April Fools

“American and coalition forces are in the early stages of military operations to disarm Iraq, to free its people and to defend the world from grave danger…” George W. Bush March 19, 2003 [1]

“Today we are part of a broad coalition. We are answering the calls of a threatened people. And we are acting in the interests of the United States and the world...” Barack Obama March 19, 2011 [2]

April Fools’ is a special day for practical jokes on the gullible.  In America, where American politicians prey on the gullible every day, April Fools’ Day is just like every other day. 

Are there still Americans who believe their vote for Obama-Biden in 2008  made a difference in US foreign policy?

Unconstitutional Wars and “Humanitarian Raids”

When Barack Obama ran for President, he pledged to restore morality to American foreign policy.  He promised to end the war in Iraq, end torture, and close down Guantanamo.  Both Obama and Biden were harsh critics of the unconstitutional invasion of Iraq during the Bush administration. 

On Dec 20, 2007, in response to a Boston Globe survey question about when the president would have constitutional authority to bomb another country without congressional approval, then-candidate for President and constitutional scholar Obama stated:

“The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.”[3]

On “Hardball with Chris Matthews” in 2007, then-candidate for Vice President Joe Biden had this to say about the Bush administration invasion of Iraq (video):

“The President has no Constitutional authority to take this nation to war… unless we’re attacked or unless there is proof we’re about to be attacked.”

On March 18th, 2011, now-President Obama must have changed his mind.  He unilaterally authorized US airstrikes in Libya.  Was there any “actual or imminent threat to the nation”?  Obviously not, as Obama euphemistically described US attacks  as part of a noble-sounding mission to provide “humanitarian assistance” for the people of Libya:

“Now, here is why this matters to us.  Left unchecked, we have every reason to believe that Qaddafi would commit atrocities against his people.  Many thousands could die.  A humanitarian crisis would ensue.  The entire region could be destabilized, endangering many of our allies and partners. ” (4:48 in video)

Past examples of US interventions in Iraq and Afghanistan caused the very things President Obama says he wants to prevent from occurring in Libya:

• Many thousands have died in Iraq and Afghanistan.
• A humanitarian crisis ensued after the US invasion.
• The entire region is destabilized so that the US has moved the fight to Yemen and Pakistan—and now to Libya.

Starting another unconstitutional war by attacking Libya guarantees the same results for Libya.

President Obama says US military support was necessary to prevent protesting Libyans from being murdered by their government, but:

• On February 18th, government shooters slaughtered peaceful protestors in Bahrain.  By March 14th, over 1000 Saudi troops and 500 UAE police entered Bahrain to stifle protests.[4][5]  The US did nothing—the Saudis are US allies. 
• The day before Obama announced US plans to attack Libya to prevent "unspeakable atrocities," security police of Yemen's President Saleh, slaughtered dozens of protesters in Yemen.[6]  The US did not intervene—the Yemen dictatorship helps the US in its “war on terror.”
• Three days after Obama’s announcement, on March 22nd, the Syrian government killed six protesters, dozens more by the end of the week, and at least a dozen more on April 1st by sniper fire.[7] [8]  Syria is not a US ally—John McCain and Joe Lieberman issued a joint statement calling on the Obama administration to threaten Syria.

Restoring US “Moral Stature”

“I will promise you this, that if we have not gotten our troops out by the time I am President, it is the first thing I will do.  I will get out troops home.  We will bring an end to this war.  You can take that to the bank.”  Then-Senator Barack Obama speaking about Iraq war in October 27, 2007 (video)

“I have said repeatedly that I intend to close Guantanamo, and I will follow through on that. I have said repeatedly that America doesn't torture. And I'm gonna make sure that we don't torture.  Those are part and parcel of an effort to regain America's moral stature in the world.”   President-elect Obama November 2008 on 60 minutes (11:10 in video)

After his election, President Obama said he wanted to “regain America’s moral stature in the world.”  Since Obama has been in office, the US government has:

