Dare Call It Conspiracy” by Gary Allen or “Rule By Secrecy” by Jim Marrs. There’s other books out there that document this but these are three that I’ve read that come to mind right now.

    This is why the super-rich “capitalist” like Goldman Sachs, the Rockefellers, JP Morgan, the Rothschilds, etc… support socialist causes. They don’t give a rat’s ass about the downtrodden, their agenda is to consolidate wealth into the hands of the elite (themselves and their cronies) so they can rule and control.

  66. Andy

    “There are millions of people who support both major parties who need to hear the message that their parties are not delivering the things they want, if those things are smaller government, peace and civil liberties.”

    There are also millions of people who are independents. These people are not aligned with either major party, and out of people who are registered to vote, I’d say that overall they are the most receptive to the Libertarian message.

    There are also millions of people who don’t vote. Many of them don’t vote because they feel that they don’t have anybody worth voting for. Libertarians need to give these people a reason to vote.

    I’ve been saying this for years and I’ll say it again, the largest potential for the Libertarian Party is not with people who already identify as Republicans or Democrats, it is with independents and non-voters.

  67. Wayne Root

    Andy @75

    Well what-do-you-know. We finally agree on something.

    This has been my argument all along…and I’ve given that answer numerous times at IPR.

    Socialism is a scam…socialists are hypocrites. They are actually fascists. They want YOU to be poor. They want the masses to be poor and “equal.” But they work to corrupt the system so they and their friends get rich off this scam.

    Hollywood socialists hire the best lawyers and accountants…so do the union big shots who make millions off their own union members. Check out the salaries of SEIU executives.

    Obama’s friends in the Bar Association are always “fighting for the little p[eople” to create equality, fairness and social justice. It’s just that in every class action lawsuit…businesses lose $50,000,000…each victorious person gets $4.25…while the lawyers each get $10,000,000. Then they kick back $1,000,000 to Obama and Democratic Party to keep the scam going.

    And same with the teachers unions. They are all socialists too. Everything is “for the kids.”
    They’re all just working men and women. Except they want a $100,000 per year pension for every teacher. Did you know that this is equivalent to having $2,000,000 cash in the bank on the day you retire? Any working class people you know in the private sector with $2 MM in the bank at age 50 when they retire?

    Obama is a socialist…but there are 3 things he wants to achieve:

    A) Control the masses of voters with goodies (welfare, food stamps, aid to dependent children, earned income tax credits, stimulus checks) designed to bribe them to keep them fat and happy.

    B) While the masses are fat, happy and distracted with these small bribes, Obama hands “the keys to the kingdom” to his biggest campaign contributors with bailouts, billion dollar green energy deals, stimulus, government contracts, union contracts…and of course he makes sure there can never be tort reform…gotta protect the rich lawyers.

    C) Create an entire group of goons to intimidate everyone. How do you create goons? You empower unions by creating a privileged class of government employees who claim to be “working class” but in reality are fat cats with gold-plated compensation packages few in the private sector can ever hope to earn.

    Then you stir them up – like in Wisconsin- to protest, strike, riot, scream “shame,” threaten, intimidate politicians into voting their way…even if it screws 93% of taxpayers in favor of this privileged 7%.

    Then you enslave the taxpayers and small business owners with sky high taxes forever more to pay for this assembly line of handouts, favors, special interest bribes, corporate welfare, bailouts and stimulus.

    That’s socialism. Except it certainly benefits the people at the top screaming for fairness, equality and social justice.

  68. Steven R Linnabary

    Wayne, you’re absolutely correct about Obama’s goals…and the republicans are just as bad, if not worse.

    But I don’t think either democrats or republicans can credibly be referred to as “socialist”, even if they do bear some resemblance.

    I think we can both agree that they can more realistically be called kleptocrats. At least then there is no confusion as to what we are talking about.

    PEACE

  69. Pingback: Andy Jacobs: Libertarians need to make it clear that we are just as far from being Republicans as we are from being Democrats | Independent Political Report

  70. Michael Cavlan RN

    Wayne and Andy

    So can I play this game?

