A couple of Fleetwood Mac tunes this evening...

A couple of ZZ Top tunes this evening..

More Random Hotness this evening...

One in five Californians say they need mental health care

One in Five? That number seems a little low. I was in California for a couple of years, and it seemed to me that it should be about four out of five need some mental health care. You have to be a couple sandwiches short of a picnic to pay $500,000 for an 800 square foot house.

People need to man up. Not everything that happens in your life requires a trip to the shrink. Shit people, take responsibility for your actions and thoughts. It's easy to blame someone or something for your life being a mess, but at the end of the day, you are the only one that can fix it. Grow a set of balls, get control of your situation and make it better. If you are hanging around waiting for someone else to fix your fucked up life, you are wasting your time...

By Shari Roan - Los Angeles Times

Almost 5 million California adults say they could use help with a mental or emotional problem, according to a survey released Wednesday by researchers at UCLA. About 1 million of them meet the criteria for "serious psychological distress."

However, only one in three people who perceive a need for mental health services or are in serious distress have seen a professional for treatment, the survey found.

The survey was conducted among more than 44,000 adults as part of the 2005 California Health Interview Survey, administered through the UCLA Center for Health Policy Research. Since the survey was conducted, the recession probably has contributed to worsening mental health for even more people, said the lead author of the study, David Grant.

The survey showed that lack of health insurance coverage was a major reason why people didn't seek help -- a situation that may be rectified somewhat by state and national mental health parity laws now in effect that require insurers to cover mental health conditions similarly to they way they cover physical conditions. (The final phase of the federal law went into effect on July 1.) However, stigma continues to be a barrier to mental health services. The survey found that men, people 65 and older, Latinos and Asians were less likely to seek help because of the stigma associated with mental or emotional problems. But being poor is the biggest barrier to care.

According to the survey:

Women were nearly twice as likely as men to say they needed help because they felt sad, anxious or nervous (22.7% compared to 14.3%).

Adults under age 65 were twice as likely to perceive the need for help (20.2% compared to 9.2%).

The poorest adults were more than five times as likely to report symptoms of serious psychological distress compared to those living well above the federal poverty level.

"The findings also demonstrate a crucial need for continued efforts to expand mental-health services and to meet threats to such services caused by the ongoing state budget crisis in Sacramento; reduced state funding for local mental health programs and public insurance programs could be devastating to hundreds of thousands of Californians with mental health needs," the authors wrote.

Mental health services always seems to be a big target when it comes to trimming state and local budgets. Lawmakers can get away with it, of course, because the stigma surrounding mental illness prevents people from protesting such cuts. Given the number of people in pain, according to this survey, it may be time for Californians to overcome the perceived stigma and demand expanded public funding and insurance coverage of mental health care.

A couple of Tom Petty tunes this evening...

Sara Jean Underwood is Smoking Hot...

Some random Hotness this evening...

House panel hits Rangel with 13 ethics charges

I have no sympathy for a guy who uses his position for personal gain. Especially when that gain comes at the expense of the tax payers. rangel is another poster child for term limits. He was probably a pretty good representative in the early days of his career, but as he became comfortable, he must have felt he was untouchable, above the law.

These guys are not above the law, or the shouldn't be. If anything, they should be held to a higher standard. It's sad that we never hear about most of the things our elected officials do. It is covered up or handled in private. They are PUBLIC servants, nothing concerning their office should be hidden or covered up.

Maybe, if more of these people were kicked out of office for violating the public's trust, fewer of them would make the attempt...

By LARRY MARGASAK and LAURIE KELLMAN - Associated Press

WASHINGTON – House investigators accused veteran New York Rep. Charles Rangel of 13 violations of congressional ethics standards on Thursday, throwing a cloud over his four-decade political career and raising worries for fellow Democrats about the fall elections.

The allegations include failure to report rental income from vacation property in the Dominican Republic and hundreds of thousands of dollars in additional income and assets on his financial disclosure statements.

The charges came as lawyers for Rangel and the House ethics committee worked out a plea deal, according to people familiar with the talks. But Republicans on the ethics committee indicated it was too late.

The deal between the lawyers has little meaning if the committee members don't approve it, and Republicans insisted — at the first meeting of a House panel deciding Rangel's fate — that the case go forward with an ethics trial. The panel is evenly divided between Democrats and Republicans.

"Mr. Rangel was given multiple opportunities to settle this matter. Instead, he chose to move forward to the public trial phase," said Rep. Jo Bonner of Alabama, the senior Republican on the ethics panel

Chairman Zoe Lofgren, D-Calif., has made clear that she wants the committee to be unanimous — leaving little chance for agreement without Rangel capitulating on virtually all counts.

Many Democrats had urged Rangel to settle the case to avoid the prospect of televised hearings right before November congressional elections that will determine which party controls Congress next year.

However, as Thursday's public airing of the charges drew nearer, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi seem resigned to the case proceeding.

