A comparison of The Obamneys

From the "End Of The American Dream" website....Someone named Michael has put together the definitive list comparing and contrasting The Obamneys. 

Some of these, from a Libertarian point of view, are horrific. In other cases, you've gotta wonder what Michael was getting worked up about. For instance, #25 is iffy.  Both Obamneys slam Free Trade when addressing an audience of the economically illiterate, but often do a few things to support rational trade and exchange. #33, the abortion issue, is IMHO, best left up to mothers and doctors. #34 is nobody's business but The Boy Scouts, as long as they aren't receiving tax dollars. All in all, though, this is a good effort.

GARY JOHNSON FOR PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES !! THE ONLY WAY TO "WASTE" YOUR VOTE IS TO BE OPPOSED TO THE MESS BELOW, AND CONTINUE VOTING FOR IT !!!!

The following are 40 ways that Barack Obama and Mitt Romney are essentially the same candidate....
1. Barack Obama and Mitt Romney both supported TARP.
2. Mitt Romney supported Barack Obama's "economic stimulus" packages.
3. Mitt Romney says that Barack Obama's bailout of the auto industry was actually his idea.
4. Neither candidate supports immediately balancing the federal budget.
5. They both believe in big government and they both have a track record of being big spenders while in office.
6. Barack Obama and Mitt Romney both fully support the Federal Reserve.
7. Barack Obama and Mitt Romney are both on record as saying that the president should not question the "independence" of the Federal Reserve.
8. Barack Obama and Mitt Romney have both said that Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke did a good job during the last financial crisis.
9. Barack Obama and Mitt Romney both felt that Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke deserved to be renominated to a second term.
10. Both candidates oppose a full audit of the Federal Reserve.
11. Both candidates are on record as saying that U.S. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner has done a good job.
12. Barack Obama and Mitt Romney have both been big promoters of universal health care.
13. Mitt Romney was the one who developed the plan that Obamacare was later based upon.
14. Wall Street absolutely showers both candidates with campaign contributions.
15. Neither candidate wants to eliminate the income tax or the IRS.
16. Both candidates want to keep personal income tax rates at the exact same levels for the vast majority of Americans.
17. Both candidates are "open" to the idea of imposing a Value Added Tax on the American people.
18. Barack Obama and Mitt Romney both believe that the TSA is doing a great job.
19. Barack Obama and Mitt Romney both supported the NDAA.
20. Barack Obama and Mitt Romney both supported the renewal of the Patriot Act.
21. Barack Obama and Mitt Romney both believe that the federal government should be able to indefinitely detain American citizens that are considered to be terrorists.
22. Both candidates believe that American citizens suspected of being terrorists can be killed by the president without a trial.
23. Barack Obama has not closed Guantanamo Bay like he promised to do, and Mitt Romney actually wants to double the number of prisoners held there.
24. Both candidates support the practice of "extraordinary rendition".
25. They both support the job-killing "free trade" agenda of the global elite.
26. They both accuse each other of shipping jobs out of the country and both of them are right.
27. Both candidates are extremely soft on illegal immigration.
28. Neither candidate has any military experience. This is the first time that this has happened in a U.S. election since 1944.
29. Both candidates earned a degree from Harvard University.
30. They both believe in the theory of man-made global warming.
31. Mitt Romney has said that he will support a "cap and trade" carbon tax scheme (like the one Barack Obama wants) as long as the entire globe goes along with it.
32. Both candidates have a very long record of supporting strict gun control measures.
33. Both candidates have been pro-abortion most of their careers. Mitt Romney's "conversion" to the pro-life cause has been questioned by many. In fact, Mitt Romney has made millions on Bain Capital's investment in a company called "Stericycle" that incinerates aborted babies collected from family planning clinics.
34. Barack Obama and Mitt Romney both believe that the Boy Scout ban on openly gay troop leaders is wrong.
35. They both believe that a "two state solution" will bring lasting peace between the Palestinians and Israel.
36. Both candidates have a history of nominating extremely liberal judges.
37. Like Barack Obama, Mitt Romney also plans to add "signing statements" to bills when he signs them into law.
38. They both have a horrible record when it comes to job creation.
39. Both candidates believe that the president has the power to take the country to war without getting the approval of the U.S. Congress.
40. Both candidates plan to continue running up more government debt even though the U.S. government is already 16 trillion dollars in debt.

What I Actually Do - Barack Obama edition

Hey, MSNBC, it coulda been worse !!!