• Maintained US troops in Iraq.
• Kept Guantanamo open.
• Not ended the extraordinary rendition of prisoners.
• Increased troop levels in Afghanistan.  Twelve US soldiers are undergoing court martial for murdering Afghan civilians in 2010 for fun.  Concerned about the effect on “America’s moral stature in the world,” the US spent 100 days in talks with Afghan government officials and Vice President Biden apologized to Afghan President Hamid Karzai.[9]
• Targeted US citizens for assassination.
• Continues drone strikes in Pakistan and Yemen killing thousands—mostly civilians.
• Attacked Libya with cruise missiles to support a rebellion against dictator Qaddafi—another war without congressional approval.  But don’t worry, the UN said it was ok.  Western attacks on Tripoli killed at least 40 civilians.[10]  Among the rebels supported by US attacks are members of al-Qaeda.[11]
• Let NATO lead the strikes in Libya after criticism of airstrikes killing children by the Vatican.[12][13]
• Kept CIA operatives in Libya for weeks despite Obama’s March 18th statement: “The United States is not going to deploy ground troops into Libya.”[14] 

Thus far, the Obama administration has continued the Bush record of killing and murdering civilians, violating the rights of Americans and foreigners, and destabilizing a half dozen countries.  That probably won’t improve the “moral stature” of the US around the world.

Who Is the Fool?

Would voting for McCain for President in 2008 have made any difference?  Not likely: “conservative” Arizona Senators Jon Kyl and John McCain have no problem with unconstitutional wars.  They both criticized the Obama administration for waiting so long to intervene in Libya (McCain video).  According to Kyl:

"I agree with Senator McCain that we lost the opportunity two weeks ago to in effect freeze the situation on the ground after the rebels in Libya had taken over all of the country except just the internal part of Tripoli."[15]

When the US lessened its operations in Libya, McCain, who has never seen an unconstitutional war he didn’t like, criticized Defense Secretary Gates, saying:

"Your timing is exquisite, withdrawing our unique offensive capabilities at this time sends the exact wrong signal both to our coalition partners as well as to the Kadhafi regime, especially to those Libyan officials whom we are trying to compel to break with Kadhafi."

If you’re still gullible enough to believe a vote for an Obama or a McCain makes a difference, the joke is on you all year round, not just on April Fools’ Day.

_____________________________________

[1] “PRESIDENT BUSH'S STATEMENT,” Mar 19, 2003, PBS, (Accessed at http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/middle_east/iraq/bush_3-19.html on April 1, 2011).

[2] “Remarks by the President on Libya," Mar 20, 2011, The White House Blog, (Accessed at http://m.whitehouse.gov/blog/2011/03/20/remarks-president-libya-today-we-are-part-broad-coalition-we-are-answering-calls-thron April 1, 2011).

[3] “Barack Obama's Q&A,” By Charlie Savage, Globe, December 20, 2007, (Accessed at http://www.boston.com/news/politics/2008/specials/CandidateQA/ObamaQA/ on Mar 23, 2011).

[4] “Feb. 18: Updates on Middle East Protests,” By ROBERT MACKEY, Feb 18, 2011, NY Times Blog, (Accessed at http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/02/18/latest-updates-on-middle-east-protests-5/?partner=rss&emc=rss on April 1, 2011).

[5] “Ahmadi-Nejad condemns foreign troops in Bahrain,” By Robin Wigglesworth in Manama and Simeon Kerr in Dubai, Financial Times, Mar 14, 2011 (Accessed at http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/5754805a-4e44-11e0-a9fa-00144feab49a.html#axzz1IPEUE5Gg on April 1, 2011).

[6] “Dozens of Protesters Are Killed in Yemen,” By LAURA KASINOF and ROBERT F. WORTH, NY Times, Mar 18, 2011, (Accessed at http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/19/world/middleeast/19yemen.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=yemen%20and%20protesters%20and%20killed&st=cse on April 1, 2011).

[7] “Deaths as Syrian forces fire on protesters,” Al Jazeera, 26 Mar 2011, (Accessed at http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2011/03/2011325145817688433.html on April 1, 2011).

[8] “At least 12 killed in anti-government rallies in Syria,” April 1, 2011, Deutsche-Presse Agentur, (Accessed at http://www.monstersandcritics.com/news/middleeast/news/article_1630193.php/At-least-12-killed-in-anti-government-rallies-in-Syria on April 1, 2011).

[9] “ US Army Apologizes for Horrific Photos from Afghanistan,” By Matthias Gebauer and Hasnain Kazim, Speigel, Mar 21, 2011, (Accessed at http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,752310,00.html on April 1, 2011).