"The chips will have to fall where they may politically," she told reporters. Pursuing ethics cases against House members is "a serious responsibility that we have," she said.

The alleged violations of House standards of conduct also include using congressional letterhead to solicit donations for a center for public service to bear Rangel's name on the New York campus of the City College of New York.

Rangel was also accused of accepting a rent-stabilized property in Manhattan for his campaign office and initially not paying federal taxes on the Dominican Republic property.

The ethics panel said Rangel failed to report rental income on his original tax returns for 1998 through 2006 from the Dominican Republic villa. It also said he violated federal laws in addition to House ethics rules, including the 1989 Ethics Reform Act, Postal Service laws and government service codes.

The ethics charges, agreed upon after a two-year probe, were read in a public session of the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, as the ethics committee is formally known.

Rangel, 80, did not attend.

In New York's Harlem, where Rangel is the only congressman most residents have ever known, two people reflected different opinions of the veteran lawmaker, who has a mid-September primary.

David Hendrickson said Rangel should step down. "He's seen his day. He's either not in touch with the community or insulated himself so that he doesn't have to be in touch with the community," Hendrickson said.

Michael Austin said it was unfortunate that Rangel's career had been clouded by the allegations. "I think he's been a wonderful congressman throughout the years," Austin said, adding that he would vote again for Rangel "based on his previous record."

The session set the stage for a committee trial, expected to be held in September. Democrats had hoped to avoid such a public confrontation as November elections approach.

"We live at a time when public skepticism about the institutions in our country is very high," said Lofgren, the ethics committee chair.

She said it had been the panel's goal "to by our actions rebuild and earn trust by the public and our colleagues."

Republicans have been trying to turn the case into an indictment of Democratic leadership. Rangel stepped down earlier this year as chairman of the tax-writing House Ways and Means Committee, one of the top posts in the House.

But Bonner told colleagues, "No one, regardless of their partisan stripes, should rejoice."

"It is the duty of the House to punish its members for disorderly behavior. As such, this is truly a sad day," the Alabama Republican said.

Under the tentative plea deal, it was not immediately clear how many of the 13 charges of ethical violations Rangel agreed to accept.

The panel judging Rangel includes eight members, four from each party. Thus, for any deal to be accepted it must be approved by at least one Republican.

In the frantic hours leading up to the meeting, Rangel's lawyer, Leslie Kiernan, talked to attorneys for the panel about how to avoid a trial for the 40-year veteran.

Rep. Michael McCaul of Texas, the top Republican on the panel that will try Rangel, said that the Democrat had been "given the opportunity to negotiate a settlement during the investigation phase."

However, he said, that phase is now over. "We are now in the trial phase," he said.

A congressional trial could be avoided only if Rangel admitted to substantial violations, or resigned.

Punishment could range from a report criticizing his conduct to a reprimand or censure by the House, or a vote to expel him — which is highly unlikely. Any agreement would have to be approved by Rangel and ethics committee members.

"Sixty years ago I survived a Chinese attack in North Korea and as a result I haven't had a bad day since," Rangel told reporters earlier Thursday. "But today I have to reassess that statement."

Grayson bills taxpayers for DVD of term's highlights

Here is another guy that should be headed to an ethics violation hearing. Isn't it illegal to use tax payer money to campaign? He can call it what he wants, but this is campaign material and he should have paid for this from his re-election money.

As an elected representative, if you have to tell people what you have done, you probably haven't done much. Your constituents should be able to tell if you are working for them. Like me for example, my senator, claire mccaskill, does exactly the opposite of what I want her to do, I know that, and in 2012 I am going to do everything I can do to make sure she is defeated. I don't need her to send me a dvd telling me she is screwing me...

By Mark K. Matthews and Mark Schlueb - ORLANDO SENTINEL

WASHINGTON — If U.S. Rep. Alan Grayson were a rock star, his latest PR blitz — a DVD sent to tens of thousands of Central Florida residents — would be called Grayson's Greatest Hits.

The 90-minute disc features video highlights from his first term in office, including one of him grilling Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke and another in which the Orlando Democrat preaches on the need to teach schoolchildren about the U.S. Constitution.

The DVD comes wrapped inside a mailer covered with promotional slogans: "Congressman Alan Grayson, Hard at Work for You," "He works hard. He pays attention. He gets things done," and "Video DVD Inside: Watch Congressman Grayson in Action!"

In many ways, it's the perfect campaign video — with one key difference.

Thanks to perks given to all members of Congress, it's not Grayson's campaign but taxpayers who footed the nearly $73,000 bill to produce and mail the DVD to 100,000 homes in Grayson's district of Lake, Marion, Orange and Osceola counties.

It's a stunt that drew howls from Republicans, who complained that Grayson was abusing the congressional privilege of franking that allows lawmakers to send taxpayer-paid newsletters and other mail to residents.

"This is an outrageous abuse of taxpayer dollars, and it goes to show that Alan Grayson is completely out of touch with Central Florida," said state Rep. Kurt Kelly of Ocala, one of seven Republicans looking to unseat Grayson this fall.

