Nevada high court orders new trial in $100M Vegas Sands case

A Las Vegas court will hold another trial on whether casino magnate Sheldon Adelson’s company has to pay more than $100 million to a Hong Kong businessman for helping to secure business in Macau.

The Nevada Supreme Court ruled there wasn’t enough evidence to support a jury award for Richard Suen in the 12-year-old case.

Las Vegas Sands Corp. said Monday it welcomes the decision.

Suen contends that meetings he arranged with Chinese officials helped Adelson’s company get approval to build lucrative casinos in Macau. Suen’s lawyer, John O’Malley, declined to comment.

The ruling came Friday after the billionaire’s company appealed. Juries in Clark County District Court found in favor of Suen in 2008 and 2013.

Penalties and interest have added at least $30 million to a $70 million judgment.

Adelson-Owned Las Vegas Review-Journal Endorses Rubio

Sheldon-Adelson-Kingmaker

Adelson-Owned Las Vegas Review-Journal Endorses Rubio | 05 Feb 2016 | The Las Vegas Review-Journal, the largest newspaper in Nevada, has endorsed Sen. Marco Rubio for Republican presidential nomination in editorial. The paper says Rubio “has the ideas and the charisma to bring independents and moderates under the GOP tent.” Note: The Review-Journal was bought by the family of prolific GOP donor Sheldon Adelson late last year.

Rachel Maddow – New clues about mysterious buyer of Nevada’s largest newspaper

Jon Ralston, host of Ralston Live on PBS in Nevada, talks with Rachel Maddow about what clues indicate that Sheldon Adelson is part of the secretive purchase of the Las Vegas Review-Journal, and how Adelson might use Nevada’s largest newspaper to assert political influence.

DID ADELSON BUY THE LAS VEGAS REVIEW-JOURNAL TO EMBARRASS A NEVADA JUDGE?

adelson-newspaper-judge-gonzalez

Was Las Vegas Sands chairman Sheldon Adelson’s recent purchase of the Las Vegas Review-Journal newspaper intended to help the casino mogul dig up dirt on a local judge?

On Friday, the LVRJ printed a lengthy article detailing a strange assignment its reporters were handed six weeks before the delayed announcement/admission that Adelson was the paper’s mystery buyer.

The LVRJ said that in the first week of November, three of its reporters were given marching orders from Gatehouse Media, the newspaper’s corporate management (which continues to manage the paper post-sale). The orders were to “drop everything” and spend the next two weeks monitoring the activity of three Clark County judges.

Judge Elizabeth Gonzalez

The three jurists included District Judge Elizabeth Gonzalez, who is handling the wrongful termination suit brought against Adelson and Las Vegas Sands by former Sands China CEO Steve Jacobs. Gonzalez has made some rulings in that case that favored Jacobs – not to mention fining Sands $250k for monkeying with evidence – and who personally chastised Adelson for not listening to her instructions when the Sands chairman took the stand this spring.

The LVRJ staff said they didn’t understand the point of monitoring the judges. Deputy Editor James Wright wrote a memo noting that Gatehouse had provided nothing in the way of explanation and that the exercise was being conducted over the objection of the paper’s editorial managers. According to Wright: “we’ve simply been told we must do it, and it must start on Tuesday.”

The memo said the journalists were to study how engaged each judge was in their cases, whether they were prepared for court, if they favored one attorney over another, if they appeared over- or under-worked and whether or not they showed up for work on time. The journalists ended up writing 15k words on their subjects, none of which made it into the paper.

But on Nov. 30, Judge Gonzalez was singled out for scorn in an article in the New Britain Herald, a small Connecticut newspaper operated by Central Connecticut Communications, which is owned by Michael Schroeder, who also runs News + Media Capital Group, the company through which Adelson purchased the LVRJ. (Schroeder infamously told the LVRJ staff not to worry about who now owned their paper.)

The New Britain Herald article savaged Gonzalez for her “inconsistent and even contradictory” handling of the Jacobs case as well as another case involving Wynn Resorts chairman (and Adelson BFF) Steve Wynn. The article went on to say her work “undermines the rationale for the creation of such [business] courts in the first place.”

