“The way to make government responsible is to hold it accountable. And the way to make government accountable is make it transparent so that the American people can know exactly what decisions are being made, how they’re being made, and whether their interests are being well served.

…For a long time now, there’s been too much secrecy in this city…That era is now over. Starting today, every agency and department should know that this administration stands on the side not of those who seek to withhold information but those who seek to make it known.”

–Obama Press Conf (1/21/2009)

Obama from 2 days ago (11/29/2010):

Striking back, the Obama administration branded the WikiLeaks release of more than a quarter-million sensitive files an attack on the United States Monday and raised the prospect of criminal prosecutions in connection with the exposure. The Pentagon detailed new security safeguards, including restraints on small computer flash drives, to make it harder for any one person to copy and reveal so many secrets.

–Anne Gearan, AP

Who knew that when he said “change” he meant himself? All you main street liberals out there, please remember that those Democrat leaders you think are on your side aren’t. They will always side with the state. You don’t have “a guy” in office that represents you. Nobody does.

[H.T. David Kramer at LRC]

Scott Horton – Interview with Lew Rockwell:

In Roe at 37, Daniel McCarthy, of The American Conservative looks at the pro-life movement in the aftermath of the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision and nails one of the main reasons the pro-life cause has gained so little ground since that horrible decision:

“If you want to be politically effective, you will probably have to use a major party — but you have to use it, not let it use you. Unfortunately, the people who have the purest motives, who are most habitually inclined to trust the honorable intentions of others, wind up as fodder for the likes of Scott Brown once they get involved in the bloodletting that is politics.”

And commenter Thomas goes even further and takes the position (with which I agree) that the pro-life cause will continue to make little progress as long as it’s political fortunes are tied to the GOP:

“Publius Cato has a point about the GOP on abortion. I will take this further: if the Republicans DID do anything about abortion, they would lose their #1 political issue in the depressed parts of the South and Midwest where they win by gathering 80% or so of white working class votes which don’t agree with their globalist, oligarchic (and liberal-inegalitarian) economics. They need the abortion issue to persist indefinitely or else they are done.”

While I’m not sure of his demographics, the point is that the GOP is so dependent on the pro-life vote that it can’t afford for the abortion issue to go away. Maybe that’s why there are so few cosponsors for HR 2533 – Sanctity of Life Act of 2009, authored by Ron Paul. Pro life lobby where are you?

–Rowman, Liberty vs. Leviathan

4. Political party differentiation is a myth

There is also an impression that if actual recessions do not come about by themselves, they may be brought about by the expedient of voting one party out and another one in. This idea rests upon certain assumptions that experience has shown to be unsound; the first one being that the power of the ballot is what republican political theory makes it out to be, and that therefore the electorate has an effective choice in the matter. It is a matter of open and notorious fact that nothing like this is true.

Our nominally republican system is actually built on an imperial model, with our professional politicians standing in the place of the praetorian guards; they meet from time to time, decide what can be “got away with,” and how, and who is to do it; and the electorate votes according to their prescriptions. Under these conditions it is easy to provide the appearance of any desired concession of State power, without the reality; our history shows innumerable instances of
very easy dealing with problems in practical politics much more difficult than that. One may remark that in this connexion also the notoriously baseless assumption that party-designations connote principles, and that party-pledges imply performance. Moreover, underlying these assumptions and all others that faith in “political action” contemplates, is the assumption that the interests of the State and the interests of society are, at least theoretically, identical; whereas in theory they are directly opposed, and this opposition invariably declares itself in practice to the precise extent that
circumstances permit.

However, without pursuing these matters further at the moment, it is probably enough to observe here that in the nature of things the exercise of personal government, the control of a huge and growing bureaucracy, and the management of an enormous mass of subsidized voting-power, are as agreeable to one stripe of politician as they are to another. Presumably they interest a Republican or a Progressive as much as they do a Democrat, Communist, Farmer- Labourite, Socialist, or whatever a politician may, for electioneering purposes, see fit to call himself.

One may well be inattentive to their words; their actions, however, mean simply that the recent accretions of State ower are here to stay, and that they are aware of it; and that, such being the case, they are preparing to dispose themselves most advantageously in a contest for their control and management. This is all that “reorganization” of the Republican party means, and all it is meant to mean; and this is, in itself, quite enough to show that any expectation of an essential change of regime through a change of party-administration is illusory. On the contrary, it is clear that whatever party-competition we shall see hereafter will be on the same terms as heretofore. It will be a competition for control and management, and it would naturally issue in still closer centralization, still further extension of the bureaucratic principle, and still larger concessions to subsidized voting-power. This course would be strictly historical, and is furthermore to be expected as lying in the nature of things, as it so obviously does.

