More of the bigotry of Wayne Allan Root.

The con man Wayne Allen Root is at it again, besmirching the libertarian label with conservative verbal vomit. The man is a fraud and if the Libertarian Party had an ounce of decency they would boot him out on his fat ass.

Root has a piece that is anti-private property and collectivistic to the core. And he does it while labeling himself as “one of America’s leading Libertarian thinkers.” For the record, I doubt even Root is so stupid as to think he is one of America’s leading libertarian thinkers. Actually he probably knows he not even a libertarian.

Some Muslims are building a center, which includes a mosque, in New York. It will be a couple of blocks away from the site of the Twin Towers. Root is against the idea because: “there are also rights and sensibilities of others to consider in a free society.” Of course, the rights of others are to be respected. But building a mosque doesn’t violate anyone’s rights, no matter how much it offends Mr. Root. No rights are being violated. As for violating sensibilities: what does that mean? Some people, especially the bigoted, are easily offended. Tough shit: in a free society you don’t have a right to go unoffended. And if you are a conservative, like Root, you are usually easily offended. Deal with it.

Root condemns the building of the mosque because it “does nothing to increase religious freedom. “ No it doesn’t and it isn’t obliged to. He says that a mosque instead “inspires hatred, divides our cultures and increases the odds of violence and hate crimes.” Hell, build a Baptist church and the same damn thing happens. But private property is private property and the state has no right to prevent a church, or a mosque, from being built—nor should it.

Root offers lots of bullshit, but then bullshit is his specialty. He says that building it is a sign of disrespect and means to “belittle us.” Who is “us?” I don’t feel belittled or disrespected. And like offense, you have no inherent right to respect. People are free to disrespect you if they wish; they just aren’t free to violate your life, liberty or property.

Root says this center “is to show Muslim contempt for Americans by building a monument to Islam in the shadow of their greatest triumph over America.” Give that some thought for a second. Yes, fanatical Muslims did a horrific thing in the name of their religion. But is there a universal guilt for all Muslims? To call that terrorist attack “their greatest triumph,” and to mean Muslims, is pure, raw, bigoted collectivism.

Mr. Root is a Jew. The Israeli military attacked the USS Liberty in what can only be described as a terrorist attack. Does that action by Israel, mean all Jews are somehow guilty? Obviously not. All Germans aren’t responsible for the atrocities of the Nazis. All whites are not guilty for the attacks of the Klan or Jim Crow laws. All Afrikaners are not responsible for apartheid.

There is no such thing as collective guilt. Hitler preached an anti-Semitic message that was built on the concept of collective guilt for all members of a specific religious minority. Mr. Root, by claiming that the attack of some terrorists was a triumph for Islam, is engaging in the same disgusting form of bigotry as Julius Streicher and his fellow Nazi propagandists.

I have no sympathy for Islam. Nor for that matter do I care about Judaism or Christianity, or any of the inherently intolerant sects of monotheism. It is just wrong, however, to paint all Christians with one brush, or all Jews, or all Muslims. It is a crude form of collectivism and it is irrational.

I dislike Christian theology because I think it is wrong, stupid, and potentially dangerous. I say the same for Judaism and the same for Islam. But I would never say that all Christians are dangerous; all Jews are a threat, or all Muslims are out to get us.

I do think fundamentalism, in all three sects is particularly dangerous. But most Christians are not fundamentalists. Most Muslims were not responsible for 9/11. Most Jews are not responsible for the USS Liberty attack, not even most Israelis are responsible.

As usual the big mouth, self-absorbed con man from Vegas doesn’t even bother to check out the facts. The center being built is called Cordoba House and does house a mosque along with many other things. It is the work of a Muslim cleric who wanted a community center where Muslims and people of other faiths can meet together. The name Cordoba was picked after the Spanish city where Christians, Jews and Muslims once lived together in peace. It is a repudiation of the sort of fanaticism that we saw on 9/11, and the sort of knee-jerk reactionary thinking of Right-wing bigots like Root.

Cordoba House promotes itself as place for interfaith cooperation and social interaction to help promote tolerance and friendship. It is moderate Islam at work. The intolerant fanatics are two-bit charlatans like Root.

Conservatives have been demanding that tolerant Muslims step forward and work in opposition to the fundamentalists—something conservatives themselves refuse to do when it comes to Christian intolerance. Now that such Muslims have done precisely this the Right wing, including faux libertarians like Root, are up in arms over it. Just as decent Muslims need to disassociate themselves from intolerant fanatics, as Cordoba House is doing, so too must decent libertarians repudiate the immature thinking of fake libertarians like Root.

Fake libertarians propose alliance with conservatives.

The con man from Vegas is still lurking around the shell of the Libertarian Party trying to promote a conservative agenda for the LP. Wayne Allen Root, a conservative, keeps promoting himself as the leading LP contender in the next election. The only evidence for that, to date, is his own fertile imagination where he constantly imagines himself as being what he is not.

Root wants the (formerly) Libertarian Party to officially become part of a conservative coalition “to take back America from Obama and his socialist agenda.” Really, only a moron thinks the problem is a socialist agenda. It isn’t. Sure Obama wants socialism. But the problem is a statist agenda, a desire to have Big Government. And the conservatives, who had power for much of the last 30 years, have NEVER pushed through smaller government.

Root wants a coalition of conservatives, who by definition are statists, to join the LP. How will the LP manage this? Clearly the only way to appeal to conservatives is to strip the last vestiges of libertarianism from the party. The LP, to a large extent, has become nothing more than a home for failed conservatives who haven’t a clue.

Root defines “moderate Republicans” as part of the problem. So apparently those Republicans who are not “moderate” are to be our coalition partners. Who exactly would that be, Mr. Root? Root promises that his right-wing book, the misnamed Conscience of a Libertarian, explains what issues the coalition will run on. Remember that book—the one that avoids the war on drugs but worries about gambling (because Root made his living conning gamblers into buying his “advice” on how to lose money more efficiently). His was the book that didn’t mention foreign policy at all.

Libertarianism, under the make-over from Root and the traitors who run the Party, is libertarianism stripped of its non-interventionist foreign policy and with civil liberties underplayed to such a large degree that it is a joke to pretend they are even there. Root wants a libertarianism that is just another version of the failed conservative policies that destroyed the Republican Party.

