Hannity colludes with Cheney in an attempt to repair the damage from his assertion last week that Palin was unqualified, not vetted, and a mistake for McCain’s VP. Instead of apologizing, Cheney instead offers (repeatedly) the lame excuse that he was criticizing “process” not Palin.
Photo credit: freddthompson
The Justice Department is investigating whether Las Vegas Sands Corp., owned by high-profile Republican donor Sheldon Adelson, broke federal law by failing to report millions of dollars of potentially laundered money transferred to its casinos by two high-rolling Las Vegas gamblers, according to the Wall Street Journal.
The U.S. attorney’s office in Los Angeles is investigating deposits made in the mid-2000s by a Mexican pharmaceutical businessman, later indicted for drug trafficking in 2007, and a California executive with Fry’s Electronics, who later pleaded guilty to taking illegal kickbacks, the newspaper said, citing lawyers and federal officials working on the case.
The Journal said there were no indications that the investigation included actions by Adelson, Sands’ chief executive and a major political donor for the Republican Party. Adelson has pledged to spend as much as $100 million to help Republican candidates in this election cycle.
Federal investigators have begun focusing on casinos amid concerns that the industry’s lax financial systems could be used for money laundering and other illegal activities, according to Justice Department officials cited by the Journal.
Sands Corp. did not immediately return calls from the Associated Press on Sunday. A company spokesman, Ron Reese, told the Journal that the company believes “it has acted properly and has not committed any wrongdoing.”
Read more from this story HERE.
In the following short clip you will hear a conversation a few folks with OSA had with Ron Virmani, an abortionist from Charlotte, NC on July 26, 2012. The racist overtones of the abortion industry come through loud and clear.
Photo credit: Gage Skidmore
Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus has announced an initial list of seven prominent Republicans who will speak at the party’s national convention in Tampa later this month.
But the list, which includes five current and former governors, a U.S. senator, and a former secretary of state does not include either Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) or his son, Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.). The list will be built out in the coming weeks, but it’s still worth exploring where the Pauls – two figures with intense national followings – fit in at Mitt Romney’s nominating convention. They can’t be ignored entirely, but featuring them too prominently is also a risky proposition for the GOP.
For Republicans, there are both benefits and drawbacks to including either of the Pauls on the list of convention speakers. Generating enthusiasm among a vocal base of activists is an argument in favor of promoting them. Ron Paul attracted strong support at numerous GOP presidential straw polls in 2011 and his loyal legion of fans often travel across the country to back him. Before Romney won the straw poll at this year’s Conservative Political Action Conference in Washington, Paul was the victor there two years in a row.
One could also make a compelling argument to include the younger Paul as a speaker. Rand Paul’s unlikely 2010 Senate campaign victory, which the opthamologist won in the face of establishment opposition, has made him a popular figure in the tea party — and one who is well-positioned to inherit the mantle of his father, who is retiring at the end of the current Congress.
Ron Paul’s supporters, meanwhile, are eager for him to have a visible presence at the convention. Throughout the 2012 primary campaign, the former presidential candidate continued push for delegate support in individual states brought the Texas congressman within range of securing a speaking slot at the convention on his own. He ultimately fell short in Nebraska, where he failed to get the number delegates he needed to guarantee a spot.
Read more from this story HERE.
Based on a study by the Urban Institute, AP writer Stephen Ohlemacher has announced a surprise for couples who started collecting their Social Security last year: They won’t be getting all their money back. In fact, under the assumptions by the think tank, they won’t even come close.
Ohlemacher said that a couple who retired after both spouses earned average wages (each earning $43,500 annually) and paid Social Security taxes of nearly $600,000 over their working years, will receive only $556,000 in benefits if they live out their normal life expectancies. That’s a shortfall of $42,000. And if they happen to die sooner, the difference will be larger.
But buried in the Urban Institute’s study is this basic assumption: that the retiring couple could have earned two percent after inflation on those taxes if they had saved the money outside of Social Security. Despite the poor returns on investments over the last decade, real returns on capital over the past 40 years have approached six percent a year, which puts today’s value of their $600,000 paid in taxes at well over $1 million. Put another way: The couple who retired last year is enjoying a much lower standard of living than they would have if they hadn’t been forced to pay into Social Security.
And this is just as it was designed: Social Security is a wealth transfer system that was flawed from the very beginning.
But initial beneficiaries, such as Ida May Fuller, made out handsomely. Ida May was the first beneficiary of Social Security, receiving her first monthly check in the amount of $22.54, on January 1, 1940. Prior to her retirement she worked as a legal secretary during which time her total contributions to Social Security were $24.75. So she nearly broke even the first month.
Read more from this story HERE.
A Louisiana teachers union is threatening private schools with legal action if they accept money from a new voucher program – and the threat has already forced at least one school to put its participation in the program on hold.