[10] “At least 40 civilians dead in Tripoli strikes: Vatican official,” Mar 31, 2011, Reuters, (Accessed at http://au.news.yahoo.com/a/-/world/9113812/at-least-40-civilians-dead-in-tripoli-strikes-vatican-official/ on April 1, 2011).

[11] “Libyan rebel commander admits his fighters have al-Qaeda links,”  By Praveen Swami, Nick Squires and Duncan Gardham, 25 Mar 2011, Telegraph,  (Accessed at http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8407047/Libyan-rebel-commander-admits-his-fighters-have-al-Qaeda-links.html on April 1, 2011).

[12] “US to pull out warplanes, missiles from Libya mission,” By Dan De Luce, AFP, April 1, 2011, (Accessed at http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5hJs2nfL5q5ZB2nqbzWqcCX9k0-rw?docId=CNG.3bf4105ffa63410f8b0d2165e00d15f5.721 on April 1, 2011).

[13] “Vatican: Airstrikes killed 40 civilians in Tripoli,” REUTERS, 03/31/2011, (Accessed at http://www.jpost.com/MiddleEast/Article.aspx?id=214560 on April 1, 2011).

[14] “C.I.A. Agents in Libya Aid Airstrikes and Meet Rebels,” By MARK MAZZETTI and ERIC SCHMITT, NY Times, Mar 30, 2011, (Accessed at http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/31/world/africa/31intel.html?nl=todaysheadlines&emc=tha2 on April 1, 2011).

[15] “Arizona Senators complain about Libya action,” Fox11AZ,  (Accessed at http://www.fox11az.com/news/local/Arizona-Senators-complain-about-Libya-action-118442769.html on April 1, 2011).

The Loyal Opposition

"...the term loyal opposition is applied to the opposition parties in the legislature to indicate that the non-governing parties may oppose the actions of the sitting cabinet – typically comprising parliamentarians from the party with the most seats in the elected legislative chamber -- while maintaining loyalty to the source of the government's power." Wikipedia

On January 19, 2010, Senator-elect Scott Brown (R) joined the loyal opposition in Washington, D.C. in a Massachusetts special election, Brown rode a groundswell of opposition to increased federal involvement in health care. He thought differently four years earlier as a Massachusetts state senator with Mitt Romney (R) as governor, when Brown voted for government-controlled health care. The federal law Massachusetts voters elected Brown to oppose in 2010 is modeled after the Massachusetts law Brown voted for in 2006 as a state senator--both require individuals to purchase health insurance.[1] Today the Massachusetts pols Brown left behind are fighting to keep out-of-control health care costs from bankrupting their experiment started four years ago.[2]

“Today, our nation faces a growing budget deficit due to out of control federal spending. I absolutely believe that a balanced federal budget is crucial to a healthy economy, and I remain an active and dedicated member of the fiscally conservative Republican Study Committee (RSC). In a few short years, baby boomers, the most productive generation in the history of the world, will begin to retire. Mandatory spending in the federal budget is on a trajectory to be over 100% of projected revenues. Dramatically slowing the rate of federal spending growth, easing the regulatory and tax burden on productivity in this country, and eliminating government waste are all critical if we are to balance this federal budget monster and return this nation to consistent economic prosperity. I am deeply committed to that endeavor.” Trent Franks Congressional site

Today congressman Trent Franks (R) is a member of the loyal opposition. A stalwart opponent of socialism, and a champion of limited government and fiscal responsibility in 2010, Franks thought differently in 2003 when George W. Bush (R) was President and Rs controlled Congress. On November 22, 2003, congressman Franks supplied one of the last minute votes in the early morning hours to pass then-President Bush's (R) Medicare Modernization Act (Medicare part D (pdf)).[3] As of 2009, Medicare suffers from $89 trillion in unfunded liabilities.

Socialism is Evil When the Other Guys are In Power

“It seems the fall of socialism across the world has taught many of our politicians nothing. It is hard to envision a plan that would hinder health care excellence and damage the doctor/patient relationship more than government run socialized medicine.” Trent Franks campaign site

Franks and fellow Rs vigorously oppose socialized healthcare proposed by Obama (D) and pushed through Congress by Ds, yet ignore the obvious: Medicare is socialist, too. Tea partiers may convince themselves they've paid for Medicare with their taxes, just like Social Security, but they’re both Ponzi schemes and both broke. Rs helped nationalize the mortgage markets when Bush was President, yet now, as the loyal opposition, decry the Obama administration takeover of banks and the auto industry.

