Presidential Candidate and Columbia University Graduate Root Attacks Liberal Intolerance & Hypocrisy at Columbia over Iranian President Ahmadinejad
My name is Wayne Allyn Root. I am a Libertarian Conservative candidate for President of the United States. But I am NOT your typical conservative politician- actually my credentials sound quite liberal. I am a Jewish New Yorker with an Ivy League degree from Columbia University who has achieved my wealth and success in Hollywood and Las Vegas (in the television business). I have spent the last 18 years as a network anchor, host, television producer, and non-stop cable talk show guest. I've gotten to know and understand the liberal news media and the "intellectual elite" up close and personal. I understand their agenda. And the picture is not pretty. It can be summed up with the controversial decision by my alma mater Columbia University to invite a terrorist murderer to speak in front of the student body on September 24th- Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. It is typical of Columbia University and it's leaders to hide behind the defense of "freedom of speech" to support this disgraceful decision. But it is a complete bogus lie. This fraud represents liberal hypocrisy at its most disingenuous and arrogant.I too support free speech. But there are exceptions. Not for terrorists who openly call for the destruction and annihilation of America and our ally Israel. Not for Holocaust deniers. Not for the leader of a nation that supports Hezbollah terrorist bombings that target innocent women, children and the elderly in Israel. Not for the leader of a country whose special forces and deadly weapons are smuggled into Iraq to kill American soldiers. And certainly not for a man whose obvious goal is to develop nuclear weapons to be used in a 21st century Holocaust against Israel and America. This is not about freedom of speech, but rather about giving a platform and credibility to an evil madman. This decision is typical of a university dominated by leftist, if not outright socialist, anti-American, anti-Israeli educators and administrators. It is an outrage and disgrace.
Yet as a Libertarian who values freedom over all else, even I could accept this decision if it was fairly applied to allow any speaker or newsmaker to address Columbia. It is not. The truth is that Columbia University is a hypocritical, biased, leftist-dominated institution that denies conservative speakers or thinkers that same platform, or access to its students. Columbia has consistently rejected the appearance of high-profile conservative speakers- including Jim Gilchrest, Founder of the Minuteman Project, whose appearance was cancelled just last week. Worse, Columbia has tried to suppress conservative thought by hiring only professors and educators who share their radical leftist agenda. The Columbia Conservative Alumni Association reported earlier this week that only 20 openly Republican, Conservative or Libertarian professors exist out of a faculty of over 3000. So where is "free speech" as a priority when it comes to diversity of thought among Columbia's educators? Columbia has also denied ROTC the freedom to recruit on campus- despite a majority student vote to reverse that censorship of free speech. So according to Columbia President Lee Bollinger, it's called "free speech" when Islamic extremists and terrorists (trying to acquire nuclear weapons to use against America and Israel) are invited to speak at the university. But allowing speakers and newsmakers who do not murder innocent civilians, or fund terrorism, or advocate terrorism in any way, but who simply have conservative ideals, or want to enforce illegal immigration laws, is forbidden? Murderers and Holocaust deniers have a right to explain and defend their beliefs under the guise of "free speech," but not conservatives?
As I heard of this bias and intolerance exhibited by Columbia's radical leftist administration and faculty in the past few days, it brought back a flood of memories from my Columbia college days. I was witness to many shocking displays of liberal bias, intolerance and hypocrisy that many in the heartland of America could never even imagine. One of these incidents that I witnessed while a student at Columbia literally defines America's intellectual elite- as a group so radical, so extreme, with an agenda so out of the mainstream, and a prejudice versus conservatives (and religious Christians) so strong and so vicious, that it borders on outright loathing. This event that I witnessed a quarter century ago was so revolting that I kept it to myself (and my close circle of friends) for over 2 decades. But now that I see the same liberal hate and intolerance being displayed by a new generation of left wing radicals at Columbia, and that same liberal media bias being displayed by many of my college classmates now prominent and influential in the media, I feel that the incident that I witnessed must be publicly exposed.
This incident from a quarter of century ago certainly debunks the myth that liberals are compassionate do-gooders out to save the world- somehow better, nicer, fairer to those less fortunate (you know- the Michael Moore, Hillary Clinton, Al Gore, Rosie O'Donnell and George Clooney version of the facts). In reality they possess a hate so strong towards those with opposing viewpoints (in particular Republicans, Conservatives, Libertarians, Christians and their new whipping boys- Israelis), that it evokes memories of McCarthyism. The roots of that hate and moral superiority can all be summed up in one event I witnessed back in 1981. I was then a sophomore at Columbia University majoring in Political Science. Most (if not all) of my professors were radical leftists- filled with outright contempt for America and capitalism (yes, this is who is teaching our best and brightest children at Ivy League universities). My fellow students were almost to a man (or woman) extreme liberals and socialists- with many admitting openly an affinity for communism. I was sickened by the political views that I heard day and night- views so left wing they would make even Hillary Clinton and George McGovern cringe. These were brilliant students (mostly spoiled brats from the upper classes of America who had been handed everything they ever wanted their entire lives on a silver platter) that despised America and everything it stood for. As a student at one of America's finest academic institutions, I was subjected to a nonstop verbal attack against America, it's values and even the very idea of God! This was at the time the definition of "higher learning" at Ivy League institutions (and unfortunately still is).
As a na‹ve blue collar S.O.B. (son of a butcher) from a small dead-end town on the Bronx borderline, I found myself in awe of these blue-blooded, intellectual, trust-fund debutantes. I had never met people like this before.
I actually laughed and shook my head at their radical, anti-American, anti-capitalism beliefs. I actually thought they were just young and misguided, but well-meaning kids and that none of this was "personal." I wouldn't hold a person's political beliefs against them- surely they felt the same way? I was very wrong. What I learned at Columbia was that Liberals feel morally superior to others. They are on a mission to save the world from prejudice, patriotism, racism, greed, intolerance, and inequality.