Why all this weeping, wailing and gnashing of teeth from MSNBC? 
Do they not understand that if one Obamney lost this "debate", then the other Obamney is winner by default?
You'll still have your welfare state, godawful wars, Federal Reserve, Prohibition, giveways, corporate welfare, cronyism, dead Pakistani babies, mercantilism and tribalism. It's not like a Libertarian candidate was allowed in the room to kick both of their asses....
This video is pretty funny though. 

The Political Party that nominated John Roberts is now running this ad

The Political Party that nominated John Roberts is now running this ad....

They really don't have a clue, do they? 

The Libertarian Party awaits. 

Rick Santorum on Libertarians

Now that Bachmann, Cain, Perry and Gingrich have had their day in the sun, it's Rick Santorum's turn.

Here are the Republican Flavor Of The Month's quotes on the concept of government leaving people alone.  This is from an excellent rant in Reason magazine:

In a Pennsylvania Press Club luncheon in Harrisburg last summer, Santorum declared, "I am not a libertarian, and I fight very strongly against libertarian influence within the Republican Party and the conservative movement."


In that regard, Santorum has a pretty impressive record. By voting for the No Child Left Behind Act, he helped give President Obama the power to micromanage the nation's schools from Washington; and by supporting a prescription drug entitlement for Medicare, he helped saddle the taxpayers with a $16 trillion unfunded liability.

Well, at least his votes are consistent with his beliefs. 

"This idea that people should be left alone, be able to do whatever they want to do," Santorum complained to NPR in 2006, "that we shouldn't get involved in the bedroom, we shouldn't get involved in cultural issues ... that is not how traditional conservatives view the world."

Getting involved in everybody's beds, bongs, bullets and babies would take a HUGE fat honkin' government, wouldn't it?  Yes it would. 

Santorum voted for the 2005 "bridge to nowhere" highway bill, has backed an expanded national service program, and his compassionate conservatism has the Bono seal of approval: "On our issues, he has been a defender of the most vulnerable." Rick Santorum: He's from the government, and he's here to help.


Santorum's 2012 campaign platform even includes a pledge to "re-direct funds within HHS, so it can create public/private partnerships ... for the purpose of strengthening marriages, families, and fatherhood."

Anyone who thinks that giving the Department of Health And Human Services another dime?  That person is not a Libertarian.  That person is an Obama wannabe.  Rick Santorum doesn't want to turn the car around.  He just wants to drive it and stop at different restaurants than the Democrats. 

But his words and his beliefs are consistent.  That counts for a lot. 

Tea Party candidate wins in Delaware; Republicans show their true colors

Ok, a small-government candidate endorsed by the Tea Party wins in Delaware last night, and the Republicans say they aren't going to support their own candidate. 

Is there any doubt that the Republicrats and the Demoblicans are the two faces of the same unholy beast? 

The Republicans are in the business of preserving the system, not changing it. 

The Libertarian Party awaits. 

You can't always get what you want. You get what you need.

I was listening to one of the Republican radio stations yesterday, and they were interviewing a Ron Paul disciple who....well, let's just say that this particular Paulista didn't have much media savvy. 

The conversation went something like this:

Republican Host:  Ron Paul's campaign spent more money to earn fewer electoral votes than any other campaign in history. 

Paulista:  That unh....may be true.  But unh....Ron Paul is the only one bringing these types of....unh.....things to the unhhhhtention of the Unhhhhmerican people.

Republican Host:  Like what things?

Paulista:  Things like....unhh....there aren't two different....unh....political parties, just two factions within the same big government group. 

Republican Host (outraged):  So tell me, how many Republicans voted for Obamacare?  How many Republicans voted for the Wall Street "reform" bill?  None !  None !  None !  How can you say that there is no real difference between the Republicans and the Democrats ?????

Paulista:  Unhhhh......

I didn't try to listen any more after that because the screaming was too loud.  (I was doing the screaming.) 

The appropriate answer to this question, of course, is the answer that Ron Paul would have probably given.  "How many Republicans voted for TARP?  How many Republicans voted for Porkulus?  How many Republicans voted to bail out the banks and Wall Street?" 

Host:  Unhhhh.....Enough Republicans from "safe" districts voted for them for the bills to pass? 

And then Ron Paul would have probably said "And how many Republican votes were needed to pass Obamacare and the Wall Street reform farce?"

Host:  Unhhhh....None? 

They don't always get what they want.  They get what they need. 
Speaking of which, here's the funeral scene from The Big Chill.

