Monthly Archives: April 2008

ROOT Answers Questions for LP News:

- What would you hope to accomplish as the Libertarian presidential nominee? Could you break the million vote barrier?

Republicans and Democrats use great marketing to sell America a lousy product. We Libertarians are trying to sell America a great product, but with lousy marketing.

No doubt, we Libertarians have had some wonderful presidential candidates over the years. Many were deep thinkers, scholarly types who provided thoughtful, intelligent answers to serious questions about the role of freedom and individual rights in society.

And few voters listened. So, if we select a nominee similar to ones we selected in the past, we should not be surprised if few will listen again in 2008.

We may long for the days when folks would ponder and seriously debate the issues in the public square, but this is not the America we live in today. Today's American is influenced by media coverage. And the reason why the media does not cover our candidates is simple: because we don't provide the media with the two things they care about most: dynamic energy and entertainment. It's simple economics. Boring television means fewer eyeballs watching the screen; and fewer eyeballs watching the screen hurts the media's bottom line. If we are boring, we don't get coverage.

We need a candidate who understands Libertarianism and is able to present our ideas in a way that is both palatable and entertaining. As a political science graduate from Columbia University with over 20 years experience as a national television host, guest and producer, I believe I fit the part. As our party's nominee, I will expose our ideas to more media coverage than any previous candidate.

Already, pre-nomination, I've attracted extensive media as a Libertarian Party candidate: Fox News (multiple times), Fox Business (multiple times), MSNBC, CNBC, Bloomberg TV, WGN, Glenn Beck (3 to 4 million listeners), Michael Medved (3 to 4 million listeners), the nationally-syndicated Mancow Show, BBC, the biggest radio shows in Canada and UK, and hundreds of local stations from coast to coast. I am bringing the Libertarian message of smaller government, less spending, lower entitlements, lower taxes and more freedom to mainstream media and tens of millions of mainstream voters. And I'm doing it in a way that is colorful, and entertaining.

Then there's the powerful constituencies that I bring to the LP. My campaign has several very important constituencies. I am the ANTI-politician. I am a S.O.B. (son of a butcher); small businessman; home-school dad of 4 young children; and a citizen politician- just as our Founding Fathers intended. That image sells to anyone lookingfor dramatic change in Washington D.C. It is the ideal image for an anti-establishment, anti-tax, pro freedom, LP Presidential candidate.

But it is especially appealing to the 27 million small business owners who truly understand the LP message that “less is more� when it comes to government. That 27 million number does not include independent contractors and all the self-employed- stockbrokers, real estate brokers, insurance brokers, mortgage brokers (anyone whose compensation is performance-based). Small business is the economic engine of America. Small business now creates the majority of non-government jobs in America. These tens of millions of small businessmen and women want exactly what we want- smaller government, lower taxes and more personal freedom. My message will attract this ideal group of voters to the LP. Remember, I'm one of them. I speak their language. I understand how big government screws up their lives and kills their dreams. Add this constituency to home-school parents (and all parents looking for education reform, parental freedom and education choice) and we truly have a solid base of support to build for this election and the future.

My game plan is realistic. As your Presidential nominee in 2008, I will break all-time LP records with 2 to 4 million votes. In 2012 I will attract 8 to 12 million votes (Ross Perot territory). By 2016 and 2020, I will be a credible, viable, nationally recognized candidate with a realistic shot at the White House. Yes, I will certainly break the one million vote barrier, but why shoot so low? I want to get at least 2 to 5% of the vote in every state in 2008, so that the LP will automatically qualify for ballot access in 15 states or more. This is a worthy goal as it helps the LP and our local candidates in so many ways.

- During your campaign for the nomination, do you feel you have helped the party with its recent growth? If so, how?

I like to think that all the media interviews I've done have contributed to the LP's growth. I'm the new face and voice of freedom. Or as some in the media have dubbed me, “Ron Paul…on steroids!� The beauty of my candidacy is that I'm here to represent the LP for the long haul- a quarter of a century from now, I'll still be younger than Ron Paul is today! This is only the start of my 16 year campaign to win the White House for the LP.

- In the event that you do not win the presidential nomination, will you assist the presidential nominee and other Libertarian candidates around the nation? If so, how?

Of course I will help anyone that asks me. I will speak whenever, wherever possible not only for LP Presidential candidates, but for local LP candidates across the country. I will be a dynamic voice for “America's Third Party.� I will continue to represent the LP on national TV, just as I have for these past months. The goal is to elect LP candidates at every level of government from water commissioner, school board, and town council on up. And of course to gain ballot access nationally. Then I'll be back in 2012!


- Given that the vice presidential nominee is selected independently, after the presidential nominee is named, do you intend to seek the vice presidential nomination in the event that you do not win your bid for the presidential nomination?

I'm a competitor. My personal philosophy is to shoot for the stars. I aim to win- and
I've never settled. That could be why I've accomplished so many things the so-called “experts� and critics never thought possible. I became one of the youngest anchorpersons on American TV- with no prior experience in the field. I've taken my company public on Wall Street- against all odds. I've written 6 books- including a national best-seller. I've sold a TV series to Hollywood. And I haven't achieved any of this success with a lick of talent. I credit all my success to my tenacity. I am relentless.
I never give up.

I may or not win the LP Presidential nomination, but no candidate will out work me, out hustle me, or out sacrifice me. I've given 110%...and then a little more. So, I haven't really given second place any thought. I plan on winning the LP nomination. No other thoughts will enter my mind. But win or lose, I'm your best asset to travel the country motivating and rallying LP voters- and especially younger voters to get excited about Libertarian ideals and principles. I have four young children and I'm more motivated to provide them with a future of freedom and possibility than anything I have ever done before. I'm doing this for them.

- With the exception of one presidential cycle, the Libertarian Party has enjoyed significant growth during presidential election years. Are you confident that you can continue this trend if chosen as the presidential nominee? Do you believe it is reasonable goal for the LP to reach its all-time membership record as a result of your campaign efforts?