America and the success our great country has achieved is a sign of everything these radical leftists despise- worse, it is living, breathing proof that everything they believe in is WRONG! And so they resent this country (and now Israel- the only living, breathing, successful capitalist democracy in the Middle East); anyone who has achieved self-made success through American values; and anyone who disagrees with their "morally superior" bleeding-heart liberal point of view. Anyone not on board with the same agenda is labeled ignorant, racist, intolerant, greedy, close-minded or dangerous and must be slashed, burned, slandered and destroyed (see George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Tom DeLay, Newt Gingrich, William Bennett, and an endless list of conservative leaders). To liberals, everything is personal. We as conservatives are seen as "the enemy." We aren't just espousing tax cuts- we are throwing single mothers, welfare mothers, children, the elderly into the streets. Our views in the eyes of liberals are based on ignorance and greed. What else could possibly explain the fact that our opinion is different? In the new McCarthy era among the liberal elite media in New York, D.C. and Hollywood, there can be no dissent. There is only one truth- the liberal version. Any other viewpoint is classified as repugnant and out of the "mainstream" (once again, only liberal's definition of "mainstream" is relevant). Hard to comprehend, until you realize that these same intolerant, biased, prejudiced radical liberal educators, union leaders, Hollywood executives, and media elite all started out at schools like Columbia University. These are the people that I attended Columbia with - 25 years later, all grown up with fancy titles.
The incident I witnessed at Columbia explains so much about the thinking of the radical left. Back in 1981, I was sitting in my political science class taught by extreme leftist Professor Esther Fuchs- in a large theatre style classroom seating 100 or more students. The President at the time was Ronald Reagan- a man reviled by the left just as viciously as George W. Bush is today. Suddenly our lecture was interrupted by a door swinging open violently- whereupon a breathless fellow student raced into our room screaming, "The President has been shot! They've just assassinated President Reagan." Ronald Reagan was my hero. It hit me like a ton of bricks- I instantly felt sick to my stomach and tears flowed down my cheeks. But it was the response of the rest of the class that I will remember for the rest of my life. They cheered! They clapped, they yelled, they high-fived and whooped in sheer unadultrated joy. My fellow classmates (the ones I was naively trying so hard to befriend despite their radical leftist views) were happy that my hero President Ronald Reagan was dead (or so they thought). More than happy- they were celebrating like it was New Years Eve. They were literally cheering the assassination of the President of the United States. Why? What could possibly cause the brightest young adults in this great country to cheer for the murder of their own country's leader? The answer was simple: because Ronald Reagan had the audacity to be a Republican Conservative. That's the dirty little secret that liberals don't want you to know. That despite the fact that they claim to be "compassionate," that they claim to love others less fortunate, that they abhor hate and prejudice, that they declare any war as inhumane and unjustified- despite all this compassion and goodness- this same liberal elite despises with a deep unbridled prejudice, anyone ignorant enough to disagree with their definition of what is "right." To liberals, that form of hate, that form of prejudice, that form of intolerance towards others with a different point of view is completely acceptable.
That intolerance was on display last year when socialist, communist and Hispanic student groups from Columbia were allowed to shout down the founder of the Minuteman organization while he was trying to address Columbia students- thereby violating his free speech. To radical liberals, it's justified to hate conservatives; to hate Republicans; to hate those who support war; to hate those greedy individuals who actually have the audacity to want to lower taxes (God forbid anyone should think taxes actually belong to the taxpayer- how ignorant, greedy and selfish!); to hate those so ignorant that they would support the death penalty; the ownership of guns, or the building of a wall to stop the stampede of illegal immigrants (otherwise known as criminals). To liberals that kind of hate, prejudice, and intolerance is fair and justified. That kind of intolerance and attempt to silence the opposition doesn't count as McCarthyism. To liberals, to root for the death of a conservative Republican is morally acceptable- it's actually "compassionate" because (in their warped thinking) the death of a Conservative would make the world a better place, safe from prejudice, racism, inequality, intolerance, corporate greed, and global warming.
That day at Columbia University over 20 years ago, I got physically sick. I ran out of class- the CHEERS of my classmates at the possible death of Ronald Reagan reverberating in the halls behind me. I ran into the bathroom, got on my knees and vomited. I felt sick for America- for the people I had just watched cheer and celebrate the shooting of our President were undoubtedly the future leaders of America. Unfortunately, I was more accurate that day than I would even imagine- over 25 years later as I read my Columbia College Today alumni magazine and see updates on the career success of my classmates, I see the names of future Supreme Court justices, close advisors to Presidents (George Stephanapoulus was a classmate), liberal United States Senators (Barack Obama of Illinois), the best and brightest legal minds in the country (any wonder lawyers seem to be at the root of most problems in our society?), and many of the most influential journalists and media executives in America. That's right, Columbia's best and brightest often wind up in the media. My classmates are the reporters, anchors, journalists, columnists and producers that influence the news we watch and read every day.
Today, I have no doubt that if George W. Bush were assassinated, glasses would be raised in toast to his death or demise by many of America's media elite. No, they would not dare cheer out loud- my classmates are now 46 years old, not enthusiastic kids anymore. But they would applaud and celebrate quietly and with "dignity." Their children on the other hand- now attending Columbia or Harvard or Princeton- would undoubtedly cheer and whoop loudly and passionately at the death of an "ignorant" and intolerant opponent. The death of a spotted owl, rat, fox, or worst of all, a radical Islamic or Palestinian terrorist- those are to be mourned by liberals. But the death of a conservative Republican, a capitalist, (or today added to the hate list- an Israeli) is a reason for celebration. So much for the unbiased media. So much for the "compassion" of Liberals. Now my fellow readers, you have some insight into the true mindset and agenda of America's liberal elite. You understand how they were raised (as spoiled brats with terrible guilt for all they were handed)...how they were educated (by teachers and professors with a radical leftist agenda)...and the roots (excuse the pun) of their bias in all they report on today as the keepers of the news.