    The Ford Motor Company supported Hitler and the Nazis. Ford supported Ronald Regan. Regan is a Nazi. Political three degrees of Kevin Bacon.

    But you guys forgot the most important part of the Rothchilds, Goldman Sachs supporting “socialists” like Oily-Bomber.

    It was Da Joos. Who supported Hitler and the Soviet Union. To kill off Da Joos.

    The most important point that I was making is this (from my last post)

    Oh and if Mr Root does answer this, I will not accept the “Michael Moore” is a socialist and he supports Obama bullshit line.

    Michael Moore has made boatloads of money, from working class people paying to see a movie that is a “critique” of capitalism.

    Michael Moore can call himself a Socialist, it does not make him one. I can call myself an Englishman but it does not make me one. Someone could call me an Englishman (fighting words to this Irishman BTW) but that does not make me one. What would make me an Englishman is, well being English.

    So Wayne Root calling Oily-Bomber a socialist does not make him one.

    It makes Wayne Root a liar. Or not very smart.

    Take your pick.

    Yes, this is again a very direct challenge to Mr Root. To quote Mad Stephen, the Irishman from Braveheart.

    “The Lord says “stop stalling and answer the fooking question.”

  71. Michael Cavlan RN

    Calling Oily-Bomber a “socialist” reminds me of that video clip by Lewis Black, making the case that Glen Beck has Nazi Tourettes.. Funny clip and it reminds me of this arguement about Oily-Bomber being a socialist.

    But then what do you expect. Lewis Black is one of Da Joos.

    Grin

  72. paulie

    SRL

    I think we can both agree that they can more realistically be called kleptocrats. At least then there is no confusion as to what we are talking about.

    MC

    On that we can agree.

    Although I prefer the term plutocracy

    P: How about a compromise…klepto-plutocracy? Pluto-kleptocracy?

  73. Observer

    I can’t help but wonder: If by some miracle, Wayne becomes the LP’s candidate for president, will he just ignore all the questions he gets that he doesn’t want to answer?

    Why would he treat the public, much of which he disdains, differently than he treats us?

  74. Ayn R. Key

    Nice one Wayne. First you reply to someone who was replying to me, without mentioning my original question. After I point it out to you, and repeat my question, you pretend you didn’t see it and come back to this comment thread to reply to someone else.

    What is your position on Wikileaks, Assange, Manning, et al?

  75. Michael Cavlan RN

    Ayn R Key

    Damned good question. Obviously you are not getting an answer either. Which is a form of an answer.

    “The Lord says ‘ Stop stalling and answer the fooking question.”

    Stephen, the mad Irishman from Braveheart.

  76. Mashed Potato with a Twist

    Maybe start making an “unanswered questions file” that you can keep asking every time?

  77. paulie

    I’ve been debating whether to post this or not

    http://www.lp.org/blogs/wayne-allyn-root/libertarian-wayne-allyn-roots-nonstop-media-tour-continues

    It’s on LP blog and we got it emailed, but there are a lot of repeats on the list without links to specific articles.

    You could use that as a place to repeat the questions you want answered, perhaps.

    Another approach is that if you or someone wants to go through this thread and compile the questions you believe have not been answered, put them in one place, I can see if I can work with that.

  78. Root's Teeth Are Awesome

    Ayn R Key: “What is your position on Wikileaks, Assange, Manning, et al?”

    If you want Root to answer your question, you must rephrase it. Drop “Obama” in there somewhere.

    Ask: “Do you agree with Obama’s handling of Wikileaks, Assange, Manning, etc.”

    Root will then spew forth another tirade about Obama being an socialist with red devil horns, but will somehow manage to avoid stating his own position on Wikileaks, etc.”

  79. Observer

    Wow, I was gone all day, and had hoped to have some answers from Wayne. I guess he’s not interested in answering questions, even though he expects us all to vote for him to be our Presidential candidate.

  80. Pingback: Wayne Root and the Issue of Julian Assange and Wikileaks | Independent Political Report

Leave a Reply