–Nock, Our Enemy, The State

I know that was a long excerpt, but I thought it was necessary since he packed so much in. He is getting here, to the heart of what I’ve tried to explain before, but have done such a lousy job of. He’s explaining that the espoused differences between the two parties are actually just different ways to obtain the same end: more state power and less social power. I think where people fall for the trick, is in the creative employment of moral language used by the candidates. So, when Mike Huckabee stands up and says that he thinks Roe vs. Wade should be repealed, it’s not that what he says is “meaningless.” It’s that, he’s just not that concerned with actually doing anything about it.

Political footballs are footballs for a reason. Because they stay in play at all times. If somebody takes all the balls and throws them out of the stadium, you can’t play any more. The main concern of politicians is the management and structuring of their own position within the power structure of centralized control. This is what Nock refers to as “reorganization.” And, after that point is settled, the politician moves on to the accumulation of more control and influence inside their now established realm of influence. The morality, or lack thereof, of a certain political football such as abortion, taxes, social services, etc. is no more meaningful to the politician than what breakfast he will eat.

WASHINGTON—Freshman Republican Sen. Scott Brown (R., Mass.) is to vote with the Democratic majority and support a crucial procedural motion on a $15 billion piece of legislation aimed at spurring job creation, an aide to the senator said Monday.

The move by Mr. Brown to break with most of his party’s members in his first ever vote in the Senate is a significant development.

–WSJ

THE discovery of three American soldiers among the dead in a suicide bombing at the opening of a girls’ school in the northwestern Pakistan town of Dir last week reignited the fears of many Pakistanis that Washington was set on invading their country.

US airstrikes in Pakistan, launched from unmanned drones, are now averaging three a week, triple the number last year. “We’re quietly seeing a geographical shift,” an intelligence officer said.

For the past month drones have pounded the tribal region of North Waziristan in apparent retaliation for the murder of seven CIA officers in Afghanistan by a Jordanian suicide bomber working with the Pakistani Taliban.

Last week America launched its first multiple drone attack, according to Pakistani security officials. Eighteen missiles were fired from eight unmanned aircraft in Dattakhel village, killing 16 people.

The discovery of the dead US soldiers revealed that America’s shadowy war in Pakistan not only involves drones but also small cadres of special operations soldiers.

When are the Democrat rank and file going to wake up and understand that the guys they put in office are just as pro-war as the Republicans. Indeed, of the major wars fought in the 20th century, only one was waged under a Republican president – the first gulf war under Daddy Bush. All the biggies were Democrat-led. Woodrow Wilson(D) got us into WWI, Franklin Roosevelt(D) got us into WWII, Harry Truman(D) nuked Japan and got us into Korea, John F. Kennedy(D) got us into Vietnam and Lyndon Johnson(D) finished the job, with a brief cameo by Richard Nixon(R). As I’ve said time and time again, there is no difference between the two parties when it comes to anything of major importance. And when it comes to America policing the world, there is absolutely no difference between a Republican president and a Democrat one. They both love the thrill of killing in the name of freedom.

On a final note, Pakistan is going just as Iraq did. We’re now seeing things like suicide bombings begin to happen. Isn’t it odd that we didn’t see any suicide bombings before the U.S. began it’s military operations there. Why do we find it odd that people would be willing to give their lives to defend their land? If some other country invaded the U.S. or began secret missions here wouldn’t we do the same?

• Send 40,000 more troops to Afghanistan.
• Continue drone bombings on Pakistan border regions.
• Impose gasoline sanctions on Iran.

I guess that pretty much proves every libertarian’s point that there is no difference between the two parties when it comes to war.  They both love it.  Democrats like to pretend they are anti-war, but when someone who is really anti-war and not just showboating for the camera shows up they get all flustered and the real man comes out in the open.  Take Mr. Bill Moyers for example.  Moyers was a constant critic of the Bush wars, but listen to how flustered he gets when Lew Rockwell won’t take his “America is justified in policing all bad guys” bait:

The most recent imposing of gasoline sanctions on Iran is particularly disturbing. Remember, just like all taxes ultimately flow down to the individual, so do sanctions. All these gas sanctions are going to do is drive gasoline prices through the roof for the average Iranian and therefore solidify their support of ever-more radical regimes. Cutting off the free flow of trade is the most sure fire route to war. Like the saying goes, when goods can’t cross borders armies will. America can’t police the world. It’s not our calling to be an instrument of justice to the whole globe. And when we try, it backfires every time.

