Casino mogul Sheldon Adelson and his family are unafraid of using their money in politics. They purportedly gave $20 million to Newt Gingrich’s failed run for the Republican presidential nomination — and reportedly weighed an astounding $100 million donation. But with Gingrich dispatched, Adelson is now turning his attention [...]]]> via Think Progress

Casino mogul Sheldon Adelson and his family are unafraid of using their money in politics. They purportedly gave $20 million to Newt Gingrich’s failed run for the Republican presidential nomination — and reportedly weighed an astounding $100 million donation. But with Gingrich dispatched, Adelson is now turning his attention to presumptive nominee Mitt Romney. It’s not clear if Adelson has yet poured millions of dollars into SuperPACs associated with the Romney campaign, and we may never know: Adelson vowed this winter to keep most of his election giving secret.

We do know that Adelson was slated to meet today in his Las Vegas office with Romney, according to a CBS report citing people close to the billionaire.

So who is Adelson? Here’s a reminder of some of the priorities and far right-wing views held by the owner of Las Vegas Sands Corporation and its Venetian hotel:

In February, Adelson and his wife reportedly joined up with the Koch brothers for the first time in their twice-yearly gathering of major right-wing donors largely obsessed with ending regulation on business. Reports suggested that the Adelsons would contribute to American Crossroads, an attack-dog Super PAC run by Karl Rove.

One of the reasons Adelson wants to keep his political giving private is that his gambling empire and, relatedly, close relationship with the Chinese government awkwardly juxtapose with Christian conservative views (Adelson’s been denounced) and Republican antipathy on China (including from Romney). Adelson allegedly helped crush a congressional measure by House Republicans opposing Beijing’s Olympic bid. “The bill will never see the light day, Mr. Mayor. Don’t worry about it,” he reportedly told Beijing’s mayor in 2001 after phoning then House GOP Majority Whip Tom DeLay (TX). Adelson went on to get a lucrative gambling license from China to build a casino in Macau.

Part of Adelson’s Chinese dealings, which came under federal scrutiny in 2011, went through a non-profit called the Adelson Center for U.S.-China Enterprise.According to a WikiLeaks cable flagged by Salon, the association, which was meant to facilitate business between the U.S. and China, was shut down by the Chinese government after some “missteps” with “funds transfer mechanisms” used by Las Vegas Sands. Unlike competitors, the cable said, Las Vegas Sands lobbied Beijing directly instead of going through Macau authorities.

Gingrich told NBC News that Adelson puts a priority on far-right policies on Israel. Adelson opposed the American Israeli Affairs Committee — threatening to withdraw financial support — when the group backed a Bush administration-led peace process in 2007. Adelson has since said, “There won’t be a two-state solution; there won’t be a one-state solution” to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. He has, in the past, suggested the two-state solution was “suicide” for Israel

Adelson’s right-wing views on Israel have, at times, descended into bigotry against Palestinians, who he thinks do not have legitimate aspirations to a state of their own. When Newt Gingrich said Palestinians are an “invented” people — a talking point the New Yorker’s David Remnick said was “propaganda” — Adelson backed him up. “Read the history of those who call themselves Palestinians,” he told a group of young American Jews visiting Israel late last year, “and you will hear why Gingrich said recently that the Palestinians are an invented people.”

While Mitt Romney claims to support a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and advocates for a tough foreign policy on China, the man he was slated to meet with today in Las Vegas has espoused a nearly opposite set of policy views. He’s also shown no timidity in throwing around his money to pursue those political interests in the U.S., China and Israel.

The winner of the next presidential election will face a struggling world economy and a Middle East in the process of dramatic political transition, but GOP presidential hopefuls Newt Gingrich and Herman Cain appear intent on scaring the public about fanciful dangers of an Reposted by arrangement with Think Progress

The winner of the next presidential election will face a struggling world economy and a Middle East in the process of dramatic political transition, but GOP presidential hopefuls Newt Gingrich and Herman Cain appear intent on scaring the public about fanciful dangers of an electromagnetic pulse (EMP) attack.

The threat of a rogue state or terrorist launching an EMP attack — the detonation of a nuclear warhead at a high altitude, shutting down electrical power across large portions of the U.S. — has become the nightmare scenario cited by defense hawks as justification for costly missile defense systems. But the likelihood of terrorists acquiring a nuclear weapon, which they would then affix to a ballistic missile, remains remarkably small.

EMP alarmism generally remains on the fringe circles of the Republican party — the Center for Security Policy‘s Frank Gaffney issued a dire warning that an EMP attack could kill “nine out of ten Americans” — but comments from Gingrich and Cain have brought the “pulsers” agenda into the Republican primary race.

Cain’s “Foreign Policy & National Security Pillars” [PDF] includes:

COUNTER URGENT THREATS
• Stop Iran from developing nuclear weapons
• Fix border security – for real
• Shield us against Cyber and
• Electro-Magnetic Pulse (EMP) attacks

And Gingrich, listing the greatest threats to the U.S. at the Nov. 22, CNN National Security Debate, said:

The greatest threat to the United States was the weapon of mass in an American city, probably from a terrorist… [is] one of the three great threats. The second is an electromagnetic pulse attack which would literally destroy the country’s capacity to function.

Gingrich and Cain’s outspoken concern about the threat of a terrorist or rogue state’s EMP attack might appear to be simple paranoia, but the EMP campaign has been a go-to argument for proponents of costly missile defense shields and preventive war against North Korea and Iran.

While EMP rhetoric might be largely overlooked or ridiculed, EMP enthusiasts do little to hide the ulterior motives of pushing for dramatic increases in defense spending and leading the U.S. into preemptive wars with suspected nuclear proliferators.