The article is credited to an Edward Clarkin, who appears to be the Keyzer Soze of the Connecticut media community, in that no one seems to have any recollection of him working at the paper or knows his current whereabouts.

Michael Reed, the CEO of Gatehouse Media’s parent company New Media Investment Corp, claimed the judge monitoring was part of a “multistate, multinewsroom” investigation but couldn’t say who came up with the idea or signed off on the plan. Reed also told an LVRJ reporter that the questions he was asking were “trying to create a story where there isn’t one.”

Let Freedom Ring Government is corrupt. So is business in Nevada.

By Brendan Trainor

This article was published on 11.26.15.

Nevada hasn’t had much success in blocking out Fan Duel: http://www.fanduel.com

Regulations are usually created by large commercial interests capturing a regulatory body in order to make it harder for the competition to enter the market and compete (bootleggers) or by ideological nannies who are well-intentioned but counterproductive, which makes it harder for some existing businesses to compete (Baptists). Economist Bruce Yandle created this public choice classification in his book Bootleggers and Baptists.

The Nevada Gaming Commission recently ruled that only Nevada casinos can operate a fantasy sports game in the state, making such popular internet sites as Fan Duel and Draft Kings inaccessible to Nevadans. This was a move by Las Vegas casino magnate Sheldon Adelson and other bootleggers to keep new competition out of the Nevada market.

In 2014, Republican Rep. Jason Chaffetz of Utah and Republican Sen. Lindsay Graham of South Carolina sponsored a bill written by Sheldon Adelson’s lobbyist to redefine the Wire Act of 1961 to prevent online gambling as well as sports betting in Nevada and other states. Graham, a self-described “libertarian with different tactics,” complained that legal wireless internet gambling was undoing his state’s removal of 33,000 video poker machines from within its borders since they were banned in 1999. Graham whined that now anyone with a cell phone could play video poker. To morality-regulating Baptists like Graham, technology is just not fair because it runs rings around the ability of the state to tell people what’s bad for them and use force to keep them from doing it.

Why is internet sports betting banned? Well, why can you gamble against the spread in Verdi but have to drive to Truckee to buy a lottery ticket? The states may be laboratories of democracy but sometimes that just proves democracy sucks for consumer access to new options the ever-creative markets are providing.

Left-wing nannies are rearing their Baptist heads with a new initiative by the Elizabeth Warren/Bernie Sanders wing of the Democratic Party’s favorite new toy, the Consumer Finance Protection Bureau, to destroy the payday lending industry. Payday lenders are more popular than McDonalds. Instead of inquiring into government policy that helped create so many lower middle class folks who need a small loan without having much credit, the focus in good regulatory Baptist fashion is on the sins of the moneylenders, not the needs of the consumers. There are so many payday lenders because consumers need them. Unlike the state, payday lenders don’t get their business at the point of a gun.

There has been a prejudice against lending money with interest for thousands of years. One reason why the Arab Middle East has few large businesses except for oil is because interest is still officially prohibited in most Muslim countries. It was only in the 19th century that economists arrived at the best reason for interest: The moneylender is giving up the use of his money in the present, in the hopes of receiving a larger sum in the future. The borrower receives the immediate use of the money but will repay more later. It’s all a matter of time preferences. Greed, at least in free markets, has little to do with it.

Sen. Rand Paul, R-KY, who understands finances better than most politicians, says interest rates are important because they send signals. High interest rates for a short-term cash loan reflect the higher possibility of default because the borrowers do not earn or possess that much. But they are people who need the immediate cash. If the Warren/Sanders Democrats succeed in strangling the payday loan industry, they will hurt, not help, the most vulnerable among us.

 

SOURCE: https://www.newsreview.com/reno/regulations-hurt-consumers/content?oid=19146357

Did Iran Launch a Massive Cyberattack Against Billionaire CEO Sheldon Adelson’s Las Vegas Casino?

Las Vegas Sands Corp. CEO Sheldon Adelson speaks at the Global Gaming Expo, Wednesday, Oct. 1, 2014, in Las Vegas. (AP Photo/John Locher) The devastating cyberattack on billionaire casino magnate Sheldon Adelson’s Las Vegas Sands earlier this year was perpetrated by Iranian hackers, according to Bloomberg BusinessWeek.