Evidently Obama doesn’t remember our oil embargo against Japan that led to our entry into WWII. Or maybe he does. Maybe he’s finding out that absolute power, and specifically the power to wage war comes in pretty handy in politics sometimes.

And, by the way. In the end they will probably stick all the abortion stuff back in there anyway. It’ll only stay out long enough for a vote. Then they’ll amend it right back in.

And, of course that’s exactly what happened:

A House Democratic leader said Monday she’s “confident” controversial language on abortion will be stripped from a final healthcare bill.

Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.), the Democrats’ chief deputy whip in the House, said that she and other pro-abortion rights lawmakers would work to strip the amendment included in the House health bill that bars federal funding from subsidizing abortions.

“I am confident that when it comes back from the conference committee that that language won’t be there,” Wasserman Schultz said during an appearance on MSNBC. “And I think we’re all going to be working very hard, particularly the pro-choice members, to make sure that’s the case.”

–Michael O’Brien, The Hill

So, the language banning funding of abortion is coming out of the bill. Surprise, surprise. But, that’s not what you should be taking away from this whole scenario. If you see how all of this played out and then walk away thinking the Republicans and Blue-dogs got duped then you’ve played right into what they want you to believe. The dirty little secret is that the Republicans want this Obamacare bill just as much as the Democrats. They just need to appear as if they don’t for the purpose of re-election. Don’t believe me? Is that just too much to swallow? Well then, do a little thought experiment with me.

Imagine that Obamacare passes the Senate in a few weeks and it’s as bad as everyone fears it will be. It’s got the public option, mandatory death consultations(death panels), abortion funding, buy mandates, etc., etc. Of course, none of this goes into effect until 2013/2014. That’s always been the case. Now, imagine that because of all this, the Republicans win back control of the House and even the Senate(unlikely) in 2010. Can you convince yourself that they would immediately repeal Obamacare? Can you? No. Of course they won’t. Did they repeal anything Clinton did when they took control in 1994? Nope.

You see, they could have scuttled the entire House vote this past Saturday night by voting “present” instead of a “no.” But they didn’t do that. They used the abortion thing as cover just as much as the blue dogs did:

Rep. John Shadegg (R-Ariz.) said he plans to buck right-to-life groups and his own party and vote “present” on a Democratic amendment that would prevent federal funding for abortions as part of health-care overhaul legislation.

Shadegg is doing so in the face of strong support from groups like National Right to Life and Americans United for Life, which say they will count present votes as not supporting its pro-life agenda. He said this was a “bad call” for pro-life organizations and he vowed not to “give a vote away” to right-to-life groups for what he considers a very flawed process. Shadegg contends that Pelosi is using this amendment to wrangle votes for the overall bill.

“(Nancy) Pelosi is speaker and she’s pro abortion every minute of every hour of every day as speaker,” Shadegg said in an interview with POLITICO Saturday evening. “This is a vote to help her move the bill forward.”

He said he expects at least four or five other Republicans to join along. Sources say Republican Reps. Phil Gingrey (Ariz.), Steve King (Iowa), and Scott Garrett (N.J.) are likely to also vote present.

The Arizonan has been bickering all day via email with his Republican colleagues. He said he feels House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) circumvented his conference by announcing he would support the amendment, brought by Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.), without consensus from GOP lawmakers.

“This is a gut-wrenching issue for a lot of people,” Shadegg said. “But I won’t support Pelosi’s bill, which is not pro-life at all.”

–Jake Sherman, Politico

Shadegg saw it for what it was. Organizations like NRL can’t see beyond their own nose. They should have stayed out of the whole thing. Instead, their lobbying gave cover. And in the end it allowed the very thing to happen that they claim to be opposed to. Regardless, the thing to take away from all this is that – like I’ve said a thousand times – you don’t have anyone in Washington that cares about you. You must understand this. The whole system is built to make you think that you do. But you absolutely do not have a “representative” in D.C. I’m sorry, but that’s just the truth.

President Barack Obama’s landmark health care overhaul moved toward a vote in the House Saturday after anti-abortion lawmakers won a chance to knock out language that would let people who get federal subsidies buy insurance plans that include abortion coverage.

Abortion-rights supporters were outraged at the concession to abortion opponents. Rep. Diana DeGette, D-Colo., said “there is a risk” that some in the Pro-Choice Caucus would vote against the bill as a result.

