Wednesday, August 27, 2014

Has The Libertarian Movement Finally Arrived?

Has the libertarian movement finally arrived?

I'm going to buck the trend and say no, young people frustrated with Obama will still vote for Hillary.

Let's break the libertarian "movement" down.

How I view people who call themselves libertarian;

1) There are the Marxist Libertarians like Noam Chomsky.  These few elitists believe they can change human nature and eliminate capitalism.  This group is completely ideological and will still vote for Hillary in 2016.

2) Neutral Libertarians, usually atheists like Adam Carola or Penn Gillete.  They are of the strain I call, "Anarcho-Libertarians", they believe the state has no use, and in some ways are just as ideologically utopian as the far left.  It's quite easy to debunk, interestingly a lot like the first group, they believe human nature can be changed, or they don't understand human nature.

3) Randian Libertarians. (don't really know what else to call this group).  These are like Rand Paul, who still believe Government is necessary, but want to greatly reduce the role of Government in our lives.  They are less idealistic, and far more realistic.  They don't call themselves "Randian", there isn't really a name for this group.

It's the variations in the philosophy, that have caused me to call myself am constitutional conservative.  Open borders would lead to a disaster.  Effectively, we can see that today with the lawless President.  We have open borders today and millions of people are streaming across the border.  Do they love the country?  Some of them are most likely Islamic extremists.  Do they have diseases?  Even before we had massive welfare that made more open borders possible, Ellis Island made sure immigrants could support themselves and were disease free.  A country can't survive with porous borders and welfare.  That's an absolute recipe for disaster.

Polls on the subject show that most libertarians don't even agree on what the philosophy means.  Some of the points that back up my statements here;

1) 41% of self described libertarians are against the free market. (believe Government regulation is necessary) These will always support Democrats.
2) 46% believe Corporate profit should be limited.  Again, these will support Democrats.
3) 38% believe the myth that welfare helps the poor.  The lowest percentage of these stats in this group, shows that not every Libertarian believes in limited Government and free market values.


Finally, unlike the article in Reason and the NY Times, I don't think type 1 or even most of type 2 libertarians are going to abandon Hillary Clinton in 2016.  They'll be right back in the voting booth for the "progressive" cause, that they've been indoctrinated into accepting.

Would you be interested in a blog post on how I view human nature?

Reference;
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/10/magazine/has-the-libertarian-moment-finally-arrived.html?_r=0

I'll also end with this, I think it's crucial people know where their beliefs land them.  This is the best Political test I've found, and would suggest everyone take it.
http://www.politicaltest.net/

Tuesday, August 26, 2014

Gun Free Zones Cause Gun Violence

Another tragic mass shooting happened in a gun free zone yesterday.  The shooter at Fort Lee was able to commit the act, because her victims couldn't legally defend themselves.  Sources in the media will of course attack the tools used to commit murder.  Unfortunately, they won't look at the real causes of violence and mass murder.

1) Gun Free Zones Cause Mass Murder - This is related to my other post, (and one yet to come this week) legislation toward utopia always has unintended consequences.  In the case of Gun Free zones, like Cafe standards (the post I'm working on), it causes death.  Their answer isn't that their legislation is failing and needs repealed.  They have engaged in enormous hubris on their quest for utopia.  A more perfect society is always only one law away from reality.



2) Gun Prohibitions Increase Violent Crime and Home Invasions - There has been an entire book written on More Guns, Less Crime - buy it and become even more informed and armed to battle Utopian Hubris on the left.  There are some amazing statistics, that prove such utopian measures don't make society safer.  For instance if you remove the cities in America with the strictest laws prohibiting gun ownership, America's violent crime rate goes from 4th globally to 25th.
this topic.

3) The Constitution is Crystal Clear - There are two separate clauses in this amendment.  the first clause details the rights of the people to freely assembly and form militias.  The second part of the clause supports the right of the people, individuals to keep and bear arms.

the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. - See more at: http://constitution.findlaw.com/amendment2.html#sthash.2g147IFp.dpuf
The founders didn't make exceptions for the mentally ill, or the disturbed.  They made the language in plain English and easy for individuals to easily understand!  Your right to KEEP and BEAR Arms, shall not be infringed.

I really don't understand why this is so hard to understand.  It's a lot like the first amendment and the right to prayer and preach everywhere. 

