GOP Senate Candidate Admits To Owning Stock In Companies That Do Business With Iran

By Igor Volsky on Oct 18, 2012 at 10:06 pm

Wisconsin U.S. Senate candidate Tommy Thompson (R) acknowledged during a debate on Thursday that he recently sold stock in a company that did business with Iran, only after news reports highlighted his interests in the companies. The admission came as the former governor accused challenger Rep. Tammy Baldwin (D-WI) of being soft on the regime and voting against sanctions.

“I was so disturbed after having heard some of your rhetoric around my position on Iran to have read a report just hours before taking this stage that you have tens of thousands of dollars in investments in companies that do business with Iran, including a company that teams up with Iran doing Uranium mining in Africa,” Baldwin said in reaction to Thompson’s attacks. “I find that shocking. And, if you want to be tough on Iran, we have to isolate Iran. We have to make sure that companies don’t do business, to make sure that they are isolated in the world stage.”

Thompson responded by accusing Baldwin of opposing international sanctions and accepting $60,000 from Council for a Livable World — a group that supports “a negotiated solution to Iran’s nuclear program” and opposes military force:

THOMPSON: She also received a $60,000 in campaign funds, $60,000, ladies and gentleman, for a campaign from a company that believes and supports no sanctions in Iran. I heard about this stock…

BALDWIN: Who are you talking about?

THOMPSON: I heard about this stock. Wait a minute, let me finish. Let me finish, you had two minutes, let me finish. You want to interrupt me, Joe Biden, just give me a chance. The other thing is, ladies and gentlemen, is that she is talking about stock. I did not know about the fact that my stockbroker had purchased two shares, two company stocks. I sold it. I sold it today. I found out today and I sold it today. I do not tolerate, I do not agree with anybody doing business with Iran, none whatsoever. And I think you should turn back the $60,000 you got from that company that supports no sanctions for Iran.

Watch it:

Thompson’s personal financial disclosure show that he owns up $50,000 worth of stock in multiple firms that are owned by China and Russia and do business in Iran. As the Huffington Post’s Michael McAuliff reports, Thompson has “up to $1,000 in the China National Offshore Oil Corporation, Gazprom and the China National Petroleum Corporation, which were all cited in a recent Government Accountability Office study as having done business with Iran.” He also “owns up to $17,000 worth of stock in Royal Dutch Shell, which the GAO also named, and between $1,000 and $15,000 worth of stock in oil services firm Schlumberger, which has been probed by the Justice Department over its Iran work.” Finally, Thompson maintained “between $1,000 and $15,000 worth of stock in the mining operation Rio Tinto, which is partners with Iran in mining uranium. Iran owns 15 percent of a uranium mining operation in Namibia with Rio Tinto.”

()

LGBT

Ohio Senate Candidate Would Ban Gays From Serving In The Military

By Igor Volsky on Oct 18, 2012 at 9:23 pm

Josh Mandel

Ohio Republican senate candidate Josh Mandel is one of the few Republicans to still oppose the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, a policy that prohibited gays and lesbians from serving openly in the military. During a debate on Thursday, Mandel said it was not a “good idea” to eliminate the ban and threw his support behind the state’s constitutional amendment outlawing same-sex marriages. Mandel explained that while he opposes equality for LGBT people, he will represent the interests of all Ohioans in Washington:

MANDEL: Well, on the military side, I disagree with [the repeal]. As far as the decision here in state of Ohio, I’m a supporter of marriage between one man and one woman. I believe in traditional marriage. At the same time, I want you to know I will do everything I can to represent every single person in the state of Ohio — all 11 and a half million people. Regardless of their background, regardless of their socioeconomic background, regardless of their race, their religion or any other characteristic…I’m going to be blind to race, religion, any other type of orientation here in the state of Ohio and when I go to Washington.

Watch it:

Since the repeal of DADT, numerous studies have found that the change has had “no negative impact on military readiness, morale, or unit cohesion.”

()

Economy

GOP Rep. Tells Employers To Intimidate Their Workers Into Voting For Romney

By Pat Garofalo on Oct 18, 2012 at 8:08 pm

Rep. Joe Walsh (R-IL)

Recently, several CEOs have issued missives to their workers saying that, if President Obama wins reelection, their jobs might be in danger. One CEO wrote in an email, “The economy doesn’t currently pose a threat to your job. What does threaten your job however, is another 4 years of the same Presidential administration.” Another wrote, “If we fail as a nation to make the right choice on November 6th, and we lose our independence as a company, I don’t want to hear any complaints regarding the fallout that will most likely come…I am asking you to give us one more chance to stay independent by voting in a new President.”

