Feds Crack Navy Charity Scammer's True Identity

post from TPMMuckraker on 01 October 2012 05:01:39 PM. © TPMMuckraker

Officials in Ohio on Wednesday announced that they had finally determined the long-sought true-identity of "Bobby Thompson," who until earlier this year was one of America's most-wanted fugitives, a man suspected of stealing millions from a scam charity called U.S. Navy Veterans Association.

It turns out that hiding inside one fugitive was another fugitive. Authorities say "Bobby Thompson" is really John Cody, a 1972 graduate of Harvard Law School, a former military intelligence officer, and a man who had been wanted by the FBI since the late 1980s.

Sometime between 1987, when an arrest warrant was issued for Cody on fraud charges, and the early 2000s, Cody allegedly reinvented himself as Bobby Thompson, and then succeed in scamming his way into photo-ops with some of the most powerful politicians in the country, including then-President George W. Bush, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), and then-House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH). "Thompson" and at least one other associate took in almost $100 million in donations from people in forty-one states for the U.S. Navy Veterans Association, which was a sham organization, and authorities believe Cody made away with millions. He vanished in 2010, after learning that 'Thompson" was the subject of a criminal investigation.

A task force led by U.S. Marshal for the Northern District of Ohio Pete Elliott followed leads in several states before finally apprehending Cody in Portland, Ore., in late April. Cody, 65, was in "poor physical condition" and walking with a cane when he was arrested, but a storage locker rented under one of his aliases contained several birth certificates and nearly $1 million in cash. Even after his arrest, Cody refused to reveal his true identity, refused to speak to investigators, and, when given documents to sign, he would sign them with an "X."

At a press conference Monday, Elliott said he had been Googling fugitives when he came across an old wanted poster for Cody that included a computer-aged image, and he noticed a resemblance. Cody had fled arrest before authorities had a chance to fingerprint him, but Elliott was able to get Cody's prints from military records, and then match them with "Thompson."

"Thank goodness for Google," Elliot said, according to The Cleveland Plain Dealer.

Read The Full Article:
http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/TPMmuckraker/~3/mIaS9mxzPpk/john_cody_navy_charity
_scammer_identity.php

Digg this

Election spending MUST be a part of Prez Debates!
Agree

post from The Politics of Jamie Sanderson on 01 October 2012 05:01:29 PM. © The Politics of Jamie Sanderson

Think Citizens United and unlimited special interest spending in elections is an important election issue in 2012? Make sure it comes up in the presidential debates! Sign our petition to debate moderator Jim Lehrer now.

This Wednesday is the first presidential debate of the election -- and the first presidential debate since the Supreme Court?s landmark Citizens United decision, which opened the floodgates for unlimited corporate and special interest spending in elections.Americans overwhelmingly want unlimited Big Money OUT of elections -- polls show that it?s an absolutely critical issue for voters. It must be addressed in the debate.Join our urgent petition to get PBS?s Jim Lehrer, the moderator of Wednesday?s debate, to ask the candidates to explain their views on Citizens United and why they would nominate Supreme Court justices who would either support or reverse the decision. This week?s debate is taking place in Colorado, where the issue of remedying Citizens United has an added importance this election, since Coloradans will vote on a ballot initiative supporting a constitutional amendment to overturn that disastrous Supreme Court decision. But make no mistake, this issue is of crucial national import as well, and when voters in every state cast their ballot for president, they will be deciding the future of Citizens United.Each candidate?s stance on Citizens United and their vision for the Supreme Court is paramount to this election. Do they generally agree with decisions like Citizens United that bend the law and the Constitution in favor of corporations and other powerful interests at the expense of ordinary Americans?Tell Jim Lehrer that the candidates ought to explain their views on money in politics and the role of the Supreme Court to the American people -- Urge him to ASK THE QUESTION about Citizens United and the Supreme Court.President Obama has voiced his opposition to the ruling, and has called for a constitutional amendment to overturn it; Mitt Romney has said Citizens United ?was a good decision,? and wishes there were more justices on the Court like Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas -- right-wing justices who gave us Citizens United in the first place. This presidential debate, with its focus on domestic policy, is the forum in which the American people deserve to see these differences between the candidates highlighted. The Citizens United decision has changed the political landscape drastically, and needs to be part of the debate discourse. Not to address this issue would be a disservice to our democracy.Urge debate moderator Jim Lehrer to ask the question.Thank you for all you do.-- Ben Betz, Online Strategy ManagerP.S. Our staff person on the ground in Colorado will hand deliver the petitions in Denver on the day of the debate. Time is running out -- add your name to the petition now!