Monday, August 25, 2014

Scandalzilla: Obama Administration's 3 Biggest Scandals

The list of scandals Obama is involved in should shock and dismay every American patriot.  Unfortunately the Democrats, have become hyper partisan, defending the imperialist actions of this lawless President.  I'm not going to go over every scandal, just the three big ones.  Why do they matter?

Liberty and integrity suffer if we allow this lawless President to go unpunished.



moonbattery.com
Fast and Furious: Full coverage on the story from the LA Times.  In fact, it's probably the best coverage I've seen and it's from a MSM source. This one of all the scandals, should have the left apoplectic.  For God's sake, they were giving criminals GUNS!!

Some of those guns, used against border patrol (townhall.com), and against our marines.

Obama, is worse than Nixon.  No one died from Nixon's imperial lying; (from the townhall.com article)
President Obama asserted executive privilege over Fast and Furious documents in June 2012 minutes before Attorney General Eric Holder was voted in contempt by the House Oversight Committee. 


Why would he assert such privilege if he wasn't involved in the conspiracy?


Benghazi attack: If the evidence against the administration, makes them look bad, this makes them look even worse. FROM THE BEGINNING, even the MSM challenged the official narrative;


From the Washington Post: (IN 2012)

 “I have seen that report, and the story is absolutely wrong. We were not aware of any actionable intelligence indicating that an attack on the U.S. mission in Benghazi was planned or imminent.  That report is false.”
— Carney, news briefing, Sept. 1
“Well, you’re conveniently conflating two things, which is the anniversary of 9/11 and the incidents that took place, which are under investigation and the cause and motivation behind them will be decided by that investigation.”
— Carney, news briefing, Sept. 17
 “It is, I think, self-evident that what happened in Benghazi was a terrorist attack. Our embassy was attacked violently, and the result was four deaths of American officials. So, again, that's self- evident.
“He also made clear that at this point, based on the information he has — and he is briefing the Hill on the most up-to-date intelligence — we have no information at this point that suggests that this was a significantly preplanned attack, but this was the result of opportunism, taking advantage of and exploiting what was happening as a result of reaction to the video that was found to be offensive.”
— Carney, news briefing, Sept. 20
From Fox News (Jan 2014)

Minutes after the American consulate in Benghazi came under assault on Sept. 11, 2012, the nation's top civilian and uniformed defense officials -- headed for a previously scheduled Oval Office session with President Obama -- were informed that the event was a "terrorist attack," declassified documents show. The new evidence raises the question of why the top military men, one of whom was a member of the president's Cabinet, allowed him and other senior Obama administration officials to press a false narrative of the Benghazi attacks for two weeks afterward. 
The most damning of all, is that Stevens asked for more security in Benghazi.

This all came out in 2012, and yet in 2013, McLatchey printed an article stating Stevens never asked for help (not linking to them, they don't deserve the clicks.)

It's amazing that there is not more outrage over this.  The administration, lied, covered up Steven's death, and covered up Al Qaeda.  ALL to get Obama re-elected.



IRS: Speaking of getting Obama re-elected, this was the cherry on top of the ice cream.  Targeting conservative and tea party groups to make it harder for them to fight Obama.

Where's the proof you say?

redacted, deleted and destroyed.

1) Email servers backup any emails sent from the local machine.  How likely is it that so many machines had hard drive problems at the same time?  How likely is it the servers lost their data?  The backups of those servers?  (which they conveniently stopped in 2012)

Nixon lost 18 minutes of tape and the media, and democrats lost their minds.

The IRS loses ENTIRE HARD DRIVES from the entire department that Louis Lerner worked in and we hear NOTHING?

2) Some of those emails were released and they are absolutely damning of Louis Lerner (and Obama).  Louis Lerner was just doing what Obama wanted.

At the very least Louis Lerner should be fired. AT THE VERY LEAST!

Conclusion: Any American who is not outraged at these three scandals, given the evidence against the administration is a useful idiot.

What scandals do you think I missed, that I should've talked about?

Sunday, August 24, 2014

Obama's Week of Weakness (Week 1)

Obama's Week of Weakness, this will be an ongoing blog using news stories to document Obama's weak leadership.  This past week in particular inspired me to write this post.  When he went golfing right after his pronouncement against ISIS.  I then went back to listen to his speech that day.  It was completely dispassionate and uninterested.