In audio uncovered by In These Times’ Mike Elk, Mitt Romney himself got in on the action, telling a group of business owners, “I hope you make it very clear to your employees what you believe is in the best interest of your enterprise and therefore their job and their future in the upcoming elections.”

And now House Republicans are joining in. In video released by the Chicago Sun-Times, filmed by the CREDO SuperPac, Rep. Joe Walsh (R-IL) instructed business owners to threaten employees with the loss of their jobs or their health insurance if Obama wins:

Spread the word! If you run, own or manage a company, tell your employees! What was the CEO this week that said, if Obama is reelected, I may have to let all of you go next year? If Obama’s reelected, if the Democrats take Congress, I may not be able to cover your health insurance next year. If there’s ever a year where people who run, manage, or own their companies are going to energize their employees, it better be this year. We’re up against it.

Walsh is perhaps best known for his incendiary and over-the-top rhetoric. He screamed at constituents attempting to ask about the role of bank lobbyists in Washington, claimed that Muslims are “trying to kill Americans every week,” and said that his military veteran opponent is not a true hero. (HT: Mike Elk)

()

Health

Virginia Lawmaker Wants To Ban Sex-Selection Abortions In The State

By Amanda Peterson Beadle on Oct 18, 2012 at 6:46 pm

Virginia Del. Bob Marshall (R)

Despite the fact that a similar bill failed in the GOP-dominated House of Representatives, a Virginia state lawmaker said he will propose a bill to ban sex-selection abortions in his state.

State Del. Bob Marshall (R) claimed that his measure is unrelated to the national ban that didn’t make it through Congress. “I don’t want us to become a haven for sex-selective abortion,” Marshall said. “It gets people to thinking that there’s a human being there that we’re not protecting.” But the problem is that Marshall is trying to push a bill to address a non-existent issue. Similar to the ban on sex-selection abortions that Rep. Trent Franks (R-AZ) tried to push, the Virginia bill would do only add additional, unnecessary barriers to abortion care.

And this new law would be on top of the restrictive abortion measures that Virginia already has in place, like the new law requiring women to have an ultrasound before they have an abortion. And just today, Virginia health commissioner Dr. Karen Remley resigned from her position on the state’s Board of Health today, citing Virginia’s restrictive regulations for abortion clinics as her primary reason for stepping down.

()

Justice

ICE Agents Detain Undocumented Immigrants Taking Their Kids To School

By Amanda Peterson Beadle on Oct 18, 2012 at 6:00 pm

Advocates in Detroit are calling for the director of the local Immigration and Customs Enforcement office to resign after immigration officers stopped two undocumented immigrants on Tuesday while they dropped their children off at school. The agents had followed both men, who had children in their cars, from their homes to the children’s schools.

Jorge Hernandez, one of the men, said ICE officials pulled him over in unmarked cars across the street from his 4-year-old daughter’s school, and his son and wife were in the car when he was stopped. “I was very scared,” said Jorge through an interpreter. “My children were saying, ‘Don’t take my dad away.’” Agents released Hernandez after he was questioned. The second man, Hector Orozco Villa, was detained near the elementary school that his two children attend and is still in custody.

The Alliance for Immigrant Rights and Reform said this incident follows an agreement last year from ICE that officials would be more sensitive when enforcing immigration policies. In 2011, half a dozen ICE agents surrounded another school in the same community, trapping immigrant parents inside.

Now, parents in the area are worried again:

The presence of the agents spread alarm among arriving parents and children in the Latino neighborhood, school officials said. More than 100 people rallied on Wednesday to protest, according to a report in The Detroit News, saying the immigration agency had broken an earlier promise to avoid arrests near schools and other community gathering points.

“It is very alarming to me to have this happen during the rush hour of people taking their children to school,” said Rashida Tlaib, a Democratic state representative who attended the rally. “We are really worried about the impact on these United States citizen children.” Several of Mr. Hernandez’s and Mr. Orozco’s children were born in the United States.

The incident revealed the raw sensitivities in some immigrant communities as federal agents carry out the increasingly complex deportation policy of the Obama administration. Agents have been instructed to focus on capturing illegal immigrants who are convicted criminals or repeat immigration violators, and to avoid detaining those who have committed no serious crimes and have strong family ties to the United States.

Immigration officials said the officers’ actions followed agency policies. “After a thorough review of facts, the arrest of a priority target today in the Detroit metro area adhered to, and was in full compliance of, the stated policies and procedures of the agency,” said ICE Spokesman Ross Feinstein, according to the New York Times. Officials said Orozco was arrested because of a 2008 criminal conviction and had returned to the U.S. after being deported — a felony. While ICE reports Hernandez was not a primary target, he had two convictions for driving with an expired license.

