The Rich Keep Getting Richer

Is anyone really surprised? Is it any wonder we face the economic crisis currently plaguing us? For decades big business has been gorging--at the expense of the rest of the world. And it is ending the same way it did in 1929. They've made their mammoth profits through speculation. As with all speculative bubbles: they burst. That means the rest of us who getting crumbs for so long, are now getting stuck with the bill. Because when the super rich get in trouble the government comes to their aide. The victims of big business' excesses get nothing but insults, as happened with all those innocent people who took out deceptive subprime loans. Much of the world's economic injustice can be attributed to the gap between the super rich and the great majority of the non-rich. And it is inequality that led the French Revolution, the Communist Revolution, and our own revolution. And it will happen once again in this country. Meanwhile, there will be great hardship:

In a new sign of increasing inequality in the U.S., the richest 1% of Americans in 2006 garnered the highest share of the nation's adjusted gross income for two decades, and possibly the highest since 1929, according to Internal Revenue Service data.

Meanwhile, the average tax rate of the wealthiest 1% fell to its lowest level in at least 18 years. The group's share of the tax burden has risen, though not as quickly as its share of income.

[...]The figures about the relative income and tax rates of the wealthiest Americans come as the presumptive presidential candidates are in a debate about taxes. Congress and the next president will have to decide whether to extend several Bush-era tax cuts, including the 2003 reduction in tax rates on capital gains and dividends. Experts said those tax cuts in particular are playing a major role in falling tax rates for the very wealthy.

[...]According to the figures, the richest 1% reported 22% of the nation's total adjusted gross income in 2006. That is up from 21.2% a year earlier, and is the highest in the 19 years that the IRS has kept strictly comparable figures. The 1988 level was 15.2%. Earlier IRS data show the last year the share of income belonging to the top 1% was at such a high level as it was in 2006 was in 1929, but changes in measuring income make a precise comparison difficult.

Mideast Sees More of the Same if Obama Is Elected

Obama has proven that he is in the back pocket of the Israeli lobby. This means nothing will be done to solve the number 1 issue confronting the Middle East: the Palestinian, Israel conflict. No politician can be elected to the presidency and advocate and even hand foreign policy in the region.

For what feels like forever, Israelis and their Arab neighbors have been hopelessly deadlocked on how to resolve the Palestinian crisis. But there is one point they may now agree on: If elected president, Senator Barack Obama will not fundamentally recalibrate America’s relationship with Israel, or the Arab world.

From the religious center of Jerusalem to the rolling hills of Amman to the crowded streets of Cairo, dozens of interviews revealed a similar sentiment: the United States will ultimately support Israel over the Palestinians, no matter who the president is. That presumption promoted a degree of relief in Israel and resignation here in Jordan and in Israel’s other Arab neighbors.

“What we know is American presidents all support Israel,” said Muhammad Ibrahim, 23, a university student who works part time selling watermelons on the street in the southern part of this city. “It is hopeless. This one is like the other one. They are all the same. Nothing will change. Don’t expect change.”

Across the border, in Israel, Moshe Cohen could not have agreed more. “Jews there have influence,” Mr. Cohen said, as he sold lottery tickets along Jaffa Road in Jerusalem. “He’ll have to be good to Israel. If not, he won’t be re-elected to a second term.”

Mr. Obama, who will be here on Tuesday, has promised change. He has offered to begin dialogue where the current president has refused, in places like Syria and Iran. But when he stepped into the Middle East, he walked into a region where public expectations were long ago set. The Bush years have supercharged those sentiments, especially in the Arab world, where there is little faith that the United States can ever again serve as a fair broker between the sides.

In Israel, Mr. Bush was seen as the most supportive American president yet, and early opinion polls show a preference there for the presumptive Republican nominee, Senator John McCain.

But Mr. Obama gained ground — or lost it, depending on which side was reacting — when he spoke in June to a pro-Israel lobby, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee. He said that Jerusalem “will remain the capital of Israel, and it must remain undivided.”

He later qualified his comments, saying he meant that the two sides of Jerusalem should not be separated by walls or barbed wire. But the message had already been sent.

“The Arabs need America to be straight and unbiased, but anyway we feel, that American policy will not be changed too much,” said a Palestinian who identified himself by his nickname, Abu Fadi, a salesman in an electrical appliance store in downtown Arab East Jerusalem.

Behind this general agreement, there is a fundamental difference. In the Arab streets, there is a hope, perhaps limited, that this candidate might be different. He is black, his father was Muslim and his middle name is Hussein, so there is hope that he will be more sympathetic, though that hope is not joined to any expectation.

When the Lobby says jump the politicians ask, "how high?" That means he will not meet Hamas eventhough no peace can come without involvement of that group.

Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama will visit the West Bank next week as part of a swing through the Middle East, a Palestinian official said Monday, giving an important diplomatic boost to the Palestinians at a sensitive time in peace talks.

The Palestinians expressed satisfaction over the planned meeting with the presumed Democratic nominee, which comes months after Obama's likely Republican opponent, John McCain, passed on meeting with the Palestinians during a brief visit to Israel.

Obama is scheduled to meet Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas during his July 23 stop in Ramallah, said Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat, who was in Paris for a Mediterranean summit.