You'll also notice that these are all mainstream news links.  They've already abandoned Obama for Hillary Clinton.

Monday) We started the week off with a whimper.  Obama appeals for calm at Ferguson, by stepping in the middle of it like a 4 ton drunk elephant.  By Monday the Washington Times still wasn't fully off the obama train wreck;


Mr. Obama, who interrupted his summer vacation and received White House briefings on the racially charged clashes, was careful to prod both the protesters and the law enforcement officials deployed there in his most extensive remarks thus far on the unfolding events.
It must've been important if he had to interrupt his summer vacation to say this;

“What is also true is that given the history of this country, where we can make progress in building up more confidence, more trust, making sure that our criminal justice system is acutely aware of the possibilities of disparities in treatment, there are safeguards in place to avoid those disparities, where training and assistance is provided to local law enforcemet who may just need more information in order to avoid potential disparity,” he said.
Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/aug/18/obama-sending-attorney-general-holder-missouri/?page=2#ixzz3BKPrSy3K Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter

Before any evidence was in Obama attacked the police officer.  As the week went on the evidence has continued to weaken for the "Hands up, don't shoot" idiocy.

In these situations it would be better for the President not to get involved at all.  He can't help himself, he hates white people, and law enforcement.


Tuesday) Obama after crashing headlong into crap Monday, still felt he needed to be involved in Ferguson. forced to confront race again.  Before any evidence is in, Ferguson is a racial issue, not a criminal issue.
 This piece is basically the main stream media still covering up for Obama.  If you're really interested in it read it.  This was a day before the Administration's complete collapse into uselessness.  Several news organizations had idiotic stories like this.  NPR claims Obama is

It's all down hill from here, not even the media could continue to cover for the worst President ever.

Wednesday) This was perhaps one of Obama's worst moments as President.  (if not the worst, when we look back retrospectively) Obama's speech was dispassionate and uninvolved.  He said what he had to say hurriedly then rushed back to the links, to finish up his 18 holes.

"Today, the entire world is appalled by the brutal murder of Jim Foley by the terrorist group," Obama said.
Compare that to Bush after another declaration of War, 9/11:
These acts of mass murder were intended to frighten our nation into chaos and retreat. But they have failed. Our country is strong. A great people has been moved to defend a great nation.
Terrorist attacks can shake the foundations of our biggest buildings, but they cannot touch the foundation of America. These acts shatter steel, but they cannot dent the steel of American resolve.
The difference is clear.  Bush loves this country, Obama doesn't.  After that weak kneed gut reaction, he went on for paragraphs trying to separate ISIS/L from Islam.  Why is he once again defending Islam?  Is it any wonder so many people think Obama is Muslim?

Obama said. The Islamic State "speaks for no religion. Their victims are overwhelmingly Muslim, and no faith teaches people to massacre innocents. No just god would stand for what they did yesterday, and for what they do every single day.
"Their ideology is bankrupt," he said.
ISIS is following the path of their prophet Mohammed explicitly.  Mohammed was not a good or holy man.  He was literally more savage than Ghenghis Khan.  Did Khan ever behead 1,000 jews for not converting to his religion?  Did Khan rape the wives of men he killed?

That is who Islam is worshipping.  The Quran and the Haditha back up violent Jihad.

Thursday) Sen. McCain who helped give ISIS our Weapons in Syria last year, now has decided they are a threat to America.  He's absolutely right about Obama, even though McCain now correctly sees ISIS as a threat (that we shouldn't have helped), Obama has yet to catch the clue train.

Judging his idiotic comments regarding Islam, he'll never reverse course in this regard.

Friday) Providing a checkpoint for where we are, Obama's poll numbers were released.  Compared to Bush at this point in his Presidency, Obama's popularity isn't much better!

Imagine where it would be if the media was honest and truthful.  Tuesday, should've been stories challenging Obama's obsession with race.  How can the country move away from racism, if we don't move away from racism?

Saturday) This is a really fascinating piece written by someone with a utopian mindset.  They ask the question; "Why isn't Obama's worldview working", from the standpoint of not understanding human nature and the world at large.  Those who deny the existence of evil, don't understand why it continues to advance when they withdraw.

this is particularly telling;
Obama wanted to close the book on 9/11 America, pledging to end the nation’s “permanent war” footing. That has meant not only taking on the legacy of the attacks but also convincing worried allies in Europe and the Middle East that the country is not in retreat after more than a decade of war.

