LNC Should Disassociate LP from Wayne Allyn Root's Obama Birther Conspiracy Insinuations

Root has long fed Birther conspiracies with his insinuation that Obama never went to Columbia.

On May 16, Root announced on Facebook that he would testify at a Reverand Manning's private trial against Obama. Apparently, Manning's bizarro trial would showcase every anti-Obama conspiracy out there.

This news soon broke out on IndependentPoliticalReport.com, resulting in a firestorm of criticism against Root.

Root, who was running for LP chair and saw his chances slipping away, behaved like any bully who'd been challenged. He turned tail and ran, explaining why he decided not to testify after all.

But the damage from Root's Birther conspiracy idiocy is still out there, embarrassing the LP. Just today, I received the following spam, repeating idiotic conspiracy theories about Obama, new and old, many of which have already been disproved -- and once again citing Root as a source.

The LNC should publicly disassociate itself from Wayne Allyn Root's conspiracy claims, and state that Root's insinuations spreading virally across the internet do not reflect the LP or its views.

Here's a copy of the email I received today [I've deleted the 168 recipients of this email -- the cc wasn't hidden]:

from 99wizards <99wizards@gmail.com>
date Mon, May 31, 2010 at 7:34 PM
subject Re: Free Parliamentary Email Poll Coming
mailed-by gmail.com
signed-by gmail.com

Why was obama's law license inactivated in 2002?

Why was Michelle's law license INACTIVATED by court order? There is only one Barack Hussein Obama according to the U. S. Census and he has 27 Social Security numbers and over 80 aliases.

The one he uses now originated in Connecticut where he is not ever reported to have lived. No wonder ALL of his 'records' are sealed!

It just gets worse! At least we only have 3 years of this mystery man left before we can replace him. Was He There? Who IS He? I have always wondered why NO ONE ever came forward from Obama's past saying they knew him, attended school with him, was his friend, etc..

NO ONE, not one person has ever come forward from his past. VERY, VERY STRANGE.

This should really be a cause for great concern. To those who voted for him, YOU HAVE ELECTED THE BIGGEST UNQUALIFIED FRAUD that America has ever known!

This is very interesting stuff. Sort of adds credence to the idea of The Manchurian Candidate thing having happened here!

Stephanopoulos of ABC news said the same thing during the 08' campaign. He too was a classmate of BO's at Columbia class of 1984. He said he never had ONE class withhim. Was he there?

While he is such a great orator, why doesn't ANYONE in Obama's college class remember him? Maybe he never attended class! Maybe he never attended Columbia? He won't allow Colombia to release his records either.

Suspicious isn't it???

NOBODY REMEMBERS OBAMA AT COLUMBIA

Looking for evidence of Obama's past, Fox News contacted 400 Columbia University students from the period when Obama claims to have been there, but none remembered him.

Wayne Allyn Root was, like Obama, a political science major at Columbia who also graduated in 1983.

In 2008, Root says of Obama, "I don't know a SINGLE PERSON at Columbia who knew him, and they all know me. I don't have a classmate who ever knew Barack Obama at Columbia. EVER! Nobody rcalls him. I'm not exaggerating.

"Root adds that he was also, like Obama, "Class of '83 political science, pre-law" and says, "You don't get more exact or closer than that. Never met him in my life, don't know anyone who ever met him.

At the class reunion, our 20th reunion five years ago, who was asked to be the speaker of the class? Me. No one ever heard of Barack!

And five years ago, nobody even knew who he was. The guy who writes the class notes, who's kind of the, as we say in New York, the macha who knows everybody, has yet to find a person, who ever met him. Is that not strange? It's VERY strange.

"Obama's photograph does NOT appear in the school's'yearbook' and Obama consistently declines requests to talk about his years at Columbia, provide school records, or provide the name of any former classmates or friends while at Columbia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wayne_Allyn_Root#column-one

NOTE: Root graduated as Valedictorian from his high school, Thornton-Donovan School, then graduated from Columbia University in 1983 as a Political Science major (in the same class as Barack Hussein Obama WAS SUPPOSED TO HAVE BEEN IN).

Can it be that BHO is a complete fraud? More intrigue concerning "The Man who WASN'T there."

I’m sure the truth will be found out, but too bad not soon enough!

Please do not give up on ousting the people at the top. We must go on, and continue sending these out to everyone. Pass this on to everyone on your e-list. Pass it across America!

John Jay Myers for Libertarian Party Chair

Five men will run for Libertarian Party national chair this weekend in St. Louis. I can be happy with four of them. I only hope the winner is not Wayne Allyn Root, a pro-war narcissist.