Roots new policy on immigration is one, which he says, will allow only “skilled upper middle class immigrants [well you can't come out and say "whites only" anymore] with assets of $250,000 or more, to move to America—thereby ending our foreclosure crisis, housing crisis, and national debt crisis, all at one….” Let’s explore this piece of bullshit for a minute.

First, why exactly should only “upper middle class” people be allowed to immigrate to America? That policy, I note would have kept out Root’s own ancestors from America—okay, so that’s a point in its favor. But the same policy would have meant that Milton Friedman would have been born under Soviet control and Ayn Rand would have died in World War II. Interestingly the jobs that go unfilled in America are not the high-paying jobs for the upper middle-class but the more menial work that many immigrants yearn to do. But Root's racism, which is never far below the surface, won't let them in—after all, they're, you know, brown people.

What is Root’s solution? He wants to start pumping up the housing bubble again by forcing immigrants to spend at least $250,000 on a home in order to be allowed into the United States. The whole purpose of this is to use state coercion to force people to purchase houses and to try to push the values back up. State intervention created the housing bubble and Root, in the name of libertarianism, wants to use more state intervention to re-inflate the bubble. The housing crisis he refers to is the bubble created by political hacks pandering to popular wants—which is what Root is doing. The foreclosure crisis hits those people who were pushed into buying property which they weren’t ready to purchase, by the easy terms of government. That problem, sadly for the people involved, has been solved.

How will forcing another group of people to buy houses, that they apparently don’t want, do anything to help the people who lost homes? And how does this end the debt problem? I also have to ask how Root thinks this ends a “Social Security crisis”? The way to end a social security crisis is to end social security. What is Root’s view? Save it with reforms.

In fact Root says he doesn’t want to end several major failed government programs at all. That’s the old libertarian view, not the new Root view. He says he wants to “reform Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid…” Like the conservatives who sold out America, Root wants to reform Big Government, not end it. George Bush told conservatives that big government was their friend. Root is doing a watered down version of the same thing with libertarians.

In one of his supposedly glib moments Root did touch upon “sin,” by which it appears he means social freedom. He described the Nevada “approach” as “legalize it, regulate it, and tax it.” So Root apparently thinks regulation and new taxes are the way to promote social freedom.

Root has also been publicizing an “endorsement of his book” by John Hospers, who was the LP presidential candidate in 1972. That campaign didn’t mean much at the time. Hospers was on only two ballots. Dogcatchers got more votes than Hospers. And Hospers was inactive in the LP from that point onward. Hospers constantly drifted to the Right and fought libertarian impulses. Today, I fear he has few such impulses.

He has always been a weak libertarian, even at his best. His natural inclination is toward conservatism and in his senectude he has literally gone off the deep end. What value Hospers once had, has been more than undone by his war-mongering attitudes, views that have only beome worse as Hospers ages. Now in his 90s, he has basically repudiated libertarianism in practice.

Consider Hospers’ previous endorsement. Before Hospers was praising Root, he was sending out praise for another one of his heroes: George W. Bush. Hospers, who has joined the anti-immigration racists, did criticize Bush for “failing to protect our borders.” Consider, however, that so-called border protection has made it harder for Americans to travel freely. Not a single terrorist crossed our border illegally. but by “securing our borders.” Hospers and other conservatives have stripped Americans of their freedoms. Thank's John, we appreciate it. Now go away.

Hospers praised Bush for taking steps to “protect us” from “weapons of mass destruction, including ‘suitcase’ nuclear devices.” In other words, Hospers repeated the lies told by the Bush administration to justify an attack on a nation that had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks. Hospers went so far as to basically exonerate the odious Patriot Act, saying that opposition to it was “based more on hysteria and political opportunism than on reality.” This is not libertarianism. John Hospers may have written a book on the topic when he was much younger, but the John Hospers of today is NO libertarian, but a hawkish conservative. His endorsement of Root ought to be an indication of just how bad Root is. As I see it Hospers endorsed Bush, the Patriot Act and Wayne Root. Three destructive forces to liberty, what a record John!

That Root is proud of the support he is getting from Hospers is an indication of how clueless Root is about the history of libertarianism. Otherwise he would know that the last endorsement from Hospers was for the disastrous, destructive George W. Bush. But, no surprises there, Root had endorsed Bush as well. This is how far the libertarian movement has sunk.

Hospers, closer to 100 than to 80, was never that good. So, at least his advanced age gives him an excuse for making stupid decisions. He can call it a "senior moment." Unfortunately, his "senior moment" has lasted decades. Root, was never a libertarian, so that he gets libertarianism wrong is no surprise either. But what excuse do the party hacks at the national level have for betraying libertarianism and trying to turn the LP into a haven for has-been Republicans, who want the “libertarian” label but not libertarian policies?

Under the current national chairman and some of the officers who run the party, the Libertarian Party has ceased being libertarian. It is unlikely it will ever become libertarian again. My guess is that is headed for a long, steady decline (though that has been obvious for some time). The type of candidates that the LP runs will become more statist with each passing election. Some will be outright bigots, but that has already happened. The LP will adopt the hateful message of social conservatives and try to win the Religious Right over to their side by abandoning all support for civil liberties and social freedom. It will eventually become the last haven for the dying remnants of the Moral Majority, a retirement home for has-been theocrats, social conservatives, klanners and sundry bigots and hate-mongers. These are the disgusting types that Root is already getting cozy with. For another example of Root's barely concealed racism go here.

Oddly, in that sense, the LP may save the Republican Party. As the LP moves further away from libertarianism, into the intolerant, Right-wing camp, it will start to attract the dwindling numbers of fundamentalists that are in the Republican Party. The LP will basically draw out the infection that ruined the GOP. Unfortunately the LP will continue to destroy the “libertarian” brand in the process. But with the poisonous bigots and religious morons in the LP maybe the Republicans will discover small government. I wouldn’t count on it, but it might happen. Either way the LP is irrelevant, and the fastest way for the party to prove that it is a destructive force for liberty, is to endorse a conservative like Root.

Photo: Wayne Root along with some of the national officers of the Libertarian Party, discussing how to make the LP more fragrant to the public.