[...]In a recent speech to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, he offered such ardent support for Israel that he had to backtrack just a few days later. Obama, working to woo Jewish voters, told the lobbying group that he supported Israel retaining control of an "undivided" Jerusalem. The comment so infuriated many Arab leaders that he was forced to issue a clarification that he didn't oppose Israeli-Palestinian negotiations over the future of the city.

Wachovia Has Record $8.9 Billion Loss

Erin Burnett called the situation with the banks "grim" this morning. I continue to argue that the banking situation will continue to worsen. Who knows how many banks are in trouble. Will the government bail them all out? Can it? Who's going to bail out the government? Will it be too late to do something when we do learn the answers?

Wachovia Corp., the U.S. bank that hired Treasury Undersecretary Robert Steel as chief executive officer two weeks ago, reported a record quarterly loss of $8.9 billion and slashed the dividend. The stock fell as much as 12 percent in early New York trading.

The second-quarter loss of $4.20 a share compared with net income of $2.3 billion, or $1.23, a year earlier, the Charlotte, North Carolina-based company said today in a statement. The loss included a $6.1 billion charge tied to declining asset values.

The writedown and second dividend reduction in three months reflect Steel's response to setbacks including the Golden West Financial Corp. acquisition in 2006, which cost former CEO Kennedy Thompson his job after eight years. Wachovia has dropped more than 75 percent in New York Stock Exchange composite trading since it spent $24 billion two years ago to buy Golden West just as house prices were peaking.

It's gotten so bad that even when banks report losses Wall St. takes that as a positive news:

Bank of America Corp. has become the latest in a string of big banks whose second-quarter earnings, while hurting from the impact of the credit crisis, still managed to beat Wall Street expectations.

The nation's second-largest bank by assets said yesterday that its profit fell 41 percent as losses in its struggling mortgage operations were offset by business in other parts of the company. But it easily beat Wall Street estimates, and its stock rose $1.07, or 3.9 percent, to $28.56 in afternoon trading.

Four of the nation's five biggest banks have now reported better-than-estimated results. JPMorgan Chase & Co. and Wells Fargo & Co. reported smaller-than-expected profit declines, and Citigroup Inc. had a milder-than-expected $2.5 billion loss.

Maybe we should listen to Henry Paulson. Let's put our trust in this administration. They will do the right thing. Haven't done a great job up till this point?

Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson said Sunday that the current economic difficulties will take months to pass but added that turmoil in the banking sector is under control.

"This is a tough time," Paulson said in an interview on CBS's Face the Nation. "We're going to be in a period of slow growth for a while."

But he added that recovery would involve a matter of months rather than years.
Paulson also voiced confidence on government's ability to deal with the recent string of bank failures.

"Our regulators are on top of it. This is a very manageable situation," he said.
He said 2008 has seen only five banks fail, compared with about 250 failures seen in a single year during the height of the savings-and-loan crisis of the late 1980s and early 1990s.

Speaking later on CNN's Late Edition, he added that "99% of the banks with 99% of the assets" were in good shape in terms of capitalization.
"Stability in the capital markets, that's our No. 1 thing," he said

Lieberman, Bayh Debate on FOX: Transcript

This could be a preview of the presidential debate between the two potential VP candidates: Joe Lieberman and Evan Bayh. They appeared on FOX News Sunday. Read the entire transcript.

WALLACE: As we discussed with Admiral Mullen, Iraqi prime minister Maliki seemed over the weekend to endorse Obama's plan for pulling combat troops out of Iraq by mid 2010, within two years. Now he's apparently backed off that.

But, Senator Lieberman, the Iraqis clearly want us out sooner rather than later, and they would like on a timetable. Why is Senator McCain resisting that?

LIEBERMAN: Well, we — Senator McCain and I and others — want us out of Iraq sooner rather than later, but we want us out in a way that does not compromise all the gains that American and Iraqi forces have made in Iraq, which Admiral Mullen spoke to.

And frankly, we want to stay there to a victory because we don't want all those who have served in the American uniform there to have served or in some cases died in vain.

Remember this, Chris. We wouldn't be having this discussion about how to get out unless the surge, which John McCain courageously fought for, taking on the president of his own party, popular opinion, risking his campaign, and which Senator Obama opposed, worked.

So I think that's the good news. I think everybody — that is, Prime Minister Maliki, President Bush, people like John McCain and I — agree the sooner we're out, the better. But it has to be based on conditions on the ground.

Senator Obama doesn't seem to feel that way. It looked like he did a little bit after the primaries were over. But then he, pushed by MoveOn.org and others on the antiwar left of the Democratic Party, is back to a rigid time line. And that's not wise.

WALLACE: Let me talk to Senator Bayh about that.

Admiral Mullen didn't mention Obama, but he did say this idea of a timetable for getting out in two years is dangerous. Why not agree that you're going to make any decisions based on conditions on the ground, Senator?

BAYH: Chris, I think it's important to note that Barack Obama's judgment about these issues has been excellent from the beginning, the kind of judgment you'd want in a commander in chief, and others are now beginning to adopt his positions.

We wouldn't be discussing surges in Iraq or anything else if Barack had had his way. We wouldn't have started that war to begin with.