–Erica Werner, AP

What a load of BS. You just have to laugh at how transparent these people are. There isn’t a single politician in congress that gives a rats butt about whether abortion is in this bill or not. This entire story is a manufactured argument designed to create the appearance of concessions to right-wingers to provide some cover to Democrats from conservative districts(the so-called blue dogs). Let me be clear: everything in this entire story is completely false and made up. For instance:

The abortion agreement was reached at midnight Friday after hours of intense negotiations brokered by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif. Democratic Reps. Bart Stupak of Michigan, Brad Ellsworth of Indiana and other abortion opponents fought for and won an opportunity to insert tougher restrictions into the legislation during debate, despite fervent opposition from pro-choice liberals who are a driving force behind the overall bill.

“We wish to maintain current law, which says no public funding for abortion,” Stupak said.

DeGette called Stupak’s amendment “the biggest restriction on a women’s right to chose that’s been considered on the floor of the House” in her 13 years in office.

–Erica Werner, AP

BS. Every word. The idea that there were a bunch of Democrat politicians in conference battling over the merits of federal funding of abortions is ridiculous. The negotiations were instead about how to use this media story to create the appearance of victory for blue-dog principles(for the purpose of misleading the voters in those districts) in order to bring them on board to vote for the health bill. How stupid they think we are. It’s offensive. But the saddest part is that it will work. Thousands of conservatives will think to themselves, “Awesome! They got abortions removed from the bill.” How naive.

The goal is to takeover healthcare for the benefit of politician’s re-elections. Please don’t get sucked into their game of trying to use a moral issue to pull the wool over your eyes. Nobody in Washington has your best interest in mind at all. Republicans aren’t “right”, and Democrats aren’t “left.” They are all crooked and in it for themselves. They see us as their enemy. So, in that vein they are going to try to make us think one thing while they carry out their real plan. Don’t fall for it.

And, by the way. In the end they will probably stick all the abortion stuff back in there anyway. It’ll only stay out long enough for a vote. Then they’ll amend it right back in.

But rather than consider these common sense proposals, congressional Democrats are insisting we push through a new trillion-dollar government controlled scheme.

Proponents of ObamaCare can’t cite one shred of evidence that giving politicians and Washington bureaucrats more power and control will produce better quality health care or lower costs. In fact, the Congressional Budget Office admitted it has had no time to study exactly how much the bill will increase premiums for average Americans—something it routinely does for health-care legislation that is moving through Congress.

Does anyone believe the billions in new taxes as well as hundreds of pages of new rules and regulations being proposed will lower the cost of health care in America? But not knowing how much this will harm families didn’t stop Congress from advancing one of the most sweeping pieces of legislation our nation has ever seen. That’s scary and irresponsible.

Why aren’t we trying, or even debating, these no-cost solutions that insert choice into the health-care reform equation? Before Congress acts and passes an expensive, untested, new health-care system, the American people need to be heard.

–John Shadegg, WSJ (em. mine)

Why aren’t they trying no-cost solutions? I’m sorry, but that’s just the worst kind of naivety. There is one simple reason that none of what’s going through congress ever makes any financial sense at all. Because sound economic decisions don’t benefit congressmen. Again, Mr. Shadegg:

The solution: Allow American families to purchase health coverage across state lines. According to a study by the University of Minnesota, 12 million more Americans would be able to buy coverage if this simple solution were enacted into law.

–John Shadegg, WSJ (em. mine)

Why doesn’t congress support such an obviously good idea that won’t cost taxpayers a dime? Again, you have to think like a politician on these things. How does crushing state insurance monopolies get more money into Nancy Pelosi’s re-election campaign fund? It doesn’t. How would doing that keep big insurance in the tank for more campaign contributions? It wouldn’t. That’s all that matters. Politicians think of themselves and their gravytrain jobs first. Everything else is subservient to that one goal.

And, if you are of the Rush Limbaugh mindset that all of this is somehow aimed at damaging big corporations then you’re kidding yourself. Sure, the anti-big insurance rhetoric is there from folks like Pelosi and Schumer, but that’s all for show. The truth is that politicians must keep big business on board with them. Exhibit A. is the very same Rep. Shadegg’s disclosure that Pelosi inserted language into the house healthcare bill that grant’s legal immunity to insurance companies to protect them from any legal action in the case of death or injury resulting from decisions made by the company. In other words, you can sue the doctor, but not the insurance company that mandated what the doctor did. Does that sound like hostility to big business to you?

The sooner you come to grips with the fact that everything done in government is a complete fabrication, disguised to throw you off the real scent of what’s going on, the sooner you’ll see that you have no true “representative” in congress. The only ones they represent are themselves.