Adelson, a heavy contributor to Republican and Jewish causes, immediately suspected who was behind the attack — which came shortly after Adelson had suggested bombing the Iranian desert as a warning about its nuclear development — but it was kept under wraps until now.
On Feb. 10, computers throughout the casino stopped working, email was down, phones were offline and many hard drives were wiped clean. The situation was quickly spiraling into chaos.

“Hundreds of people were calling IT to tell them their computers weren’t working,” James Pfeiffer, who worked in the casino’s risk-management department at the time, told Bloomberg.

About an hour later, technical experts noticed something unusual about this cyberattack: unlike other companies that had previously been hacked, it didn’t appear as though these intruders wanted cash or credit card card information.

The attack on the casino’s systems seemed personal, but who would launch a personal cyberattack on such a large scale and why would they do it? According to Bloomberg, Adelson suspected almost right away that it wasn’t a single person or group behind this attack. It was a country — Iran.

Just a few months earlier, Adelson spoke at Yeshiva University’s Manhattan campus and discussed Iran and its suspected nuclear weapons program.

A worker rides a bicycle in front of the reactor building of the Bushehr nuclear power plant, just outside the southern city of Bushehr, Iran, October 26, 2010. (AP Photo/Mehr News Agency, Majid Asgaripour, File)
A worker rides a bicycle in front of the reactor building of the Bushehr nuclear power plant, just outside the southern city of Bushehr, Iran, October 26, 2010. (AP Photo/Mehr News Agency, Majid Asgaripour, File)
Regarding the Obama administration’s unsuccessful negotiations, Adelson questioned what exactly the U.S. was trying to achieve. Instead, Adelson said: “What I would say is, ‘Listen. You see that desert out there? I want to show you something.”

Adelson said the U.S. should detonate a bomb in the middle of the Iranian desert for the purpose of sending an important warning: that unless the Iranians destroy their nuclear weapon capabilities, America’s next target would be Tehran.

“You want to be wiped out? Go ahead and take a tough position,” he said.

Adelson, whose net worth is $27.4 billion, is a staunch critic of President Barack Obama’s. In 2012, he donated $100 million to defeat Obama in his reelection bid and elect more Republicans to Congress.

The revelation that Iran might have played a role in the February cybersecurity attack against Sands supports the recent findings of U.S. security firm Cyclance, which suggested the Iranian government has been behind a global cyberattack campaign that has targeted businesses in countries including the United States, China, England, France, Canada, Germany, India and Israel.
Las Vegas Sands did not immediately return TheBlaze’s request for a comment Friday.

(H/T: Bloomberg)

Follow Jon Street (@JonStreet) on Twitter

Las Vegas Casino Tycoon, Zionist Jew boy Sheldon Adelson reiterates disdain for Internet gambling at Global Gaming Expo, or G2E

jewboy

Zi·on·ism

noun \ˈzī-ə-ˌni-zəm\

: political support for the creation and development of aJewish homeland in Israel

Sheldon-Adelson-Kingmaker adelson-israel1

At G2E, Sheldon Adelson reiterates disdain for Internet gambling

Sheldon Adelson continued his crusade against online gaming on Wednesday, passionately opposing its legalization during an appearance at a major gaming industry trade show.

Adelson, CEO of Las Vegas Sands, is arguably the loudest critical voice against legal gambling on the Internet. He made his latest remarks during a keynote discussion on the second full day of the Global Gaming Expo, or G2E.

Saying that “when you’re on the Internet, you cannot know your customer,” Adelson suggested that it’s easy for underage players to gamble online.

He was responding to questions from Roger Gros, the publisher of Global Gaming Business, who pushed back on the casino magnate’s objections. Gros said, “You know your customer better on the Internet than you do in person” in defense of online gaming’s ability to authenticate players’ identities.

But Adelson would hear none of it, especially when it came to the idea that online gaming should be legalized because it already happens.fuck zion jews

“Then why don’t we legalize prostitution? Why don’t we legalize cocaine and heroin?” he asked. “That’s not a good reason, to say that they’re doing it anyway.”

Many audience members applauded in response.