Now you understand them the way that I do- as an "insider" with a front row seat for two decades. And I ask you a simple question: do you now feel it's possible for a Republican to ever get a fair shake from a media populated with people who hold the views espoused above? I'm sure that the liberal media and Hollywood elite- when confronted by this story- will say that what they believed as college students has no impact on their views as adults and professionals today. So I ask you a simple question- what would liberals say if they found out that a Fox News Channel host had joined the KKK back in his college days? Or that a Fox News executive had cheered and high-fived his friends over the death of Martin Luther King back in his college days? Would those errors of youth be forgiven and forgotten by liberals? Of course not.
I hope this story gives you insight into what I've known for a quarter of a century- the liberal intellectual elite are intolerant, they are hypocrites, and they are dangerous to America, American values, capitalism, Christianity (and the very existence of Israel too). I've known the truth about liberals all these years- now you do too. It's the reason that every time I watch CNN or PBS or Katie Couric anchor the evening news on CBS (among many others), I often feel the need to take a shower. But it never helps- nothing can quite scrub away the echoes of those cheers 20 years ago in that classroom at Columbia University. That was the day I learned the real truth about liberals- their compassion, morality and desire for tolerance doesn't extend to Republicans, conservatives, capitalists or libertarians. When it comes to people like us- rejecting freedom of speech, or rooting for death is perfectly acceptable. On the other hand, when it comes to terrorist murderers or madmen like President Ahmadinejad, the welcome light is always on. How sad. How disgusting. How disturbing. How revolting. Columbia University should be ashamed.
Wayne Allyn Root is a candidate for the Libertarian Presidential nomination. To learn more about Wayne please go to www.RootForAmerica.com
[ add comment ] | permalink | related link |
( 3 / 1739 )Isn't Government-Run Health Care Grand? Take a Look at Where Canada's Political Leaders Choose To Go for Their Health Care!
I just read a remarkable story in the news. A liberal (our version of Democrat) MP (Member of Parliament- our version of Congress) Belinda Stronach recently traveled to America for her breast cancer treatment. What? Now there's a grand endorsement for government-run health care, huh? She left her own country to get the best care that money could buy- in the USA. Does that surprise you? It shouldn't. Rich liberals have always been hypocrites- in any country, in any language. When I was a kid, I remember liberals fighting for school busing. They claimed to be fighting for equality for black children. They called anyone who opposed school busing a "racist." Yet as soon as busing became the law, they sent their kids to exclusive lily-white private schools. We called them "limosine liberals." Today you can find hypocrites just like that all over bastions of liberalism like Hollywood, Manhattan and San Francisco. Rich liberals support equality, equal opportunity and affirmative action- except at their homes, their businesses, and their own kid's schools. Rich liberals never think the rules apply to them. They think integrated public schools are great for YOUR kids- but not for their precious spoiled brats. Obviously that liberal hypocrisy translates to health care too. The government-run health care system of Canada (a nice term for "Socialized Medicine") is good enough for you and your family- but not for the wealthy billionaire politicians like Belinda Stronach (who is the daughter of Canadian billionaire business mogul Frank Stronach). Now don't get me wrong. I support freedom of choice. I think what Belinda did was the right thing. If I was sick with cancer, I'd choose to go wherever I could get the best health care. It just so happens that Belinda agrees that this place for the best health care is found in America. Canadians by the millions understand that the "expensive" American health care system is the best- and they choose to cross the border nonstop for medical care they can't find at home. Now our health care system has been endorsed by a prominent liberal member of Canadian Parliament. You know, the same health care system that liberal Democrats here in America complain about day and night- and want to tear down to force government-run health care (otherwise known as "Socialized Medicine") down our throats. Of course a free-market Libertarian conservative like me supports Belinda Stronach seeking (and paying for) health care wherever she chooses. But why isn't that free market available to the rest of her countrymen? Why isn't the system that is forced down the throat of all Canadian citizens good enough for a billionaire member of parliament? You mean freedom of choice is something reserved only for the exclusive and privileged few?
As a man who lost both his parents to cancer 28 days apart, I feel Belinda's pain. My mom died of breast cancer- the same disease affecting Belinda. I will always have a special place in my heart for cancer victims. Not a day goes by where I don't think about my mom or dad. I want to defeat and eradicate cancer more than anyone on earth. I hope and pray that Belinda Stronach will make a full recovery. But I also hope this experience changes her political point of view too. Doesn't everyone deserve freedom of choice? Doesn't everyone deserve to choose the medical care and physician that's right for you? Doesn't everyone deserve the best doctor that money can buy? Doesn't everyone deserve quick and competent care? The thing that drives liberals absolutely crazy is that not everyone gets the best medical care in America. But at least some of us get it. Perhaps a majority of us get it. We have to pay through the nose for it- but we get it. But that's not good enough for bleeding heart liberals. They're not happy unless there's complete equality for everyone. In a government-run system there is in fact equality- it's miserable care for EVERYONE! It's rationing for everyone. Unless you're a rich, liberal hypocrite. People like that (anywhere in the world) can opt out of the system and pay for their own private care at world-class medical centers- in the USA of course.