The demand was sent a few weeks ago by law firm representing the Louisiana Association of Educators and several other interests, and it argues the state-approved program is illegal because participating schools would be receiving an unconstitutional payment of public funds.
The two-page letter further states if schools don’t agree, then the law firm has “no alternative” than to take legal action.
“Our clients have directed us to take whatever means necessary to prevent the unconstitutional transfer of public money,” wrote Brian Blackwell, of the firm Blackwell & Associates.
The Louisiana program was initiated by Gov. Bobby Jindal, a Republican, and expands on one started in 2008. The state legislature approved the proposal in April, now making the program essentially open to students in kindergarten through grade 12.
Read more from this story HERE.
Photo credit: An Honorable German
As instruments of war, pilotless aircraft have already become essential. The Washington Post reported last year that more than 50 countries had developed or purchased drones to use in surveillance — and that many of those nations were working to weaponize the aircraft. Deadly missiles fired from drones are among the most effective U.S. weapons against the Taliban and al Qaida.
There has been far too little discussion of the moral calculus involved in using flying robots as tools of assassination. At the very least, the whole thing should leave us uneasy. Collateral damage — the killing of innocents — can be minimized but not eliminated. And even if only “bad” people are killed, this isn’t war as we’ve traditionally understood it. Drone attacks are more like state-sponsored homicide.
But similar complaints were raised when tanks replaced horses on the battlefield, and nothing stopped the mechanization of war. Drones allow governments to achieve military objectives without putting the lives of soldiers, sailors and pilots at risk. Robots do not bleed and do not vote, so they will do much of the fighting for us.
The thing about drones, though, is that the technology required to deploy them is nowhere near as daunting as is needed, say, to develop nuclear weapons. As they become more commonplace in the arsenals of the world, we will surely begin seeing them used by “rogue” nations — or even by nonstate actors such as terrorists and drug smugglers.
If Colombian cartels are able to build dope-smuggling submarines, when will Mexican crime lords begin sending up surveillance drones to identify unpatrolled sectors of the U.S. border? Soon, I reckon, if it’s not already happening.
Read more from this story HERE.
Republican National Committee chair Reince Priebus called Sen. Harry Reid a “dirty liar” this morning on “This Week” for accusing presumptive GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney of not paying taxes.
Reid, the Democratic Senate Majority Leader from Nevada, said in an interview with the Huffington Post last month that, according to a source that called his office, Mitt Romney did not pay taxes for ten years. The accusation was strongly denounced by Romney, who said it was false and that Reid needed to “put up or shut up.” Romney, the former governor of Massachusetts has been under intense pressure by Democrats and even some in the GOP to release more tax returns.
Photo credit: Gage Skidmore
Sen. John McCain, former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, and former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee are among the first speakers named for this month’s Republican National Convention in Tampa.
The list, which was first reported by the Tampa Bay Times and later confirmed by the Associated Press, also includes four current GOP governors: Florida’s Rick Scott, South Carolina’s Nikki Haley, Ohio’s John Kasich and New Mexico’s Susana Martinez.
The keynote speaker and other headliners will be announced closer to the Aug. 27-30 convention, where Mitt Romney will officially become the party’s 2012 presidential nominee.
“Ours will be a world-class convention, worthy of the next president of the United States, and these speakers — and those that will be announced later — will help make it a truly memorable and momentous event,” RNC chairman Reince Priebus said.
Noticeably missing from Sunday’s list of announced speakers are the most frequently talked about vice presidential contenders, including former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty, Ohio Sen. Rob Portman, Florida Sen. Marco Rubio, Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin and Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal.
Read more from this story HERE.
Photo credit: Jason Hargrove
New regulations are set to take effect in Alaska that will allow transgender drivers to change the sex designation on their drivers’ licenses.
Last year, the American Civil Liberties Union sued the state on behalf of a transgender woman. The lawsuit alleged the woman, identified only as K.L., was denied a driver’s license listing her gender as female unless she provided proof she’d undergone a sex change operation. ACLU went to court to appeal an administrative ruling in the case.
Earlier this year, in March, Superior Court Judge Michael Spann ordered the Division of Motor Vehicles to adopt a new regulation. He did not suggest the form or scope of the regulation but advised DMV to take into consideration the “constitutional implications” that such a regulation might have on the right to privacy and protection of “sensitive personal information.” He allowed 180 days for the state to comply.
ACLU worked with the state in crafting the regulation, which underwent public comment. The regulation will still require proof for the change in sex designation but in the form of a licensed provider certifying he or she has been involved in the person’s case and expects the change in description to be permanent.
Whitney Brewster, director of the Division of Motor Vehicles, said Thursday that hopefully this will be a fairly easy process to follow. The division plans to provide a form that will need to be filled out.
Read more from this story HERE.