Of the remaining four, I am most impressed with John Jay Myers. Antiwar/anti-empire must be the LP's flagship issue. War touches all others. Apart from its murderous destruction, war destroys civil liberties at home, and increases taxes and inflation to the point of national bankruptcy.

Root sometimes buries brief, watered-down passages critical of foreign intervention in some of his writings, but he won't oppose war loudly and incessantly! It would hurt his budding career as a right-wing media pundit. Besides, Root still supports war now and again, if not this or that particular policy (at least not after it's proven to be a failure).

Phillies, Hinkle, and Hancock are all sincerely antiwar, but they have other liabilities as candidates. Rightly or wrongly, many delegates regard Phillies and Hancock are unacceptable alternatives to Root. That leaves Hinkle and Myers. Hinkle is good. Myers is better.

Myers gets it. Myers gets the antiwar issue -- that it needs to be the LP's flagship issue. And Myers gets the problems with Root -- his flip-flopping and softness on war.

Here is Myer's keen analysis of one of Root's recent (April 2010) statements on foreign policy. (You can read Root's statement in full, and Myers response, at Independent Political Report -- below are what I regard as the wheat without the chaff):

Root wrote: "It's time to admit the war in Iraq has distracted us from the real 'war on terror' we are waging against the Taliban in Afghanistan."

Myers's responds: "Wrong. We need to bring our troops home from Afghanistan now. ... Wayne doesn't want to pull our troops out of the Middle East any time soon. It would be hard to fight [Root's] 'war on terror' if we were not there. ... if we were not there, we would not have a 'war on terror'. We wouldn't be worried about regimes giving terrorists bombs. We would be worried about buying goods from them, and they would in turn be worried about maintaining our friendship in peace.

"This has to be our issue, we need to bring the troops home.

"In order to accept Wayne's theory, you have to believe that either terrorists hate us because we are free, or that they hate us because of our religion. Either case is ridiculous.

"They hate us because we are there taking their resources, installing puppet dictators and trying to sell them democracy through the barrel of a gun. That is the truth. Someone besides Ron Paul needs to say it. That needs to be us.

"Wayne will never say that. Given that his article was written 2 weeks ago, I don't think he is going to change his tune any time soon."

Bravo! Myer's analysis is right on point.

I'll add this: Root was pro-war in 2007, then antiwar in early 2008, then called for an Afghan surge in late 2008, then opposed Obama's Afghan surge in 2009, but in the above piece Root supports Obama's Afghan war policy -- though Root won't credit Obama for continuing a war that Root supports.

Is there a method to Root's mad flip-flopping? Sure. He's reliably pro-war, but weasels back whenever (1) he wants something from the LP, such a president nomination or chair title, or (2) the war has become unpopular even among many conservative talk radio hosts, or (3) Obama supports the war, because Root has a fixated hatred of Obama.

If Myers becomes chair, I expect the LP's national website to reflect a more explicitly antiwar image. Perhaps we'll even see a peace sign on the site? This will attract many young people, the same youth who are energized by Ron Paul.

If Root becomes chair, I expect the LP's national website will be used to promote Root's media career. I expect the site to be plastered with photos of Root, YouTube videos of Root's appearances, and promotions of Root's book.

Think I exaggerate? Earlier this year, Root sent a vaguely threatening email to LP executive direct Wes Benedict, complaining that the national site didn't promote Root extensively enough. Root implied that should he become chair, he'd be looking for a new executive director if Benedict didn't promote Root more heavily.

To quote from Root's threatening email to Benedict:

"Wes,

Here is the list of my media appearances this week…16 in all (although I expect a few more on Friday & Saturday)…including 7 national radio shows…IN ONE WEEK!

I must tell you Wes…If this isn't news worthy…then we need a new Exec Director who can see that it is. If you don't want to put this list up on LP web site…I'd like a straight answer why? And trust me when I tell you, I'm not taking this laying down. This is NEWS that all Libertarians should welcome hearing. We have a bright star in the mainstream media [Root is referring to himself] …who is branding the LP. Trust me…you and I are going to have MULTIPLE conversations about this starting next week.

Wayne"

Those are two of the choices LP delegates will face this weekend. Elect Myers and promote peace. Or elect Root and promote Root's career.

Beware of Last-Minute Convention Floor Smears

Based on recent history, delegates to the Libertarian Party's 2010 national convention should be on guard against last minute convention floor smears. It happened to Mary Ruwart in 2008, and might have cost her the nomination.

I reported on this incident nearly two years ago, in my post: Last Minute Anti-Ruwart Lies on the Convention Floor.