Ds aren’t immune to budget hypocrisy. While part of the loyal opposition, in a 2006 floor speech that preceded a Senate vote to extend the debt limit, then-Senator Obama said:

“Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership.”

Obama later joined his D colleagues to vote against raising the debt limit.[4]

After Obama became President, the roles reversed, and Rs assumed the role of the loyal opposition:

• On February 17, 2009, the American Investment and Recovery Act of 2009 (aka the Stimulus bill) passed despite all House Rs and all but three Senate Rs voting against it. In addition to authorizing $787 billion in spending, the bill also raised the debt limit to $12.104 trillion (see page 252 of pdf).
• On December 28, 2009, when the Ds snuck a politically unpopular increase of the debt limit to $12.394 trillion through Congress, no Rs in the House voted for it and only one soon-to-be-retired R in the Senate voted for it.
• On February 12, 2010, Obama signed a bill to increase the federal debt limit to $14.3 trillion. Of the loyal opposition, no R in the House or the Senate voted for the measure.

Yet during the Bush administration, “fiscally conservative” Rs voted to increase the national debt limit seven times from $5.95 to $11.315 trillion. Rs complain that Ds were in control of Congress for five of those increases totaling $3.68 trillion.

Brought to You by Rs and Ds

Today’s limited government loyal opposition Rs were yesterday’s big government supporters. And yesterday’s loyal opposition Ds are today’s big government supporters. They both pretend to fight the growth of government or the loss of freedom, but in the end, the growth of the federal government is both parties’ long term solution to everything. The following are brought to you courtesy of both the party in power and the loyal opposition:

• Undeclared wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, and now Yemen. Article I Section 8 of the Constitution states that Congress shall have the power to declare war, and says nothing about delegating that power to the Executive branch. Both the Bush and Obama administrations support these wars.
• The Patriot Act and its extensions limit the freedoms of law-abiding citizens everywhere by allowing searches of telephone, email, medical, financial, and other records; ignoring Fourth Amendment protections by allowing warrantless searches and roving wiretaps, paying telephone providers for access to trillions of phone records; granting broad powers for the Treasury Department to demand private banking information, and collecting vast amounts of electronic data on virtually every American swept up by insider arrangements and purchases from phone companies, airlines, and other businesses afraid to say no to a government “request.” These bills pass through Congress with little scrutiny.
• A $1.25 trillion program to buy mortgage-backed securities,TARP, and other bailouts so investment bankers get multi-million dollar bonuses. Aren’t you glad to know that hedge fund investors have made billions of dollars because of government bailout of the banks “too big to fail”?[5]
• The Transportation Safety Administration that treats people like cattle at airports.
• The inept Homeland Security Administration.
• The Guantanamo detention center.

Democracy: the Opiate of the Masses

We're taught that in a democracy we can change things by voting. Not if you put your faith in the loyal opposition. The loyal opposition is there to let you pretend you have a voice. If the people get angry enough, the loyal opposition tries to channel and divert their anger. Even now, another member of the loyal opposition, part of the sham campaign to pretend there was a choice in the 2008 Presidential election, Sarah Palin is busily trying to co-opt tea partiers. If that fails, the federal government has the tools to control the "disloyal opposition," and is acquiring more:

• According to this Department of Homeland Security report (pdf), opponents of the Obama administration are racists to be watched.[6] The federal government is creating fusion centers with local authorities to help with the watching. Those in power are afraid of the mob, they alleviate your burden only enough to keep you from revolting.[7][8]
• The Supreme Court ruled January 25, 2009 that police can frisk you on routine traffic stops to protect themselves. Cops won’t abuse this…. Right?
• They also want to track your cell phone.

You can't fight city hall by sending Tweedledee to replace Tweedledum. Make no mistake about it: Rs are the loyal opposition for now. They loyally oppose Ds in power--only because they want to be in control. R or D: there's no difference. They all suffer from the same disease; they think Congress can solve any problem simply by creating a new federal program or agency.

_________________________________________

[1] "Re-examining Massachusetts Health Care Post-election comments from the MSM miss the boat," By Trudy Lieberman, January 22, 2010, (Accessed at http://www.cjr.org/campaign_desk/reexamining_massachusetts_heal.php?page=all on March 29, 2010).