If we want people to buy our product, they first have to know we exist. A loud, booming, confident, dynamic, charismatic, colorful voice that attracts the attention of mainstream media and mainstream voters will get people to know that we are here. If you give me the honor of being our party's nominee, I will drive more prospects to our party's website than any previous campaign has accomplished. The resulting increased number of donors will build the foundation that allows us to run bigger and better campaigns in the future.

There's the perfect storm out there- and if we seize the moment we'll get unprecedented results. This could and should be the best year in the LP's history.
We have the right message- now we just need the right messenger.



- Do you feel that you would be able to attract significant media coverage as our nominee? What coverage has your campaign generated thus far?

As a first time LP Presidential candidate, I think that we've done exceptionally well in this regard. Specific proven accomplishments are far more credible than potential, promises or wishful thinking. I'm now a proven commodity. The quality of the reception given me by media heavyweights has been overwhelmingly positive. I've been asked back by nearly every show I've appeared on- including some of the biggest national TV and radio shows. I've had host after host say, “You're a Libertarian I could actually vote for. You are a breath of fresh air.� I've been endorsed by mainstream media- including Mancow Muller, whose syndicated show reaches millions of Americans. I'm proving the LP message can appeal to mainstream media and voters.


- Five years from now, what role do you see yourself having in the Libertarian Party?

I hope I will have earned the respect and trust of the LP members and delegates to represent them again as their presidential candidate. I hope to have gained us permanent ballot access in at least 15 states. I hope to have elected LP candidates at the local level over those 5 years. I hope to have raised record dollars for the LP. I've been the leading fundraiser at the LP's “Liberty Decides� from the day it was created to now. I've encouraged my friends and supporters to give to the LP cause. I plan to continue to help us develop our party's infrastructure and constituency base- not just for the next 5 years, but the next 16 years. By then I hope to be your first Libertarian President residing in the White House. We must capitalize on this breakout year by continuing the campaign at the grass roots level forever more. I hope you'll be ROOTING FOR ROOT. Please visit my web site at www.ROOTforAmerica.com.

W.A.R. and Peace

There has been a lot of debate and misinformation spread about my supposed views on war and peace. It's time to set the record straight. I'm no pacifist and that's a good thing, because no pacifist has ever been, nor ever will be, elected President of these United States.

I am a strong patriot who loves his country, will defend his country with honor, and is always respectful of our troops who are willing to put their lives on the line for our freedom. But I am most definitely not “pro war.� To the contrary, I am a Libertarian who believes in dramatically altering and re-focusing our foreign policy, foreign aid decisions, war on terror, military objectives, and military/defense budget.

The Libertarian Party advocates a non-interventionist policy in the affairs of other nations. I agree 100% with this stance. It's time to stop gallivanting across the globe to “nation build� and stuff democracy down the throats of others.

It's time to admit that the Iraq war, as well as the supposed “post war planning� was a disaster. It is time to admit that while there is a "war on terror," the war in Iraq had (and has) little do with it. 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.

It's time to admit that the war in Iraq has fostered terrorism and civil war. It's time to admit that our troops are dying in the middle of a sectarian civil war that, to be blunt, is none of our business.

It's time to admit that our injection into the foreign affairs of others often causes more problems than it solves. It is time to admit that our foreign policy in many cases has caused, as Ron Paul put it, “blow-back.� In other words, by choosing sides we create new enemies and grudges against the United States.

Worse, we often choose the wrong side. As an example, we supposedly deposed the Sunni regime of Saddam Hussein to make the world a safer place for America and our allies such as Israel. Yet it is Shiite-supported Hezbollah that is now attacking Israel, as well as our forces in Iraq, NOT Sunni. It turns out that we did not make the world a safer place. Quite to the contrary, by choosing sides in a war that was none of our business, we made Iraq, and the world, a much more dangerous place. And we did no favors for our ally Israel.

It's time to admit that our military has been stretched to the breaking point- which has endangered our security at home. It's time to admit that this occupation of a small country in a far-away land is damaging our economy, and bankrupting our country for future generations. It's time to admit that if we can't afford the costs of a war in small, lightly populated countries like Iraq and Afghanistan, we should aim to avoid future wars at all costs (unless we are responding in self defense).

Most importantly, it's time to admit that no war should be fought in a foreign land under the guise of fighting for the rights and freedom of others, while being used as an excuse here at home to expand government, violate the constitutional rights of Americans, and take away our freedoms. As Benjamin Franklin once said, "They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security."

There are a significant number of libertarians (I among them) who believe that only a direct attack or an imminent attack from a foreign enemy can justify our use of the military to defend our country. Of course, there are a few libertarians who would object to a military response even under those conditions, rationalizing that it must have been our country's fault in the first place, or that non-violence takes precedence over self-defense.

And there are some libertarians who hold a more hawkish view on foreign policy. No less a figure than Ayn Rand wrote that America had the right to invade dictatorship nations and institute successor governments that respect the natural rights and freedoms of their citizens.

Dictatorship nations are outlaws. Any free nation had the right to invade Nazi Germany and, today, has the right to invade Soviet Russia, Cuba or any other slave pen. Whether a free nation chooses to do so or not is a matter of its own self-interest, not of respect for the nonexistent "rights" of gang rulers. It is not a free nation's duty to liberate other nations at the price of self-sacrifice, but a free nation has the right to do it, when and if it so chooses.

This right, however, is conditional. Just as the suppression of crimes does not give a policeman the right to engage in criminal activities, so the invasion and destruction of a dictatorship does not give the invader the right to establish another variant of a slave society in the conquered country.

A slave country has no national rights, but the individual rights of its citizens remain valid, even if unrecognized, and the conqueror has no right to violate them. Therefore, the invasion of an enslaved country is morally justified only when and if the conquerors establish a free social system, that is, a system based on the recognition of individual rights.

--- Ayn Rand, The Virtue of Selfishness
Chapter 13 - Collectivized "Rights" (1963)

However, while Ayn Rand advocated a moral position for pre-emptive war, when one looks pragmatically at war as a policy, one cannot ignore how it has historically been both costly in terms of lives and treasure. Moreover, the government almost always uses war as an opportunity to expand its size and encroach upon our own civil liberties.