I wrote: "Someone (or a group of someones) was spreading ugly and outlandish anti-Ruwart rumors on the convention floor during the voting.

Before the 5th ballot, after Senator Mike Gravel was dropped, I asked Mike's daughter, Lynne Moiser, to vote for Mary Ruwart. ....

[Lynne] said she'd heard on the floor that the 'Washington Post was about to break a story that the Libertarian Party was nominating child pornographer Mary Ruwart.'

That false and ugly accusation about Ruwart was old news, based on an out of context quote from a book by Ruwart that had been unearthed by George Phillies. Both Wayne Allyn Root and Christine Smith had pounced on Ruwart at the time, asking for her to withdraw. The rumor was known and disregarded by Ruwart's supporters.

However, Lynne was new to Libertarianism. She was unfamiliar with our blogs and channels of communication. This false rumor was news to her.

And this Washington Post twist was entirely new.

So, the Washington Post was 'about to break a story' about the LP was nominating a child pornographer? Really? Where did that come from?

Well, an effective lie needs to be specific. It's more believable that way.

Clearly, someone was spreading lies on the convention floor, when only Barr, Ruwart, and Root remained on the ballot -- in that order. Which camp was spreading these lies? Barr or Root? Root was in last place (behind Ruwart) and his campaign has a history of playing the 'child pornographer' card against Ruwart. But there's no hard evidence either way."

This incident was never followed up. This last minute anti-Ruwart smear went down the Memory Hole.

Well, I'm extracting this incident from the Hole. Somebody was spreading an anti-Ruwart lie -- a Big Whooper of a lie! -- at the last minute, in a tight race. And some delegates were swayed by this lie.

Who would want the nomination that bad? Bad enough to spout Whooper-sized lies? Who embraces an ethic of winning at all costs?

Someone who would do it again.

I don't know who has what up their sleeves, but I urge all delegates to the 2010 Libertarian Party national convention to take all last minute "revelations" and rumors with a grain of salt. In the upcoming LP Chair race, do not be swayed by eleventh hour accusations, when there's no time for the smeared party to defend himself.

Snopes Destroys Wayne Allyn Root's "Obama Never Went to Columbia" Insinuation

Some two years ago, Wayne Allyn Root insinuated that Obama never went to Columbia, simply because Root never met Obama at Columbia, and didn't know anyone who did.

In October, 2009, an email went viral on the internet, spreading that theory while citing Root.

I've now learned that in February 2010, Snopes.com addressed Root's insinuation. The famous debunking site not only cites people who knew Obama at Columbia, it also cites Root as a source for the rumor.

Of course, Root is also described as the Libertarian Party's 2008 presidential candidate. I guess Root's supporters should praise Root for getting the LP brand out there, however embarrassing the context.

From Snopes.com:

"Most expressions of this rumor feed off the statement (referenced in a Wall Street Journal editorial) that 'Fox News contacted some 400 of [Obama's] classmates and found no one who remembered him' and a statement made by Wayne Allyn Root (the Libertarian Party's 2008 vice presidential nominee who also attended Columbia at the same time as Barack Obama) that 'I don't know a single person at Columbia that knows him, and they all know me. I don't have a classmate who ever knew Barack Obama at Columbia.'

"...it isn't true that 'no one ever came forward from Obama's past saying they knew him, attended school with him, was his friend, etc.' Those who have attested to having daily personal experience with him during his time at that school include:

"Friend and roommate Sohale Siddiqi, whom the Associated Press located and interviewed in May 2008.

"Roommate Phil Boerner, who provided his recollections of sharing a New York City apartment with classmate Barack Obama to the Columbia College Today alumni publication and the New York Times in early 2009.

"Michael L. Baron, who taught the year-long honors seminar in American Foreign Policy that Barack Obama took during his senior year at Columbia and recalled in an NBC interview Obama's "easily acing" the class and receiving an A for his senior paper on the topic of nuclear negotiations with the Soviet Union.

"...other external evidence documents Barack Obama's presence at Columbia from 1981-83, including:

"An article by Barack Obama published in the 10 March 1983 edition of Columbia's Sundial school magazine.

"A January 2005 Columbia College Today profile of Barack Obama as a Columbia alumnus.

"A Columbia College press release from November 2008 identifying him as "the first College alumnus to be elected President of the United States.

"Finally, the fatal flaw in the 'Obama didn't go to Columbia' theory is that he couldn't have been admitted to Harvard Law School in 1988 without having received an undergraduate degree. ... yet his time between the end of his Columbia days in 1983 and his entering Harvard Law in 1988 is accounted for ... and no other school claims him as an alumnus, nor does anyone purport to have encountered him as a classmate or student at any other college or university during that period."