"My own reporting over the past year shows that people in Massachusetts are concerned about affordability. One fifty-four-year-old woman, who lives in a small town south of Boston, told me she is an independent who voted for Brown because he could make a difference in Washington. That difference: stopping the health plan. “I know the plan is all wrong,” she said. What exactly was wrong? It was just like the one in Massachusetts, which makes people buy unaffordable insurance, she explained. “The Connector [the state’s shopping service] wants to determine your affordability. They don’t care if you have past loans or alimony to pay,” she said. Her daughter makes $32,000 working two jobs and can’t afford coverage; she pays the penalty for not having it."

[2] "Deciding Who Will Lead a Health Care Leader," By Kevin Sack, NY Times, March 26, 2010, (Accessed at http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/27/health/policy/27massgov.html?th&emc=th on March 28, 2010).

[3] “Republican Deficit Hypocrisy,” Bruce Bartlett, Forbes magazine, 11.20.09, (Accessed at http://www.forbes.com/2009/11/19/republican-budget-hypocrisy-health-care-opinions-columnists-bruce-bartlett.html on April 1, 2010).

Rs complain about D tactics to pass health care reform, forgetting their history from 2003:

“...when the legislation came up for its final vote on Nov. 22, 2003, it was failing by 216 to 218 when the standard 15-minute time allowed for voting came to an end.

“What followed was one of the most extraordinary events in congressional history. The vote was kept open for almost three hours while the House Republican leadership brought massive pressure to bear on the handful of principled Republicans who had the nerve to put country ahead of party. The leadership even froze the C-SPAN cameras so that no one outside the House chamber could see what was going on.

“Among those congressmen strenuously pressed to change their vote was Nick Smith, R-Mich., who later charged that several members of Congress attempted to virtually bribe him, by promising to ensure that his son got his seat when he retired if he voted for the drug bill. One of those members, House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Texas, was later admonished by the House Ethics Committee for going over the line in his efforts regarding Smith.

“Eventually, the arm-twisting got three Republicans to switch their votes from nay to yea: Ernest Istook of Oklahoma, Butch Otter of Idaho and Trent Franks of Arizona. Three Democrats also switched from nay to yea and two Republicans switched from yea to nay, for a final vote of 220 to 215. In the end, only 25 Republicans voted against the budget-busting drug bill. (All but 16 Democrats voted no.)”

[4] “Senate must raise debt ceiling above $12T,” By Walter Alarkon, 09/07/09, (Accessed at http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/57493-senate-must-raise-debt-ceiling-above-12t on April 1, 2010).

[5] “Pay of Hedge Fund Managers Roared Back Last Year,” By N elson D. Schwartz and Louise Story, NY Times, March 31, 2010, (Accessed at http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/01/business/01hedge.html?th&emc=th on April 1, 2010).

[6] US Department of Homeland Security Assessment "Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment," (Accessed at http://www.wnd.com/images/dhs-rightwing-extremism.pdf on March 28, 2010).

From page 2:

"The economic downturn and the election of the first African American president present unique drivers for rightwing radicalization and recruitment.
— (U//LES) Threats from white supremacist and violent antigovernment groups during 2009 have been largely rhetorical and have not indicated plans to carry out violent acts. Nevertheless, the consequences of a prolonged economic downturn—including real estate foreclosures, unemployment, and an inability to obtain credit—could create a fertile recruiting environment for rightwing extremists and even result in confrontations between such groups and government authorities similar to those in the past.
— (U//LES) Rightwing extremists have capitalized on the election of the first African American president, and are focusing their efforts to recruit new members, mobilize existing supporters, and broaden their scope and appeal
through propaganda, but they have not yet turned to attack planning.

(U//FOUO) The current economic and political climate has some similarities to the 1990s when rightwing extremism experienced a resurgence fueled largely by an economic recession, criticism about the outsourcing of jobs, and the perceived threat to U.S. power and sovereignty by other foreign powers.
— (U//FOUO) During the 1990s, these issues contributed to the growth in the number of domestic rightwing terrorist and extremist groups and an increase in violent acts targeting government facilities, law enforcement officers, banks, and infrastructure sectors.
— (U//FOUO) Growth of these groups subsided in reaction to increased government scrutiny as a result of the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing and disrupted plots, improvements in the economy, and the continued U.S. standing
as the preeminent world power.
(U//FOUO) The possible passage of new restrictions on firearms and the return of military veterans facing significant challenges reintegrating into their communities could lead to the potential emergence of terrorist groups or lone wolf extremists capable of carrying out violent attacks."