He was right about Afghanistan. That's the place from which we were attacked. He's been calling for more troops there now for over a year. And John McCain, to his credit, has now come around and adopted Barack's point of view on that.

He has been for, as you say, a phased withdrawal from Iraq. As we heard, Prime Minister Maliki has embraced a more definitive time line, whether it's the 16 months or something else. But clearly, they want a more definitive time line.

And even President Bush now is coming up with a variety of euphemisms — aspirational goals, time horizons. I mean, it's starting to sound pretty much like a timeline to me.

So it's common sense, Chris. Any important enterprise, certainly something as important as a war — you want to have a plan. And a plan has to have some idea of what it's going to cost, what the adverse consequences are going to be and how long it's going to take.

So 16 months seems to be a reasonable goal. Let's work toward that. Let's bring this to a conclusion in a responsible way and focus on Iraq (sic) where the focus should have been all along.

Top McCain Advisor Involved in Lobbying Scandal

This is what John McCain's experience means--ties to lobbbyist. You don't become a powerful political figure in Washington without being up to your neck in sleaze. The image McCain has cultivated over the years as somehow being a political outsider is a hoax.

A top foreign policy adviser to John McCain has lobbied the National Security Council, Congress and the State Department on behalf of Stephen Payne, the Texas businessman and longtime Republican fundraiser caught up in a controversy over whether he sought to sell access to the Bush White House.

According to records on file with Congress, McCain foreign policy adviser Randy Scheunemann lobbied the Senate and House on behalf of Payne's firm, Worldwide Strategic Partners Inc., in 2002.

Scheunemann also lobbied the National Security Council and the State Department regarding energy issues in the Caspian region in 2005 and 2006 on behalf of another Payne firm, Caspian Alliance Inc., according to the records.

The McCain campaign said Scheunemann did not lobby on any specific legislation on behalf of either company, said McCain campaign spokesman Brian Rogers. The fees to Scheunemann's firm amounted to $50,000.

On Monday, McCain's campaign said that from 2002 to 2006, Scheunemann periodically engaged in consulting relationships with the two companies and that Scheunemann was never on the payroll of either firm, but that he was an occasional outside expert consultant.

In regard to Caspian Alliance, Scheunemann arranged several informational meetings for Payne with Department of State and NSC officials following Caspian energy issues, said Rogers.

This isn't the first lobbying scandal involving the Republican nominee:

It seems odd, but for John McCain it was a blessing to have the chance to bury questions about his dealings with lobbyists beneath an alleged sex scandal. The prurient part of the story was easy to deny, and voters are sick of sex scandals.

But even if the sex goes away, the underlying questions raised last week in the story for which the New York Times took such grief are unlikely to disappear. The McCain campaign's sweeping denials may have been a bit too sweeping, and sex, in the end, is not what the story was really about.

The Times got into trouble largely because of the second paragraph of its story Thursday about the relationship between Vicki Iseman, a telecommunications lobbyist, and McCain, when he was chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee.

[...]The same day the Times ran its account, The Post ran a story that stayed away from the "romantic" angle but reported (as the Times also had) that McCain had written two letters to the Federal Communications Commission, urging that it vote on the sale of a Pittsburgh television station to Paxson Communications, one of Iseman's clients.

The Post wrote: "At the time he sent the first letter, McCain had flown on Paxson's corporate jet four times to appear at campaign events and had received $20,000 in campaign donations from Paxson and its law firm. The second letter came on Dec. 10, a day after the company's jet ferried him to a Florida fundraiser that was held aboard a yacht in West Palm Beach."

In denouncing the Times story, McCain's campaign denied that he had met with Lowell "Bud" Paxson, president of the firm. But Paxson later told The Post that he had met with McCain. More telling, Newsweek reported this weekend that McCain himself acknowledged in a 2002 deposition that he had met with Paxson.

CBS' Lara Logan Interviews Barack Obama: Transcript (7-19-08)

Read the complete transcript:

Logan: "And how do you compel Pakistan to act?"

Obama: "Well, you know, I think that the U.S. government provides an awful lot of aid to Pakistan, provides a lot of military support to Pakistan. And to send a clear message to Pakistan that this is important, to them as well as to us, I think that message has not been sent."

Logan: "Under what circumstances would you authorize unilateral U.S. action against targets inside tribal areas?"

Obama: "What I've said is that if we had actionable intelligence against high-value al-Qaeda targets, and the Pakistani government was unwilling to go after those targets, that we should. My hope is that it doesn't come to that - that in fact, the Pakistan government would recognize that if we had Osama bin Laden in our sights that we should fire or we should capture him."

Logan: "Isn't that the case now? I mean, do you really think that if U.S. forces had Osama bin Laden in their sights and the Pakistanis said 'No,' that they wouldn't fire or wouldn't go after him?"

Obama: "I think actually this is current doctrine. There was some dispute when I said this last August. Both the administration and some of my opponents suggested, 'Well, you know, you shouldn't go around saying that.' But I don't think there's any doubt that that should be our policy."

Logan: "But [not going after him] is the current policy."

Obama: "I believe it is the current policy."

Logan: "So there's no change, then?"