Read The Full Article:
http://thepoliticsofjamiesanderson.blogspot.com/2012/10/election-spending-must-be
-part-of-prez.html

Digg this

Poetry in Politics

post from MAL Contends . . . on 01 October 2012 05:01:19 PM. © MAL Contends . . .

Read The Full Article:
http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/MalContends/~3/1tcpo18hsu4/poetry-in-politics.html

Digg this

Extremely Good Advice!

post from Talking Points Memo on 01 October 2012 05:01:15 PM. © Talking Points Memo

Trump tells Romney to push birther questions at Wednesday night debate. [...]

Read The Full Article:
http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/Talking-Points-Memo/~3/vSbQaDd0Pa4/extremely_good_
advice.php

Digg this

DCCC vs U.S. Chamber Of Commerce In California
Congressional Races

post from DownWithTyranny! on 01 October 2012 05:00:42 PM. © DownWithTyranny!

Way back in Washington, DC Steve Israel and his crew at the DCCC identified which candidates that wanted to support in California congressional races based on their various filters. They're spending money on 3 vulnerable incumbents-- Jerry McNerney, John Garamendi and Lois Capps (New Dem)-- and 10 challengers, 7 in Red to Blue districts-- Ami Bera (New Dem), Jose Hernandez, Julia Brownley, Raul Ruiz, Mark Takano (Progressive), Alan Lowenthal, Scott Peters (New Dem)-- and 3 in what they call "majority maker" seats (districts that are open and dependably blue: Jared Huffman, Tony Cardenas and ultra-conservative and corrupt Juan Vargas (New Dem). Most are more or less run-of-the-mill California Democrats who will do what they're told by leadership. Mark Takano and Jared Huffman will probably join the Congressional Progressive Caucus; maybe Raul Ruiz or even Alan Lowenthal will as well. I'd bet that Juan Vargas, already a New Dem, will join the Blue Dogs after he's elected... if the Blue Dogs still exist. They've been migrating into the purportedly less overtly right-wing New Dems, which is the preferred vehicle for the corporatist wing of the Democratic Party these days. Steve Israel and Debbie Wasserman Schultz (like Rahm before them) were New Dems, a kind of corruption-oriented caucus that isn't committed to the GOP social agenda, only to the economic one.
In a discussion over the weekend, Stuart Zechman, co-host of Virtually Speaking, A-Z, agreed with me that "the enemies of humanity within the Democratic caucus are the New Dems. It can't be said enough," he wrote. "The New Democrat Network and New Democrat Coalitions (both House and Senate) are what's wrong with the Democratic Party. Not Blue Dogs, not "Conserva-Dems," not machine servants like Schumer, not cowards, not the individually corrupt. The New Democrats are literally the enemies of good government. Remove the New Democrats, and we have a shot at useful, productive policy being the result of electing Democrats to national office. Leave the New Democrats in place to influence and even control legislation, messaging, policy proposals, agendas and press coverage, and the Democratic Party remains part of the problem. The political issue with pointing out that the New Democrat Coalition are the profoundly powerful enemies of New Deal-style government competence is that Obama is a self-described New Democrat." [Warning, overwrought Obama-bots will not want to read the information at the link. Don't say I didn't warn you.]
All that said, sometime these things work out for the best. Following closely the DCCC pronouncements of who they're backing, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce is pouring millions of dollars of dark right-wing cash-- and illegal money from China-- into California races... but just the DCCC races. According to Reid Wilson, here's where the Chamber is spending their money:

? CA-03: Rep. John Garamendi (D) is seeking re-election. The Chamber will spent $497,000 between tomorrow and Oct. 7 on about 600 gross ratings points in the Sacramento media market.