Don't believe me? A recent article by Jon Stossel (a hero of mine) in the Wall Street Journal reported that breast cancer survival rates are far higher in the United States. Among females diagnosed with breast cancer- one quarter die in the U.S.; while one third die in France; and almost half die in UK. How sad is that? How powerful are those facts? Where exactly do you want to be treated? The fact is that the smartest doctors in the world are found in the United States, not in spite of, but precisely because we have the most expensive health care system in the world. Next time you need an eye operation, or a breast cancer operation, do you want the K-Mart blue plate special? Do you want some foreign doctor who can't speak English, who finished next-to-last in his class in Barbados Medical School? Or do you want the guy who finished first in his class at Harvard (who has written 12 books on his medical specialty)? That Harvard guy is expensive. There is nothing cheap about good medicine. There are no "50% off sales" when you're talking about your eye, or your kidney, or your heart. If you want the best medical care in the world, you'd better be willing to pay for it. We get it (most of the time) in the USA. They don't in Canada, UK or France.
And on the rare occasions that they do get it, they certainly don't get it in a timely fashion. Next time you need a hip replaced, why not wait 16 months in beautiful Paris or London or Toronto. 16 months of agony is no big deal, right? Afterall, at this very moment almost one million Canadians are on a waiting list for medical care (in a country of under 20 million people). These long waits aren't just for cancer operations- this is for basic care. In UK the wait for a dentist is so long, news reports say that patients are choosing to pull out their own decaying teeth. In Scotland, rationing is so severe that the government will not provide treatments that would keep the elderly from going blind. Still want government-run health care? How about letting the people that managed Hurricane Katrina and Walter Reed hospital run the whole country's medical care? I can't wait for that.
Stories abound of sick Canadians and Brits waiting months for necessary operations or treatments. And who decides what's necessary? The government- those same kind of brilliant bureaucrats that brought us the well-managed Iraq War! How about competent treatment? Liberals don't understand why capitalism works. It attracts the best and brightest to American medicine only because medicine PAYS huge dollars here in a private enterprise system. If we socialize medicine and cut the dollars dramatically, you'll attract mediocre doctors. Not the best of the best, but the worst of the best. The smartest kids will decide to go into law or business or investment banking. But I'll tell you what they won't do- they won't give up a decade of the best (youngest) years of their life (for med school and internships) for a lifetime of mediocre pay. You attract the most brilliant doctors by offering the biggest dollars. Do we want a health care system that attracts incompetent doctors for mediocre pay? If my doctor can't afford to play golf, I don't want him anywhere near my heart! Next time I'm in a life and death medical emergency, I want the doctor leaning over my lifeless body to be very rich. Filthy rich. And American. Harvard American.
In the end, our U.S. health care system isn't perfect- far from it. It many instances, it is a disappointment. But there's nothing better out there. It turns out health care is like marriage. It's the worst institution on earth- except for all the others! I hear divorced friends constantly bad-mouthing marriage, yet two years later they're all married again. If it's so bad, why get re-married? Of course the answer is they searched around and couldn't find anything better. The truth is that humans like to complain. It gives them something to do. Complaining about marriage and health care are a national sport in the USA. That's fine. Just come get me when you find something better.
Wayne Allyn Root is a Candidate for the Libertarian Party Presidential Nomination. You can read more about his opinions on important issues at www.ROOT4America.com.
[ add comment ] | permalink | related link |
( 3 / 2086 )OBAMA vs. ROOT- Two Very Different Career Paths from Columbia University Class of 1983: The Case for a Small Businessman as President
Barack Obama and I both graduated from the same class at the same college- Columbia University, Class of '83. We both chose the same major-Political Science. Today we are both running for President of the United States. The only difference is that Barack is the darling of the liberal news media- who give him a "free pass" on whether he's qualified to run the greatest country and economy in world history. Since we come from such similar educational backgrounds, yet we each chose such divergent paths since graduation, I thought a study of what each has accomplished in the "real world" might shed some light on who is best qualified to occupy the White House and run the greatest economy in world history. Upon graduation, I decided not to pursue a law degree and career as an attorney. I wanted to change the world, not sue the world. I therefore chose a career as an entrepreneur. My classmate Barack chose a very different path- he has spent much of the past quarter century as a law student, lawyer, law professor, community activist and career politician. Are those the qualifications for running the greatest economy in world history? Are those qualifications for commanding the greatest military force in world history? What is a "community activist" anyway? Isn't that just a professional protestor? Al Sharpton is a "community activist." What exactly has Mr. Sharpton ever done besides lead protest marches and attract media attention through fanning the flames of controversy? Does anyone think that Mr. Sharpton should run America? Or run the American economy? How is Barack's life experience any different?
What experience learned as a "community activist" prepares someone to lead a country? I am perplexed. In media reports Barack himself admitted that only 7 years ago, he did not have the money to buy an airplane ticket to attend the 2000 Democratic National Convention. An airplane ticket costs about $400 (at the most). To be honest, the inability of a grown man (with an Ivy League degree) to afford a $400 airline ticket frightens the heck out of me. If you can't figure out a way to earn enough money to buy an airline ticket, I don't want you anywhere near the White House. I'm by no means super-wealthy, but I'd guess I've flown (and therefore purchased) close to a thousand flights in my adult life. That's what competent business executives do- we fly to wherever we find good business opportunities. The cost of the plane ticket is not an issue for any semi-successful adult. To be honest, never once have I ever thought about whether to buy a plane ticket or not. If you have to think before buying a plane ticket, you're certainly no business whiz. As a matter of fact, I'd say your entire understanding of business and money would come into question. You certainly shouldn't be in charge of the United States economy! Should this story of Barack Obama's lack of success only 7 short years ago give the American people pause? It certainly should. I don't want this guy anywhere near my money...or the American economy.