Obama: "I don't think there's going to be a change there. I think that in order for us to be successful, it's not going to be enough just to engage in the occasional shot fired. We've got training camps that are growing and multiplying."

Logan: "Would you take out all those training camps?"

Obama: "Well, I think that what we would like to see the Pakistani government take out those training camps."

Logan: "And if they won't?"

Obama: "Well, I think that we've got to work with them so they will."

Logan: "Would you consider unilateral U.S. action?"

Obama: "I will push Pakistan very hard to make sure that we go after those training camps. I think it's absolutely vital to the security interests for both the United States and Pakistan."

Thousands with Criminal Records work Unlicensed Making Loans

It might explain why so many people subprime loans were made. These types of loans were a scam. So it is appropriate that conmen sold them. This article is from Miami Herald:

Gary Kafka, former body builder uith a long rap sheet and violent past, wrote millions of dollars in mortgages in South Florida without ever applying for a state license.

Fresh out of prison after serving time for bank fraud, he never went through a criminal background check before selling loans. He never took a competency exam.

He never had to.

More than half the mortgage professionals registered in Florida -- 120,563 -- entered the industry this decade without being licensed by the state, The Miami Herald found.

Known as loan originators, they perform the same job as mortgage brokers but aren't bound by the same rules.

Time and again, industry leaders asked Florida regulators to bring this group under their watch by imposing mandatory licensing. But regulators refused to press for any changes, claiming that lawmakers would never approve.

The state's refusal proved costly during the biggest housing boom in Florida history: Thousands of loan originators entered the industry with criminal histories, state records show.

While The Miami Herald found breakdowns in the state's licensing system for mortgage brokers, the lack of controls over originators created even more problems for an industry steeped in the highest fraud rate in the nation.

The special group was created by state lawmakers 17 years ago to make it easier for lenders to hire people as the industry was growing.

But in the past eight years, more people with criminal records jumped into the business as loan originators than as any other category of mortgage professionals.

The government/Federal Reserve now realize that the subprime market was dishonest industry and are finally doing something about it. But is it too late?

The federal government has put its foot down: A lender can't give you a subprime mortgage unless you are able to repay it. And that goes for jumbo mortgages, too -- maybe.

You're probably wondering why the government finds it necessary to tell lenders that they shouldn't hand over the money before figuring out whether borrowers can afford the monthly mortgage payments. That seems awfully basic. But for a while, verifying a borrower's ability to pay was out of fashion.

From 2003 until last year, stated-income loans were the big fad because they allowed borrowers to exaggerate their incomes without having to provide tax documents as verification. Now, stated-income loans -- called "liar's loans" -- are rare because they're deemed too risky.

Now, more than a year after stated-income and subprime loans fell out of favor, the Federal Reserve has banned stated-income subprime loans. The new rules go into effect Oct. 1, 2009.

The rules divide mortgages into two categories: "higher-priced" loans and everything else. The "higher-priced" category is the Fed's way of defining subprime mortgages, which generally go to people who have had trouble paying their bills on time.

Some of the new rules apply only to this "higher-priced" category, which the Fed designed as a net to capture subprime loans. But some jumbo mortgages might get caught in it, too.

Under the new rules, you can't get a higher-cost subprime loan unless the lender decides that you can afford the highest scheduled payments during the first seven years of the loan. This means that if you get an adjustable-rate mortgage, you have to be able to afford the payments at the highest possible rate.

The rules ban prepayment penalties for higher-cost loans if the rate can change in the first four years. In any case, prepayment penalties can't last more than two years. And higher-cost loans have to have escrow accounts for property taxes and insurance.

Obama Raises $25 Million in One Day

McCain's goose is cooked. Lets see, McCain is a lousy candidate, has no issues, and lacks pizazz. This combination guarantees victory for Obama in the Fall:

After locking up his party’s presidential nomination, Barack Obama’s fundraising operation came roaring back to life in June, generating more than a million dollars on five days, including a whopping $25 million that came in on the last day of the month.

His one-day haul represents nearly half of his monthly total and more than Republican rival John McCain generated for the entire month. During the month, McCain did not have a single day in which he raised a million dollars.

Overall, Obama raised $54 million for his campaign in June, compared to $22 million for McCain.

In addition to fundraising, the June expenditures offered insight into the different tacks the candidates are taking toward winning the presidency in November.

The two candidates spent about the same amount of money in June — Obama spent $26 million and McCain spent $27 million.

But their priorities were entirely different as Obama began building what his campaign says will be an unprecedented, nationwide ground operation.

Did I mention Obama is looking very presidential with his tour of the Middle East?

Barack Obama — the presumptive Democratic presidential candidate who has made ending the Iraq war a cornerstone of his historic run for office — huddled on Monday with Iraqi officials and coalition military commanders about the status of the grinding, bloody conflict, now in its sixth year.

It is the Illinois senator's second trip to Iraq, after a visit in 2006, and the latest leg of his overseas trip, which began in Kuwait and Afghanistan and will continue on to Jordan, Israel, the West Bank, Germany, France and England.

Obama — who is accompanied by two key Senate colleagues — arrived Monday afternoon in the southern city of Basra, according to U.S. Embassy spokesman Armand Cucciniello.