"This is just ridiculous behavior. What congressman would do this in the face of a huge budget deficit?" he asked.

Grayson said he doesn't see the video as self-promotional and that its intent was to show residents how the sausage is made in Washington.

"Unless you glom onto C-SPAN, you don't have sense of what congressmen do on a day-to-day basis," Grayson said. "I told people in my district that I would try to be a watchdog, and I think they have a right to know whether I have kept that promise."

When pressed, however, Grayson did acknowledge that his office selected clips that make him look good.

"I'm an elected official. Do you think it's my job to put out misinformation or negative information about myself?" he asked.

The silver disc features clips of Grayson questioning witnesses testifying before the House Financial Services committee, including his well-publicized interrogation of Bernanke. A YouTube version posted on Grayson's website has drawn more than 216,000 hits.

And, like the director's cut of a Hollywood movie release, the DVD is sprinkled with narration from Grayson. Of the 31 separate clips on the DVD, 10 feature Grayson wearing an American flag tie and seated in front of a photo of the U.S. Capitol, telling viewers what they're about to see or criticizing the Fed, bank bailouts and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

"Hello, I'm your congressman, Alan Grayson," the video begins. "I've put together this DVD so you do not have to sit through hours of hearings or read thousands of pages of transcripts to find out what your representative is doing to combat waste, fraud and abuse in government spending."

His narration doesn't shy away from a few pats on the back.

"Of the 53 freshman members of the House, I was the first one to get a bill passed," he says. And, "Before coming to Congress, I spent many years prosecuting defense contractors who ripped off the government and put our troops in danger just to pad their wallets. When I came to Congress, I wasted no time in using that experience to combat waste, fraud and abuse in defense spending."

Though Grayson isn't the first lawmaker to use taxpayer money to send a DVD, aides with the bipartisan House administration committee — which oversees franking requests and approved Grayson's DVD — could recall only a handful of other examples.

But bucking the norm has been Grayson's trademark since 2008, when he beat then-U.S. Rep. Ric Keller, an Orlando Republican also known for sending puffy pieces of franked mail.

Last year, Grayson spent about $108,000 on franked mail in 2009 — 32 percent more than the $81,623 spent by his fellow Democratic freshman Suzanne Kosmas of New Smyrna Beach. Among Central Florida veteran incumbents, U.S. Rep. John Mica, R- Winter Park, spent $14,000 — and U.S. Rep. Ginny Brown-Waite, R-Brooksville, spent $138,801, records show.

Grayson aides said that the DVD was targeted at senior citizens, who may have trouble using a computer and seeing the long list of YouTube clips that Grayson has put online.

Spokesman Todd Jurkowski said the office also took pains to find a Central Florida company, Horizon Media Express, to produce the video and insisted the company "rely on American subcontractors [because] many companies will use offshore companies to duplicate DVDs."

Since taking office, Grayson has used speeches and hearings to loudly attack everything that he sees as wrong with America — including giant corporations, financial leaders and Republicans.

He's best known for a floor speech in which he says the Republican health-care plan was for sick patients to "die quickly," although Grayson aides were quick to note that the health-care quip was not included on the DVD.

"If we were self-serving, we would have put that one on there," Jurkowski said.

A couple of Pink Floyd tunes tonight...

More of the Beautiful Goddess Nikkala Stott

Expiration of Bush Tax Cuts Would Cost Families Thousands in 2011, Study Shows

It's funny how different campaign talk and reality turn out to be, especially when the guy campaigning is a compulsive liar...







From FoxNews

Millions of families will be faced with thousands of dollars in tax increases if the Bush tax cuts are allowed to expire at the end of the year, according to estimates from the nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation.

A preliminary report obtained by Fox News shows that several tax increases would hit hard if Congress does nothing to minimize the damage before Dec. 31.

The study found that raising just the lowest income tax rate from 10 percent to 15 percent would cost 88 million taxpayers an average of $503 next year.

Lowering the child tax credit from $1,000 to $500 per child would cost 31 million families an average of $1,033 in 2011; the reinstatement of the so-called marriage penalty, a peculiarity in the tax code that forces some married couples to pay more for income tax than they would if they were single, would cost 35 million couples an average of $595 each, according to the preliminary numbers.

Those changes are among a slew of tax increases that are scheduled to go into effect if Washington does not act.

Income tax rates will rise for almost every bracket, with the bottom rate going from 10 to 15 percent and the top rate going from 35 percent to 39.6 percent. Dividends and capital gains taxes also are expected to rise.

The Obama administration, though, is pushing a plan to extend the income tax cuts for middle-class families while letting tax breaks for the top 2-3 percent of income earners expire.

Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner said on ABC's "This Week" on Sunday that the plan is the "responsible" route, arguing that it shows a commitment to reining in the deficit. The administration estimates that eliminating the top-tier tax break would save the government nearly $700 over the next decade.