The Conscience of a Bullshit Artist.

I have the unpleasant task of reading Wayne Root’s misnamed book, The Conscience of a Libertarian. The title is, of course, just a rip-off of The Conscience of a Conservative by Barry Goldwater. There was no need to change titles since Root’s work is clearly the work of a conservative, not a libertarian. Root remains a pretender, a conservative in libertarian clothing.

Early in the book Root defines himself as a “Libertarian conservative.” That is more telling than he would care. First, note that the term “libertarian” is modifying the term conservative. His main identity is that of a conservative not that of a libertarian. A “conservative libertarian” is someone who says they are foremost a libertarian with some conservative sentiments. A “libertarian conservative” is the opposite: someone who is mostly a conservative with some libertarian sentiments.

There is another telling point to Root’s self-labeling. He uses the term “Libertarian” instead of “libertarian.” A big L libertarian is merely a member of the Libertarian Party and these days that is no indication as to whether or not they are libertarian in political terms. The small l libertarian is someone who is a libertarian philosophically. Root identified himself as a “Libertarian conservative” not a “libertarian conservative.” This is even weaker that what I mentioned in the previous paragraph. Here he is not actually claiming to be a libertarian philosophically, merely a Libertarian Party member who is a conservative.

Of course, the whole thing could be imprecise writing and bad editing. Root is no intellectual and it shows. He is a loud-mouthed, brash, self-promoting individual with all the charms of a cross between a used car salesman and Richard Nixon, just without the principles.

Early in the book, Root dismisses discussing issues that separate libertarians from conservatives: social freedom. He does talk about taxes, and taxes, and more taxes. Social freedom is not something he talks about, but then he doesn’t want his conservative, anti-libertarian views too obvious while he tries to con the desperate and dying Libertarian Party into nominating him for President. Consider how Root addresses social freedom:

As a Libertarian, I believe that social and personal freedom issues are quite simply States’ Rights issues. …These issues are none of the federal government’s darn business. Voters should decide these issues on the state and local level.”

There is nothing libertarian about that position. That is a conservative through and through.

Libertarians, by which I mean philosophical libertarians, not LP members, believe in individual rights not states’ rights. No decent libertarian would argue that the rights of anyone should be put up to majority vote of the public. But Root is no decent libertarian; hell; he’s not even an indecent libertarian.

What Root is doing is trying to hide social conservative values by sweeping that entire category of issues under the rug. We will hide social issues behind the mantra of “state’s rights” instead of addressing them. Libertarians have NEVER supported the violation of rights as long as it is the states that are violating those rights. That view is classic conservative thinking and was quite popular with the Dixiecrats, the racist Democrats who wanted to use state law to oppress blacks. Root is speaking in the tradition of Strom Thurmond, not Lysander Spooner.

Root is also ignoring an important question: what should the states do about these matters? Even if he is merely a Libertarian, and not a libertarian, the LP still has state affiliates and those affiliates must take stands on censorship, equality of rights for gays, separation of church and state, and other issues that Root avoids. What stand should they take, Mr. Root? When Root first floated the idea that he was the great savior of the LP, his web site did take stands on social issues and the stands I saw were very conservative. That was losing Root some support. So he pulled the same sort of trick pioneered by that other social conservative, Ron Paul. He called social freedom a state’s rights issue and then ignored it. Easier to keep conservatives happy and hide his true views.

Mr. Root also seems to be taken aim at the many agnostics and atheists that are in the Libertarian Party—including most of the LP presidential candidates, until the conservatives took over. Root says he is “comforted by the idea of our electing public official who are religious God-fearing and love men and women.” Apparently atheists like John Hospers (the first LP presidential candidate) or Ed Clark (the most successful LP presidential candidate) make Root uncomfortable. Worse, Root then equates morality with religion implying that non-religious people are immoral and corrupt. He says that electing “God-fearing” candidates is good for America “because moral people are less likely to bring about a corrupt government.” (Sort of like the non-corrupt, good government of George Bush, right Mr. Right?)

Never before has someone, who was an LP national candidate, taken a swipe at non-believers, implying that because they are not religious they are more likely to be immoral and corrupt. Elsewhere, Root claims he is the perfect candidate because he isn’t an atheist. “I’m the perfect political figure to lead this fight because of who I am. I’m not an atheist. I’m not a liberal, I’m not anti-religion. To the contrary, I’m a proud family man and patriot who strongly supports God, religion and prayer.” Notice he did not include, “I’m not a conservative.”

Root then goes into a discussion of marriage where he proves he is historically as adept as he is philosophical adept. In other words he is totally incompetent. He claims “After the abolishment of slavery, some states began licensing marriages in order to prevent blacks and whites from marrying each other. Prior to this, marriage was a religiously defined institution.” Both of these claims are false. State regulation of marriage goes back to the 1500s and was pushed by the Protestant Reformers who said marriage was a state institution more than a religious one. It was not the result of the abolition of slavery.

And prior to the Reformationists inviting the state to take over, marriage was primarily a non-religious, secular event. It was governed by custom and the will of those involved but not regulated by either church or state. Martin Luther wrote: “Since marriage has existed from the beginning of the world and is still found among unbelievers, there is no reason why it should be called a sacrament of the New Law and of the church alone.” Luther wanted state control over the matter but acknowledged it was primarily a non-religious institution predating the church. Root doesn’t know his history any more than he knows libertarianism.

In Root’s long diatribe about God and morality he seems to be saying that it is a bad idea to have government enforced morality. But how does that jive with his claim that these are all state issues? At first it appears he is saying that government, at any level, should not take on the role of moral enforcer. But that is not the case. He actually qualifies his position by saying: “Do not ask or demand that the federal government impose your choice and values on the rest of us.” It is only Nanny statism at the federal level that offends him. This remains consistent with his stated position that voters have the right to dictate morality at the state level. In the world of Wayne Root, individual rights may be determined by popular vote at the state level.

Social freedom issues are not quite entirely ignored, though they may well have been. He has a short section on medicinal marijuana but little about the destructive effects of the war on drugs as a whole. There appears to be one paragraph in the entire book on this topic. He does have a chapter called The End of Prohibition but that isn’t about drugs. That is about the laws regulating gambling. Root is in the gambling business so his “ principled” stand here is not surprising. True principled libertarians defend the rights of people they don’t like. Mr. Root never does that.