Arlen Specter and Arlen Specter defeated in yesterday's primary election

Arlen Specter (R-Pennsylvania) and his doppelganger, Arlen Specter (D-Pennsylvania), were both defeated in yesterday's primary elections. 
This, of course, is cause for rejoicing.  The Specters supported the hilariously named Employee Free Choice Act, plus the Porkulus Package, and ObamaCare ™
The Teleprompter Jesus got a couple of crucial Quisling-ish votes out of the Specters, then only made one campaign appearance for them after the Specters mutated to the other party. 
Well, you lie down with dogs, sometimes you can't get up again. 

I intended to end this post with a music video of Jason & The Scorchers new song When Did It Get So Easy To Lie To Me? (You used me like a rented mule, etc etc etc.)
It hasn't been released yet. 

Oh well.  Life can't be perfect. 

Barack W. Bush as compared to George Hussein Obama

Long-time Libertarian Party leader Wes Benedict and his staff came up with this gem.  It's part of a flyer to take to just about any political gathering - peace walk, Tea Party, NORML rally, anti-war protest, 2nd amendment rally, or 9-12 parade. 
Go here for a look at the complete PDF. 

The best part of the flyer?  Here are the worst disasters of the Barack W. Bush administration, as compared to those of the George Hussein Obama era.  Compare each number from the Demoblican period to its counterpart in the earlier Republicrat regime: 

Top 10 disasters of the 2009 Obama administration (in no particular order):
1. Cash for Clunkers
2. War escalation in Afghanistan
3. Giant government health care expansion bill
4. Post office loses money hand over fist
5. Stimulus package
6. Expansion of "state secrets" doctrine
7. Big increase in unemployment
8. "Bailout" Geithner as Treasury Secretary
9. Skyrocketing federal spending
10. Huge federal deficits

Top 10 disasters of the 2001-2008 Bush administration:
1. Cash for Car Companies
2. War in Iraq
3. Giant Medicare expansion bill
4. Post office loses money hand over fist
5. Stimulus "rebate" checks
6. PATRIOT Act
7. Big increase in unemployment
8. "Bailout" Paulson as Treasury Secretary
9. Skyrocketing federal spending
10. Huge federal deficits

The Republicans Won't Repeal Obamacare

The

Republicans

Won't

Repeal

Obamacare.





Get used to it.  The Demoblicans and Republicrats are two sides of the same coin.  Hit the links above.  Your only hope is to vote for 2nd Party candidates. 
The Libertarian Party, the only 2nd Party with ballot access, awaits your vote.  We'll kill the bill for you. 

Is there any way anybody could read those links up top, and still think a vote for Libertarians instead of Republicrats is a "wasted" vote? 

The AG Lawsuits And The Political Theatre Of Healthcare

My employer, Jukt Micronics, is in the middle of a huge shipping push this week, and I haven't had time to post anything of my own.  So here's another press release from Patrick Dixon and Robert Butler of the Libertarian Party Of Texas. 
If you like what you read, hit this link and send them some money so we can continue fighting the good fight.  You can also go there to get these emails and bypass me altogether..... 

AUSTIN, TEXAS - March 23, 2010 -- Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott, along with attorneys general from dozens of other states, are planning to file a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the Democrat's healthcare bill as soon as it is signed.


"The audacity of the Democrats to pass an unconstitutional healthcare reform law is only matched by the Republicans' recent posturing as anti-government crusaders," said Patrick Dixon, Chair of the Libertarian Party of Texas. "If the Republicans were serious about their constitutional concerns, they would raise the legal argument that no healthcare spending by Congress is anywhere authorized by the US Constitution.

"Republicans passed the largest government takeover of healthcare in 30 years when they granted senior citizens an unfunded Prescription Drug benefit known as Medicare Part D," said Dixon. "The Prescription Drug benefit will cost taxpayers $727 billion in the next nine years. The Democrat's current plan will cost an estimated $950 billion over the next ten years. Both parties have dramatically increased the federal government's role in healthcare. The Republican response to the Democrats appears to be complete theater."

The Republican Party has a long history of supporting the Federal government's expansion into healthcare. In 1997, the Republican Congress passed CHIP, the largest expansion of taxpayer-funded health insurance coverage for children in the U.S. since Medicaid began in the 1960's. It was sponsored by the late Democratic Senator Ted Kennedy in a partnership with Republican Senator Orrin Hatch with the support of then First Lady Clinton. The Republican Congress repeatedly voted to expand SCHIP throughout the 2000's.