The Muslims who perpetrated 9/11 felt they were extracting revenge for the Barbary wars and for a loss that happened in Romania on 9/11.

The cult of Islam has a long memory, and in no way could Obama's actions end the "permanent war" against that evil ideology.  An ideology that helped back Hitler's National Socialism.  An ideology that was also at the root of World War 1.  When we divided the Caliphate up.

There is only two ways to end jihad.

1) Education.  Try to convert them to any other religion.

2) War.  We cannot shirk to the evil that they bring, we have to fight it.

What was your story of the week that showed Obama's weakness?

History Of The World Part I: Or How I Learned To Love Capitalism

The history of the economy from 1981 (Reagan) to present (Obama). In 1981, Reagan inherited, what was a worse recession than what “Obama inherited” (we’ll get to that later) in 2009.  The unemployment rate was worse, the interest rates were worse, and the rate of government spending was worse.


 At the end of his term in Office he slashed the progressive tax code to two rates, and got rid of almost all of the exemptions and loop holes.  He slashed the rate of government growth, and helped defeat the Soviet Union. He also gave us the *highest* level of post WW2 employment participation of any President ever.  It was his policies that carried that rate through 2001. So Bush I took office in a landslide, most people thought he would continue Reagan’s policies. They were wrong.  Bush Sr didn’t believe in limited Government and the first chance he got, he increased taxation and spending. This caused the employment participation rate to stall out, and even drop down lower than it was at the end of Reagan’s term.  Because Bush I wasn’t a solid conservative he lost to Ross Perot and Clinton.  The first thing Clinton did was raise taxes and threaten to push Hillaxare.
economic revival.  This helped push the employment participation rate back to where it was in the 80’s under Reagan.
 
Bush II won over Gore by a thread, and the natural cycle of Capitalism and terrorism took it’s toll on the economy.  Bush started out his policies as a progressive and trying direct stimulus payments.  He then tried tax cuts (but not as big as Reagan’s).  This helped stop the economy from sliding further, but did not grow it to Reagan’s 68% participation rate.
  Labor Participation
That downward tail is where it gets fun.  That was another creative destruction bit of capitalism, and having too much money invested in housing.  This was completely a government driven bubble and a government driven collapse.
 
1) The Government under Carter and Clinton pushed the CRA forcing banks to give bad loans.
2) Groups like ACORN (that Obama worked for) sued large banks to make sure they were giving out bad loans.
3) The Federal Reserve entered the era of cheap money, lowering money supply why below it’s market value.  This made it quick money, which attracted people to bad loans.
4) Democrats increased volatility in the job market by threatening to repeal the Bush tax rate and raising the minimum wage.

  (http://www.foxbusiness.com/economy/2013/02/13/higher-minimum-wage-higher-unemployment/)

 Even though the unemployment rate has finally fallen to 7.9% by the end of 2012, the total labor participation has fallen to 63% and has been stuck. This is the end result of Obama’s economic policy.  From ObamaCare, to massive government spending, to increasing the tax burden of the job creators. It all adds up to a labor participation rate, that we last saw in the 70’s. Conclusion? We need to go back to Reagan’s policies, and part of that policy shift is the repeal of ObamaCare. Steps to recovery: 1) Cut spending to 18% of GDP.  Shift the way money is spent, to spend the taxes collected last year, not the taxes forecast for this year. REPEAL the Affordable Care Act! 2) Get rid of the corporate income tax, and get rid of the progressive income tax, shift to a flat sales tax of 10%. 3) Massively gut the Leviathan.  The EPA, the CPSC, the DEA, the ATF, Homeland Security, etc.  All of them need to be shut down, and every regulation they created must be repealed. If we did these 3 things, we’d see businesses start moving back to America, you’d see workers wages INCREASE. (all Labor Force Participation graphs from BLS.gov)

History and the data speaks for itself.  Keynesian marxism doesn't generate prosperity or jobs.  The answer is and always will be capitalism.