Obama met with Lt. Gen. Lloyd Austin, commander of Multi-National Corps-Iraq; British Maj. Gen. Barney White Spunner, commander of Multi-National Division South East; and Iraqi Army's 14th Division Commander Maj. General Abdul Aziz.

Obama then traveled to Baghdad, where he was to meet Gen. David Petraeus, the head of U.S. troops in Iraq, U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker and Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki.

Everything seems to be turning in favor of Obama:

Events in Iraq suddenly have taken “a dramatic shift” in favor of Sen. Barack Obama and to the disadvantage of Sen. John McCain, writes David Paul Kuhn of Politico. The big change: “President Bush, who’d been opposed to any timetable for removing American forces from Iraq, reached an agreement with Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki to set a ‘general time horizon’ for a withdrawal,” Kuhn writes.

“Saturday, the shift continued when the German magazine Der Spiegel ran an interview with Maliki in which he called for U.S. troops to withdraw.” Now, Kuhn says, “for the first time in the national security debate, Obama’s advisers believe that McCain has been placed on the defensive, since his reluctance to support a ‘time horizon’ now differs not only with the position of his Democratic opponent, but also those of the White House and the Iraqi prime minister.”

Al Gore on Meet The Press: Transcript (7-20-08)

Read the entire transcript:

MR. BROKAW: I don't think anyone doubts that we have to make some profound changes in this country and make some tough decisions and maybe even suffer some pain, but let's talk about the cost. This is your own group in terms of describing what this may cost. The numbers are from $1 1/2 trillion to $3 trillion as an estimate. Where does that money come from for a new president who is facing a $400 billion deficit, has two wars going on, needs an economic stimulus if it's a Democrat, as Obama has outlined--we have a housing crisis in this country--and probably diminished tax revenues?

VICE PRES. GORE: Well, those, those are not all public funds. That's the total private and public investment, which is comparable to what we would spend over that same period of time if we continued to rely on coal and oil, which is rising so rapidly in price. It's less than the cost of the Iraq war, according to Joe Stiglitz and some other economists, and it is an investment.

MR. BROKAW: We haven't spent that much on the Iraq war, but we've spent a lot of money.

VICE PRES. GORE: Well, if you--well, Joe Stiglitz, a Nobel Prize winner in economics, chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers, estimates the all-in cost of the Iraq war as more than that total. But, but, in any case, when you talk about a large strategic initiative of this kind, whichever direction we take, it's going to cost a lot of money. But, in this case, the investment would be paid back many times over and we could get the equivalent of dollar a gallon gasoline for cars as we switch toward an electric fleet.

MR. BROKAW: What would electricity cost in terms of the transition while it's under way? Most estimates are that it would cost a lot more money, and that would have a devastating effect on Main Street and especially on rural America.

VICE PRES. GORE: Well, I, I don't agree with that, and I think that the devastating effect on Main Street and the rest of the country is coming from the present rising costs for electricity. And the reason why is China and the other emerging economies again are bidding up the price of every lump of coal and every drop of oil, and the new discoveries have been declining, so the estimates are now that these price increases are likely to continue until we stop just taking baby steps and offering gimmicks and, instead, have a strategic initiative.

Now, Tom, among other things, you are the biographer of the, of the greatest generation, and, at the beginning of that period when they rose to that challenge, there were a lot of people who said that couldn't be done. We couldn't make these hundreds of thousands of airplanes, we couldn't mobilize to win that struggle. And yet we did. The only limiting factor here is political will. This climate crisis is threatening our country, threatening all of human civilization. I know that sounds shrill, and I know people don't like to, to hear phrases like that, but it is the reality. We have to awaken to it, and we have to mobilize to confront it.

Is McCain Really Better on Foreign Policy than Obama?

It wasn't Obama who had a colleague whispering into his ear to explain basic facts about the war in Iraq. And Obama didn't refer to a country that hadn't existed in over a decade. McCain is running ads ridiculing the fact that Obama hasn't been in Iraq in years. This at a time when Obama is visiting the Middle East. He also derides Obama's assertion that he won't change fundamental views on the war in Iraq. This implies that McCain has been open minded during his "frequent" trips to Iraq.

Does anyone think that the Arizona Senator has enlightened views of the mess in the Middle East. And when is the last time McCain spoke to the Afghan President Karzai? Does he even know who Karzai is? Do you think that if McCain had visited the Middle East a hundred times that he would be more knowledgeable than he is now? Does the fact that he hasn't visited the region more often explain why the Republican candidate doesn't have a solution for dealing with the resurgent Taliban.

If McCain is the real expert why is it that the government of Iraq endorses Obama's troop withdrawal plan? And why is the Bush White House talking about a timetable for leaving Iraq when they and McCain have denounced it as defeatist in the past? And why do the Europeans support Obama and not McCain? Doesn't this suggest that the Illinois Senator is in a better position to bring peace to this planet?

Do you still think McCain knows more about foreign policy and than Obama?

Is McCain Trying to get Obama Killed?