The fundamental basis of libertarianism is ownership of one's life and honestly acquired property. Very few other actions of the government can do more to infringe upon basic libertarian values than waging a war upon others. Waging war almost always results in the expansion of government and the military-industrial complex, which in turn results in waste, corruption, debt, budget deficits and ultimately higher taxes upon the wages and property of Americans. War, while sometimes unavoidable, should be seen only as a last resort. And when war is waged, its mission should be to eliminate the threat to our country in a manner that minimizes the loss of innocent life.

One action by voters can go a long way to preventing future wars under any circumstances. Electing a Libertarian as President can certainly promote policies that will dramatically reduce, though not eliminate, our risk of being attacked by other nations. That will only happen however if a tough-talking, patriotic Libertarian like myself is the Presidential candidate. No weak-sounding pacifist Libertarian will ever break the 1% of the electorate barrier, let alone wage a credible, realistic campaign to actually win the White House.

America is a nation of parents - mothers, fathers, grandmothers, grandfathers - whose number one concern is the safety of their children. They will only choose to elect a President who talks tough to our enemies and makes it clear that America will always respond quickly to any threat to our security. That is the attitude that makes America's parents feel that their children are safe at night. That makes it all the more necessary to nominate a Libertarian candidate with national defense views that do not appear weak - because a popular, credible LP candidate who does well at the ballot box leads to the election of LP candidates at every level of office from water commissioner and school board to mayors and state assemblyman. It also leads to ballot access in states across the country in the 2012 election.

Given that war is an act that we should aspire to avoid, here are some of the policies a Wayne Root administration would advocate to reduce the likelihood of involving America in future wars:

* We must rapidly and dramatically reduce foreign aid and U.S. military bases around the world. In particular, it is time to end our defense of wealthy countries such as Japan, South Korea and the nations of Western Europe. As a Libertarian and fiscal conservative who stands strongly against welfare and entitlement programs for able-bodied individuals here at home, I believe it's high-time to stop supporting welfare for able-bodied nations as well.

* More specifically, we must also starve terrorism by stopping the flow of foreign aid to nations that support terrorism. Douglas Casey once defined foreign aid “as a transfer from poor people in rich countries to rich people in poor countries.� Our government has given billions of dollars to tin-pot dictators around the world, many of whom are enemies of America and democracy, all while we are denouncing terrorism and funding wars to fight it. It's time for this misguided and naïve charade to end. Let's start by eliminating financial support to dictators, with the ultimate goal of cutting foreign aid to a bare minimum everywhere and only if absolutely required for national defense. Let's bring these monies home to the American taxpayer in a time of economic uncertainty.

* We need to change our system of funding defense. The current system encourages cost overruns and time delays. Figures compiled by the Government Accountability Office showed that 95 major weapons systems exceeded their original budgets by $295 billion in the past seven years. This is a disguised corporate welfare scheme, which is bad for your pocket book and dangerous to our national security. Considering that the entire U.S. budget deficit was $160 billion last year, cutting waste in these 95 programs alone is a great way to reduce the U.S. budget deficit. We need to minimize the number of contractors that are paid based on cost plus. If you were told that you would get $2 for every $1 you spent, how much would you try to spend? Think of the waste and corruption involved in our entire military-industrial complex. Think of the billions of dollars wasted to fatten the wallets of politically connected defense contractors. It's time to start applying the same criticism, cynicism, and fiscal discipline that we do to welfare (for individuals) to the U.S. defense budget. Waste is waste, whether it's dressed up as “patriotism� or not. Dramatically cutting waste from the defense budget will automatically dramatically cut the size and scope of government spending- which leads to dramatic reductions in the tax burden to American taxpayers.

* Remove the barriers to free trade, thereby increasing the interdependence of other countries on the success of ours. Nineteenth century French economist Frederic Bastiat once wrote: "When goods don't cross borders, soldiers will." Or to put it another way, greed is good. Create wealth for another nation, and that nation will rarely, if ever, risk damaging or losing that wealth by starting a war.

* Eliminate the international "war on drugs." This policy will eradicate the huge profits that terrorist groups and terrorist nations reap from the monopolistic prices the "war" creates. The current misguided policy wastes billions of dollars and unwittingly subsidizes America's enemies around the globe. To be blunt, what farmers in Afghanistan or Columbia grow on their properties is none of the business of the United States of America. But if we stop increasing the profits that this “war� creates, it's much more likely that they will be harvesting grains instead of poppies and coca leaves.

* Reduce our nation's tax burden. Competition for industry will compel other nations to also lower their tax burdens, which will decrease their capacity to build weapons of war. And the wealthy society that America creates with a low tax burden will cause others to want to emulate our way of life.

* Open up the Arctic and Gulf of Mexico to oil drilling. This will increase the supply of oil and reduce its price, thereby squeezing the budgets of the socialist oil-rich kingdoms that fund terrorist groups. As long as we are dependent on foreign oil for our energy needs, we will be funding our enemies and thereby encouraging terrorism. America must find a way to develop energy independence so that we can starve the terrorists. Without the money that funds terrorism, terrorism will eventually end.

* The so-called “war on terror� must be aimed at our enemies, not our own American people. Warrantless wiretaps are a violation of the constitution and must be ended immediately. PERIOD. It's quite simple: if the government has proof of a possible crime being committed then get a judge to issue a warrant. Many provisions of the Patriot Act should be repealed. The so-called “Real ID� program is yet another abuse of the rights of privacy of American citizens. “Real ID� will be a bureaucratic boondoggle run by the same government bureaucrats who lost one laptop and thereby exposed the private information of millions of U.S. veterans to identity thieves. Worse, “Real ID� will turn America into a Big Brother-like police state. As long as the Homeland Security Administration is in place, our liberties will be in jeopardy.

