Political Cartoon is by Nate Beeler in The Washington Examiner.
Read The Full Article:
Canadian outfit HOLY FUCK - "Stay Lit." With bonus track.[...]
Read The Full Article:
As he deals with fallout from a scandal involving a campaign volunteer who turned out to be his secret boyfriend, conservative Arizona Sheriff Paul Babeu has insisted time and again that whatever work the man did for his campaign was strictly unpaid.
While Babeu's campaign finance reports initially appear to back up his claims, TPM has uncovered an unusual entry on a 2010 disclosure that deserves more explanation but which so far the sheriff has declined to discuss.
The entry is bound to raise eyebrows in light of revelations that Babeu's own brother, who is also a politician in Arizona, paid the man with campaign funds from his own account during the same time frame in early 2010.
While the amounts of the payments in question are relatively small, the issue is an important one. The sheriff's ex-boyfriend, Jose Orozco, is an immigrant from Mexico in the United States on what he says is a tourist visa. If that's true, and if the sheriff, who built a national reputation on fierce opposition to illegal immigration paid him any amount, it could spell legal trouble for both of them.
The entry appears on Babeu's June 30, 2010 campaign finance report with the Pinal County Elections Department in Arizona.
It says that on April 8, 2010, the sheriff paid himself $95.81 out of his own campaign fund. The reason for the transaction, according to the filing, was "refund for website maint payment."
The language would suggest Babeu paid someone out of his own pocket for maintenance of his website and then got the campaign to reimburse him for it.
The filing doesn't say who Babeu paid for the service or why it initially came out of his own pocket. However, it's typical for candidates to sometimes purchase campaign items on their own and then receive a reimbursement. Babeu even lists two other "refunds" that appear to be reimbursements in the filing, one for for $500 for "MFBQ autodialer" and the other for $270 for "campaign promotional 'hats.'"
But this payment sticks out because, based on statements both men have made to the media in recent days, it appears to fall within the time Orozco was supposedly doing unpaid web maintenance work for the sheriff's campaign.
It is also notable for how vague the description is. The sheriff got more specific in other disclosures about web-related services, citing payments directly to companies such as GoDaddy and PayPal.
If Orozco was in the United States on a tourist visa, as he reportedly told CNN earlier this week, it would likely mean that any payment to him in exchange for work would be illegal.
Prominent immigration attorney David Leopold of Ohio told TPM that it is generally against the law for someone with a tourist visa to the US to do any paid work. He also said it's illegal to employ someone that you know is not allowed to work in the country.
"You cannot engage in gainful employment," said Leopold, who is not involved in the Babeu case. "He can't come in here, sit down at a computer and start getting involved in work."
Babeu isn't responding to questions about the issue. Neither he nor his campaign manager, Chris DeRose, have returned TPM's multiple calls seeking comment. Likewise, Orozco's attorney, Melissa Weiss-Riner, has not returned multiple calls for comment.
However, Babeu told CNN this week that Orozco worked "in an unpaid status" maintaining a campaign website and managing the sheriff's Twitter account.
By itself, the April 8, 2010 payment doesn't prove that Babeu ever paid Orozco for work. Orozco's name appears nowhere in any of Babeu's campaign finance reports from the year he first ran for sheriff, 2008, until his most recent filing on Jan. 31 of this year.
But combined with other facts that have come out in recent days, it's enough to question whether Babeu paid Orozco with the money and why the sheriff listed it as a "refund" to himself.
One clue comes from a similar payment that Babeu's younger brother and fellow Arizona politician, Shaun Babeu, made to Orozco in the same time frame.
On Wednesday night, Phoenix television station KNXV broke the news about the payment, showing the younger Babeu paid Orozco for work on his website in 2010.
Shaun Babeu is an elected justice of the peace in Pinal County and presides over minor criminal and civil cases. Campaign records show he lives at the same address as his brother in the town of San Tan Valley, about 40 miles southeast of Phoenix.
TPM confirmed that Shaun Babeu listed a $79.64 payment to Orozco for "website registration" on his June 30, 2010 campaign finance report with the county elections department.
He did not disclose what date the payment was made, as he was required to do by law. However, the report covers all of his campaign transactions from Jan. 1 through May 31 of that year.
That puts the younger Babeu's payment to Orozco in the same time frame as his older brother's April 8 "refund."
Shaun Babeu did not return a call seeking comment about the payment.
It's also worth noting that Paul Babeu has said in recent days that he knew his ex-boyfriend was doing business in the United States. Scrambling to defend himself against Orozco's allegations, the sheriff released letters that were sent between Babeu's campaign manager and Orozco last year. In one letter on Sept. 6, Babeu's campaign manager, Chris DeRose, said that the ex-boyfriend was facing legal trouble because of a website he created to highlight supposed ethical problems with the sheriff.
"You exposed yourself and your company to civil litigation," DeRose wrote, adding later: "Please be advised that you and your business will be sued, jointly and severally, for actual, consequential, and punitive damages, as well as attorneys' fees, and criminal charges may be filed with the appropriate law enforcement authorities if the following corrective action is not taken at once."
Orozco told CNN this week that his business was called Website Results, LLC. Arizona corporation records show that Orozco filed paperwork to create the business on July 8, 2011. However, he had the company dissolved on Jan. 10 of this year.