Saturday, August 23, 2014

Operating System Shuffle Part Two: Why Linux Still Sucks

First thing you need to do is read Part I;

Second thing I suggest is watching this video, I feel it curently matches my opinion regarding open source, with a few caveats I'll add in with my recent experiences.

History: I've been using linux off and on since 2004.  I gave my Windows XP license to one of my Wive's friends and have run some desktop version of Linux since then, instead of pirating or re-buying a windows license.  For the most part it worked okay, with some exceptions. (the big one up until the last year, with Valve was Gaming)  I tried all the popular, Linux flavors out at the time. I even bought a NVIDIA graphics card, because my ATI Radeon behaved so poorly with open source and proprietary drivers.

Around 3 years ago, I switched my desktop to Windows 7, to give my son better compatibility with his school work. At the time I wrote Part I, I hadn't used Windows 7.  Windows 7 has several GUI improvements over Windows XP, and is by far my favorite version of Windows.  Quickly, my favorite feature is that each application on the task tray, has a recents menu when you right click.  I missed a bunch of stuff from X-windows.  The scroll wheel focus should follow your mouse, instead of staying locked to the window and even worse in Windows, the frame you're focused on.  The scroll wheel in windows, with the default driver is useless.  I also had to install an app to fix the broken Windows 7 Start Menu (yes, it's not as bad as Windows 8, it's not as good as XP either.)  The Vista/7 (and probably the new 9) start menu are ridiculous.  Locking the view to the tiny start menu frame, makes it near impossible to browse a large amount of apps.  They also for some reason, made all the previous hot key shortcuts not work anymore. Finally, I had to modify explorer to support tabbed browsing.  Why in 2014, Microsoft still hasn't patched this in to their file browser, I'll never know.

March of this year, I bought a used laptop that came pre-installed with Windows 8.  I can't stand Windows 8, it's terrible!.  Couple with Microsoft's actions to lock down consumer choice on the Xbox platform, and the Windows 8 platform, I decided to make my laptop a Linux experience.  I started by downloading five versions, which at the time were all about a version back from what I just tried this last week,  The laptop is a HP Pavilion G7 2235dx.



Sabayon: Great concept, and one of the ones I used on my desktop for awhile.  Ran smooth, updated great, just had one problem.  Networking didn't work.  Wired, Wireless, none of it worked after installation.









Fedora 19: Version 19 didn't like the laptop at all.  It seemed to run sluggish with the open source driver, and was hard to install the proprietary driver.

Mepis: Didn't even bother downloading it, as they are still using kernel 2.6 - They also don't support EFI or GPT which I needed.

PC Linux OS: another one I really liked a few years back, because they didn't shy away from proprietary drivers.  Didn't like my laptop at all, wouldn't boot.

Manjaro 0.79 w/ KDE: Ran great, installed it. I even had silverlight installed via pipelight, which allowed me
to watch Netflix on my linux box! This is the linux I ran up until two weeks ago, when the rolling updates (and my own stupidity) killed the box.  It was still bootable, however the video driver was glitchy (which I now know why) and made me want to try other distros anyways.  I tried to install the open source video driver and it borked the system.  Only booted to command line, and I didn't have the CLI tools to connect my wireless network to the Internet.  Before this happened, I downloaded a few ISO, Fedora 20, and Linux Mint 17.  I setup Grub to boot to the ISO, (not realizing at the time, it made the disk locked!)


I liked Fedora better, it felt smoother and faster, even though YUM is notoriously slow (STILL!!). I installed it, and after I installed it, I realized that I screwed up the partition, and only had 20 GB available, because it resized the LVM.

I booted back into the live Fedora environment, and tried to delete the partitions, while Fedora was loaded in RAM.  That, was my big mistake, and ultimately made it so I had to go to my windows computer and burn some Live DVD's to try.

Mageia: Based ultimately on Redhat to; Mandrake to; Mandriva, this distro has a beautiful installer, that is from 1998 and takes four hours to install everything.  It like, SUSE, has tools that take over for your Desktop Environment.  Instead of using the KDE or Cinnamon WiFi tool, they built their own to connect to the system.  The system ran, updated fine, and seemed snappy enough.  the problems came, when I tried to customize it more with proprietary software i run.  Hardly anyone creates these packages for Mageia, and almost immediately I received RPM Hell issues.