There have been a record number of deportations under President Obama, including tens of thousands of parents whose children are U.S. citizens. Last year, the Obama administration announced a case-by-case review of deportations to ensure that lower-priority deportation cases “are being set aside so we can focus more on our more serious cases of convicted criminals and other high priority categories.”

()

Climate Progress

Poll: Growing Majority Of Americans Understand The Earth Is Warming And Humans Are The Cause

By Joe Romm on Oct 18, 2012 at 5:57 pm

George Mason University and Yale’s Project on Climate Change Communication have released more polling results. Here are the highlights (full PDF here):

Americans’ belief in the reality of global warming has increased by 13 percentage points over the past two and a half years, from 57 percent in January 2010 to 70 percent in September 2012. At the same time, the number of Americans who say global warming is not happening has declined nearly by half, from 20 percent in January 2010 to only 12 percent today.

For the first time since 2008, more than half of Americans (54%) believe global warming is caused mostly by human activities, an increase of 8 points since March 2012. Americans who say it is caused mostly by natural changes in the environment have declined to 30 percent (from 37% in March).

A growing number of Americans believe global warming is already harming people both at home and abroad. Four in ten say people around the world are being harmed right now by climate change (40%, up 8 percentage points since March 2012), while 36 percent say global warming is currently harming people in the United States (up six points since March).

In addition, they increasingly perceive global warming as a threat to themselves (42%, up 13 points since March 2012), their families (46%, up 13 points), and/or people in their communities (48%, up 14 points). Americans also perceive global warming as a growing threat to people in the United States (57%, up 11 points since March 2012), in other modern industrialized countries (57%, up 8 points since March), and in developing countries (64%, up 12 points since March).

Today over half of Americans (58%) say they are “somewhat” or “very worried” – now at its highest level since November 2008.

For the first time since 2008, Americans are more likely to believe most scientists agree that global warming is happening than believe there is widespread disagreement on the subject (44% versus 36%, respectively). This is an increase of 9 percentage points since March 2012.

Recent polling has confirmed Americans are attributing their increased understanding the planet is warming to their (correct) perception that the planet is warming and the weather is getting more extreme. A Brookings poll from February found that about half of people who understand the planet is warming said that these factors were the primary influence — see Poll: Americans’ Understanding of Climate Change Increasing With More Extreme Weather, Warmer Temperatures.

(16)

Security

Former Mossad Chief Says Iran Red Lines ‘Not Conducive,’ Urges Diplomacy

By Hamed Aleaziz on Oct 18, 2012 at 5:49 pm

Efraim Halevy

Efraim Halevy, former director of Israeli spy agency the Mossad, said today that he disagreed with the idea of setting so-called “red lines” for Iran’s nuclear program. Talk of placing red lines on Iran’s nuclear program is meant to refer a point at which the Islamic Republic would presumably be met with a military response should it decide to cross. Halevy emphasized a need for leadership from “people who are solution oriented and not war oriented.”

Speaking at the Wilson Center in Washington, D.C., Halevy said:

“I think the use of the red line creates clarity on the one hand and it also creates a commitment that not always can be met. And therefore, I personally felt that the use of a red line is not conducive to the ultimate aim.”

Halevy’s words come on the heels of comments from Shlomo Brom, a former Israeli army official, who said in an event at the Center for American Progress last Friday that he was against red lines because they “provoke the other party to try and check the limits of his maneuverability…so all they do usually is that they reach the red line and cross it a little bit and see what the direct action is.”

Halevy said that a military strike on Iran should only be a “last resort” and that “our aim should be to win the war without firing one shot.” He added this should be done with: “Sanctions, more sanctions, more sanctions and many other things. … The fact of the matter is the sanctions have not brought the end to the program but sanctions are hurting very much.”

Halevy joins other former Israeli officials who have voiced discomfort with setting red lines. In September, Dan Halutz, a former chief of staff for the Israeli Defense Army, said: “I don’t believe in red line policies, because when you’re stating something at time 1, it might not be the same at time 2…when you are saying red line, you’re claiming you can draw a line based on what the other side is doing.”

And the consequences of potential military action in the case that these red lines are crossed are troubling. A bipartisan group of former U.S. military and diplomatic officials recently published a report that detailed the possible consequences of an attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities:

“Serious costs to U.S. interests would also be felt over the longer term, we believe, with problematic consequences for global and regional stability, including economic stability. A dynamic of escalation, action, and counteraction could produce serious unintended consequences that would significantly increase all of these costs and lead, potentially, to all-out regional war.”

The report says that an attack would not successfully destroy Iran’s program and instead would only delay it and “increase” the chances of Iran obtaining a nuclear weapon.