* Bring private industry and American ingenuity into the “war on terror.� Government's attempts to make us safer against terrorists are often irrational. Seven long years after 9/11 there are still only 50 Arabic-speaking FBI agents out of 10,000 agents in our country. Some people are only half-joking when they state that TSA means “Thousands Standing Around.� If we want the “war on terror� to be a success, without compromising our liberties, we need to get the government largely out of it and bring American private industry into the efforts. Make sea ports, train depots and airports responsible for their own security. I can almost guarantee you they will not be requiring that you dispose of your toothpaste and water bottles. If an airline believes that the best way to protect its passengers (and keep its insurance costs down) is to require ID, search bags and arm pilots, that's should be up to them. If we want to apprehend Osama Bin Laden and other terrorists, have Congress issue letters of marque and reprisal, as currently authorized in the Constitution, to allow American companies to earn billions of dollars for successfully capturing these thugs here and abroad. Never underestimate a motivated company's capabilities with billions of dollars at stake to get the job done. Remember how back in 1979 Ross Perot, with the assistance of retired Green Beret Colonel Arthur “Bull� Simons, rescued his employees taken hostage by the Iranian government? Now, imagine unleashing that same level of can do spirit with results-oriented American companies leading the way. That's how you fight the “war on terror.� Good old American capitalism can triumph when given the opportunity.

* Lastly, if the day should come where war is necessary, it cannot be implemented in contravention with the restrictions imposed by our Constitution. We must reject the notion that the President has the power to declare war. The entire concept of an imperial presidency is anathema to our Constitution's checks and balances. In a Root Administration, wars and offensive military actions will require Congressional authorization, as our Constitution dictates - preventing a President from ever again involving this nation in unpopular wars without the full support of the American people. And while a military response in self-defense of this nation in the hours after being attacked does not require immediate Congressional approval, the President must seek a timely ratification after the fact. This is clearly a standard that prevents future unnecessary, unpopular or controversial wars or military actions, yet allows America the leeway to defend herself without debate or delay.

Ideally, these policies of a Root Administration will decrease the risk of war and terrorism.

Of course, we cannot assume that non-interventionism will always be sufficient to avoid conflict. There are other groups, cultures, and nations that do not share even slightly the Libertarian "live and let live" sentiment, and will not necessarily act in what we consider a rational manner. Pretending otherwise may well lead to the deaths of many Americans in future terrorist attacks.

We're already familiar with how many in this country are infected with envy. The envious people amongst us seek to punish or even destroy those who produce the most and reap the rewards of industry. And the politicians these people elect enthusiastically serve their cause, engaging in productivity sapping redistribution-of-wealth schemes in the name of “fairness.�

It's naïve to believe that people in other nations do not hold similar views. They blame the West for their own failings and the United States, in particular, for representing the epitome of Western Civilization. Islamic Jihadism preaches hatred and destruction of “infidels.� And as long as mothers hate us more than they love their own children, some teenagers and young men (and increasingly women too) will strap explosives to their bodies and detonate them to kill the targets of their hatred - regardless of what a Libertarian administration might do.

Unfortunately, battling this Islamic extremism, hatred and violence is not new. In 1786, long before our foreign interventionist policies of today, Thomas Jefferson, then the American ambassador to France, and John Adams, then the American ambassador to Britain, met in London with Abdrahaman, the ambassador to Britain for the government of Algiers. They were attempting to negotiate peace with Muslim countries that were engaging in piracy and enslavement of Americans. In a letter to John Jay, Jefferson wrote the following of how Abdrahaman justified attacking innocent Americans:

The Ambassador answered us that it was founded on the Laws of their Prophet, that it was written in their Koran, that all nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as Prisoners, and that every Musselman [Muslim] who should be slain in battle was sure to go to Paradise.

-- Joseph Wheelan, Jefferson's War: America's First War on Terror, 1801-1805

The United States government for years tried appeasement, making payments in ransom and tribute amounting to 20 percent of its annual revenues to Muslim nations during the year 1800 for the safe passage of American ships or the return of American hostages. But our most Libertarian United States President Thomas Jefferson - who hated most all forms of federal power, dramatically reduced the size of the military budget, and warned of foreign entanglements - felt compelled in 1801 to send a U.S. Naval Armada to Tripoli to wage a war against "Barbary Pirates."

We are in a contest between two civilizations: ours, which values rational thought and individual liberties; and theirs, which is based on theocracy and subservience to an all-powerful government.

During most times we are able to largely ignore our enemies because our own wealth protected us from any threat they could pose. In the long run, free countries with free economies will always outgrow socialist tyrannies.

But technology is making weapons of mass destruction both cheaper to produce and easier to transport. As this trend continues, the risk of a country - or its terrorist agents - being able to harm us will increase.

If the day should come that weapons-of-mass-destruction become affordable to tyrants, and if such tyrants think very little of giving such weapons to terrorists who share a common goal of our destruction, in spite of our libertarian non-interventionism, we may have to rethink our foreign policies and strategies. We know now that some terrorists are willing to fly a plane into a building. If it were possible, these same murderous thugs would not have hesitated to set off a nuclear device in the middle of Manhattan, Hollywood or Disneyworld.

Fortunately, I do not believe it is too late for non-interventionism and our other Libertarian, free market policies to be the solution to avoiding unnecessary war. But we must be vigilant and prepared if we are proven wrong.

In summary, a Wayne Root administration will never unilaterally engage in pre-emptive war and it will implement and champion Libertarian policies that reduce the likelihood of Congress ever having to declare war. A Root administration will stand ready to defend America should she ever be attacked, or if Congress concludes that irrefutable proof exists that our being attacked is unavoidable. And wherever possible, we will employ the superior power of the marketplace to preserve our safety.

If you believe in a future where America does not engage in nation-building, yet our nation remains vigilant and strong enough to defend ourselves from foreign attack, join the Wayne Root campaign to restore America to its constitutional tradition of limited government and non-interventionism.



Wayne Allyn Root is a Libertarian Presidential candidate. For more about Wayne and his bold stands on important political issues, go to: www.ROOTforAmerica.com

A Realistic Plan to End Federal Income Taxes Forever

If you missed part 1, click Here to read it.

It is tax day, April 15, 2008. What a perfect day to announce our proposal to dramatically reform the American tax system. During this campaign for our party's nomination, several of my esteemed opponents have spoken in favor of imposing a 30% national sales tax on all goods and services- combined with a check paid to everyone in the country (in the form of an automatic annual tax rebate - whether you've earned income or paid taxes, or not). Our campaign has received hundreds of requests to comment on the “Fair Tax,� many of them proponents. But after studying the proposal, we conclude that the “Fair Tax� is a bad idea.