A few prominent Democrats have questioned whether Congress should selectively halt some tax cuts, as Republicans claim ending the tax cuts for the top tier will hammer small businesses.

Democratic leaders, though, say the economy can spare higher taxes for the wealthy and plan for a showdown over the issue before November.

Hi-Point TS995 Carbine

I know I have talked about this before, but, damn I Love my Hi-Point TS995 Carbine. Not only is it beautiful, it is so damn fun to shoot! From 50 to 100 yards it is absolutely deadly accurate. The 9mm rounds are reasonably priced and I am saving all my brass to try my hand at a little reloading.

This was the first two magazines I shot out of the weapon. It started out a little high and left, but the groups were incredible. This was from 50 yards.

I have put about 500 rounds through it so far and have yet to have a single jam, misfire or failure to eject.

At $224.00 bucks (at Cabela's) I think this is the bargain of the century. The .45 caliber version of the Carbine is supposed to be out sometime soon. I'm thinking about picking one up just for the fun of it.

All in all, you can't go wrong with this weapon. An accurate, well made weapon at a very reasonable price that shoots affordable ammunition that is fun to shoot. What's not to love?

Arizona Immigration Law Still a 'Powerful Deterrent,' Supporters Say

It was sure promising last Friday when judge bolton seemed to be interested in doing the right thing in Arizona. As it turns out, she only wanted to do half of the right thing. It's too bad that this will have to drag out even longer. obama and his gang of thugs have no interest in securing the border and only want to act as a deterrent to those who have the balls to address the issue.

Part of the law is better than none of the law. I don't get the issue with immigrants being required to have their documentation on their person. Think about it a second, we are all required to have our drivers license on us when operating a vehicle or we get a ticket. We are required to have our proof of insurance, or again, we get a ticket. How is requiring people to have their documents against the law?

john mccain weighed in on the issue. Until this became a National issue, an election issue, where was he? In 2007 he was working with ted kennedy on an amnesty bill. While it was a big deal then, border security is a huge issue now, as we all know. mccain has shifted his views with the political winds. Or maybe he is so freaking old that he can't remember what his views were three years ago.

The Arizona attorney general, terry goddard, had to put his two cents worth in. As far as I can tell, from the outside looking in, he is a part of the problem, not the solution. I haven't seen or heard anything out of the guy except criticism of Jan Brewer. Maybe he should quit bitching about her and come up with a better plan to secure the border. Oh, wait, he's a democrat, he probably just wants to give all the illegal aliens amnesty and leave our border wide open to any thugs, criminals and scumbags that want to enter. Maybe mr. goddard should take a look at the number of people who support what Jan Brewer is doing. Maybe he should think about doing what the citizens of his State want done, secure the border...

From FoxNews

While opponents of Arizona's strict immigration law are claiming victory in a federal ruling Wednesday that blocked most of the crackdown hours before its enactment, there's still plenty left in the state legislation that supporters are cheering.

As the case is litigated, Arizona will be able to block state officials from so-called "sanctuary city" policies limiting enforcement of federal law; require that state officials work with federal officials on illegal immigration; allow civil suits over sanctuary cities; and to make it a crime to pick up day laborers.

"We have a big problem with day laborers standing on the street disrupting traffic, disrupting communities, scaring people, and that part of the law withstood constitutionality," Arizona state Rep. John Kavanagh told Fox News. "We'll be able to clean up that mess."

Kavanagh also praised the other sections of the law that were not blocked.

"I think it is a powerful deterrent effect and this is not going to be settled for years," he said. "So while we might not have as strong a deterrent as we had yesterday, it is still something for illegals to think about when they are looking for places to go."

A spokesman for Arizona Governor Jan Brewer said the state will appeal Judge Susan Bolton's ruling to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco on Thursday, asking the appellate court to lift the injunction and allow the blocked provisions to take effect. The appeal will ask the 9th Circuit to act quickly, Paul Senseman said.

State Senator Russell Pearce, the law's chief author, said he likes that the state will be able enforce a provision that bars local governments from limiting enforcement of federal immigration laws.

"Striking down these sanctuary city policies has always been the No. 1 priority," he said.

Pearce said that part of Bolton's ruling removes what he calls "political handcuffs" from law enforcement officers whose superiors put restraints on their enforcement of immigration laws. He predicted the battle over the law would eventually end up in the Supreme Court, with Arizona prevailing.

"We will appeal this immediately and we will win on appeal," he told the Arizona Republic. "This will be to the Supreme Court eventually, and I expect a 5-4 decision in our favor, perhaps even 6-3."

The remaining provisions, many of them procedural and revisions to an Arizona immigration statute, will take effect at 12:01 a.m. Thursday.

Still, many supporters were not pleased that the judge blocked the most controversial sections of the law. The partial injunction prevents Arizona from requiring police officers to determine the immigration status of anyone they stop or arrest. It also strikes down the provision making it a crime not to carry immigration registration papers and the provision that makes it a crime for an illegal immigrant to seek or perform work.