Root has almost nothing to say about civil liberties and social freedom. Also missing is any discussion of foreign policy and the war on terror. Surely the war and the hysteria about terrorists have justified more big brother measures in recent years than anything else. And Root has not a single word to say about them. He doesn’t defend the traditional libertarian foreign policy of non-interventionism. But then Root was a pro-war cheerleader before, who only shut up about it when he realized it might hurt his desire to be an LP candidate. There is nothing condemning the Patriot Act, nothing condemning torture of individuals by the US government, nothing about indefinite incarceration of prisoners by the federal government.

The only things Root talks about are conservative talking points. He avoids most social issues and all issues of foreign policy. He will rant about affirmative action, which pales in significance to foreign policy. He spends page after page on taxes but says nothing about repealing the Patriot Act and bringing the troops home. Root’s book is purely a marketing gimmick. It is not meant to explain libertarianism. How could it? Root has no idea what that term means. The whole purpose of the book is to convince conservatives to complete the take-over of the Libertarian Party and nominate the con man from Nevada for President.

UPDATE: This con man conservative is now trying to become the National Chairman of the Libertarian Party. As hopeless as that party is, no one deserves that fate. The selection of candidates running is not a very good one. But then who really wants to captain the Titanic at the last minute? George Phillies appears to be the best of the lot even though I think he's wrong on global warming and boring as shit. Mark Hinkle is someone I've personally liked but I believe he may be too closely allied with some of the worst, most unprincipled elements in the LP, but I might be wrong on that. Ernie Hancock has more loose screws than your local hardware store. The one merciful thing about a Root win in that race would be that it would speed up the demise of the party. The damn this is dead already, for god's sake bury it and get on with something productive.

The scum seeking the Libertarian Party nomination.

If you think Bob Barr was a disaster, his con man second in command, Wayne Root is even worse. This man is NO libertarian, never has been, and I suspect, never will be. Root is merely a self-promoter with no self worth promoting. He thinks he deserves the LP's nomination. He deserves a kick in the ass but little else.

Radley Balko, an editor at Reason, recently spoke to the Nevada LP convention. For some reason the Nevada LP decided to scrap the bottom of the barrel and have Root as a speaker. Here is Balko's report and his views on Root.

At both events, my own speech was preceded by a speech from Wayne Allyn Root, the party’s candidate for vice president in 2008, and who has apparently already made himself a candidate for the 2012 nomination.

I won’t comment on the bulk of Root’s speeches, because I was invited to both events as a speaker, not as a journalist or a blogger. But I will comment on one thing Root mentioned in both speeches, because it’s essentially public information. In touting his ability to win high-profile media coverage, Root mentioned in both speeches that he is now a weekly commentator on Michael Savage’s weekly radio show.

I’m not a member of the Libertarian Party, so perhaps my advice doesn’t mean much to them. But I’m going to give it, anyway:

Stop this, now. Either persuade Root to stop going on Savage’s show, or show Root the door. I’m all about building coalitions where appropriate. But there’s nothing remotely appropriate about Michael Savage.

Michael Savage is a raving bigot. He regularly uses phrases like “turd-world countries” and “ghetto slime.” He once wished rape on a group of high school girls who make trips into San Francisco to feed the homeless. He’s a blood-thirsty warmonger, and a feverish culture warrior. He once said on the air that, “”When I hear someone’s in the civil rights business, I oil up my AR-15!” On social issues, he’s far to the right of just about every elected Republican official I can think of. He has wished AIDS and death on homosexuals. He regularly denigrates drug users. He is virulently anti-immigration. In short, there’s nothing remotely libertarian about him.

If Root’s aim is to take the LP in the direction of Michael Savage, the LP should distance themselves from Root right now.

There’s nothing honorable to be gained from this.

MORE: It’s worth noting that Root features his Savage commentaries at the very top of his website. I don’t really care how many listeners Savage has. He’s vile, and hostile to any reasonable conception of libertarianism.

For some more background go here. We should be clear, Mr. Root is not remotely libertarian. He is a far right conservative who opposes libertarianism. He was brought into the party by a handful of cockroaches at the LP national office and National Committee. What stars they are for stabbing libertarianism in the back. I personally believe the LP is not just worthless it is now destructive to libertarian ideas. That a bigoted bullshitter like Root can run around LP circles says enough. Per my previous article on regrets --- I deeply, deeply regret ever contributing a dime to the LP, I deeply regret having ever been an LP candidate. I deeply regret helping petition to put LP candidates on the ballot. I deeply regret ever voting for the party. None of this will ever happen again.

I urge you to let your local Libertarian Party know that if they support Root that you will oppose the party with all your might. The LP is a fucking embarrassment.

For the record. Our state LP needs voter registrations to retain ballot status. Even though I had the registration card in front of me I refused to do it. If you are registered to vote as a Libertarian you can change to independent, and let the LP know why. The LP needs to lose ballot status is as many states as possible. Maybe they'll wake up. My guess is that bigots like Root, however, will keep trying to use the party for self-promotion. One thing about losing so many elections is you end up attracting losers.

Imagine my surprise!

Imagine my surprise when I read that Wayne Root, the loudmouth conservative hypester from Vegas, who made a deal with Bob Barr to inflict both of them on the Libertarian Party as candidates, has written a book. The real surprise is that it is supposed to be about libertarianism.
That's a double surprise.

First, I didn't know he'd ever read a book. Secondly, since when did he know anything about libertarianism? He thinks his blather about state's rights is libertarian. Wrong! He's flipped and flopped as he thought necessary in order to secure the V.P. nomination for the clearly desperate Libertarian Party.

Root continues to tell the media that he's "Ron Paul on steroids" -- a claim that doesn't carry much weight here and carries none with Ron Paul. I don't think Ron Paul on steroids would be a good thing as Ron seems intent on emphasizing his most unlibertarian positions. Witness his endorsement of the theocratic, anti-social freedom Constitution Party. So in this libertarian's view, Ron Paul himself on steroids, wouldn't necessarily be a good thing.

But I can tell Mr. Root: I know Ron Paul and you're no Ron Paul.