The so-called “Fair Tax� is not an advance for freedom; it is a prescription for tyranny and will relegate our descendents to being little more than welfare-dependent wards of the government.

Advocating a “Fair Tax� is bad for our party and bad for America, and we believe that having our party's nominee advocate this would tarnish the Libertarian Party's brand.

Our campaign offers a competing vision.

Imagine instead a country where businesses and individuals would no longer need to account to the government for their income. Imagine a country where we can be free from the Internal Revenue Service. Imagine in one instant eliminating individual federal income taxes, corporate federal income taxes, payroll taxes, death taxes, the marriage penalty, excise taxes, and even the dreaded AMT (Alternative Minimum Tax) - all of it at once, gone forever.

No, this is not a dream. It can be a reality in a Root Administration.

Our campaign team's economic brain trust has crafted an alternative approach that we believe will be attractive to America, consistent with our constitution and right in line with our libertarian ideals. Our plan completely rids America of federal income taxes and the I.R.S., while at the same time restoring power to the American people at the state and local level - just as our founding Fathers intended.

We propose eliminating the income tax and all other sources of federal tax revenues, including payroll taxes, excise taxes and import duties, and replacing it with only one tax: a tax on each state in proportion to its population, with each state deciding for itself how to raise its share of the money.

Not only would this eliminate taxes on income by the United States federal government, it would likely end taxation on income in virtually all states in this country. Most states calculate their own income taxes starting with the taxpayer's calculation of Federal taxable income. It would be too costly for most states to enact their own income tax systems without being able to leverage the current system of W2s and 1099 filings.

To further reduce the likelihood of even some states imposing income taxes on their residents, if elected I will ask Congress to introduce legislation to update Public Law 86-272 to prohibit states from taxing the business activity of any person or enterprise engaging in interstate commerce, and define this broadly enough to include even the solicitation of customers in more than one state.

Our Founding Fathers understood the power of the purse as an instrument of tyranny. Today, because the U.S. Government taxes its citizens and then kicks back a portion of the money to the states (as it sees fit), the federal government exercises enormous unconstitutional power against the states through various federal mandates, ranging from No Child Left Behind to Real ID. Today's regime of personal income taxation facilitates this mockery of our system of Federalism.

Our vision for dramatic change in U.S. tax policy is as simple as it is revolutionary in scope. With our plan there will be only 50 taxpayers in our country writing checks to the U.S. Treasury each year. With no other source of revenue to the U.S. Government, the balance of power would be forever dramatically reversed back to the states (just as our Founding Fathers envisioned).

Moreover, because these 50 states (and their taxpayers) will have a bias toward keeping tax dollars at home instead of sending them to Washington, they will have great incentive to mount enormous political pressure against Congress to reduce the size of government- thereby reducing both spending and taxes.

Some of the unnecessary and wasteful federal spending that would be first on the chopping block for this President (a perfect description for the son of a butcher) would be welfare, entitlements of all kinds including corporate welfare, dramatic cuts in foreign aid, a dramatic reduction in military bases across the globe, and dramatic cuts in wasteful pentagon spending. It's high time to stop spending billions of our tax dollars to defend wealthy allies such as Japan, South Korea and Western Europe.

It's time to de-fund and eliminate entire government departments and bureaucracies - starting with the Dept of Education (which is not authorized or mentioned in our constitution). The first step toward improving our education system (and saving our tax dollars) is to keep the money at the state and local level, giving less power to the federal government and teachers unions, and more power, freedom and choice to parents.

Under this plan, if Congress chose not to reign in out-of-control federal spending, it runs the risk that states could respond by withholding taxes from the federal government, which is the ultimate “check and balance.�

Power would be restored to the states, just as Thomas Jefferson envisioned when he authored the Declaration of Independence. Jefferson, arguably the most libertarian President in United States history, declared the primary responsibility of the American President was “to render ineffective and invisible the very government he is elected to lead.�

Jefferson and the Founding Fathers intended for taxes to be minimal and up to each state to decide. Jefferson said of taxes, “Government shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned.� Jefferson believed taxes were completely up to the discretion of individual states when he said, “The true theory of our constitution is that states are independent as to everything within themselves...� and even went so far as to recognize the right of states to nullify federal laws within their own borders, describing federal intrusion into state matters as “interference by a foreign government.�

Our founding father Thomas Jefferson would certainly approve of this plan to switch the power of taxation and spending decisions from the federal to the state level.

With this one sweeping change, devolving power from Washington to the states, tax and regulatory policy at the state level takes on greater importance. In this environment, competition amongst the states for business and residents would likely become fierce. States that impose high taxes or forms of taxation unpopular with their residents will be punished with losses in population. States that create an environment of low taxation and fair forms of taxation will be rewarded with population gains. Taxpayers will be better able to monitor how their money is spent up close and personal at the state and local level. A major shift of all taxation (and most spending) from the distant and draconian federal level to the state level can only be positive for the American taxpayer.

We believe this arrangement is exactly what our Founding Fathers intended - more power at the state and local level, less power at the federal level, and taxation determined by each individual state. This plan respects our Constitution, expands your personal freedom, restores power to the American people (and taxpayers), and increases the money you keep in your wallet. Please join us in this campaign to restore Federalism, returning power from Washington back to the states and to the people.

Root for Liberty! Root for Freedom! Root for America!


Wayne Allyn Root is a Libertarian Presidential candidate. For more about Wayne and his bold stands on important political issues, go to: www.ROOTforAmerica.com

Presidential Candidate Wayne Allyn Root Unveils Breakthrough on How He Will Stop Un-Constitutional Spending by Using “Constitutional Impoundment�.

On this eve of tax day April 15, 2008 this Libertarian Presidential candidate declares that the buck stops here. Today we are going to change the way we think and debate about taxing and spending forever more. Today my economic team and I are releasing the most powerful and no doubt controversial (at least to those who support big government) one-two punch in the history of political debate on “taxation and spending.�

Today we do more than talk. Today we do more than complain. Today we offer real solutions.