In that same quarter century since Barack and I graduated from Columbia University, I've led a very different life. I've experienced both up and downs, success and failure, as a "serial entrepreneur" and business leader. As a small businessman, I've raised tens of millions of dollars to found numerous businesses; paid hundreds of weekly payrolls (often $50,000 and above); created hundreds of jobs for my employees; taken my company public on Wall Street; and created hundreds of millions of dollars in revenues for the U.S. economy. Today, I'm proud to report that I'm the only small businessman running for President. I've earned a fantastic income over the years, yet I far from super wealthy. I live in the real world- I still understand the problems and worries of real Americans. I have 3 young children and a new baby Root on the way. I still worry every day about my bills, paying my mortgage, my payroll taxes (for my business), my property taxes, my health insurance (for dozens of employees), and paying for my children's future college educations (4 of them).
How important are small businesses (and small businessmen and women) to the U.S. economy? I'm Founder, Chairman and CEO of a small business that has struggled often since founding in 2000. Yet even a struggling young business has created about $50 million in spending for the U.S. economy. Whether that company makes money or loses money, we still had to spend tens of millions in advertising, marketing, rent, payroll, payroll taxes, health insurance, massive phone bills, office furniture, computer equipment, lawyers, accountants, etc. With all that spending we made countless media buyers, ad agency executives, insurance brokers, landlords, lawyers and stockbrokers wealthy.
All that money we paid to our vendors, employees and business associates was in turn used by them to pay their office rent, payroll taxes, property taxes, personal mortgages, restaurant and grocery bills, etc. Each dollar was spent at least ten times over. All that money that I raised and spent paid for the salaries and mortgages of my employees. They in turn paid for the mortgages and salaries of the employees of the banks that hold their mortgages. My employees bought homes- thereby paying the salaries, mortgages and taxes of builders, mortgage brokers, real estate brokers, attorneys, roofers, painters, electricians, plumbers, and many others. It paid for their groceries and visits to restaurants and movie theatres. That $50 million in spending that my small business created out of thin air (multiplied by ten), actually adds up to a $500 million effect on the American economy. One little 'ole small businessman like me- by founding one small business- has had a $500 million effect on this great country. Now multiply that effect times millions of small businessmen just like me- and you'll start to understand why small business is the backbone of the American economy. Without the courage of entrepreneurs and small businesspersons risking their life savings, assets, and financial security to startup a business, none of this happens. Billions of dollars are lost forever. Millions of jobs are cut. The American economy falters and contracts. We become France (a country where entrepreneurship is discouraged).
Where was my college classmate Barack Obama while I was doing all that? Studying books. Leading protest marches. Perhaps suing people that create jobs and pump millions into the economy (that's what lawyers do). What does he know about the economy, about business, about creating jobs, about the stress and pressure of making $50,000 payrolls every week? What does he know about pumping tens of millions of dollars into the American economy? The answer is that he knows nothing about all that. Like most professional students, professors, community activists and lawyers- what Barack knows about business, he's read in a book.
But book-smart knowledge has never created a job, or paid a payroll. Not one. But to be fair, Barack isn't alone. Hillary Clinton, John Edwards and Bill Richardson have never started a business, run a business, risked their own money on a business, created jobs, or pumped millions into the U.S. economy either. For that matter, most of the GOP Presidential candidates have never started or run a business either (but at least they applaud, appreciate and support business and try to keep the tax burden down on the job creators). John McCain has never run a business. Ron Paul is a doctor- he knows zero about how business works. Rudy Guliani is a former prosecutor. Fred Thompson is an actor and former attorney.
Yet all of these clueless politicians think they are qualified to run the greatest economy in the world. The only Presidential candidate that truly understands business is Mitt Romney. He's worth over $250 million. Mitt can buy and sell a small businessman like me. But he was born into wealth and privilege. Mitt's dad was Governor of Michigan and CEO of American Motors. He has no clue about the problems of average Americans, or the backbone of our economy- small businessmen. Mitt has been in big business since the day he was born- with every possible door opened for him by a very powerful, wealthy, connected father. Mitt has never even spelled the word "struggle." Mitt is brilliant and successful, but out of touch with ordinary Americans.
I'm a S.O.B. (son of a butcher). I'm the only candidate who started with blue collar roots (excuse the pun); who now has business know-how and experience; who lives in the real world and understands the role and importance and concerns of small business. For 50 years now, we've voted for Presidential candidates who are multi-millionaire, out-of-touch, big business CEO's; or lawyers turned career politicians and government bureaucrats; or spoiled brat lucky-sperm-club members born to the right father and mother. Have they done a good job? Maybe it's time to elect a common-sense small businessman with a young family, a big mortgage, and who faces all the same problems and concerns as average Americans- overwhelming taxes, expensive and inadequate health insurance, and the biggest problem of all- getting our kids a good education. We certainly couldn't do worse with a S.O.B. (son of a butcher) small businessman than we've done with career politicians and out-of-touch millionaires.
I'm sure my old college classmate Barack is a nice guy. I'm certain he's a smart guy. I know he went to a great college! But the path he's chosen has not prepared him to run the greatest and most powerful country in the history of civilization. Not by a long shot. First he needs to take his entire life savings- that he's only earned by achieving fame and writing books in the last 3 years- and invest it all in a business, create a few jobs, pay a few big payrolls, and pump a few million dollars into the economy. Spend a few years risking everything you've got Barack, then watch as government regulations strangle your progress every step of the way...and high taxation prevents you from re-investing in your company's success. Then in 4 to 8 years come back and we'll talk. Maybe then he'll understand business a little better. Maybe then he'll understand the burden of taxes on the very people who take all the risk and create all the jobs. Maybe then Barack will be ready to run the U.S. economy. Maybe. Until then, remember this wise saying: "Those who can, do (run a business); those who can't teach (law); those who can't even teach, become career politicians and run the country." No wonder we're in such trouble. We choose to elect the wrong people to lead our nation.