Read the Snopes article.

But I guess the important thing is that Root is getting on Fox News. Who cares if Root's claims are ridiculous or not? Certainly not the Fox News audience.

Unfortunately, some Libertarians think the LP should likewise sink to that level if it will help the LP "get votes."

New Play Criticizes Torture in the "War on Terror"

Robert Johnson of the New Jersey Star-Ledger reviews An American Rendition, a new play that tackles America's pro-torture policy in the "War on Terror":

"Americans would rather not consider the suffering of people water-boarded, beaten and deprived of sleep as part of our government's so-called war on terror.

"Choreographer Jane Comfort tackles what she calls this 'collective unwillingness to look' in 'An American Rendition,' a grimly mocking work of contemporary dance-theater coming to the Theatre at Raritan Valley Community College on Saturday.



"The piece recalls the by-now much publicized activities of government agents who sequestered individuals without trial and have subjected them to practices explicitly prohibited under U.S. and international law.

"While 'An American Rendition' focuses on the plight of a fictional character mistakenly detained and transported to a U.S.-operated black site, the piece ironically juxtaposes the gruesome incidents of his captivity with weirdly light-hearted scenes inspired by reality television."

Read the rest of the article.

Also read: Pentagon Possessed: A Neocon Horror Story.

Ernie Hancock Makes Love, Not War

Ernie Hancock finds a campaign theme in his run for Libertarian Party national chair against the pro-war Wayne Allyn Root.



Do I endorse Hancock for LP Chair? Actually, I'd be happy with Anyone But Root.

PS: Is Root not pro-war? Is he truly antiwar? Then surely, he'll loudly and unambiguously condemn the current wars at the Tea Party. Yes?

Progressives Who Oppose -- and Support -- War

With his permission, I reprint the following from Monterey Libertarian Party activist Lawrence K. Samuels:

Are progressives changing their view on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan?

Until recently, I saw some reluctance among liberals to criticize Obama's foreign policies. During one antiwar rally in 2009, we were asked not to display any "Obama-bashing" protest signs, although everyone there was deeply opposed the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

This attitude began to change when we planned a March 20, 2010 Peace Rally in Monterey. This protest was held to commemorate the seventh anniversary of the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq.

I had volunteered to organize the protest for the local Peace Coalition (comprising 23 member organizations).

The event turned out well. Our keynote speakers were liberal Bill Monning, the California Assembly member from the 27th district, and libertarian David Henderson, professor of economics at the Naval Postgraduate School. Both were crowd pleasers.

Despite these antiwar progressives, a problem arose when I went on a radio show to promote the Peace Rally.

For years, I had been a monthly guest on KRXA, a progressive radio station, to discuss war, libertarianism, and liberty. A former affiliate of Air America Radio, KRXA 540 AM has always been supportive of antiwar views and activities.

This time I got a shock. During the show, host and co-owner Hal Ginsberg began to wonder if the Iraq War might now be justified. His point was: If Iraq begins to act like a democratic nation in the next few years, then maybe President Bush might have been right to invade the nation. This thinking was also expressed in a recent New York Times editorial.

After explaining his position more, Ginsberg asked me what I thought.

I said it does not matter if democracy sprouts roots in Iraq. We cannot force democracy or freedom on people in any country. As a libertarian, I recognize no higher value than individual liberty. But under the non-aggression principle, I oppose coercion -- even to impose something I value highly.

Non-aggression is the essence of liberty. It would be hypocritical to use military force and government edicts supposedly to make people free. Only people have rights, not governments.

I observed that in Iraq's 5,000-year history, the people have never had a culture that supported a decentralized government of open markets and individual rights. The Iraqis have instead supported strong men and empires.

Ginsberg said he did not buy that argument. He indicated that democracy is so important that our government might be obligated to bring it to every nation.

Of course, this was President Bush's keystone argument!

It is discouraging to see progressives become fuzzy over our imperialistic wars. The New York Times recently editorialized in support of Obama's expanding war in Afghanistan.

Not long ago, almost every progressive leader and newspaper voiced harsh words for Bush's war in Iraq and Afghanistan. Now that Obama is in charge, that antiwar sentiment is changing. It appears that it is okay for a Democrat administration to engage in war, but not for a Republican one.

As I have always said, we should always put "principles over party." We need to be consistent supporters of peace, not distracted by political pragmatism.

============================

Lawrence K. Samuels is editor and contributing author to Facets of Liberty: A Libertarian Primer.