For years Presidents - Democrat and Republican alike - have argued for the line-item veto, a power available to most state governors to cut out unnecessary spending from government budgets. Presidents have claimed they are powerless to stop Congress from spending the money without this powerful and mystical weapon. They were not so powerless after all. Just unwilling to use the tools already at hand.

Congress finally enacted the Line Item Veto Act of 1996 and during one year Bill Clinton exercised this veto power 82 times for $2 billion in savings. The joy for American taxpayers was short-lived. The United States Supreme Court in 1998 declared such a power unconstitutional in Clinton v. City of New York.

So, what can a Root Administration do to stem the tide of spending without the line-item veto?

While the legislative branch has the power to appropriate funds, it is the executive branch that has the power to spend these funds.

If elected, the Root administration will exercise a power that is much stronger than a line-item veto. That power provided for in the Constitution is known as “impoundment.�

Thomas Jefferson (arguably the most Libertarian President in U.S. history) first exercised this power in 1801, when he refused to spend $50,000 in appropriated funds for some Navy gunboats, returning the funds to the U.S. Treasury.

Many presidents have exercised this power ever since, the last being Richard Nixon, who attempted to curb runaway spending. But Congress- at a time when Nixon was weak from his criminal scandals- seized the opportunity to overstep its bounds by passing the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974, which took away the president's unilateral power not to spend money. Nixon's argument was based on Executive powers, and not on the Constitutional duty of the Presidency.

Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution requires that the President take an oath to solemnly swear that he will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of his ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

Most government spending today is in violation of Article I, Section 8 of our Constitution and no congress can require that the President violate his oath of office.

This President will dare to go where no previous president in modern history has dared go.

If elected, this President will invite a showdown with Congress that could go all the way to the US Supreme Court.

This President will impound every last red cent of spending that violates the Constitution.

Today we finally offer real hope for America's beleaguered taxpayers. Today we prove that dramatic cuts to both spending and taxes are not only possible, but doable. A rapid, responsible, and intelligent downsizing of the Federal Government is possible. State's will be given time to determine if they want the option to continue the services not authorized by the Constitution. The money saved will give them all the options.

Today we unleash the powerful ideas about the way government should be run (and cut) proposed by Barry Goldwater- the belief that dramatic tax cuts must be accompanied by dramatic spending cuts to be effective and successful.

This proposal on dramatically starving the federal government will be followed within hours by a second proposal to eliminate all federal income taxes forever more. It is a one-two punch to the very gut of all proponents of big government and their �tax and spend� philosophy.

If elected President, this small businessman and citizen politician will lead a revolution to starve the federal government back to its proper Constitutional size- and most importantly, to give the power (and the money) back to the people (and taxpayers) of the United States of America to spend as they deem fit.

Previous Republican presidents have talked about eliminating the Department of Education; this President will not sign the checks that keep the department open. States have enough bureaucracy in education as it is. If they want more bureaucrats then the billions saved can surely provide it. All unfunded mandates will disappear. Maybe then the fine teachers in our schools can begin teaching again.

When this President is done, a whole alphabet soup of governmental agencies in violation of the Constitution will die for lack of funding.
Imagine a Federal government where there is no:

· Advisory Council on Historic Preservation

· African Development Foundation

· Agency for International Development

· American Battle Monuments Commission

· Amtrak

· Appalachian Regional Commission

· Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board

· Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, & Firearms

· Bureau of Arms Control

· Bureau of Labor Statistics

· Bureau of Transportation Statistics

· Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services

· Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigations Board

· Commission on Civil Rights

· Commodity Futures Trading Commission

· Consumer Product Safety Commission

· Corporation For National Service

· Drug Enforcement Administration

· Environmental Protection Agency

· Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

· Export-Import Bank of the U.S.

· Farm Credit Administration

· Federal Accounting Standards Advisory Board

· Federal Aviation Administration

· Federal Communications Commission (FCC)

· Federal Election Commission (FEC)

· Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

· Federal Highway Administration

· Federal Housing Finance Board

· Federal Labor Relations Authority

· Federal Maritime Commission

· Federal Mediation & Conciliation Service

· Federal Mine Safety & Health Review Commission

· Federal Railroad Administration

· Federal Reserve System

· Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board

· Federal Trade Commission (FTC)

· Food & Drug Administration (FDA)

· Ginnie Mae

· Institute of Museum and Library Services

· Inter-American Development Bank

· Inter-American Foundation

· International Bank for Reconstruction & Development

· International Labor Organization

· International Monetary Fund

· International Trade Commission

· Legal Services Corporation

· Medicare Payment Advisory Commission

· National Aeronautics and Space Administration

· National Archives and Records Administration

· National Bioethics Advisory Commission

· National Capital Planning Commission

· National Commission on Libraries and Information Science

· National Council on Disability

· National Credit Union Administration

· National Endowment for the Arts

· National Endowment for the Humanities

· National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

· National Institute of Mental Health

· National Institutes of Health

· National Labor Relations Board

· National Mediation Board

· National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration

· National Park Service

· National Science Foundation (NSF)

· National Skill Standards Board

· National Technology Transfer Center (NTTC)

· National Telecommunications Information Administration

· National Transportation Safety Board

· Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation

· Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission

· Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight

· Office of Thrift Supervision

· Organization for Economic Cooperation & Development

· Organization of American States

· Overseas Private Investment Corp.

· Pan American Health Organization

· Peace Corps

· Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC)

· Railroad Retirement Board (RRB)

· Securities Investor Protection Corp.

· Selective Service System (SSS)

· Smithsonian Institution

· Substance Abuse & Mental Health Services Administration

· Surface Transportation Board

· Tennessee Valley Authority

· Trade and Development Agency

· U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

· U.S. Forest Service

· U.S. Institute of Peace

· U.S. Marshals Service

· U.S. Office of Government Ethics - Has this agency ever even been used?