Adelson’s remarks should be unsurprising to those who follow the gaming industry. As several states — including Nevada — have legalized online gambling, Adelson has led the organized opposition. He’s bankrolled the Coalition to Stop Internet Gambling, a nonprofit dedicated to outlawing the business nationwide.

internet gamingAnd he made similar comments about online gaming this year, including to a crowd of UNLV students in May. As he did then, Adelson told the crowd on Wednesday that he fears online gaming will exploit the poor by essentially making gambling too accessible.

“I don’t want those people to get abused because when I look at people like that I see the faces of my parents,” he said, evoking his family’s lower-income background. “I just don’t see that there is any compelling reason to put an electronic casino in 318 million hands.”

Earlier in his wide-ranging conversation with Gros, Adelson spoke of his company’s success in China, where he’s helped transform Macau into an international gambling hub.

Republican Billionaire Sheldon Adelson jewBack before Macau rose to such prominence and its Cotai Strip was nonexistent, Adelson said he had a vision of making the region “Asia’s Las Vegas.” Now the area is home to Adelson’s Venetian Macau, the Wynn Macau, the MGM Macau and dozens of other casinos.

Despite declines in gambling revenue there in recent months, he made it clear that he hasn’t given up on that dream.

“Everything that I’ve seen happen in the last 13 years when I first was exposed to Macau is cyclical — it comes and goes,” Adelson said. “It’s like gambling: You start off at a baseline, sometimes you’re up, sometimes you’re down.”

Source: http://vegasinc.com/business/gaming/2014/oct/01/sheldon-adelson-reiterates-disdain-internet-gambli/?_ga=1.226140954.1881978562.1412279078

| We are against zionism not judaism because it’s RACIST!

3 Votes
Murky Anti-Semitism (Zionist Style) – An Analysis (25 August 2011) ~ Lawrence  Davidson 

Part I – Stretching the Definition of Anti-Semitism

Can criticism of Israel, particularly a) criticism of Israel’s treatment of the Palestinian people and b) criticism of the state ideology of Zionism that justifies that treatment, be labeled anti-Semitic? This is not a hypothetical query. An affirmative answer to this question is being advocated by influential Zionist lobbies in the United States. The question is of particular importance on the nation’s college and university campuses. In places like the University of California at Berkeley and Santa Cruz, and also at Rutgers University in New Jersey, Zionist students are now threatening to sue these institutions for failing to prevent an “atmosphere of anti-Semitic bigotry” allegedly created by the presence of pro-Palestinian student groups and faculty.

One might ask if it isn’t a stretch to assert that protesting Israeli and Zionist behavior is the same as anti-Semitism? Common sense certainly tells us this is so. Unfortunately, we are not dealing with situations that are ruled by common sense. What we are facing here is the issue of ideologues bred to a specific perceptual paradigm and their insistence that others conform to it.

Here is an example: Take an American kid from a self-conscious Jewish home. This kid does not represent all American Jewish youth, but does typify say 20% of them. He or she is taught about the religion and also taught about recent history and the near annihilation of the Jews of Europe. He or she is sent to Hebrew school, and maybe a yeshiva school as well. Most of our hypothetical student’s friends will be Jewish and of similar background. Between home, friends and school the student might well find him or herself in something of a closed universe. Throughout this educational process Judaism and its fate in the modern world is connected with Israel and its survival. The Arabs, and particularly the Palestinians, are transformed into latter day Nazis. In addition, Israel’s state ideology of Zionism becomes assimilated into the credos of the religion. Soon our hypothetical student cannot tell the difference between the two. Then, having come of age, our student goes off to college or university. Now he or she is no longer in a closed world. The result can be culture shock and an uncomfortable feeling that the student is on a campus where vocal and assertive debate about Israel and its behavior sounds like an attack on the Jewish religion. Our student complains to the ZOA, Hillel, AIPAC, or some similar organization and we are off down a road toward censorship and/or litigation. Lawsuits are lodged (particularly if the ZOA is involved), donors swear that they will no longer support the institution, legislators bang on desksat the state capital, and boards of directors want to know what is going on and what the institution’s president is going to do about it?