"Let's not forget that the Democrat's original plan to take over healthcare this year was copied from Republican Mitt Romney's plan for Massachusetts," said Libertarian Executive Director Robert Butler. "Apparently it's OK when Republicans reform healthcare, but when Democrat's enact a similar plan it's an 'obamanation'."

The Libertarian Party has a completely different approach to the current high prices of healthcare. Libertarians propose that all federal regulation of the healthcare industry be repealed so that prices can fall back to the market-determined prices.

Consumers do not realize that healthcare prices would dramatically drop if the government ended its monopoly of the industry. In 1910, 56% of hospitals were privately owned and for-profit; that number shrank to only 10% of hospitals in 1989, according to the late Nobel-laureate economist Milton Friedman. And this small number of private, for-profit hospitals actually hire more staff to administer government compliance than patient care.

Butler concluded, "We know that government alternatives cost more than the private sector, so decreasing cost by expanding government is a plan doomed to failure."
 

Robert and Patrick are great people, and would never, ever, post pics of a donkey screwing an elephant.  Those are my choices, and they came from  here and here and here and here and here and here. 

It's snowing on the first day of Spring in Fort Worth, TX

It's March 20th, the first day of Spring, and on the boundary line between Fort Worth and Burleson TX, we're seeing tiny little snow flurries.   

This, of course, is a sign of Global ____________. 

Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

You can click here for the original PDF, courtesy of the ACLU. 

Now THAT'S funny. 

Note to civil libertarians:  How is Obama doing on closing Gitmo, getting us out of the war, legalizing weed, legalizing gay marriage, or doing anything else to distinguish himself from his predecessor? 

Stephen Smith on Democrats and Republicans

Stephen Smith, over at "A Beginner's Guide To Freedom", has a new post explaining the vital differences between Democrats and Republicans.

There aren't any.

"As the world recovers, we will face a temptation to replace the risk-and-reward model of the private sector with the blunt instruments of government spending and control. History shows that the greater threat to prosperity is not too little government involvement, but too much."
- George W. Bush, November 2009

At a fundraising event for his presidential library last week, former President George W. Bush warned that too much government intervention in the economy could hinder a recovery. He also expressed concern over what he sees as the Obama administration’s drift toward protectionism.

It’s nice to know that the former President is out there on the chicken dinner circuit defending limited government and free-market economics. It would have been nicer if he had done that from the Oval Office for those eight long years. Instead, while in office President Bush presided over record federal spending, massively increased the regulatory state, bailed out failing companies, levied protectionist tariffs on imported steel, helped fuel the real estate bubble, and signed into law a government prescription drug plan that represented the largest entitlement expansion since the creation of Medicare itself.

Now that former President Bush is safely out of power, however, he’s rediscovered the value of free market principles – the same free market principles he abandoned in order to "save the free market". Nice. Mr. Bush’s speech offers a shining example of a long-standing libertarian criticism of Republicans. Whenever they’re out of power, they talk like libertarians (on economic issues, anyway). But as soon as they’re back in power, they govern like Democrats.

This is not to say that Bush’s comments at the fundraiser were wrong. He’s quite correct that President Obama’s massive government intervention in the economy will have detrimental effects over the long run. But it takes an extraordinary degree of chutzpah for George W. Bush to level those criticisms at Obama given the fact that it was Bush who initiated many of the destructive policies he suddenly finds so troubling. One might argue that the current administration’s policies outstrip those of the Bush administration in their scope and degree, but it’s hard to identify any serious substantive differences between the two when it comes to the economy.

Go here to read the whole thing. It's worth the trip.

Here's the last paragraph, just in case I haven't convinced you....

There is another approach, however. Instead of arguing over numbers (one trillion or two?), we could debate fundamental principles of just law and proper governance. But that would require the key players to have identifiable principles in the first place, which is obviously too much to ask from the likes of Bush or Obama. From what I can tell, only the libertarians are ready for that kind of discussion.

Unless you hit one of the links, you'll never, ever know which iconic 1980 album cover Stephen chose to illustrate his post.

The Beer That Never Lifts You Up, And Always Lets You Down

To our friends who voted for The Teleprompter Jesus....
Let's start with this expression of disappointment from Talking Points Memo:

"....allowing detention without trial creates a dangerous loophole in our justice system that mimics the Bush administration's abusive approach to fighting terrorism."