· United Nations Information Center

· Voice of America (VOA)

· White House Fellows

· White House Commission on Remembrance

· Women's History Commission

And this list is just scratching the surface. A more complete list would be too long to read. Almost every task that is currently performed at the federal level can be pushed back to the states- assuming any state believes it is actually needed. As we said, rapid, responsible and intelligent transitions will be the order of the day.

A Wayne Root administration will take the Presidential Oath of Office to heart and seriously cut back the size of government in a way that has never been imagined in modern times. If it is not authorized by the constitution, it will not be funded by President Root. No unconstitutional program will be left untouched.

When we are done, the U.S. Government will be so small that it will be a one-line listing in the white pages of your local telephone directory.

This upcoming Root Presidential campaign will bring a vision of a bold Libertarian future, where America does not engage in nation-building, but still remains vigilant and strong enough to defend ourselves from any foreign attack; a vision where America is restored once again to its constitutional tradition of limited government, non-interventionism, peace and freedom; a vision where future generations will read and recite how the Libertarian Party brought individual rights and personal freedom back to our land. Our Founding Fathers will finally rest in peace.

We are onto something much bigger than all of us and the time is right.
Today is the day to join the Wayne Root campaign for President of these United States.

Root for Liberty! Root for Freedom! Root for America!


To read part 2, click Here


Wayne Allyn Root is a Libertarian Presidential candidate. For more about Wayne and his bold stands on important political issues, go to: www.ROOTforAmerica.com



This message is authorized and approved by Wayne Allyn Root and the ROOT for America campaign.

ROOT for America
2505 Anthem Village Drive Ste E318
Henderson, NV 89052
Treasurer: Jeff Dimit

The War on Drugs- It's Time for Dramatic Reform!

My name is Wayne Root. I am seeking the Libertarian Party nomination for President of the United States. I am also the right person at the right time to fight the completely senseless U.S. prohibition on drugs commonly referred to as the "war on drugs"- particularly marijuana. Why? First, because being a conservative, anti-drug crusader my entire life, I'm the most ANTI-drug human being you'll ever meet. Second, because I've never personally done an illegal drug in my life. But then I feel that way about alcohol and cigarettes too. I don't smoke- never have. I haven't had a drink of alcohol in over 20 years (I'm now 46 years old). But that's just my personal choice.

I believe in using education to fight drug use- at all levels, not just in schools. We need to teach people the dangers that come from drug (or alcohol) use and abuse- the health dangers, the addiction dangers, the breakup of families, the violence, the sexual violence, the loss of control, the damaged careers, the car accidents and crime that results from bad choices. Drugs, in my opinion, are a bad choice.

But here's where I take a sharp turn away from my conservative friends and former political associates. It is time to admit that the present war on drugs is a colossal failure and a waste of lives and taxpayer monies.

It is time to choose education to fight the battle, not incarceration. We are filling our prisons with record numbers of our fellow Americans, ruining their lives, and costing taxpayers billions in wasted dollars. We are expanding government to record levels by hiring tens of thousands of new law enforcement officers, prison guards, parole officers and administrators; building new prisons; funding new prisons; and paying for the lifetime costs of law enforcement and prison system employee pensions and health care- all for what? To put millions of Americans with a health problem, and perhaps an addiction problem in prison, instead of getting them education and medical help?

The most shocking and glaring statistic is that almost one million Americans are arrested each year on marijuana possession charges. Does this make sense? Their lives are often ruined. Their chances of ever finding a good job are taken away. Their opportunity to attend college is destroyed (because one marijuana conviction means you can no longer get financial aid from the government). Their resumes are forever ruined with the stain of a drug conviction and prison time. Why? For one minor mistake of youth? Is this a rational way to treat our own citizens? Our own children?

What is my solution? First, I believe medical marijuana should be legalized. Second, I believe minor marijuana possession should be decriminalized. Third, I believe that drug use in general should be treated as a health issue. Non-violent drug users should be offered rehab, not prison.

Let's tackle this idea that smoking marijuana is a crime worthy of prison time. Smoking marijuana is not my thing- as I explained above. But that's my personal choice. But if marijuana is indeed a drug, it is no different than alcohol. Yet we allow alcohol to be served legally across America at bars, restaurants, nightclubs, casinos, country clubs, social clubs, and of course in millions of private homes. Why do we treat them so differently? Does marijuana cause terrible behavior? Well actually, no. To the contrary, it mellows out violent or agitated people. Some might argue it is therefore medicinal and has a primarily positive effect on a majority of users. But let's assume it has a negative effect (loss of focus, loss of ambition, lung diseases, lung cancer). But so does alcohol. Drinking and abusing alcohol leads to a veritable cornucopia of crime (assaults, rapes, robbery, murder, vehicular manslaughter) and health issues- yet we allow Americans the freedom to choose to drink alcohol (or not).

One might argue it wasn't always that way- Prohibition treated alcohol as a drug and criminalized its use. That is exactly my point. Did it work? Prohibition was perhaps the biggest mistake in the annals of U.S. criminal (and political) history- right next to the war on drugs. It was a complete failure- it stopped few, if any, Americans from drinking alcohol. It made a mockery of the law. It caused the masses of law-abiding average Americans (including policemen, judges, politicians and government officials) to break the law and lose respect for the criminal justice and political system. It put many otherwise law-abiding Americans (who simply wanted a drink) in prison, thereby ruining their lives and costing society billions in lost productivity (not to mention the destruction of families). It led to the birth of Organized Crime (known as "the mafia") and made legends of criminals like Al Capone and Lucky Luciano. It created a billion dollar underground business- with all the profits lost to honest businessmen, and all the taxes lost to the government. It increased crime. It increased corruption- as police, politicians and government officials were bribed to look the other way. It increased the cost of alcohol (anytime you make a product illegal, you make it far more valuable)- thereby costing American consumers a fortune (and handing criminals an easy fortune). And worst of all, it increased the interest of young people in drinking- obviously kids want to experience whatever society declares forbidden.