Part II – Sweet Reason

There have been a number of efforts to try to use sweet reason to work out some of these problems before they get too explosive. For instance, in 2006 there was concern over the efforts of various pro-Palestinian campus groups to promote an academic boycott of Israel. Is this being anti-Semitic? Should campuses allow this to be advocated? After all those who espouse academic boycott have a good deal of evidence of criminal activities on the part of the Israeli Universities. At that time the American Association of University Professors (AAUP) sought to clarify the issues by arranging a roundtable discussion on academic boycott by those who stood pro and con. This sounded like a good idea.But no, the Zionist side did not like the list of discussants on the pro side and tried to censor the list. The AAUP resisted that move, so the Zionist side pressured the donors subsidizing the proposed roundtable to pull their support. The whole thing collapsed. It seemed the Zionists were not going to discuss the topic except on their own terms.

Just recently there has been similar attempt at sweet reason. A heated debate is now taking place over whether Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (which bars federal funds from institutions that discriminate) can be applied to schools that allow criticism of Israel which the Zionists claim is anti-Semitic. If so, those same Zionists, whose influence is strong in Congress, can use Title VI as a club to threaten colleges and universities with the loss of financial support unless they shut down the criticism. This, of course, equates to censorship and an attack on free speech.

Once more the AAUP, which opposes the use of Title VI in such situations, approached the American Zionists in an effort to find a compromise position. Professor Cary Nelson, head of the AAUP, managed to enter into negotiations with Kenneth Stern, the “anti-Semitism expert” of the American Jewish Committee (AJC). The two of them worked out a common position which, after consultation with others in each organization, was signed and released to the public.What did this document say? For our needs, here are its most important points:

1. Title VI is not an appropriate instrument to use when trying to “protect” Jewish students from “anti-Israel events, statements and speakers.” To use Title VI this way amounts to censorship.

2. Question: How do we know what is going on at a college or university campus is anti-Semitism? Answer: “Six years ago the European monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia (EUMC) created a working definition of anti-Semitism….while clearly stating that criticism of Israel in the main is not anti-Semitic, [it] gives some examples of when anti-Semitism may come into play, such as holding Jews collectively responsible for the acts of the Israeli state, comparing Israeli policy to that of the Nazis, or denying to Jews the right of self-determination (such as by claiming that Zionism is racism). In recent years the U.S. Department of State and the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights have embraced this definition too. It is entirely proper for university administrators, scholars and students to reference the working definition in identifying definite or possible instances of anti-Semitism on campus.”

3. Conclusion: Censorship should be avoided, Title VI should be avoided, but the “working definition” should be used to make judgments as to how best to “wrestle with ideas” while at the same time “combating bigotry.”

This letter was signed by both Cary Nelson as President of the AAUP and Kenneth Stern as the Director of the anti-Semitism and extremism sub-division of the AJC. Released in early August 2011, it took only a few days before it wasrepudiated by the AJC. On 9 August David Harris, President of the American Jewish Committee, “apologized” for the joint declaration, said it was “ill advised” and blamed a breakdown in the AJC’s “system of checks and balances” for the slip up. Kenneth Stern is now on an unscheduled sabbatical and can not be reached for comment.

This is, of course, a replay of the 2006 situation and just goes to show that, it is the hard right ideologues who are in charge on the Zionist side. These people have a worldview that allows for no compromise. Censorship is exactly what they want and Title VI is as good a weapon to wield as any. What could Kenneth Stern possibly have been thinking? There is no room for sweet reason here.

Part III – The AAUP Slips Up

This is not the end of the story. There is something wrong with the fact that the AAUP was so quick to endorse the EUMC working definition of anti-Semitism (a definition, by the way, that Kenneth Stern had a hand in writing). Consider these two statements from the above AAUP-AJC declaration each of which, according to the “working definition,” can be seen as anti-Semitic: 1) “holding Jews collectively responsible for the acts of the Israeli state” and 2) “denying to Jews the right of self-determination (such as by claiming that Zionism is racism).” As we are about to see the first statement has hidden facets to it and the second defies historical reality.

Statement 1:

It is absolutely the case that the Jews should not be held collectively responsible for the actions of Israel. But it should be pointed out that it is just such collective responsibility that Zionists insist upon. Zionist ideology demands that Israel be recognized as representing world Jewry. Zionists expect that, in return, all Jews will identify with and actively support Israel–feel one with the “Jewish state.” They classify those Jews who do not recognize their collective responsibility to Israel as somehow deficient or perhaps “self-hating” Jews. So let us get this straight, if holding Jews collectively responsible for the acts of Israel is anti-Semitic, what does that make the Zionists?