The Obama administration, focused on securing a diplomatic solution, has pursued and enforced crippling sanctions against Iran. The sanctions have had a forceful impact on the Iranian economy. Officials across the world, in the U.S., the U.N. and Israel, believe Iran is not yet made the decision to pursue a nuclear weapon.

Halevy praised the relationship between the Obama administration and Israel, describing it as “very good” and noting that “in the last four years we have had a relationship with the US on the practical issues which are important to Israel; the like of which we have never had with almost any other administration.”

()

Economy

New Proposal Doesn’t Stop Romney’s Plan From Giving A Huge Tax Cut To The Rich

By Travis Waldron on Oct 18, 2012 at 5:45 pm

During Tuesday’s second presidential debate, Republican nominee Mitt Romney floated a new idea to pay for his tax plan, which provides nearly $5 trillion in tax cuts. Romney introduced this proposal after analysts showed that Romney can’t mathematically achieve his goals of reducing income tax rates by 20 percent while not increasing middle class taxes or adding to the deficit.

But a Tax Policy Center analysis found Romney’s idea, to cap the amount of deductions each taxpayer can take advantage of at $25,000, also fails to make his plan add up.

And as the Center for American Progress’ Seth Hanlon noted in a column on Thursday, Romney’s plan would still provide a massive tax cut to the wealthiest Americans, even if a deduction cap were in place. After they hit the cap on deductions, members of the top one percent would get tax cuts totaling more than $105,000. And for wealthier taxpayers, the breaks get even bigger, Hanlon found:

The tax cuts from Romney’s plan would come on top of the reductions they received from extending the Bush tax rates, which Romney wants to make permanent. According to Citizens for Tax Justice, the average millionaire would save more than $250,000 a year when the Bush and Romney tax cuts are combined, even if Romney eliminates all of their deductions.

Romney also floated another idea: capping deductions at $50,000 instead of $25,000. That plan would indeed make the tax cut for the rich smaller, but it would also reduce the amount of revenue gained, making the math of Romney’s plan even worse. And it would render the idea of capping deductions almost irrelevant, since the average member of the top one percent claimed just over $43,000 in tax deductions last year.

()

Alyssa

Yes, Kirsten Gillibrand and Wendy Long Got Asked About ‘Fifty Shades of Grey’ At A Debate

By Alyssa Rosenberg on Oct 18, 2012 at 5:36 pm

I wish I could say that I’m shocked that two female candidates for Senate got asked in a debate whether they’d read Fifty Shades of Grey, but sometimes, everything is weird and terrible and this kind of nonsense does come to pass:

I’m willing to give the moderators a pass for asking about culture in general, both because the questions were meant to warm up the debaters, and because I think that asking substantive questions about culture is an interesting way to get at what public figures value and the extent to which they’re inclined to pander. But asking a yes or no question about whether Kirsten Gillibrand and Wendy Long have read a book that, as of August, had sold more than 40 million copies, doesn’t actually reveal any meaningful information about their tastes that distinguishes them from other women.

The reason people think reading Fifty Shade of Grey indicates anything at all is because people think it’s weird for women to publicly admit to being interested in sex, much less in books that involve women figuring out what they like sexually. Fifty Shades of Grey isn’t actually a particularly good book if you want to have a discussion of sexual self-knowledge, given that it’s a big proponent of the idea that all women have magically effective vaginal orgasms, that if you haven’t had sex before that it will automatically be terrific as long as your partner is a charismatic and kinky industrial tycoon, and that its knowledge of BDSM and power dynamics in sex appears to have been gleaned from a vigorous read of Wikipedia. But it’s still treated as if it’s some sort of scandalous text—people literally write articles about how to avoid being caught reading Fifty Shades of Grey in public. Asking Gillibrand and Long whether they’d read the book isn’t a way to learn more about them, or to start a discussion about sexuality, or to see if they’re in synch with female readers, or to warm them up: it’s in part to catch them out on something that shouldn’t be a titter-worthy issue in the first place.

()

NEWS FLASH

Pediatricians Want Strict Gun Laws To Protect Children | In a Thursday statement, the American Academy of Pediatrics called for stricter gun laws to cut the second-leading cause of children deaths, and the pediatricians specifically called for a restored ban on assault weapons that expired in 2004. In the U.S., firearms are involved in over 80 percent of youth homicides, which is the second-leading cause of death under age 19. The rate of gun-related deaths is higher in the U.S. than in other wealthy countries, and with guns in 38 percent of American households, most of these children “get their firearms from home,” says co-lead author of the study Dr. Robert Sege. According to the AAP, gun-related assaults cost over $17 billion a year in medical bills and lost productivity.