It's dangerous enough that Barack Obama is visiting the Middle East. But to deliberately reveal when he arrives is a serious matter indeed. In fact, it is a despicable act that should be denounced by all Americans, regardless of party affiliation. This is from Huffington:

Reuters reports that McCain shared details of Obama's trip to Iraq at a fundraiser:

Republican presidential candidate John McCain said on Friday that his Democratic opponent, Barack Obama, is likely to be in Iraq over the weekend.

The Obama campaign has tried to cloak the Illinois senator's trip in some measure of secrecy for security reasons. The White House, State Department and Pentagon do not announce senior officials' visits to Iraq in advance.

"I believe that either today or tomorrow -- and I'm not privy to his schedule -- Sen. Obama will be landing in Iraq with some other senators" who make up a congressional delegation, McCain told a campaign fund-raising luncheon.

FOXNews Analyst: Press Treating Obama like Pope

This is typical FOXnews hysteria. Their pro-Republican bias is so obvious that you have to laugh at their attempts are at any impartiality. Read the entire transcript of Thursday's "Special Report With Brit Hume."

MORT KONDRACKE, EXECUTIVE EDITOR, ROLL CALL: This is being covered as though he were president, that's the thing. Everybody is going there not to cover a political candidate, but, you know, it has all the trappings of a regular presidential visit, an indication-

I mean, there is some news value in that insofar as he's new and all that.

HUME: He is novel candidate in many ways, and in Iraq and Afghanistan, in the case of Afghanistan, he has never been there.

KONDRACKE: Right. There will be great visuals. So there is some appropriateness to it.

However, he has already said that whatever he learns in Iraq and Afghanistan doesn't make any difference. So it can't be really a fact- finding tour, because it's not going to change his mind. Would that it were and that he would learn something there and maybe change his mind.

And, furthermore, he got pushed into this trip to Iraq and Afghanistan by McCain, who, you know, said why don't we go together? Of course, he wasn't going to go together, but now he's going, basically, to fulfill a stature gap that he's got on foreign policy.

There is a poll that indicates that, like 72/48, people think John McCain would make the better Commander in Chief.

CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER, SYNDICATED COLUMNIST: I think that the coverage he's getting is beyond presidential. It's papal. I mean, a president never has all three anchors on the way with him this guy is being treated like—

Maybe the Europeans aren't controlled by the Israel lobby like in the United States:

KRAUTHAMMER: Yes, perhaps. But a candidate, this has never really happened.

And to get the coverage out of these capitals, this is going to be a-if you needed any evidence of how much in the tank the mainstream media were, are, this is it.

In Europe, I think it's going to be a smash hit, not just because he's "Kennedy-esque," you know, young and attractive, elegant and new, not just because he's anti-Bush, which, of course, the European public is, and because he's African-American, but because the way he sees the world is essentially European. That's the way liberals do.

Their understanding of the world is that you want to use diplomacy, soft power, international institutions, and moral persuasion, you know, speak softly and holster your stick. And that's his foreign policy, which is why I think he's compatible with the European perspective. And he will be welcomed. He is going to have a smash success.

His problem is with Israel and Jordan and the Palestinian territories. He doesn't understand the code language of Middle East diplomacy. He made a big mistake in his speech here to AIPAC in which he spoke about an undivided Jerusalem, and then he changed his position.

But it wasn't that he changed it. I think he didn't understand that in speaking that an undivided Jerusalem has a code, a significance. It means a united Jerusalem under Israeli sovereignty, which, of course is no longer our position. So a few days later he was obviously informed, and he appeared to switch.

He has got to be careful. If he does live events in Israel and Ramallah, he has to watch out, because it is all about code language, which he has to learn in about a week or two.

Transcript: Obama on Larry King Live (7-15-08)

Read the entire transcript:

KING: Considering that, though, there's a lot of e-mails going around. It gets rather terrible. A "Newsweek" poll shows that 12 percent of America believes that you're a Muslim and 26 believe -- 26 percent believe you were raised in a Muslim home -- a lot of misinformation.

How do you fight that?

OBAMA: Well, you know, by getting on LARRY KING and telling everybody I'm a Christian and I wasn't raised in a Muslim home and I pledge allegiance to the flag and, you know, all the things that have been reported in these e-mails are completely untrue and have been debunked again and again and again. So, hey, all you can do is just tell the truth and trust in the American people that, over time, they're going to know what the truth is.

One last point I want to -- I do want to make about these e- mails, though. And I think this has an impact on this "New Yorker" cover. You know, this is actually an insult against Muslim-Americans, something that we don't spend a lot of time talking about. And sometimes I've been derelict in pointing that out.

You know, there are wonderful Muslim-Americans all across the country who are doing wonderful things. And for this to be used as sort of an insult or to raise suspicions about me I think is unfortunate. And it's not what America is all about.

KING: All right. Let's turn to Iraq.

Do you go, by the way, with any kind of agenda?

OBAMA: You know, well, my agenda is making sure that we have a strategy to keep America safe and to meet our long-term national security interests. And the speech I gave today, Larry, really tried to describe what I think is the central difference between myself and John McCain.

John McCain, who supported the war from the start, said we'd be greeted as liberators, has really focused on the tactical issues in Iraq. And the surge has no doubt reduced violence. And I think all Americans are thrilled by that.