By Wayne Allyn Root, Candidate for the Libertarian Party Presidential Nomination
[ add comment ] | permalink | related link |
( 3 / 1513 )A new study came out last week that proves that liberals (Democrats and Progressives) read more books than Conservatives (Republicans or Libertarians). Leading publishing executives even commented on it, saying that more books should be aimed at liberals because Conservatives just don't read. The inference, of course, is that Conservatives are ignorant, lazy, or just not intellectually curious. Meanwhile liberals will undoubtedly use these new "facts" to prove that they are intellectual heavyweights- the very kind of highly informed intellectuals who should be running our country. What a crock! The truth is that facts are many times misleading- and this is a perfect example. The fact is that liberals have the time to read books simply because they are rarely in positions of authority or leadership- they do not own businesses, run companies, or serve in positions of great responsibility. It's easy to find the time to read a book on a couch or lazy-boy when you get off work at 3 PM daily- and have no responsibilities once you walk out the office door. Unfortunately for the rest of us in positions of ownership and leadership, our days never end. We are making business calls, participating in conference calls, and answering emails at all hours of the day and night. For the people defined as "conservative" our responsibilities never end- leaving us little, if any, time to even fantasize about reading books.
Who are "conservatives?" Find me a General in the military- I'll show you a conservative. Find me a Head Coach in the sports world- I'll show you a conservative. Find me a business owner or entrepreneur- I'll show you a conservative (at least a fiscal conservative). Find me a Bank President or Wall Street investment banker- I'll show you a conservative. Find me a corporate CEO- I'll show you a conservative. Find me a small business owner- I'll show you a conservative. Find me a sales executive (stockbroker, real estate broker, insurance broker, mortgage broker)- I'll show you a conservative. Conservatives are simply defined as the "producers" of our economy- Americans with important jobs; in leadership positions; with great responsibility; the type of people that are "on the go" 24/7- who make our economy go and grow.
No, conservatives don't have the time to read books. But they are busy creating, funding and shaping the businesses, industries, and jobs that make a difference in our world (and our economy). Reading books is not something they have time for in their busy schedules. They have mortgages, property taxes, income taxes, private schools and college educations (for their kids) to pay for. When you're bright and ambitious and want to provide a better life for your family, there are a lot of bills to pay- big bills. No, reading books is just not high up on the "priority list" for conservatives.
Equally misleading is the fact that, while busy entrepreneurs and executives (like me) don't have time to read books, we actually read far more than any liberal. We simply choose to read publications important to our careers, our success, and our understanding of the business world. For instance I rarely read a book- but I read 5 to 7 newspapers a day. My daily "must read" is the Wall Street Journal. I read it from front to back every morning. I also read the NY Times, LA Times, USA Today and my local Las Vegas Review Journal. But that's just the start. I read Forbes, Fortune, Robb Report and a multitude of other important business and political magazines. By the way, I do "read" several books a month- but I do not have the time to sit and read them in traditional fashion. I read them by listening to books on tape. So while liberals are fancying themselves as "gifted intellectuals" because they read 2 or 3 books a month, I'm busy reading 50 to 100 business publications a month, while also listening to 20 books on tape. So who's really doing the most reading? I'd argue that reading the Wall Street Journal daily is far more intellectual and crucial to success, than reading 2 or 3 books (perhaps romance novels or psycho-babble by Dr. Phil) at the beach. Reading books is a good thing- but not nearly as good for society (or the economy) as working 24/7 to create and build businesses. Not even close. Liberals don't read more books than conservatives because they are smarter- they just have more leisure time.
It's nice that liberals have time to relax and read a fictional bestseller- but unfortunately the rest of us with ambition, responsibilities, families and nonstop business meetings don't have that luxury. We're a tad busy creating jobs, paying high taxes (created by liberals to punish the producers of society), making payrolls, and raising our families. You show me a guy with a wife, 2 or 3 kids, an important job or career, and a big mortgage- I'll show you someone that rarely if ever has the time to read a book (except perhaps on a long airplane trip on the way to a business meeting). But that's the guy that our American economy depends on- as a matter of fact we could not survive without millions of men and women just like him. Those are the conservative voters.
The reason that Conservatives don't read books is the exact same reason that liberals fail miserably on talk radio. Just in the past few months, high-profile liberal talk radio networks Air America and Jane Fonda's GreenStone Media (feminist radio) both declared bankruptcy and went off the air. Why? Because radio is not something most people listen to at home. Talk radio is the perfect form of entertainment while driving in your car. And who drives in their cars (particularly during morning and evening rush hour)? People with jobs, businesses, careers- otherwise known as conservatives (at least fiscal conservatives). Talk radio is dominated by conservative hosts- they literally scream all day long about high taxes and wasteful government spending. You know why? Because the drivers listening to these shows are the ones who pay all the taxes!
Polls show only 20% of the American electorate actually rates taxes as a top political priority. You know why? Because that's the 20% of Americans that pays virtually 100% of the taxes! The tax burden in this country is all on the backs of the "producers"- the 20% of the electorate that creates, founds, funds and runs their own businesses. Those are the 20% that invest in America and make the American economy grow. Those are the 20% that create most of the jobs. Those are the 20% who pay the taxes that allow the rest of the electorate to sit back at 4 PM and read a nice book. That's precisely why that 20% is so angry at high taxation without representation. That's why they are so angry at the expansion of government. That's why they are so angry at wasteful government spending; because it's our money that's being spent!