Speaking of Paul I had something of a shock yesterday. I was speaking to an old friend of mine who mentioned something that has me taking memory pills. We were discussing the current dire situation for libertarianism and he made reference to the time that he, his now exwife, myself and my partner went out to have dinner with Ron and Carol Paul. My jaw dropped as I simply don't remember the occasion. But he remembered well even telling me the part of town where we had dinner.

Back in the 80s I spent several occasions with Paul and I found him and Carol both to be decent individuals. He was marginal as a libertarian then, with very strong conservative tendencies, but since then the tendencies have strengthened and the social conservatism started to dominate.

I still don't remember that dinner. Then to make things worse for my sense of memory I went to tell a business associate, who I have known for decades as well, about my total lapse of memory. As I started to tell him about completely forgetting about going out for dinner with Ron he says: "Oh, I didn't know about that, I just remember the lunch you had with him at...."

Poor me, I'll have to take some memory pills. I had forgotten about the lunch as well. It must have been around the same time. As my friend Leon Louw, from South Africa says, "I have a good forgetter." I'm going to have to call my ex and find out what else I've forgotten.

Enough of the diversion, so back to Wayne Bozo Root. Root's a hoot. He alone is spreading the claim that he's Ron Paul on steroid. But he keeps telling people "The media calls me Ron Paul on steroids." I can't find any reference to the media calling him that at all. I do find the media quoting Root saying that about himself, however. It's Root's current con job, to wrap himself in the mantle of Ron Paul. Apparently Ron isn't so keen on Root and has refused to endorse him. Having watched Root in action I can say that he comes across more like a used car salesman on steroids. And no, I wouldn't buy a car from him. He's the sort of fellow who, if I'd shake hands with him, I'd go off and count my fingers.

I was wondering precisely how he'd use the LP nomination mistake to make some money. I knew he'd use it to promote himself -- that is his one full time occupation -- to tell the world how wonderful he is. But I figured he'd try to make a buck off it as well. I just never imagined he'd hawk a book purporting to explain libertarianism to the world. That would be like me written an introduction to brain surgery. I can only hope that he had it ghost-written. If not, I can only hope no one reads it -- much the way no one read self-promotional book Millionaire Republican.

Root humiliates libertarianism again.

Loudmouth conservative, Wayne Allan Root, in another bout of verbal diarrhea, has launched an attack on Barack Obama. Mr. Root once again demonstrated why he ought not be the Libertarian Party's vice presidential candidate. At the same time, he again showed why Bob Barr, who wanted Root as his VP candidate, is bad for libertarianism. It should be noted that Mr. Root has not attacked Mr. Obama’s policy proposals. Instead, he has launched the typical Right-wing smear campaign -- something that libertarians have avoided, preferring to concentrate on the issues.

Of course Mr. Root is often bad on the issues himself. He is an intellectual lightweight with little understanding of libertarianism, a rabid self-promoter always looking for a way to tell everyone how fantastic he is. As for me, if I ever shook his hand (not likely) I’d count my fingers before leaving.

Let’s start out with the absurd comments Root made in an interview with Reason. Please note that motor-mouth may later deny comments previously made since his mouth is frequently in fourth gear while his brain is still in neutral. He said: “A vote for Obama is four years of Karl Marx...” Really? He also outrightly claimed: “He’s a communist! I don’t care what anybody says. the guy’s a communist... And his mother was a card-carrying communist.” Thank you Mr. McCarthy!

Next Root went into overdrive with his unthinking attack. He claimed that he was smarter than Obama and wants to bet a million dollars on it. And he thinks the only reason Obama went to Harvard Law School was because of his race. I note that conservative and libertarian law professors at Volokh Conspiracy have actually said that Obama was a good professor when he taught law.

Motor-mouth then argues that the “most dangerous thing you should know about Barack Obama is that I don’t know a single person at Columbia that knows him...” So, according to the odious Mr. Root, Obama didn’t know a single person at the university he attended. Why? Well, again Root has zero evidence but he has lots of accusations, all meant to pander to the racist Right. He says that perhaps the reason no one every heard of him was because “he was involved in some sort of black radical politics.” Does that seem contradictory to you? I mean, if Obama were involved in “black radical politics” at Columbia I would think it raised his chances that people would have heard of him. This is what I mean about his mouth running off while his brain is still in neutral. Surely a “black radical” at Columbia would be more likely to be remembered.

Root's argument is that the "most dangerous thing" about Obama is that none of Root's friends knew him at Columbia? What sort of logic is this?

Notice Root offers no evidence for his claims just wacky theories. But that doesn’t stop this sorry excuse of a candidate from making more unfounded accusations. He then offers another reason that no one heard of Obama: “Maybe he was too busy smoking pot in his dorm room to ever show up for class. I don’t know what he was doing!” The last sentence, I am sure, is accurate. Root doesn’t know what Obama was doing, which is why it is unethical for him to invent stories as if he does know. Mr. Root is not presenting libertarian ideas at all, he doesn't know them. He is trying to smear Obama with unsubstantiated claims meant to appeal to racists.

Root also tosses in this sort of racial politics claim:

I mean, when I went to Columbia, the black kids were all at like tables going "Black Power!" We used to walk by and go, "What the hell are they talking about." And they didn't associate with us and we didn't associate with them. So if you track down a couple of black students, they'll probably know him. But nobody white's ever heard of this guy. It's quite amazing. Nobody remembers him. They don't remember him sitting in class.

Ah, yes, your nobody till somebody white loves you. Perhaps the Libertarian Party is going after the Stormfront vote. Am I to understand that all the black kids at Columbia were “at like tables going ‘Black Power!’”. Root says “all of my buddies are white”. So, since Root would only hang around whites and he never saw Obama that means Obama must have been a black radical -- but as he said “the black kids were all” shouting “black power” so apparently every black on Columbia was a radical according to Mr. Root. Does this man wear his sheets under his suit daily or only on special occasions?

Certainly when I went to university I found it rather difficult to not know black students. One had to go out of their way to avoid them for that to happen. Was Mr. Root trying to avoid blacks? Maybe they didn't attend his meetings of the White Citizen's Council Youth Faction. Now, I don't know if that was the case but no one I know actually ever knew Root then. So maybe he was attending White Power meetings with David Duke?