Korora 20: (based on Fedora 20, with proprietary software): great OS, if I didn't need proprietary video drivers I would still be running this.  Ultimately, it worked, with very few errors, (which it seems is still a prolific problem with every flavor of Linux).  I uninstalled it, after trying to install the proprietary video driver, and having it lock up.

Linux Mint 17: Similar to my Korora 20 install, since I was running Cinnamon on both.  The plus on this Ubuntu based distro, is the PPA system they use for 3rd party software, and Mint's willingness, like Korora and Manjaro to not punish you for needing proprietary software... However, Mint 17 doesn't work with the latest proprietary ATI driver, and caused it to completely lock up.

Manjaro 0.810 w/ Cinnamon: Just as good as it was originally, with the few minor problems I was having with Cinnamon on every distro.  Manjaro is absolutely fantastic, their AUR incursion gives you a wide breadth of software that isn't even available on all of Ubuntu's PPA.  Manjaro also unlike some of these other distro's that have issues with the latest ATI driver's allows you to lock your kernel.

So why does Linux still suck?

Netflix:  Seriously, why can't I just watch my movies on Linux?  Installing pipelight, for some reason isn't working this time, I'll have to dig into the error codes I'm receiving from AUR.

MTP: It finally works, even in Cinnamon... Except it's ugly.  In every version of Cinnamon, I get a mount error, and then it successfully mounts.  KDE for how bloated it is, provides a much more seamless desktop experience.

Google: What's with the half-assed support of Linux?  Your phone runs on the kernel, how hard is it to port your software to the platform?

The fight against proprietary software.  Seriously, they're worse than atheists.  Proprietary software isn't going away, and Stallman's (and Debian's) insistance that you purchase "open hardware" is just ludicrous.  I largely just completely avoid Distro's that get too preachy and zealotous.  Debian, is a perfect example of that where they reject open source software, like Firefox, because Mozilla's trademark on the image.

Real Microsoft Office Compatibility:  This is Microsoft's fault, but it absolutely sucks.  If I open a word document in Libre Office or Open Office, it mangles it beyond use.  Like proprietary hardware, Microsoft is essentially the office leader.  Drive (Google's web apps) will never replace Word and Excel for the corporate world.

ATI/AMD: This company needs to get it's house in order.  The beta driver doesn't work with the latest Linux kernel available (3.17) it works with 3.13, which is already EOL. (no longer supported for bug/security fixes.  What do you run then?  3.12, which provides LTS support until 2016.  Hopefully by two years, ATI/AMD gets it's act together and releases a proprietary driver that works with the latest software.  Perhaps by that time the Open source driver will be even better.  It's already better than it was the last time I had an ATI card, seven years ago.

Conclusion: There is a lot that sucks in Linux.  There is a lot that sucks in Windows.  Choose the OS that sucks less for you.  With Steam releasing more and more games for Linux, AMD is going to have to make it's driver better.  Nvidia's Linux driver has already gotten better.

The geek inside of me loves Linux despite all the warts.  It's the same reason I flashed multiple ROM's on my Samsung Captivate.  I love the experimentation, and customization!  All of these things are what make Linux so much more fun to use than Windows.

Seriously, By having the choice to choose MATE or Cinnamon over the heavier (and more similar to Windows KDE) I save ~300 MB of RAM with no extra apps running.  that's huge, for performance and power consumption.

Friday, August 22, 2014

5 Ways President Bush Helped Get Obama (and Democrats) Elected

1) Bush's support of the minimum wage increase.

The minimum wage is a socialist policy.  Any time the Government tries to exert force over the market, it's socialism.  The vast majority of business leaders start at the bottom.
(which is made up of individuals), it's exerting tyranny over the people.  Minimum wage controls, do not help disperse poverty, or increase the labor force.  They decrease the labor force, increase poverty, and decrease future business leadership.

Higher minimum wages lead directly to the rise in unemployment. (Fox Business News, source of image)

I have much more to say about the minimum wage, and why it's unnecessary and will do so in a future blog post.  Briefly, it doesn't fix poverty, it displaces labor, it creates grey and black markets for labor. Since the Republicans supported the minimum wage increase then, why don't they know?  Do they hate the poor, like the left proclaims?


Henry J. Kaiser Foundation

2) Bush's policies of Medicare Part D and Various Federal aid programs, that Democrats complain about, but refuse to repeal.