Conservatives drive in the morning to work (sometimes an hour or longer commute), they drive back home at night, they drive in-between to business lunches, client meetings and sales calls. Then they drive on Saturday and Sunday mornings to their children's ballgames, karate classes, Lacrosse matches, and swimming lessons. These are people with families, big mortgages, careers. No wonder they are fiscally conservative. I understand them because I'm one of them. We're the people at the top of the U.S. income charts, yet there's still never anything left at the end of the month (especially at the end of April 15th- tax day). We bust our humps for our families- yet liberal bureaucrats think the money we earn by breaking our backs is their money to dole out as bribes to typical Democrat voters- people that sit around on the couch all day watching soap operas, Jerry Springer and personal injury lawyer ads. So, yes we're angry... and fed up... and sick and tired of our hard-earned money being used as government handouts to bribe Democrat voters. We're not rich- not by a longshot. We're just struggling at a much higher level! And you're damn right we listen to conservative talk radio. Conservative talk radio hosts like Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly and Michael Savage feel our pain. That's why liberals fail miserably on talk radio- talk radio is for people that WORK and pay taxes and feed the American economy. These are called Conservatives.
So before liberals start bragging about their reading skills, perhaps they need to understand why Conservatives don't have time to read. Like me, they're too busy trying to build something of value to leave to their children. Burying yourself in a book is a luxury for people without ambition. People satisfied with average jobs, pedestrian careers, and safe paychecks; people that are afraid of risk or responsibility; people that crave safe weekly paychecks, that come with little or no real responsibility; people who want tenure- a job for life- without regard for performance; people, who want a government bureaucrat's pension; people who want to work 9-to-5, with holidays and summers off. Those are the liberals who have the time to read lots of books.
But those who (like me) are out in the business world creating things of value, creating jobs, paying huge payrolls and taxes and health insurance for our employees, responsible for million dollar budgets, taking multimillion dollar risks- we don't have that luxury. We don't get summers off. Our days don't end at 3 PM or 5 PM... or ever. We take our work, business calls and emails home with us. When you run or own a business, it's your baby. The day never ends for conservatives like that. Neither do the bills or taxes. Those kind of people- small business owners, entrepreneurs, executives, salespersons, independent contractors (stockbrokers, real estate brokers, insurance brokers, mortgage brokers, investment bankers)- work 24/7 to pay the bills. Why? It's called ambition. It's called capitalism. It is our ambition and work ethic has created the greatest economy in the history of civilization. But it comes with a price- there's no time to read a lot of books. Yes, I'm a Libertarian-Conservative. And I'm proud of it. No, we don't read books. We build businesses...we build families...we build legacies...we build the United States economy.
Wayne Allyn Root is a candidate for the Libertarian Party Presidential nomination. He is a proud Conservative. He's also an author- ROOT may not read books, but he's written six books and counting.
[ add comment ] | permalink | related link |
( 3 / 2287 )In another life, when I was still a huge Republican supporter and contributor, I hosted Karl Rove at my home (2 years ago) for a Republican Party fundraiser. The man known as "The Genius" of GOP political strategy sat next to me at my dining room table. We talked politics and discussed strategy for keeping the GOP in power for years to come. We both had the same goal- keeping our party in power long-term. But we each saw a very different picture and believed in very different strategies to accomplish that goal.
Rove thought that "playing to the base first and foremost" (to religious Christian conservatives) was the way to cement GOP dominance. I disagreed strongly- both at that meeting and in future letters to Rove, I made it clear that in the "real world" business circles that I traveled in, the GOP was fast losing support. I told him that the more "W" pandered to the religious right, the more crucial support they'd lose among moderates, independents, Libertarians, business owners, and Barry Goldwater Republicans. I told him that issues such as the Terri Schiavo fiasco (assisted suicide), gay rights, stem cell research, and the proposed ban on online gaming were all alienating at least two voters (moderates, independents, Libertarians and Goldwater conservatives) for every one religious Christian that was attracted to the GOP.
As my prime example, I pointed to the proposed ban on online gaming and poker that Rove, Bush, and key GOP leaders like Senators Frist and Kyle, Congressmen Goodlatte and Leach supported. I pointed out to Rove that online gaming was not some new niche fad- but rather a national phenomenon (if not obsession) that was here to stay. I explained that tens of millions of men- most of them traditional GOP voters and contributors (college-educated males with high incomes- often small business owners, professionals, independent contractors, salesmen)- were devoted sports bettors, casino gamblers and poker enthusiasts. And since these same educated, high-income men are also known as "first adapters" (first to adapt to new technology), most of them were doing their betting or poker playing on the Internet, on their home computers. I pointed out that those same men voted Republican because they were convinced that the GOP was the party of smaller government, less government interference in our lives, and freedom for the individual (which of course includes Internet freedom).
I pointed out to Rove that millions of American men who vote predominantly Republican for economic reasons (they are fiscal conservatives and simply want lower taxes and government out of their way and out of their lives) think the same way- they believe that not only is there nothing wrong with playing poker on your own computer, in your own home, with your own money- it is none of the government's damn business in the first place. I told Rove that if he ever polled Republican male voters- especially those with incomes over $100,000 (the main contributors to the GOP)- on the topic of online gambling, he'd find that 90 out of every 100 would admit to enjoying gambling; 70 out of 100 would admit to enjoying online gaming or poker; and the others are either lying or scared to admit they enjoy gambling in front of their wives!
I was soon proven correct when polls in both the Wall Street Journal and on CNBC showed overwhelming universal support for online gaming (approaching 90%). But Rove ignored my opinions and allowed the GOP Congress to ban online gaming (by attaching the bill to a Port Security Bill at the last minute of the last hour of the Republican controlled Congress). It was a disastrous decision- angering millions of traditional and natural GOP allies and contributors. It cemented the impression that the GOP was no longer the party of smaller government. And worse, it made it clear that the GOP and the religious right allies they pandered to, supported "the Nanny State." Grown men (and women) were now being told by the GOP how to live their lives, what form of entertainment to choose, and how to spend their own money. Free will, individual rights, and choice were obviously no longer welcome at the GOP.