Matt Welch, from Reason, is baffled by Root's description of Black Power movements at Columbia and asks: “Black power in ‘83?” Diarrhea mouth then spouts off more conservative nonsense: “Ha, ha. That’s Columbia. Columbia’s radical, always was. There was gay power over here, and pot power over here, and black power over there, and Hispanic power over here, and feminism.” Note he means all this as an insult. He really is pandering to the most hateful side of the conservative movement. He goes after blacks, gays, pot smokers, Hispanics and women in one paragraph.

Then Root whines that he was told, presumably as a white guy, not to apply for Harvard Law School because he can’t get in. He says this was true for the law school at Princeton as well -- except, as Reason notes, Princeton doesn’t have a law school. From this irrelevant piece of trivia Root then concludes that “he [Obama] got in based on the color of his skin.” The Vegas shyster then says: “Does anyone doubt that possibly Barack could have gotten into Harvard with a C average because he's black, where as I, white, couldn't get into the same school with a B-plus, A-minus average?" Please note that Root doesn't know if Obama had a "C average" at all, he just assumes this has to be the case because no one in his exclusively white circle knew Obama. And he appears to be implying that black students can't get good grades because they are black.

Some more race baiting follows: “I say the whole problem with America is we are racist against people because of the color of their skin. We're helping people because they're black. We're helping people because they're minority. We're helping people because they're poor. In reality only those who have the most skill and talent should get into Harvard, not because of the color of their skin.”

Root has zero evidence for any of his claims and he knows it. But the only way he can conceive that a black guy can get in to Harvard, while he, a white guy, couldn’t, is through affirmative action. Obama must have lower grades than Root but the only reason he offers for this is that Obama is black and he’s white. He whines: “I don’t know the answer but I’m pretty sure I know the answer. He had a lower average than me and he got into Harvard and I didn’t.”

Then he launches into how America did him wrong: “Has America really been unfair to minorities? No it hasn’t. It was unfair to me. A white butcher’s kid, whose father had no money, but nobody gave me a break. And do I have a chip on my shoulder? You’re damn right I do. And I represent millions and millions of poor people in this country who weren’t luck enough to be poor and black, they were unlucky enough to be poor and white, and they can’t get into Harvard.”

Wow! One is lucky to be poor and black. And America, yes, the whole country, was unfair to Root because he didn’t get into Harvard. However, from the way I read his racial rant he never actually applied for Harvard. Of course, if Harvard did admit Root I'd think far less of the university as a result. What sort of morons would admit Root into anything? Oh, right, the Libertarian Party!

Root continued with his attempt to win over the Klan vote: “Anyway my point is, for those of us in America who want to fight for talent being the determinator of who’s successful or not, I’m your representative. Obama’s the wrong representative. And for those who disagree, I say: I’m for affirmative action -- I think the NBA should be 80 percent white....” Did the NBA reject Root as well?

Is Mr. Root running for vice president or Grand Cyclops?

I’m glad I left the Libertarian Party. This was just humiliating. Unfortunately the LP has become a haven for every unhappy conservative around and Root is one of the worst of the lot.

I was glad to see that Reason readers are as disgusted with Root’s appeal to bigotry as I am. Below are some of the comments they left. Apparently the typical libertarian reader at Reason has the same conclusion about Root that I have: the man is an asshole. At least that seems to be the most frequent label they use to describe him, and it is accurate.

“Wow, Wayne Allen Root is an asshole.”

“This is the Libertarian’s VP candidate? Are you fucking serious?”

“Can they lock him up in a poker room in Vegas for the campaign?”

“Is this supposed to be funny or is Mr. Root just being an asshole?”

“That was an ugly interview. What a flaming blowhard. Asshole even.”

“God, another hyperactive loudmouth with a case of AngryWhiteGuyitis.”

“Whatever you think about affirmative action, that man was being an asshole.”

“If you keep this bullshit up, you’ll cause more harm than good to real libertarians. You guys lost me vote when you tried to sue the church, and these kinds of shenanigans will only cause you to lose more.”

“Root is the sort of candidate that gives the LP the reputation it so richly deserves.”

“OMG! You really needed this interview to come to the conclusion that WAR is an asshole? Really?”

“Root is a red-baiting, race-baiting asshole.”

“That interview was an embarrassment.”

“Was he drunk??? Way to help out the Libertarian party, ass.”

Libertarian skunks, Barr and Root, in action.

The Benedict Arnolds in the Libertarian Party have done their dirty work. Now the LP is officially under the control of warmongering neocon types. At least the top of the party’s ticket is dominated by such pond scum.

Your blogger was recently at the Freedom Fest shindig in Las Vegas, hence the absence in blogging for awhile. While there I witnessed two individuals I know to be libertarians attempting to talk to the Republicans who are now the LP’s candidates: Wayne Root and Bob Barr.

At one point I saw Marc Victor, an attorney and sometimes radio talk show host stand-in, speaking to Barr. Admittedly Barr makes my skin crawl so I didn’t pay much attention and the noise in the room was sufficient that I couldn’t hear the conversation. But when Marc saw me he can over and recounted the gist of the conversation.

Marc had recently seen Barr on television where Barr was dismissing the long-held libertarian position of legalizing drugs. That didn’t surprise me since Barr is a conservative and not a libertarian. But Barr has the blind LP party leaders with their noses in his pigpen so they pretend the man is something he isn’t.

Marc says that when he brought up Barr’s anti-libertarian position on drugs that Barr glared at him and then gave one of his handlers a signal. Barr is always accompanied by handlers whose job is to keep libertarians away from their presidential candidate so they can’t ask him questions about his Big Government positions. A rather large woman, working for Barr then pushed her way between them in order to push Victor off to the sidelines. Barr then turned tail and ran in the opposite direction.

Another libertarian I know, land developer Treg Loyden was later witnessed by me having a conversation with Wayne Root, the LP’s unlibertarian vice presidential candidate. I called Treg up this evening to ask what that was about. He told me and also pointed me to something he wrote about the experience.