Then there's Charles Krauthammer, who has been pissed off since Election Day:

If hypocrisy is the homage that vice pays to virtue, then the flip-flops on previously denounced anti-terror measures are the homage that Barack Obama pays to George Bush. Within 125 days, Obama has adopted with only minor modifications huge swaths of the entire, allegedly lawless Bush program.The latest flip-flop is the restoration of military tribunals. During the 2008 campaign, Obama denounced them repeatedly, calling them an "enormous failure." Obama suspended them upon his swearing in. Now they're back.

....Observers of all political stripes are stunned by how much of the Bush national security agenda is being adopted by this new Democratic government. Victor Davis Hanson (National Review) offers a partial list: "The Patriot Act, wiretaps, e-mail intercepts, military tribunals, Predator drone attacks, Iraq (i.e. slowing the withdrawal), Afghanistan (i.e. the surge) — and now Guantanamo."

Here's the L.A. Times Top Of The Ticket blog:

The still sort-of-new Barack Obama Democratic administration has again adopted another policy straight out of the administration of his much-criticized Republican predecessor, George W. Bush.
Obama administration officials have rejected a watchdog group's request for a list of healthcare industry executives who've been meeting secretly in the White House with Obama staffers to discuss healthcare changes being drafted there and in Congress.

The Top Of The Ticket people go on to quote the Obama campaign's website back when it was tut-tutting about Dick Cheney doing the same thing.

Let's throw in one more, this time from The Heritage Foundation:

*President Bush expanded the federal budget by a historic $700 billion through 2008. President Obama would add another $1 trillion.
*President Bush began a string of expensive finan­cial bailouts. President Obama is accelerating that course.
*President Bush created a Medicare drug entitle­ment that will cost an estimated $800 billion in its first decade. President Obama has proposed a $634 billion down payment on a new govern­ment health care fund.


They list several others, but this is already becoming tiresome. You can go here and here and here to read even more comparisons of the two.
The typical anti-Obama rant usually ends with "How's that Hopey-Changey thing working out for you?"


Instead, let me offer a Bush Light, "The Beer That Never Lifts You Up, And Always Lets You Down".

(You could've had a Bob Barr !)

Bush Light can provided by Hammer.

"Newt Gingrich warns of a third party movement" - we can only hope !

From CNN — Former House speaker Newt Gingrich is warning of a third party mutiny in 2012 if Republicans don’t figure out a way to shape up.

I bet this turns out to be just another broken promise. You could put the American public on the U.S.S. Bounty with nothing to eat but The Atkins Diet. We still wouldn't mutiny.

“If the Republicans can’t break out of being the right wing party of big government, then I think you would see a third party movement in 2012,” Gingrich said Tuesday. The speech, to a group of students at the College of the Ozarks in Missouri, was recorded by Springfield TV station KY3.
But Gingrich, bemoaning President Barack Obama’s “monstrosity of a budget,” acknowledged that Republicans are partially to blame for the escalation in federal spending.

"Partially to blame?" The way that Heads is partially to blame for not being Tails on the same coin?

"Remember, everything Obama’s doing, Bush started last year,” he said. “If you’re going to talk about big spending, the mistakes of the Bush administration last year are fully as bad as the mistakes of Obama’s first two, three months.”

Well, the curve was a little less steep under Bush. But we're talking differences in degree, not differences in kind.

Gingrich told the students that the current governmental system “is so sick, so out of touch and so arrogant that you’re going to have a nationwide rebellion at the polls of people in both parties who are just fed up.”

At this point, I really don't think so. If they were going to get fed up, it would've happened within the last month. The damage has been done.

“You can do a Facebook page, you can Twitter,” he said. “I Twitter right now and I think we’re at like, I don’t know, 18,000 or 20,000 thousand people that follow my Twitter, which I have to say I think is nuts.

If 20,000 people follow Newt Gingrich on Twitter....Naw, I'm not going to go there.

But there are ways to communicate, you’re not trapped by CBS news.”
Gingrich has repeatedly said that he will decide in early 2011 whether he plans to seek the White House in 2012.

Mr. Gingrich is a very smart man. He knows a lot about history and economics.

He also masterminded the Republican Revolution of the early 1990's.

Here's P.J. O'Rourke on that non-event: "What a feckless, timid, timeserving revolution that was in 1994, as if the sans culottes had stormed the Bastille to get themselves jobs as prison guards."

Mr. Gingrich has been given a shot at stopping the madness, and didn't do anything but settle a few old scores. With that and some of his personal ethics issues, he might be the only Republican who would definitely lose to Obama. Let's hope it happens.

Bring on the third party mutiny ! Vote Libertarian !