As a result, I predicted on Fox News Channel in the days before the 2006 election that the GOP would lose control of Congress. I was proven right. "The genius" Karl Rove was wrong. The election was a disaster for the GOP, Bush, Rove and their allies. Rove had badly misjudged the strength of his religious coalition. But Rove's misjudgement was not just a short term blip- it has alienated younger voters against the GOP for many years to come. As Democratic strategist James Carville recently pointed out, Democrats now beat Republicans in polls by a whopping 32 points among voters 30 or younger. I wonder if Karl Rove ever used his "genius" to figure out why young Americans have turned against the GOP? Young college-age and post-college age males spend half their waking hours doing two things (other than chasing girls)- playing poker and gambling on sports. Do you think perhaps the GOP decision to support a Prohibition on online gaming might have had something to do with the dramatic Democratic edge among younger voters? Ya think?
So I guess the "genius label" is applied far too quickly and prematurely in national politics. Today's hero is often tomorrow's goat. Of course my skepticism applies equally to the "Democratic genius" James Carville too. In a recent commentary by Carville, he correctly pointed out that Rove's policies and strategies have damaged the GOP for years to come. But he is no genius either- because he drew the wrong conclusion. Carville concluded that "young voters generally favor larger government providing more services." He further concluded that the GOP's loss would be the Democrats gain- obviously because liberal Democrats are the party of bigger government. I disagree strongly. Carville is as biased and delusional as Rove. They are both too close to the situation- as lifetime supporters and benefactors of their respective political parties.
Polls have proven again and again that the American electorate favors smaller government, lower taxes, and less spending. When asked if they are fiscally conservative and socially liberal, American voters answered "YES" in large numbers. When asked if they are a member of the "Investor Class" a majority of Americans answered "YES." Obviously these are polls of the general electorate- which is comprised primarily of Americans out of college, and in the workplace. Younger voters may temporarily want bigger government and more services, but that is a short-term blip. It doesn't take a brain surgeon to figure out that college-age students are idealistic, not realistic. They haven't earned a paycheck yet. Heck, they haven't even applied for a job. Once they reach the "real world" and get hit with economic reality- ie getting their first paycheck and finding out that 50% is missing (to taxes)- they'll quickly turn fiscally conservative (otherwise known as Libertarian). It's only hip, trendy and "compassionate" to root for bigger government and more government services when you don't get a paycheck or pay taxes. It's only natural to support more entitlements when you're not paying a dime for them.
As soon as today's college students and recent college grads spend a year or two in the "real world" and find their dreams dashed and their purchasing power destroyed by taxes, they'll quickly turn conservative on fiscal and economic issues, and become supporters of smaller government, lower taxes, and reduced spending. Afterall, only those who pay no taxes, could possibly support higher taxes. Only those who don't own a home, could possibly support higher property taxes. Only those who don't own stocks or real estate, could possibly support higher capital gains taxes. Only those who are too young to have their own children or to think about their parents' mortality, could possibly support death taxes. Only those who don't own their own business or don't receive a healthy paycheck from a corporation, could possibly support higher taxes on businesses.
Carville is just another out-of-touch, na‹ve, bleeding heart liberal who hasn't a clue what makes real Americans in the workforce tick. I'm a pretty typical American. I'm 46 years old. I've worked 14 to 16 hour days running my companies and building my career for the past quarter of a century. I sacrifice every day in order to provide my family with the best life has to offer- NOT to provide strangers or government bureaucrats with more money. I sacrifice so that when I die, everything I've worked for and built goes to my family- NOT to strangers or government bureaucrats.
No Mr. Carville, I don't work 14 to 16 hour days, 7 days a week, so that my money and success and all the fruits of my labor should go to the people that don't sacrifice, that don't work 16 hour days, that don't have "ownership" in society, that don't pay taxes, that expect to be handed their income while they sit on the couch watching soap operas, Jerry Springer, Gilligan's Island reruns, and personal injury lawyer advertisements all day.
College students don't understand that feeling just yet, so it is to be expected they'd naively support bigger government- before they've earned a paycheck, paid any significant taxes, bought a stock, or owned a home. But their attitudes will all change quickly once they go to work, earn a paycheck, find out the brutal reality of taxes and how they erode their standard of living, and take part in the ownership society.
In the end, both Rove and Carville are dead wrong. Current trends don't support the success of either Republicans or Democrats. Approval ratings of 30% for Republican President Bush and 25% for our Democratic Congress prove that. In the future, I believe a majority of younger Americans will choose to become a perfect mix of conservative (on issues such as smaller government, lower taxes, reduced government spending, lower entitlements, elimination of affirmative action) and liberal (on social issues such as abortion, gay rights, stem cell research, assisted suicide, online gaming and Internet freedom). That combination is not found in either the GOP or Democratic Parties. It is only found in the Libertarian Party. Change is in the air- the time is ripe for the success of a credible third party challenger in the American political system. Moving forward into the future, neither Republicans nor Democrats have the answers or solutions that Americans want and need to hear. For younger voters, older voters and everyone in-between, whether the topic is fiscal policy or social policy- the answer isn't bigger government, it's more freedom. It's more free will; choice; and freedom and rights for the individual. The Libertarian Party is the obvious beneficiary of the mistakes, miscalculations and misjudgements of Rove and Carville. The lesson to this story is to be careful who we choose to label a "genius."
[ add comment ] | permalink | related link |
( 3 / 1751 )Back Next
Avatar