Statement 2:

a. That Jews have some sort of natural right to political self-determination is highly questionable. How about Protestants, Catholics, Hindus, Buddhists, ad infinitum? Just how far do we want to push this claim of political self-determination for religious faiths? Oh, but the Zionists insist that Jews are not just adherents to a particular faith–they are a “people.” Well, for sure that is an opinion. It just doesn’t happen to be the opinion of millions of other Jews who see Judaism as a religion pure and simple. Of course, if the latter are vocal about this they run the risk of being labeled “self-hating.”

b. And who, except of course the Zionists, says that Zionism is a desirable vehicle for the expression of this alleged right of self-determination? Let us face it. Israel and its Zionist ideology were born of the will of a small minority of Jews, almost exclusively from Central and Eastern Europe, most of whom were secularists, and almost all of whom carried within their heads the poisoned perceptions of European imperialist bigotry – an outlook which still characterizes the state they set up. That is why, in practice, Zionism has resulted in a prima facie racist environment in Israel. And now we are told that, according to the “working definition,” pointing out the link between Zionism and racism is an act of anti-Semitism!

Given this close reading of parts of the “working definition,” the AAUP really ought to rethink its apparent support of the document. It is a position that can only give impetus to the very censorship the AAUP dreads.

Part IV – Conclusion

One has come to expect twisted logic from the Zionists. Actually, one can expect this sort of thinking from any band of ideologues. Their blinkered vision, incapable of seeing around the corners of their prejudices, guarantees that most of what comes out of their mouths and their pens is sophistry.

However, what is one to do when folks you count on as rational and careful thinkers, like the leadership of the AAUP, get caught short this way? What is one to do when flawed reasoning and spurious assumptions start to be translated into criteria for government administrative decisions? What can you do when a fifth of the Congress decides to take a break and visit one of the most racist places on the planet and you risk being labeled an anti-Semite for decrying this fact? Well, you have a good laugh, have a good cry, and then go post your assessment of the situation on your website. Then you get a bit drunk. Finally, you repeat ten times “I will never stay silent.”

Adelson slips one spot on the Forbes list

Dirty Harry Reid: Koch brothers are bad, Sheldon Adelson is not bad

WASHINGTON — In Sen. Harry Reid’s view, the Republican billionaire and politically active free-spending Koch brothers are evil. But he’s OK with Republican billionaire and politically active free-spending Las Vegas casino owner Sheldon Adelson.

Reid, the Senate majority leader from Nevada, drew a distinction between the moneyed GOPers during an interview recorded for airing Thursday and Friday. koch bros

“I know Sheldon Adelson. He’s not in this for the money,” Reid said on the “Daily Rundown” when host Chuck Todd asked what makes the Kochs worse than Adelson, or politically active Democratic billionaires George Soros or Tom Steyer.

Adelson spent about $150 million in support of Republican candidates and causes during the 2012 elections. At present he is financing an extensive lobbying campaign in Washington and in various states seeking a ban on gambling over the Internet.

Republican Billionaire Sheldon Adelson jew

Republican Billionaire Sheldon Adelson

Adelson, chairman and chief executive of the Las Vegas Sands Corp., also is a leading and vocal supporter of Israel. He has spent millions on health research and charitable causes in Las Vegas, including more than $25 million on the Adelson Educational Campus.

“He’s in it because he has certain ideological views,” Reid said, referring to Adelson. “Now, Sheldon Adelson’s social views are in keeping with the Democrats. On choice, on all kinds of things. So, Sheldon Adelson don’t pick on him. He’s not in it to make money.”

By contrast, Reid for several months has launched full-throated attacks on Charles and Edward Koch, industrialists whose contributions have propelled Americans For Prosperity, a conservative political organization that spent $122 million in 2012 and has spent more than $30 million on advertising against Democratic Senate candidates so far this year.

Continue reading

Sheldon Adelson says US should drop atomic bomb on Iran

Maybe the Us should drop a bomb on Sheldon Adelson?