"We are deeply disappointed that she views that the enforcement of law would impose a burden on the federal government," Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., told Fox News. "The federal government is supposed to carry out its responsibilities of securing our borders. It's really disappointing."

"I think key provisions have been removed. Let's be honest about it," he said. "But also, the upshot of this is we gotta get the border secured. … Rather than wasting their time on all of this court stuff, all they had to do was give us the assets necessary to get our borders secured."

U.S. Rep. Harry Mitchell, R-Ariz., said the ruling should not give Washington any kind of excuse not to address immigration.

"There are no victors today, except those who want to use this protracted litigation as a means to grandstand and score political points, instead of actually rolling up their sleeves and getting to work to help fix the problem," he said in a written statement."

"I believe that if the new state law spurs Washington to act, then it is a good thing," he said. "But make no mistake: neither the state law, nor the lawsuit to overturn it – nor today's temporary injunction – will fix the problem, secure our border, or fix a broken immigration system."

To Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio told KTAR.com that the ruling is not a "defeat by any means."

"We will still do what we have been doing for the past three years," he said in response to the ruling. "On employer sanction state law, on human smuggling state law," he said.

But the decision was seen as a defeat for Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer, who is running for another term in November and has seen her political fortunes rise because of the law's popularity among conservatives.

She has vowed to take the case "all the way to the Supreme Court if necessary."

But her opponent, state Attorney General Terry Goddard, pounced.

"Jan Brewer played politics with immigration, and she lost," the Democrat said. "It is time to look beyond election-year grandstanding and begin to repair the damage to Arizona's image and economy."

A couple Of Bad Co. tunes this evening...

Alicia Whitten is drop dead Gorgeous

gibbs Misleads Public on obama's Broken Tax Pledge

When you see it in writing, it kind of brings it home doesn't it? obama is a liar, every word he says should be scritinized. He will lie when it is easier to tell the truth...

From John Kartch - ATR

White House spokesman Robert Gibbs seems to have forgotten that his boss has already broken his central campaign promise – a “firm pledge” that “no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase. Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes.”

Responding to a question during his daily press briefing today, Gibbs said, “The President believes raising taxes on the middle class during this economic time would not make a lot of economic sense.”

But President Obama has already broken his “firm pledge” at least eight times:

1. Federal Tobacco Tax Hike: On Feb. 4, 2009, just sixteen days into his presidency, Obama signed into law a 156 percent increase in the federal excise tax on tobacco– a hike of 62 cents per pack. The median income of smokers is just over $36,000.

When the tax took effect on April 1, 2009, White House spokesman Reid Cherlin tried to pull a fast one on Associated Press reporter Calvin Woodward. Cherlin falsely claimed Obama’s tax pledge applied only to “income or payroll taxes”. Cherlin said: "The president's position throughout the campaign was that he would not raise income or payroll taxes on families making less than $250,000, and that's a promise he has kept." Woodward rightly wasn’t buying it (PROMISES, PROMISES: Obama Tax Pledge Up In Smoke).

Tax Increases on families making less than $250,000 didn’t stop with tobacco. Obama’s signature on the healthcare reform bill made possible the following tax increases – none of which exempt families making less than $250,000:

2. The Tax on Indoor Tanning Services took effect July 1, 2010: This provision of Obamacare imposes a new 10 percent excise tax on Americans using indoor tanning salons. The tax was tucked into the bill behind closed doors at the last minute, replacing the previous “Bo-Tax” – a proposed tax on plastic surgery. The 30 million Americans who visit tanning facilities are getting a lesson in the petty, nanny-state nature of Obamacare – every time they walk through the door. Not to mention the business owners and employees who are threatened by the tax.

3. The “Medicine Cabinet Tax” takes effect Jan. 1, 2011: Thanks to Obamacare, Americans will no longer be able to use health savings account (HSA), flexible spending account (FSA), or health reimbursement (HRA) pre-tax dollars to purchase non-prescription, over-the-counter medicines (except insulin).

4. The HSA Withdrawal Tax Hike takes effect Jan. 1, 2011: This provision of Obamacare increases the additional tax on non-medical early withdrawals from an HSA from 10 to 20 percent, disadvantaging them relative to IRAs and other tax-advantaged accounts, which remain at 10 percent.

5. The“Special Needs Kids Tax” takes effect Jan. 1, 2013: This provision of Obamacare imposes a cap on flexible spending accounts (FSAs) of $2500 (Currently, there is no federal government limit). There is one group of FSA owners for whom this new cap will be particularly cruel and onerous: parents of special needs children. There are thousands of families with special needs children in the United States, and many of them use FSAs to pay for special needs education. Tuition rates at one leading school that teaches special needs children in Washington, D.C. (National Child Research Center) can easily exceed $14,000 per year. Under tax rules, FSA dollars can be used to pay for this type of special needs education.

6. The Obamacare Medical Prosthetics and Devices Tax takes effect in January of 2013: This Obamacare tax raises the price of all medical prosthetic devices, such as pacemakers and artificial limbs. Consumers of these devices will end up paying more for these life-saving items.