Throughout the 2006 to 2010 election cycle the Democrats complained 1). This includes the Iraq War and Medicare Part D.  Medicare Part D, for all intents and purposes is another 800 pound gorilla of debt.  Like Obamacare, if not cut it will bankrupt America. The Bush administration over eight years added 33% to the national debt (by 2012).

The Democrats don't really want to cut it, they just use it as a wedge issue, to blame Republicans for massive spending. As far as African aid goes, it would be better spent from the private sector.  Most government aid, to every country is wasted money.  It's also the reason those countries don't spend the free money very well.

As well meaning as all of these programs are, they become more and more unsustainable as we go forward.  It doesn't matter which party passes well meaning laws, if we run out of money, we run out of money.


Associated Press

3) Bush's Democracy projects, to try and change the world.

We won the war in Iraq against Saddham Hussein.  After 8 long years, Obama finished the policies (badly, which I'll get to.) declaring that the mission has been accomplished.

But what is the result of that accomplishment?  Thousands of lives lost in Iraq and Afghanistan to bring savages "democracy".  As if Democracy is a sacred goal?  Democracy is tyranny of the majority.  You know what the majority in Iraq wants?

Tyranny of the Caliphate.

news.vice.com
Not Bush's fault you say?  Certainly not completely, Obama left Iraq a vacuum of power.  However, the people of Iraq, by a majority are okay with the Islamic Caliphate of ISIS taking control of Iraq.  If Saddham Hussein was still in control of Iraq, there would be no ISIS.

The people have spoken.  Democracy is a dangerous ideal, our founders despised direct democracies. (That's why we're a Republic) This is again an issue of empathy versus money. We simply can't free every country from their brutal dictator, and like Iraq, many of these people will just choose another brutal dictator.



associated press

Conservatives criticize Obama's stimulus, but not Bush's?  You wonder why the American's don't see the Republicans as an alternative to the Democrats?

The stimulus delayed the recovery in 2003. Greenspan blamed the war, it was Keynesianism that delayed the recovery.  The recovery kicked in to high gear, in late 2004 after the stimulus spending died down. It didn't work for FDR, why would it work now (or then for Bush)?

How can we consistently be against Obama's stimulus, if Bush's was okay?



michellemalkin.com
5) The attack on the freedom to fail (TARP, GM Bailouts, etc)

Michelle Malkin and Reason both, had great write ups on how Bush completely abandoned the free market principles that made this country great to "save" the free market system.  In fact, he set in place policies and government expansion that empowered Obama and his cronies.  The Financial Regulations put in place by Barney Frank, and his equally idiotic compatriot Chris Dodd.  The two buffoons who didn't see a problem with Fannie and Freddie, wrote 2500 pages of regulations for the banking industry.

It's not talked about much, however the Dodd-Frank financial bill is the Obamacare of the financial world.



Clarion Ledger - Marshall Ramsey
It happened, because Bush started the path allowing the Federal Governmetn to control private banking through TARP.  The goal?  Fix a problem caused by Democrats, Government and Obama.

While this may seem very negative of former President Bush, it's brutally honest.  If I had a choice, I'd still vote for Bush over Gore or Kerry in 2004.  Just look at the colossal joke that John Kerry is in our State Department.  Reflection of past mistakes is necessary if we expect to improve.  Bush like Hoover, was a "pre-socializer".  Hoover tried to expand Government to help those suffering from the recession.  He even started the New Deal.  In my opinion, part of being a Constitutional Conservative or Libertarian is being a student of history, and seeing where policies fail, and where they are repeated.  Obama similar to FDR tried massive spending to save the economy. By his own graph, we'd be better off today without the stimulus.  That doesn't even take into account that Obama's BLS has changed the way the U6 is reported.  Labor Force Participation hasn't been at 62.8% since Jimmy Carter.

Remember though, all of the acceptance for Obama's policies came from Bush doing it first.  As childish as it is to point your finger at the other guy, and spout, "HE STARTED IT!", Bush truly did start it.  Ultimately, that's why Romney was a bad choice for competing for that seat.

Romney passed the predecessor to Obamacare.  Ryan accepted stimulus spending for Wisconsin.  If the Republican party doesn't differentiate itself from the Democrat party, why would anyone vote for them?