[7] "Principal forgiveness program may offer relief for underwater homeowners," Kenneth R. Harney, The Washington Post, March 27, 2010, (Accessed at http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/26/AR2010032604817.html on March 28, 2010).

[8] "A Bold U.S. Plan to Help Struggling Homeowners," By David Streitfeld, NY Times, March 26, 2010, (Accessed at http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/27/business/27modify.html?th=&emc=th&pagewanted=all on March 28, 2010).

Change You Can Believe In

The economy is weak because of inflation and the ever-growing national debt. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan drain money and blood from Americans. As President-elect Barack Obama delivered his election night victory speech, reiterating a campaign message of "change you can believe in," the television showed close-ups of many in an audience filled with true believers in the Eric Hoffer-sense.

What kind of change should we expect?

Both Obama and McCain voted for the October $700 billion bailout of investment bankers. Obama's chief of staff-to-be, Rahm Emanuel, also supported the bailout bill, was on the board of directors for Freddie Mac from 2000-2001, supported the Iraq invasion, and advocates mandatory government service for American youths. Early in his campaign, Obama solicited advice from Franklin Raines of Fannie Mae fame.

Obama's Vice President, Joe Biden, has been in the US Senate for 36 years. He also voted "yea" for the $700 billion bailout for the wealthy.

Obama favors increasing U.S. military forces in Afghanistan; McCain favored the increase of U.S. military forces in Iraq. Both McCain and Obama advocate control of Iranian access to nuclear weapons. Mark Brzezinski was a campaign foreign policy advisor of Barack Obama and is the son of Zbigniew Brzezinski, a founder of the Trilateral Commission and architect of the Carter era policy of funding the mujahadeen of Afghanistan that started the latest blowback mess in America. The foreign policy advisor to John McCain was Mark's brother, Ian Brzezinski.

In their pamphlet, Blueprint for Change, Obama and Biden give more details of the change we can expect:

• On page 9: a $1000 emergency energy rebate to help pay energy bills. This rebate is different from rebates offered by businesses--the US government would take it from oil companies and give it to families.
• On pages 17-21: "shine the light on Federal lobbying and free the Executive branch from special interest influence." Page 21 states that "Obama’s campaign refuses to accept contributions from Washington lobbyists and political action committees" which is casuistry at best.
• On page 25: guarantee affordable health coverage for every American. Guarantees paid for by whom?
• On page 34: help states move to voluntary, universal pre-school. Paid for voluntarily by whom?
• On page 37: "Obama and Biden will reduce oil consumption so that we will eliminate our current imports from the Middle East and Hugo Chavez’s Venezuela within 10 years." Either Obama and Biden use a lot of oil themselves and plan on cutting back, or they are planning on telling others how much oil they can use.
• On page 49: "Obama and Biden will tackle diseases and illnesses that disproportionately affect women." Perhaps only equal opportunity diseases are allowed, or diseases that disproportionately affect men?
• On pages 55-57: increase the minimum wage to $9.50 by 2009 and increase the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC). The EITC is an income redistribution scheme. Politicians who advocate increasing the minimum wage are apparently unaware that it causes unemployment. This would seem to work against the new administration when they strive to "tackle concentrated poverty" as planned on page 57.
• On page 65: end deceptive voting practices. This "establishes harsh penalties for for those who have engaged in voter fraud and provides voters who have been misinformed with accurate and full information so they can vote." I predict that neither Obama or Biden will ever be prosecuted under this proposed legislation.
• On pages 67-69: plans (in Orwellian doublespeak) to keep a residual military force in Iraq and also remove troops by the summer of 2010. "Military experts believe we can safely redeploy combat brigades from Iraq at a pace of 1 to 2 brigades a month that would remove them in 16 months. That would be the summer of 2010 – more than 7 years after the war began." Does this sound similar to the Vietnamization program of the Nixon administration? The repeated use of the word "would" means it isn't a definite withdrawal plan and leaves plenty of wiggle room for the new administration.
  
• On page 71: refocus the military on fighting in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Since the military is fighting in Afghanistan now, this would be an escalation. Moving into Pakistan would be a new front--like Laos or Cambodia in the Vietnam era.
• On page 75: continue foreign aid to Israel. Business as usual?

Was the change from the frying pan into the fire?