? CA-07: Rep. Dan Lungren (R) is seeking re-election. The Chamber will spend $484,000 on about 590 GRPs in the Sacramento market on his behalf on broadcast television over the next ten days (note how expensive the Sacramento market is becoming, with so many swing districts in the area).

? CA-09: Rep. Jerry McNerney (D) is seeking re-election. The Chamber is spending $485,000 on about 590 points in Sacramento over the same period in an effort to elect Republican Ricky Gill.

? CA-10: Rep. Jeff Denham (R) is running for a second term. The Chamber is spending $497,000 on about 600 gross ratings points between Sept. 28 and Oct. 7 in a bid to keep him in office.

? CA-24: Rep. Lois Capps (D) is running for re-election. The Chamber is spending $118,000 on broadcast ads in the Santa Barbara market over the next ten days, good for 750 GRPs.

? CA-26: Rep. Elton Gallegly's old district, Republican Tony Strickland and Democrat Julia Brownley are running for the open seat. The Chamber is spending $348,000 on Los Angeles cable between Sept. 29 and Oct. 19 on Strickland's behalf.

? CA-36: Rep. Mary Bono Mack (R) is seeking another term. The Chamber is spending $330,000 between Sept. 25 and Nov. 6 on about 3,700 points in the Palm Springs market on Bono Mack's behalf.

? CA-41: The new Riverside seat, Democrat Mark Takano is running against Republican John Tavaglione. The Chamber will spend $218,000 for Tavaglione on Los Angeles cable TV.

? CA-47: The Long Beach-area seat, Democrat Alan Lowenthal is running against Republican Gary DeLong. The Chamber is spending $317,000 between now and Oct. 7 on cable ads in the Los Angeles market on DeLong's behalf.

? CA-52: Rep. Brian Bilbray (R) is seeking re-election. The Chamber will spend $334,000 between September 28 and October 11 on about 730 GRPs on Bilbray's behalf.

Sometimes a candidate can be better off not being on the DCCC lists! And not just because they have to make a deal with the devil to get on. In the cases of stalwart progressives Lee Rogers and Jay Chen-- who are battling particularly odious senior GOP heavyweights (respectively, Buck McKeon and Ed Royce), the Inside-the-Beltway political bosses aren't paying attention. No DCCC and no U.S. Chamber of Commerce. Both campaigns are better off without the attention. And if you'd like to help us surprise both the DCCC and the Chamber of Horrors, you can do that here.

Read The Full Article:
http://downwithtyranny.blogspot.com/2012/10/dccc-vs-us-chamber-of-commerce-in.htm
l

Digg this

Feeling Entitled

post from Crooks and Liars on 01 October 2012 05:00:26 PM. © Crooks and Liars

Steven Pearlstein has written an op-ed for the Washington Post that deserves front page status. Unfortunately, it the dead-tree version of The Post, it was relegated to the back page. But every single person using the "job creator" meme needs to answer this question: who are truly demanding entitlements?

I am the misunderstood superhero of American capitalism, single-handedly creating wealth and prosperity despite all the obstacles put in my way by employees, government and the media.
I am a job creator and I am entitled.
I am entitled to complain about the economy even when my stock price, my portfolio and my profits are at record levels.
I am entitled to a healthy and well-educated workforce, a modern and efficient transportation system and protection for my person and property, just as I am entitled to demonize the government workers who provide them.
I am entitled to complain bitterly about taxes that are always too high, even when they are at record lows.

Teacher Ken at DKos called my attention to the op-ed and ends his post this way:

There are these obnoxious statements:
I am entitled to all the rights and privileges of running an American company, but owe no loyalty to American workers or taxpayers.
I am entitled to confidential information about my employees and customers while refusing even to list the company?s phone number on its Web site.
But even with all he lists, Pearlstein realizes he has not exhausted the sense of entitlement of folks like these.
Which is why he ends with this:
I am entitled to everything I have and more that I still deserve.
Like, if you are Mitt Romney, your belief you are entitled to be President of the United States?