Treg first attempted to speak to Bob Barr, a man Treg now sees as Little Napoleon. Treg too had tried to ask Barr about his anti-libertarian position on the war on drugs. And like Marc Victor, Treg got the same treatment. First, he told Barr that his position on drugs was not acceptable and then waited for Barr to respond. Barr looked at him silently and simply refused to say anything. Barr instead turned away from Treg and started talking to a conservative.

Barr wanted to know what he could say to win the conservative’s vote in November. That very question is unprincipled implying that Barr will say whatever is needed in order to win the votes of voters, provided of course, that the voter isn’t actually a libertarian. The conservative said he didn’t want to waste a vote on Barr but was unhappy with McCain. Barr’s reply was enlightening.

He told the man, “Well, we can’t let them just keep ruining our party.” McCain is a Republican. So the only party that Barr can be referring to is the Republican Party. Barr stills sees himself as a conservative Republican not as a libertarian.

I argued that the plan by Barr and his conservative handlers like Richard Viguerie was to use the LP and its ballot status in order to try to force the Republican Party toward a hard-core Right-wing position. Barr doesn’t give a damn about the Libertarian Party. He would be happy to destroy the Libertarian Party if he can succeed in pushing the Republicans to the Right. This is the man into whose hands the traitors at the LP national office have entrusted their party.

Treg was dismayed by this and walked away. He later saw Wayne Root and tried to talk to him. Root started to speak to Treg but saw David Friedman, Milton’s son, and tried to rassle up his support. This I witnessed first hand as I had just been speaking with David a minute before this happened.

Root claimed he had the LP presidential nomination for president in the bag for the next four election cycles. Talk about trash leading the blind. Root basically ignored Treg not considering him important enough to talk with.

Treg later mentioned this treatment to Steve Kubby, who apparently thinks that party loyalty is enough to override the odious natures of Root and Barr. He decided to reintroduce Treg to Root in the hopes of patching things up.

When Root learned of the money that Treg had put into Ron Paul’s campaign (a point Treg and I disagree about) he was suddenly interested. He asked: “So what can I say to get you guys behind the Barr/Root team?” I never thought I’d hear an LP candidate selling his principles for votes but then the LP is dead and what now exists is libertarian in name only.

Treg mentioned to Root how Ron Paul “wants us out o Iraq now.” Root said: “That is where I disagree with Paul. Yes, we should leave when the job is done and we should leave with strength, not weakness.”

In one of the pre nomination debates I heard Root telling libertarians that he had learned his lesson about Iraq and that he wanted out Iraq. Of course, at the time, he was telling them what they needed to hear to give him their votes. This is the unprincipled con artist that Root is. His positions are not based on principles but on power seeking. He lied to the LP delegates claiming a conversion on Iraq and then, once he gets their support, he goes right back to his pro-war position.

Root got agitated and stood up to leave. Treg admits he didn’t tape record the event and was recounting the approximate words of Root, but if this is even vaguely what Root said, then it shows how bad a libertarian he is. “America should just let Israel alone, defend itself, and go nuke the heck out of those Iranian cockroaches. Blow ‘em all up... just nuke the place for a thousand years.”

I know both Marc Victor and Treg Loyden. In spite of disagreements we have had on some matters concerning this election I believe them to be honest individuals and that both are telling the truth. I was close enough to see what was happening and it corresponds with their accounts. I also witnessed Barr and Root lying, twisting and distorting their own positions in order to con the Libertarian Party into nominating them. So I have every reason to believe their accounts regarding these incidents.

What both men recount is proof that the amazing conversion of these neocons to libertarianism is all facade and no substance. Root and Barr are still Republicans and both are using the LP as a tool to their own personal ends. The LP has committed suicide by putting two anti-libertarian con men at the head of its ticket. I doubt the LP can survive this and I suggest, that if it does survive, it will be further proof of the innate rot that has contaminated the party.

I no longer wish to be associated with the Libertarian Party.

A few days I wrote about how the federal government is confiscating laptops and removing all the data to search through it. This is being done as people travel into the country. Individuals have no guarantees that the information found there won’t get out or be used privately by others. They simply must trust the government. No reasonable suspicion is required for the feds to do this. They can do it any time they damn well please. And they will.

The purported reason is to catch child pornography. Most people are rightfully upset by the topic and the government realizes that when people are in a moral panic it is easy to get them to surrender rights. Government uses child porn the way it uses “terrorism”. It helps whip up hysteria in order to expand federal powers. And those powers will be used mostly for entirely other purposes. These are not the reasons for the powers, they are merely the excuses.

The big government crowd will attack anyone questioning such expansive federal powers of being in league with terrorists or supporting child pornography. They know that isn’t the case but they hope it will shut them up.

One would think that o alleged libertarians would understand how government works. It uses legitimate problems, though vastly exaggerated, to justify illegitimate powers. Then those new powers are used for purposes totally unrelated to the issues which were hyped to justify their existence. Those who joined the campaigns to denounce the evils didn’t actually manage to fight the evils they wanted to get. Instead they gave government a justification for doing entirely different, entirely evil, things. Join the moral campaigns of government is the quickest way to become a collaborator with evil

Now the Libertarian Party has joined the hysteria and demanded more government. The party’s Executive Director released a statement calling for “increased communication between state and federal agencies” and demanded that “more needs to be done to track down and prosecute the twisted individuals who exploit innocent children.” This is pandering to a popular hysteria which is vastly exaggerated by government goons. That the LP has joined this hysteria is shocking.

I have to wonder if the Exeutive Director is empowered to act unilaterally like this. Or did he just assume these powers the way Bush does? Who approved a spokesman for the so-called Libertarian Party to demand “more action” by the federal government?

What is interesting about these conservatives is that they flit back and forth on the issues. When bigots like Barr justify antigay views or when neoconservative Wayne Allan Root wants to justify his postions against social freedom, they resort to “let the state’s enforce” these laws. Now the LP conservatives at head office are demanding more federal action. Where in the Constitution is the federal government given any powers over obscenity?

What the LP has effectively done is call for an expansion of federal powers beyond those in the Constitution. Or more precisely they have endorsed that expansion since the feds have moved into that field long ago. This isn’t even constitutionalism. This is big government.

And why do these Right-wing libertarians believe that the federal government will act in the limited way they say they want. They want more active federal policing but ask the feds to respect rights in the process. How stupid are these people? This is like asking a lion to not eat Springbok. It goes against the very nature of the beast.