7. The Medical Itemized Deductions Cap takes effect Jan. 1, 2013: Currently, those facing high medical expenses are allowed a deduction if the total cost if the expenses reduces the filer’s income by 7.5%. This provision of Obamacare imposes a threshold of 10%. This new tax will most adversely affect early retirees and the catastrophically ill.

8. The Obamacare Individual Mandate Excise Tax takes effect Jan. 1, 2014: Anyone not buying “qualifying” health insurance must pay an income surtax according to the higher of the following (page 71 of manager’s amendment updates Reid bill):

Single
2 People
3+ People

2014
$95/1.0% AGI
$190/1.0% AGI
$285/1.0% AGI

2015
$325/2.0% AGI
$650/2.0% AGI
$975/2.0% AGI

2016+
$695/2.5% AGI
$1390/2.0% AGI
$2085/2.5%/AGI

Rangel Scrambling to Make Deal on Ethics Charges

Why should rangel be saved any embarrassment? He has embarrassed our entire Nation with his antics.

I'm sure many democrats would like this issue to go away. I'm sure many others are sweating right now.

Have you seen the list of charges against this guy? He used his office for his own personal gain on a fairly regular basis.

Rangel rented four rent-stabilized apartments in Harlem at a price below market value, in possibly breaking rules barring representatives from accepting gifts worth more than $50.

Rangel may have used his office and former chairmanship of the Ways and Means Committee to give tax relief to a company that made a $1 million pledge to a City University center named for Rangel.

Rangel failed to report $75,000 in rental income from a vacation property in the Dominican Republic on financial disclosure filings.

Rangel never had to pay thousands of dollars worth of interest on the mortgage on that resort home.

Rangel failed to disclose at least a half-million dollars in investment accounts and the ownership of real estate, doubling his claimed net worth.

It's good to be king... until you get caught. The sad part though, he will make a deal and avoid paying the price he is due for his crimes against the people he was sworn to represent.


From FoxNews

WASHINGTON -- Embattled Democratic Rep. Charles Rangel was meeting with the head of the House ethics committee and other top Democrats amid rumors he may try to work out a deal rather than face a full vetting of the charges he is now facing.

A settlement would mean Rangel must admit he committed some ethical misconduct.

House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md., said Tuesday that "everyone would like for the Rangle issue to go away" and that the ethics process with Rangel is not a pleasant one.

Ethics committee Chairwoman Zoe Lofgren has been preparing to launch a rare, public ethics inquiry on Thursday into alleged misdeeds by the New York Democrat.

Lofgren will chair an "adjudicatory subcommittee" that will present its case against Rangel. An investigative panel reported last week that it had found ethics violations by Rangel.

For nearly two years, the ethics committee has probed Rangel on a host of issues, ranging from tax evasion to improper use of Congressional stationery to raise money for a school of public affairs in the Congressman's name at City College of New York.

Rangel met with Lofgren on Monday night and sought closed-door counsel from Rep. Chris Van Hollen, D-Md., a special assistant to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.

"I think he's in the process of trying to determine the best course forward," said Van Hollen. "I was presenting him with my observations."

A settlement would spare him an embarrassing ethics trial and would be a relief for other Democrats, who fear that an dragged-out ethics proceeding during the fall election campaign would hurt their ability to maintain their House majority.

At least two Democrats are trying to distance themselves from Rangel as the process plays out.

"Now that the investigation is complete and provided the facts are as alleged, I think it's clear that he should resign from Congress," said Rep. Walt Minnick, D-Idaho

"I didn't know him when I accepted money from him," added Rep. Kathy Dahlkemper, D-Pa., who has returned campaign donations. Dahlkemper said it's a "common practice" for party leaders to "give money to people who they think will be successful. So politically it could become an issues, but I decided to take care of it before it did."

Arizona Hotels Thriving Despite Boycotts Over Immigration Law

It's interesting how around 65% of the population support Arizona's right to defend itself from the hoardes streaming across our Country's borders, but the politicians the people have elected to represent them have no interest in the will of the people.

The boycotts are falling apart, good for Arizona! They are the example for the States and other jurisdictions who wish to protect their citizens also. The boycotts were stupid and juvenile to begin with. California should boycott itself instead of Arizona...

From FoxNews

Arizona's tourism industry has a target on its back, but the widespread boycotts over the state's immigration law might not be hitting the mark.

Recent data compiled by a market research group show hotel bookings across the state -- as well as in tourism hot spots Phoenix and Scottsdale -- have been on the rise the past two months.

The numbers could dispel warnings from local officials that Arizona stands to lose a fortune and dampen the chances that cities and organizations will be able to compel the state to reverse its immigration law by choking its economy with a sanctions-style business boycott.

"Fundamentally, the boycotts have been unsuccessful," said Barry Broome, president of the Greater Phoenix Economic Council.