Exactly. So remind me again in this most wealthiest nation in the world with ever-growing economic inequality, just who is it who is so frickin' entitled?

Read The Full Article:
http://crooksandliars.com/nicole-belle/feeling-entitled

Digg this

One Year After VAWAs Expiration And Counting:
House Leaders Still Splitting Hairs Over Rape Victims

post from ThinkProgress on 01 October 2012 05:00:19 PM. © ThinkProgress

Our guest blogger is Erik Stegman, Manager of the Half in Ten Campaign at the Center for American Progress Action Fund One year ago, the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) expired. Since 1994, this landmark legislation has been funding clinics, shelters, and hotlines for victims in crisis across the country, and provided tremendously important tools for law [...]

Read The Full Article:
http://thinkprogress.org.feedsportal.com/c/34726/f/638927/s/240478ae/l/0Lthinkpro
gress0Borg0Cjustice0C20A120C10A0C0A10C9369310Cone0Eyear0Eafter0Evawas0Eexpiration0Eand0Ecounting0Ehouse0Eleaders0Estill0Esplitting0Ehairs0Eover0Erape0Evictims0C/story01.htm

Digg this

MA Sen: Elizabeth Warren Maintains Small Lead

The past two years of Congress fighting with President Obama has dramatically turned the American people off to the idea of divided government and the Warren campaign is exploiting this development. It is working to make sure people see a vote for Brown[...]

Read The Full Article:
http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/firedoglake/fdl/~3/fVSK8qCTKhM/

Digg this

Ryan: Untax the rich! (Even if it means bigger
deficits.)

Republican presidential candidate and former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney and vice-presidential candidate U.S. Congressman Paul Ryan (R-WI) (R) talk on their campaign bus after a rally in Dayton, Ohio September 25, 2012 during a two-day bus tour of Well, thanks for clearing that up, Paul.Via Greg Sargent, Paul Ryan actually made a little news yesterday on Fox News Sunday: He said that if it came down to a choice between a smaller tax cut that didn't increase the deficit or a bigger tax cut that did increase the deficit, the bigger tax cut?which would primarily benefit the wealthy?would win.

Asked by Chris Wallace what Mitt Romney would do if he couldn't offset the cost of cutting tax rates by eliminating deductions, Ryan said Romney's priority would be "keeping tax rates down," adding "that's more important than anything."

Ryan insisted that Wallace's scenario was purely hypothetical and that it was possible to cut taxes without cutting revenues, but when Wallace pressed him to explain how that was possible, Ryan punted, claiming that he didn't "have the time" to answer the question because "it would take me too long to go through all the math."

Of course, it's obvious to anyone with a calculator that you can't cut taxes by $5 trillion and make up for it by ending tax breaks?unless you're willing to increases taxes on the middle-class. That's why Ryan dodged Wallace's question in his answer, falling back on his classic "it gets wonky" formulation. But when he was pressed to say what Romney's priority was, he said tax cuts would be the priority. And since Mitt Romney gives the same percentage tax cut to the wealthy as he does to everyone else, it means Paul Ryan is now on record saying the Romney campaign would rather increase the deficit than give up on tax cuts for the wealthy.

Read The Full Article:
http://feeds.dailykos.com/~r/dailykos/index/~3/RXSI0it5Qzw/-Ryan-Untax-the-rich-E
ven-if-it-means-bigger-deficits

Digg this

Fundie Outfit Liberty Counsel Announces Challenge
to New CA Ban on Ex-Gay Therapy for Minors

What is unbelievable is that there really is no excuse for supporting science-free brainwashing that has been perpetrated on children younger than 18 by "therapists" trying to change their sexual orientation, many seeking to "pray away the gay" and other[...]

Read The Full Article:
http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/firedoglake/fdl/~3/ccHzeJLlyaI/

Digg this