Sounds exactly like the situation with marijuana today, doesn't it? My point exactly. Just because I don't like a particular product or habit, or approve of it, doesn't mean that I have the moral authority to stop everyone in the whole country from using it. Nor does it mean I should pass laws to throw everyone who disagrees with me in prison. Nor does it mean that we can prevent millions of Americans from expressing their freedom (or choice of entertainment) by creating laws to legislate morality. People have proven for centuries that they are going to do what they are going to do- whether government likes it, or approves of it, or criminalizes it, or not. By prohibiting it, we merely move it underground; make it more valuable and expensive; make criminal gangs and “Organized Crime� wealthy; ruin the lives and productivity of average citizens caught in the criminal net; waste the time of law enforcement (who should be out solving serious crimes); waste billions of taxpayer dollars; and increase crime (because the drugs are more expensive- thereby forcing users to commit ever more violent crimes to afford them).

Interestingly, in this 2008 election we now have a diverse group of Presidential candidates (and their spouses) with prior drug experience. We have Barack Obama who admits drug use- both marijuana and cocaine. We have John McCain, who admits being a "hell raiser," and hating authority as a kid and Naval Academy student (who received a record numbers of demerits and graduated at the bottom of his class). Did he use any drugs? We'll never know- but he sure admits to enjoying an occasional excess of alcohol as a sailor. His wife was a drug abuser of prescription medications- so bad in fact, that she stole drugs to support her habit from a charity she founded. Hillary Clinton's husband admitted smoking marijuana- but of course claimed he didn't inhale. And where was Hillary when Bill was busy hanging out at peace rallies and experimenting with drugs like pot? Yet all 3 support the current drug war. None of them, to my knowledge, has spoken publicly in favor of legalizing even medical marijuana, let alone decriminalizing marijuana use. None of them ever speaks about the lives wasted by the war on drugs.

It appears likely that I am the only potential Presidential candidate to have never done a drug. Ironically, I'm also the only one who admits the war on drugs is a failure, and supports serious and immediate reform. Interesting dichotomy, isn't it? Or should we replace the word dichotomy with hypocrisy? Barack Obama and Cindy McCain admit using illegal drugs, yet they were fortunate that their lives were not ruined, and their future careers not snuffed out by a harsh prison sentence. Why won't they speak out on behalf of millions of other young Americans who face ruin because of the same choices they once made? Courage is obviously not an attribute found in generous proportions in the political world.

Yet here's the problem with those few political activists and politicians that I've heard openly and publicly criticize the war on drugs- they are too closely linked themselves to the recreational, medical use, or past use, of drugs to be credible in the eyes of the American people. You see the American people are still torn between the lie that the war on drugs is the only way to save their children, and their willingness to accept a dramatic new direction from a potential President.

We need a political leader who has never done drugs, doesn't like drugs, to the contrary- hates drugs, but loves freedom and choice. We need an honest and open discussion from a political leader who can show America in simple, common-sense terms why the war on drugs is ANTI-family. Yes, I just said the war on drugs is anti-family. How is that possible? Well, would you think it fair if your child is caught making a bad choice such as smoking pot, that they lose their chances of going to college? Could you afford it if your child lost any chance of financial aid because of a minor drug offense? Is that pro family? Do you think one minor mistake of youth should cost a person for the rest of their life? Is that pro family? Do you accept the fact that if your child is sharing or selling a marijuana cigarette with a classmate or friend right now in the privacy of his or her bedroom, and the police find out about it, your home could be raided by a SWAT team and your home- that you've worked for your entire life- could be seized under drug forfeiture laws? How's that for pro family?

Do you know where your child is right now? If he or she is in your car out buying one joint and is caught by a police sting, do you realize the government will seize your car and leave you in a financial nightmare (and without a car to get to work)? And to top it off, your child's future just got wiped out. Get ready for a criminal trial, using your life savings to pay for lawyers, and visiting your child in prison hundreds of miles away. Is that your version of "pro family?" All because of a mistake of youth, or a health addiction issue that could have and should have been treated with a stint in rehab.
Are you aware that if your spouse is using drugs like cocaine in your house- without your knowledge- police can seize your home? Your children and you- innocent victims- will be broke and homeless in an instant, your lives shattered with daddy in prison. Is that pro family?

Are you a landlord? Do you own rental properties or homes or office buildings? Are you aware that if your tenants are using or selling drugs on your property- without your knowledge or consent- the police can seize your property and leave you in financial ruin? Is that pro family or fair to a small businessman?

Or how about if you're a small business owner with a limo, taxi, boat or plane for rent. What if the customers you rent it to are caught using, selling or transporting drugs- without your knowledge or consent. A true story reported in the Investor's Business Daily, a financial newspaper, related one such travesty. A small air taxi service was engaged to fly a customer to another city. Upon landing the DEA arrested both the pilot and the customer, and seized the plane. The pilot was ultimately not charged and released. The plane however, was not released- even though no drugs were found. After the pilot/small business owner spent $75,000 in legal fees, the government released the plane. It had been destroyed by the search for drugs. The government did not offer to compensate the man for their heavy-handed tactics and tragic mistake. The man went out of business.

Now here's the upshot. We've seen news stories on programs like 60 minutes and Frontline that show drug smugglers using the major airlines. But have any 747's been confiscated by the DEA? Not a one. Only the small business owner gets the full brunt of the DEA power. The war on drugs is just plain wrong, corrupt and excessive.

When asked my views on the war on drugs I say simply, "The only thing “the War on Drugs� has accomplished is empower the very worst people in our society with enormous wealth- which they have used to corrupt our government bureaucrats and law enforcement officials, as well as our most cherished institutions that guarantee our freedoms. It has to be reformed."

As your Presidential candidate I will champion and explain why the drug laws in this country must be dramatically reformed. As a home-school dad and father of four young children, I am the very symbol of a Pro-Family Libertarian Presidential candidate. I have never done marijuana (or any other drug) in my life. I intend to teach my children to stay away from drugs. But the Pro-Family stand for this politician is to dramatically reform the present drug war before it destroys another family; another child's future; another shocked and completely innocent spouse or parent; or another small business owner or homeowner. That next tragedy could be yours. Reforming our harsh, senseless, hypocritical drug laws is a PRO-family stance.


Wayne Allyn Root is a Libertarian Presidential candidate. For more about Wayne and his bold stands on important political issues, go to: www.WayneROOT.com