But what George Bush and John McCain have missed consistently from the start of this process is the broader strategy.

You know, was it a wise thing to go in there and what are the costs and benefits of staying there indefinitely?

We're spending $10 billion a month there. We've spent $200 billion since the surge began. Meanwhile, the situation where -- you know, where the central front against terrorism should be taking place, in Afghanistan, the situation has deteriorated. And we had this brazen attack on a U.S. base where nine servicemen were killed.

And we've got to recognize that perpetuating the strategy that we have in Iraq is costing us elsewhere, not only in Afghanistan, but also investments that we could be making here at home.

Imagine what we could have done with $200 billion invested in clean energy technology and figuring out how we're going to raise -- how we're going to raise fuel efficiency standards on cars. John McCain wants to spend $300 million in a prize to try to figure out the next round of car technologies. And meanwhile, we're spending $200 billion on a surge in Iraq.

It's just not a wise policy. That's why I want to bring this war to a close. But I do want to consult with our commanders on the ground to find out tactically how do we do it in a safe way and how do we make sure that the gains that have been obtained with respect to violence in Iraq are sustained.

[...]KING: We're back with Senator Barack Obama, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee.

Senator McCain said that he will get bin Laden and bring him to justice.

How far would you go? Would you go -- would you go into Pakistan to try to get him if you knew he were there?

OBAMA: Well, as I've said before, Larry, I said this last August. I think it is extraordinary, the failure of this administration, to roll up al Qaeda leadership in a serious way. We know they're based now in Pakistan. And I've said that if we had actionable intelligence on those high-value targets, then we should go after them.

Now, I think that we're -- in order for us to be effective in dealing with the resurgence of al Qaeda and the Taliban as they use Pakistan -- the northwest provinces -- as a sanctuary, we've got to have a stronger relationship with the Pakistani government -- the new Pakistani government.

We had put all our eggs in the Musharraf basket. President Musharraf has lost credibility with his people. And what we need to do is to form an alliance with the Pakistani people, saying that we're willing to significantly increase aid for humanitarian purposes, for schools, for hospitals, for health care. We want to support democratic efforts in Pakistan.

But in exchange, we've got to have some firmness about going after al Qaeda and Taliban, because it's not good for American security, but it's also not good for Pakistani security.

KING: But would you go in? Would you go in to Pakistan, militarily, to get him?

OBAMA: As I've said before, I would use -- if I had actionable intelligence, we would go after bin Laden.

KING: And bring him back here, if possible?

OBAMA: Well, I think that, you know, we want to capture him or kill him. And as I've said -- as I just said this past weekend, if we captured him, then we would want to put him on trial. And I think he would be deserving of the death penalty.

[...]KING: How will you utilize the talents of President Clinton?

OBAMA: Well, as you know, Bill Clinton is one of the smartest people out here and certainly one of the most brilliant political minds we have. He's got extraordinary relationships all across the globe. And so I want him as an adviser and, you know, I would want him to be involved in implementing strategies on a range of issues.

So, you know, he's an enormous resources, as all former presidents are. I mean, I've said this before. I think on the foreign policy front, George Bush, Sr. Has a lot of wisdom to impart. And his foreign policy team, you know, people like Jim Baker and Brent Scowcroft and Colin Powell, are extraordinary thinkers. So I think you want to utilize all the talents out here. And part of what I'm interested in is bringing that tradition of bipartisanship to our foreign policy back to Washington.

Al Gore Wows the Netroots Crowd

Gore is doing more now for America, and the world, as a private citizen than he ever did as a politician.

Former Vice President Al Gore surprised a convention of bloggers here, appearing on stage after Nancy Pelosi, the speaker of the House, held a question-and-answer session that included tough questions on the wiretapping bill.

In response to a question about climate change, Mrs. Pelosi glanced at her Blackberry and said she had an e-mail from a friend on the subject. Mr. Gore’s voice then came over the public address system, producing quizzical looks in the audience of nearly 3,000 people and then gasps, cheers and a standing ovation as he strode on stage from the wings.

Mr. Gore’s arrival was the first electric moment at the conference, the Netroots Nation, a group of progressive bloggers whose major interests — stopping the war in Iraq, saving the planet from global warming and pushing the edge of the envelope of technology — mesh well with Mr. Gore’s current pursuits.

As waves of cheers washed over him across the cavernous convention center, Mr. Gore said to Mrs. Pelosi, “We ought to take that act on the road.” She said, “We are on the road,” and he replied, “Well, I feel right at home here, I’ll tell you.”

McCain Jokes With Conan About Potential VPs Celeb 'Looks'

McCain thinks he's being cool by appearing on all these late night talk shows. It ain't working, dude.

Even New York City traffic couldn’t stop John McCain from appearing on stage for the big event on Friday, "Late Night With Conan O’Brien."

"Normally on Friday we would tape our show at 4:30, but to accommodate Sen. John McCain we agreed to tape the show at 5:30. Sen. McCain wasn't available at 4:30 because that's when he eats dinner," O’Brien joked with the audience at the beginning of the taping.

McCain’s plane arrived later than expected due to congestion in the skies, but with New York’s Lincoln Tunnel shut down and a high-speed police motorcade leading the way, Sen. McCain made it from Newark Airport to the NBC studios in record time.