Leopold, the Ohio immigration attorney, told TPM it's not necessarily illegal for Orozco to have created the business. Foreign visitors are generally allowed to own businesses in the US regardless of their visa status. It's even probably legal for Orozco to have taken money from someone, Leopold said. The problem is in where the work took place. If it happened in the US, then Orozco could be in trouble.
"I think where he crosses the line is when he goes back to the office and starts building a website," Leopold said. "Now he's engaging in gainful employment."
Moreover, Leopold said, if Babeu or anyone else knew about Orozco's immigration status and hired him anyway, they could face legal consequences of their own.
Meanwhile, an independent investigator has been tapped to start looking into the scandal and determine whether Babeu or Orozco broke the law. Each man has made serious allegations against the other in recent days. And each has denied the other's accusations.
Orozco told the Phoenix New Times newspaper in a story published last week that the sheriff threatened to have him deported if their relationship ever became public.
In response, Babeu accused his ex-lover of what he calls "legitimate crimes," saying Orozco hacked into his campaign website and posted phony messages on his Twitter account after their breakup.
The sheriff has said the scandal changes nothing about his current plans. He says he is still running for the Republican nomination for Congress in Arizona's 4th District. And he plans to serve out his full term as sheriff.
Editor's note: As a courtesy in advance of publication, TPM redacted the sheriff's home address from the image attached to the post.
If this is an actual consumer rights proposal, great, but after recent actions of the administration I remain skeptical. Will this be an actual consumer-driven program or will it be another attempt to suck up to the deepest pockets? We need to see more details but on the surface, this is a good thing. NPR:
Administration officials outlined a proposed "Consumer Privacy Bill of Rights" on Thursday and urged technology companies, consumer groups and others to jointly craft new protections. Such guidelines would initially be voluntary for companies, but those that agree to abide by them could be subject to sanctions for any violations. "As the Internet evolves, consumer trust is essential for the continued growth of the digital economy," President Barack Obama said in a statement. "That's why an online privacy Bill of Rights is so important. For businesses to succeed online, consumers must feel secure." The effort comes as companies have found more sophisticated ways to collect and combine data on your interests and habits. Beginning next week, for instance, Google will start merging data it collects from email, video, social-networking and other services when you're signed in with a Google account.
Ohio's radical right Republican state legislature just gerrymandered that state's congressional districts. One of the effects was to push Dennis Kucinich and Marcy Kaptur into one district. Both are basically progressives-- and both are members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus. But there are differences. The election is in 12 days. Last night Kucinich sent out a list of reasons why he's the better choice:
Marcy Kaptur voted to fund Bush?s wars. Dennis did not.
Marcy Kaptur voted for the Patriot Act. Dennis did not.
Marcy Kaptur supports the Keystone pipeline. Dennis does not.
Dennis has worked relentlessly for nuclear safety at Davis-Besse. Marcy Kaptur has not.
Dennis supported the Dream Act. Marcy Kaptur opposed it.
Dennis supports Marriage Equality. Marcy Kaptur opposes it.
Dennis fully supports Choice. Marcy Kaptur opposes it.
Democrats are loathe to get involved in this kind of a fratricidal fight. Blue America doesn't endorse in primaries unless there is one really bad Democrat-- like, say Tim Holden (Blue Dog-PA)-- running against one really good Democrat-- like Matt Cartwright. This northeast Ohio race was one we were never going to jump in as a PAC. I will say, however, that for all her economic populism, Kaptur doesn't measure up to Kucinich, one of Congress' most outstanding Members. Alan Grayson has been campaigning for him-- and raised $50,000 for his race. ?Congress is full of replaceable parts," Grayson explained. "But Dennis Kucinich is not one of them. Dennis is unique.? And on his Facebook page Tuesday Grayson explained by he had maxed out personally to the Kucinich reelection campaign:
Two weeks from today, the remarkable 43-year political career of Congressman Dennis Kucinich will either continue, or it will end. I want it to continue. So I?m maxing out to Dennis Kucinich?s campaign.
The Federal Election Campaign Act permits me to contribute $2,500 toward Dennis?s March 6 primary. That?s what I?m doing. Today.
I?m doing it for all of us ? everyone with a head, a heart and a spine. Every good progressive who will benefit if Dennis Kucinich remains in Congress.
I?m doing it for Dennis, because he?s my friend.
And I?m doing it for myself. Because:
(1) If I?m elected to Congress again this year, all of us will get more good things done ? myself included ? if Dennis is there to energize and galvanize the Democrats in the House. And . . .
(2) When I wake up on the morning of March 7, the day after Dennis?s primary, I don?t want any regrets. No ?if only I had . . . .?s. Whether Dennis wins or he loses, I want to feel that I did everything that I could to help him.
Maybe you do, too.
Watch Clinton on PBS. See more from American Experience. The rise once again of religious conservatives in the 2012 primary season is a perfect setting for “Clinton,” the PBS American Experience documentary of William Jefferson[...]
Read The Full Article:
Just a few days ago, I had the privilege of speaking to several hundred people at the World MoneyShow in Orlando. The gist of my presentation?
That five “Great Deceptions” are lurking out there … and that individually and collectively, they have the potential to wreck your portfolio.
The good news? I also outlined five protective strategies to help you avoid getting slammed.
Since I recognize that you may not have been able to attend the show — and because I believe this information is so important — I want to share the meat and potatoes of my presentation with you now!
Today’s Five Dangerous Great Deceptions
Let’s start with Great Deception #1, the idea that the . . . → Read More: 5 Great Deceptions, 5 Protective Strategies for Today?s Markets
Read The Full Article: