There is one sentence—usually
spoken only by libertarians—that’s guaranteed to rile liberals and
conservatives alike. That sentence is that there’s virtually no difference
between the two.

Words and actions by President Barack
Obama—and reactions to them—are proving the libertarians correct.

Let’s first consider the
national debt.

In 2006, when President George
W. Bush wanted Congress to raise the debt limit, then-Sen. Obama argued against
the increase. Now, though, as president, Mr. Obama wants Congress to raise the
debt ceiling beyond the soon-to-be-reached limit of $14.3 trillion.

Mr. Bush wanted to borrow more,
so, now, does Mr. Obama.

Is there a difference regarding
military intervention? No, not really. President Bush got the U.S. into
Afghanistan and Iraq and our military is still there under Mr. Obama. We’re
also using Predator drones in Pakistan and this president decided to involve
the U.S. military in an act of war against Libya.

On this there is a difference
between the two administrations. However, as wrong as Mr. Bush was in
committing troops to Iraq, he at least went to the U.S. Congress first. Mr.
Obama did not do that with regard to the Libyan action.

This is the same Barack Obama
who said, as a candidate, that the president has no right to commit U.S.
military forces without Congressional approval unless there is an imminent
threat to the United States.

It was this duplicity that led
Bill Kristol, editor of the Weekly Standard, to call the president a
“born-again neocon.” Mr. Kristol, a nerocon, approves.

To be fair to Democrats, though,
U.S. Reps. Denise Kucinich of Ohio and Charles Rangel of New York have been
critical of the president’s decision. Also, there is at least one other
Democrat who, in private conversation, said she could hear President Bush
justifying the invasion of Iraq while listening to President Obama explain why
he committed to the UN action in Libya.

More similarities include the
base at Guantanamo Bay and military tribunals.

Candidate Obama said he wanted
Gitmo closed, but it’s still going strong and, instead of the justice
department trying accused terrorists, Guantanamo will be the site of a military
trial for Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the alleged master-mind of the 9/11 attacks.
A Los Angeles Times editorial on the subject ran the headline “Obama
administration's anti-terror architecture: Too much like Bush.“

Then there is the matter of drug
laws. Both the current and the former president admitted to using illicit
drugs. They snorted cocaine, but neither was caught or arrested. It’s likely
they’re glad for that fact. Yet, both, Bush before and Obama now, prosecute a
disastrous war on civil liberties by continuing the failed policy of
prohibition. They enforce laws that put people in jail for things they
themselves did.

There is little difference
between the actions of the two men, but there is one. Mr. Obama doesn’t
fracture the English language while tap dancing around the Constitution