The data from hotel industry research firm STR showed that for the state of Arizona, hotel occupancy was up 5.7 percent in May and up 8.3 percent in June compared with the same time a year ago.

In Phoenix, occupancy was up 10.6 percent in June; in Scottsdale, it was up 10.7 percent for the same period. Revenue also was up, with Arizona hotels raking in $148 million last month -- up more than 11 percent from a year ago.

Broome said the state also has been able to attract new businesses to locate in Arizona despite bad publicity. He said his group plans to announce 2,000 to 3,000 new jobs thanks to investment from California, where Arizona boycotts are in place in several major cities, over the next few months.

"Business continues," said Garrick Taylor, spokesman with the Arizona Chamber of Commerce and Industry.

That doesn't mean Arizona business groups are done worrying. To the contrary, they're still on high alert over the potential damage the boycotts could do in the long run.

According to the Arizona Hotel and Lodging Association, leisure hotel bookings are up after a record bad year in 2009, but the conventions and meetings sectors have taken a hit -- a development that could cost Arizona millions over the long term given that conventions are sometimes booked years in advance.

The Greater Phoenix Economic Council and Greater Phoenix Chamber of Commerce have launched a new website to build opposition to the boycotts. The site, "Stop AZ Boycotts," features video testimonials from Arizona workers about how the boycotts have negatively affected their livelihoods.

In one, a waitress at The Arizona Center said canceled conventions have cut her earnings in half.

Taylor said that despite the recent hotel data, the boycotts could hurt Arizona's image to the point that it's "no longer a destination that is on people's radar screen."

He said part of the problem is that the backlash contributes to instability in the local economy. "It's not exactly an economic development plan," he said.

Many of the boycotts were pitched as a way to pressure Arizona to rescind its immigration law, which makes illegal immigration a state crime. The groups claimed the law, set to go into effect Thursday unless a federal government court challenge prevents it, would lead to racial profiling by unfairly targeting Hispanics regardless of their immigration status.

City governments typically banned employees from traveling to the state and in some cases moved to reconsider contracts with state businesses.

But some of those campaigns ran into glitches along the way, watering down the impact. Los Angeles exempted from the boycott a contract with an Arizona company that provided its red-light cameras. The Los Angeles City Council also is reportedly considering another exemption for airport taxi company Super Shuttle, based in Arizona.

The Cartel Corridor

This Sheriff's department is fighting a war, they should be equipped properly for the mission. Colt or Smith & Wesson or DPMS should "sponsor" these guys and arm them up for the task at hand.

The Sheriff can invite obama all day long, it won't matter, he won't go down there and see the problem first hand. He might send some of his flunkies, but he has no interest. He has already formed his plan and it has nothing to do with securing the border or stopping the drug and human trafficking.

by: William La Jeunesse - FoxNews

Pinal County, Arizona Sheriff Paul Babeu is raising money to privately outfit his officers with body armor and more powerful weapons because he and his deputies say they can’t compete with the cartels, especially when it comes to weapons. He even has a website asking for donations. Babeu says the Obama Administration needs to help the state of Arizona, not sue it.

“ I'd like to invite President Obama to come here, to Pinal County, to come here and see this drug and human smuggling corridor, to see for himself, 80 miles, 70 miles, 90 miles deep into our state, into America, what's going on,” says Babeu.

The area north of the Interstate 8 in Pinal County, Arizona is a lay up point in a well-known smuggling corridor. It’s more than 70 miles from the Mexican border and yet, when you look around it’s littered with evidence of human and drug smugglers.

Millions of dollars of cargo come through this valley. In fact, the cartels have lookouts at the high points, so they know when police are coming and they'll stop the load from coming through by radio.

"Our normal patrol deputy is out manned and outgunned in the area,” says Deputy Matt Thomas. “They're coming from Mexico with AK-47s, with AR-15- style rifles."

And once they come in, the illegal immigrants hike a short distance to the interstate to be picked up. On their feet they wear “magic shoes”, pieces of carpet to disguise their footprints. Some bring bundles of marijuana to the freeway.

The drugs are then loaded into waiting vans. Deputy Marc Miller recently had a big bust after a high-speed chase.

“In the back seat was a bundle of marijuana and on the floor board where the passenger in the back seat ran from was two fully-loaded AK-47s, two 9 millimeters,” says Miller.

Gabriela Rabelo is a Goddess!

Majority of Small Business Sector Facing Higher Taxes Under obama Plan

Lies, lies and more lies. obama and his gang of thugs are liars. Anyone who says different is also a liar. Every word that comes out of his mouth should be suspect. Sometimes you have to wonder if he can even tell the difference between the truth and lies anymore.

We will all be taxed, it doesn't matter what we make. If you are a hard working American, prepare to be taxed, and then taxed some more. Buckle up for the vat tax too, it is coming.