"You made it in remarkably just in time," O’Brien jabbed sarcastically at the presumptive Republican presidential nominee. "They couldn't tell at home because, you know, because it all gets pulled up in editing, but I shaved twice."

McCain shot back with a smile, "I had dinner and a nap."

[...]Last time McCain appeared on “Late Night” he gave O’Brien his take on the role of a vice president. O’Brien referred back to the appearance quoting McCain. "You said and I quote, ''The vice president only has two duties. One is to break a tie vote in the United States Senate. The other duty is to inquire daily as to the health of the president.'"

Guns Ruling Spawns Legal Challenges by Felons

Thanks to the Supreme Court gun violence will escalate even more. The crime element are the only ones to benefit. Some on the Court didn't read the part about "establishing justice" and ensuring "domestic tranquility." Read the entire article:

Twice convicted of felonies, James Francis Barton Jr. faces charges of violating a federal law barring felons from owning guns after police found seven pistols, three shotguns and five rifles at his home south of Pittsburgh.

As a defense, Barton and several other defendants in federal gun cases argue that last month's Supreme Court ruling allows them to keep loaded handguns at home for self-defense.

"Felons, such as Barton, have the need and the right to protect themselves and their families by keeping firearms in their home," says David Chontos, Barton's court-appointed lawyer.

Chontos and other criminal defense lawyers say the high court's decision means federal laws designed to keep guns out of the hands of people convicted of felonies and crimes of domestic violence are unconstitutional as long as the weapons are needed for self-defense.

Video: U.S. Troops in Retreat in Afghanistan

As Casualties in Iraq decline the number of deaths of Americans in Afghanistan has risen dramatically. And the Bush administration once again has been caught with it's pants down. They are stumped as to how to get more troops into Afghanistan without jeopardizing the war in Iraq. All they can do is blame the Pakistani government--which they should've never trusted in the first place. Now they are talking about entering Pakistan to pursue the insurgents fleeing into that country. Does that sound like the Vietnam War all over to you?

Video: Gore and Pickens Offer an Alternative Energy Policy

Here are two major political and economic figures, on both sides of the political spectrum, whom are united in their belief that we need a national energy strategy. They are putting America and humanity above profit.

Foreign Jihadis Flock To Afghanistan

And we were told that al Qaeda was finished. They've just moved shop back to Afghanistan, where they started. It is true that Bin Laden, Inc. was essentially forced out of Iraq. But now they are back in business in Pakistan/Afghanistan. We've come full circle. The incompetent Bush gang, after overthrowing the Taliban, have allowed them to come back. But now we no longer have the resources to defeat them this time around. The only way we can defeat the Taliban/al Qaeda in Afghanistan is with more troops. And the only way we are going to get more troops is with a draft. Do you want that? Because it is going to happen during the next administration, regardless of who the President is.

Afghanistan has been drawing a fresh influx of jihadi fighters from Turkey, Central Asia, Chechnya and the Middle East, one more sign that al Qaeda is regrouping on what is fast becoming the most active front of the war on terror groups.

More foreigners are infiltrating Afghanistan because of a recruitment drive by al Qaeda as well as a burgeoning insurgency that has made movement easier across the border from Pakistan, U.S. officials, militants and experts say.

For the past two months, Afghanistan has overtaken Iraq in deaths of U.S. and allied troops, and nine American soldiers were killed at a remote base in Kunar province Sunday in the deadliest attack in years.

Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, warned during a visit to Kabul this month about an increase in foreign fighters crossing into Afghanistan from Pakistan, where a new government is trying to negotiate with militants.

A former high-ranking member of the pre-2001-invasion Taliban government, who spoke to CBS News' Sami Yousafzai on condition of anonymity on Monday, said the Taliban was benefiting hugely from a massive influx of foreign fighters.

The former minister, who presently lives in Pakistan, told Yousafzai that the attack on the U.S. troops in Kunar province was made possible by the new techniques and skills brought to the country by outsiders, and he admitted that Afghan Taliban were not previously capable of carrying out such daring attacks.

He called it a "well planed attack, and the start of a new resistance in direct combat with the invaders."

Private Contractors Endanger U.S. Troops in Iraq

It's adding insult to injury. Our troops are being made to fight and die in a pointless war in Iraq while living in substandard conditions that further endangers them. And, of course, the company responsible for the shoddy electrical work comes from Texas.

Inferior electrical work by private contractors on U.S. military bases in Iraq is more widespread than the Pentagon has acknowledged, according to a published report.

A Senate panel investigating the electrocutions of Americans on bases in Iraq was told last week by former KBR Inc. electricians that the contractor used employees with little electrical expertise to supervise subcontractors in Iraq and hired foreigners who couldn’t speak English. The Pentagon has said 13 Americans have been electrocuted in Iraq since September 2003. It has ordered Houston-based KBR to inspect all the facilities it maintains in Iraq for electrical hazards.

The New York Times reported on its Web site Thursday night that many more people have been injured, some seriously, by shocks, according to internal Army documents. A log compiled this year at one building complex in Baghdad disclosed that soldiers complained of receiving electrical shocks in their living quarters almost daily, the paper reported.