Former LP presidential candidate, Harry Browne, made an important point on the war in Irag and Afghanistan. He said that libertarians who supported the war seemed to foolishly believe that the government would fight the war precisely the way these “liberventionists” wanted. Every advocate of expanded government power makes the same mistake. They always believe that it can done in the clean sort of way that they want.

What the morons, who took over the LP, think is that federal agents will have good evidence before they act. They seem to believe that only “perverts” will be targeted by this increased “federal action”. And they seem to think that the feds will act within the Bill of Rights. They probably believe in Santa Claus.

Government doesn’t work that way. Government is a sledgehammer swatting flies. You can bet it kills some flies but the collateral damage is massive. Libertarians used to know this. So what the hell is happening with the LP?

I fear it has been taken over by conservatives who are pissed at Bush and the GOP. It is no longer libertarian. These conservatives have run bigots for office who make my blood run cold. They ran conspiracy nuts who ranted like crazed Birchers. They invited the bigoted drug warrior Bob Barr to join the party and put him on the National Committee. Now we have the spectacle of a neocon like Wayne Allen Root in the presidential race. Two of the top three contenders in the LP presidential race are not even libertarians. And the head office morons seems fine with that.

Now these bureaucrats issue a press statement calling for “more federal action” in policing obscenity laws.

My activity in the Party goes back three decades. I’ve run for office for the Party and given hundreds of hours of my time to party activities. I’ve certainly questioned whether the LP was the best strategy but always was glad it existed. No longer is that the case. I now believe the Libertarian Party is destructive to the libertarian message. The kind of people who are running the national office, along with candidates like Root and Barr are a clear indication that some of the worst kind of conservatives are dominating the party.

As of today I no longer wish to be considered sympathetic to the Libertarian Party. It has strayed too far away from liberty toward social conservatism. It is no longer the party of social tolerance but one that promotes vile bigots like Barr. It no longer wants less govenment but puts out press releases demanding more federal action in a field not authorized by the Constitution.

My previous dismay about the state of LP had me believing that it was not worth funding simply because it wasn’t worth the resources it flushed down the electoral drain. Then my complaint was that the party was an inefficient use of resources. Now I see it very differently. The LP is not just an inefficient way of promoting libertarianism, it is actually destructive to that cause. The Libertarian Party ought to die. It is harming libertarianism.

I’m sure that when that party falls apart, and I believe there is a good chance that the campaign teams of Root and Barr will do a lot to bring about this destruction, that the fringe Right types will go back to the GOP. The party of principle sold out the principles and now it is merely seeking power. And as it seeks power it destroys the libertarian message. I have to say that at this time I consider the Libertarian Party as the enemy of libertarianism. I hope its death is quick and complete. And I urge libertarians to withdraw their membership from the party, cease funding the party or its candidates, and pledge not to vote for any LP candidates. There are plenty of good, educational campaigns that one can fund instead. But money given to the LP or its candidates helps betray the libertarian message. Boycott the LP.

Guess who's coming to dinner?

Who is the most consistent, war mongering, neo conservative in the United States Senate? This is a man who is such a war advocate that he rushed to hug Bush during his State of the Union ramble. In fact, this Senator is so rabid about war that he deserted his party because it wasn't sufficient militaristic.

Surely that last bit gave it away. Of course the culprit is Joe Lieberman the ex-Democrat Senator for Israel He's supposed to be representing Connecticut but his loyalties lie much farther away. Old Joe is such a war fan that he has wet dreams over George Bush blowing up half the Middle East. Talk about Dr. Strangelove.

What is even stranger is that the conservative Republican Wayne Root is trying to market himself as a libertarian. But what libertarian would contribute $1000 to Lieberman's campaign? Root would. Only a short while ago he was promoting a McCain/Lieberman ticket. But when Republicans attacked gambling he got pissed --- mainly because he earns money from saps who buy his gambling tips. He's a pissed off Republican but that doesn't make him a libertarian and surely $1000 from Root to Lieberman has to count very negatively against him. You can see the documentation that Root gave this money to Lieberman here.

He's also been trying to soft-pedal his non-libertarian positions. Previously he said that gays should not be allowed to marry. Now he says it is a "state's right" position. His campaign site says the war on drugs failed but he doesn't call for ending it just experimenting with legalizing medicinal marijuana but he'd rather leave it up to the states. How does a conservative pretend to be a libertarian -- by avoiding the social issues by claiming only the states should be involved.

How this "state's right" position applies to various federal issues he avoids saying. The federal government taxes income and forbids gay couples from filing joint returns thus penalizing them. Leaving marriage to the states doesn't solve that problem. The federal government forbids gay Americans from bringing a foreign partner to the States, something it doesn't do for heterosexuals. Leaving marriage to the states won't solve that problem. The federal government prevented a man who was legally married to his same-sex partner from changing his name on his passport to reflect his marriage. How would leaving marriage to the states resolve that? It doesn't The "state's right" position is not a position at all, not for Barr and not for Root, it is an attempt to evade a position. Claim that the state's have total jurisdiction and most people stop thinking.

What Root and Barr and other conservatives need to answer us is what they think they states ought to be doing. Does Root think it is wrong for the states to deny gay couples the right to marry or not? Does Root think it is wrong for the states to wage a war on drugs or not?

These "ex" Republicans also evade another issue. When they drone on about state's rights why is it that we never hear them specifiy what limitations on powers the states ought to have. The traditional view of the conservative is that the states can practically do anything they damn well please. They will say the federal government can't establish a state religion but that the states may. They say the federal government ought not run the war on drugs but that the states should.

The Barr/Root/conservative position is saying the states have the rights to violate individual liberty in ways which they would forbid to the feds. But what powers do would they fobid the states from having? They don't tell us because they aren't trying to enlighten us as to their purported federalism. They are trying to smother inquiry into their social positions.

My questions to them are simple. Should any individual state be allowed to conduct a war on drugs? Should the individuals states grant marriage equality to gay couples or not? Should the states have the right to engage in censorship? Should the states have the right to restrict sexual acts between consenting adults? Should the states have the right to promote the Christian religion?