NEW YORK – During a panel at Yeshiva University on Tuesday evening, Sheldon Adelson, noted businessman and owner of the newspaper Israel Hayom, suggested that the US should use nuclear weapons on Iran to impose its demands from a position of strength.

Asked by moderator Rabbi Shmuley Boteach whether the US should negotiate with Iran if it were to cease its uranium enrichment program, Adelson retorted, “What are we going to negotiate about?”  Continue reading

Casino Tycoon,Republican Billionaire Sheldon Adelson Adelson New Obama Ally as Jewish Groups Back Syria Strike

Republican Billionaire Sheldon Adelson jewBy Julie Bykowicz & Jonathan D. Salant – Sep 3, 2013 9:00 PM PT

Lobbying on Syria has inspired coalitions of the unlikely, aligning President Barack Obama with Sheldon Adelson, the Republican billionaire who spent about $70 million trying to defeat him last year, in the push for a military response to the use of chemical weapons.

Sept. 4 (Bloomberg) — Ayham Kamel, Middle East analyst at the Eurasia Group, discusses the possible timing and political impact of a U.S. military strike against Syria. He speaks with Guy Johnson on Bloomberg Television’s “The Pulse.” (Source: Bloomberg) Republican Billionaire Sheldon Adelson

President Barack Obama answers questions on Syria at a news conference in Sweden. (Source: Bloomberg)

Opponents of U.S. military intervention in the civil war-torn Middle Eastern country include Occupy Wall Street, which protests against Wall Street profits; Code Pink, an anti-war group; and the Russians.

Interest groups and activists are ratcheting up their advocacy ahead of the Sept. 9 return of Congress to Washington, when lawmakers will take up Obama’s request for authorization of a limited military strike. The request came after U.S. officials concluded that Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad’s regime on Aug. 21 fired chemical weapons into rebel-held areas near Damascus that killed more than 1,400 people, including 400 children.

nuke“For our credibility, we have to do something,” said Morris Amitay, founder of the pro-Israel Washington Political Action Committee.

The president has said a military response is necessary to uphold a longstanding international ban on chemical weapons use and to deter Assad from using them again on his people or such neighbors as Israel and Jordan, two U.S. allies.

The support Obama is getting from pro-Israel groups in the U.S. is important because of their history of political influence. The American Israel Public Affairs Committee and other Jewish groups have long helped secure continued U.S. aid to Israel, mobilizing activists who visit or call lawmakers. The effort is supplemented by several political action committees that donate to candidates depending on their support for Israel.

Political Donations bush-obama-imperialism-racism-genocide-colonialism-712x1024

The pro-Israel community contributed $14.5 million to federal campaigns for the 2012 elections, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. That’s more than the $11.1 million in donations by the defense aerospace industry, one of the biggest and most consistent political contributors.

While most of the Jewish groups’ donations lean Democratic, Adelson alone transformed the 2012 Republican primary when he and his wife used $15 million in private funds to sustain the unsuccessful candidacy of former House Speaker Newt Gingrich and then poured $53 million into groups advancing Republican nominee Mitt Romney. In all, Adelson and his wife donated $93 million to Republican causes in the 2012 campaign, center data shows. Continue reading

Sheldon Adelson’s Sands penalized $47 million over deals involving Chinese facing Mexico drug charges

Sheldon Adelson's Sands penalized US$47m over deals involving Chinese facing Mexico drug charges

Sheldon Adelson’s Sands penalized US$47m over deals involving Chinese facing Mexico drug charges

By Alex Veiga, Associated Press Tuesday, Aug. 27, 2013 | 4:51 p.m. LOS ANGELES — Casino operator Las Vegas Sands Corp. has agreed to pay $47.4 million after failing to report millions of dollars it gained from a gambler linked to drug trafficking. The U.S. Attorney’s Office in Los Angeles said Tuesday that it agreed to end its criminal investigation and will not seek an indictment against the casino operator. The probe found that Chinese-Mexican businessman Zhenli Ye Gon transferred more than $45 million to the Venetian casino between 2006 and 2007. Ye Gon now faces drug-trafficking charges in Mexico. Investigators concluded that Las Vegas Sands failed to comply with a federal law requiring casinos report suspicious financial transactions involving customers. In a statement Tuesday, Las Vegas Sands noted its cooperation with the probe was recognized by the government.