By Ryan Ellis - ATR

                         

•The Obama Administration and Congressional Democrats have said that they want to raise taxes in the top two income tax rates in January 2011. Under their plan, the 33 percent rate will rise to 36 percent, and the 35 percent rate will rise to 39.6 percent automatically in January. These rates affect families and small business owners earning at least $200,000 per year

•Unlike corporations, small businesses usually don’t pay their own taxes. Rather, business profits flow through to the business owner. The business owner pays taxes on her small business by adding the profits to her income tax form. Therefore, personal income taxes are the same thing as small business taxes.

•According to the IRS, most small business profits pay taxes in households making more than $200,000 per year. The IRS keeps track of two types of small business income: sole proprietors, and “pass-through” entities like partnerships and S-corporations.

•All small businesses. There were 30 million tax returns reporting small business income in 2008. On net (profits reduced by losses), these owners reported business profits of $981 billion. A large chunk of this net profit--$488 billion—faced taxation in households making more than $200,000 per year. A majority of small business profits will face a tax rate hike under the Obama-Pelosi-Reid plan.

•Sole proprietors. There were 22 million tax returns reporting sole proprietor income in 2008. On net (profits reduced by losses), these owners reported business profits of $264 billion. A large chunk of this net profit--$90 billion—faced taxation in households making more than $200,000 per year. 34 percent of sole proprietor profits will face a tax rate hike under the Obama-Pelosi-Reid tax hike plan.

•S-corporations and partnerships. There were 8 million partners and S-corporation shareholders in 2008. On net (profits reduced by losses), these owners reported business profits of $717 billion. A majority of this profit--$398 billion—faced taxation in households making more than $200,000 per year. 55 percent of S-corporation and partnership profits will face a tax rate hike under the Obama-Pelosi-Reid tax hike plan.

Pro-Gun Dems May Get a Boost

I don't base my vote strictly on a candidates views on gun control, it is a major factor though. If a candidate is anti- Second Amendment, they don't care about my ability to protect the rest of my rights.

And I damn sure don't base my vote on what the nra has to say. The nra seems to care more for it's own agenda and profit margin than it does my Right To Keep and Bear Arms.

This article says something sort of between the lines that gives me pause, "I think finally the message hit home that it's bad politics to be on the wrong side of the 2nd amendment at election time...". And it is only at election time for many of them. Politicians are funny creatures, what they stand for today isn't always going to be what they stand for tomorrow. They try for three years and six months to take away your freedoms, and then for six months they shake your hand, smile, and tell you all the neat things they are going to do for you... if you just re-elect them. They truly think we are a bunch of half wit hicks who can't use YouTube to see all the nasty things they have said and done. Or think that we can't use Project Vote Smart and GovTrack to keep an eye on how they vote on the issues. They think that we will remain the same silent majority that we have been for far too long. Our politicians have a rude awakening coming.

Don't count on the nra people, they are a business and are going to make a profit with or without you.

by: Molly Line - FoxNews

With the mid-terms looming large in a year where incumbents are expected to take a beating at the polls many Democratic candidates are favoring gun rights, aiming to win endorsements or positive ratings from pro-2nd amendment groups.

University of New Hampshire Professor of Politics, Andrew Smith, says Democrats started moving away from a strong anti-gun stance in the 90's when many in the party blamed the issue on massive political losses in Congress.

"I think it started with the 1994 elections where a lot of Democrats believe it was the NRA involvement in that election which caused the Democrats to lose the House and the Senate. So they backed off that issue," said Smith.

The National Rifle Association, by far the most powerful pro-gun lobby in the country, spends massive amounts of money to protect the right to bear arms, donating cash to candidates and political action committees. While Republicans receive the majority of the organizations endorsements and money, over the last 10 years, the NRA has dramatically increased funding for Democratic candidates.

"I think finally the message hit home that it's bad politics to be on the wrong side of the 2nd amendment at election time and I think you see that reflective in what's been happening on this issue amongst Democrats in Washington, DC and state legislatures around the country." said Wayne LaPierre, CEO of the National Rifle Association.

"Gun ownership in the country amid labor unions folks runs from a low of 48% in California to a high of 60, 70, 80% in states like Missouri, Tennessee, West Virginia. In the 2000 election, half of those union members had a firearm in their home voted for George Bush over Al Gore based on the gun issue and that cost Al Gore the presidency."

According to the center for responsive politics, a non-partisan group that tracks political spending, during the 2002 election cycle the NRA put 8% of their federal campaign contributions toward Democrats. This election cycle, they've received 26% percent.

Though the NRA has yet to release many key endorsements heading into the fall elections some major races could be affected when the word comes down. In the midst of a tough re-election campaign, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid could get a boost as the NRA considers endorsing him.

In Indiana, Democratic Senate candidate Brad Ellsworth, a former sheriff, may win the organization's endorsement over Republican Dan Coats.

The slow political shift has frustrated some Democrats that have long fought for tougher gun laws, like New York Congresswoman Carolyn McCarthy, who's husband was killed in 1993 when a gunman randomly fired into a commuter train. She wishes fellow Democrats would fight the pressure exerted by the pro-gun lobby.

"They've been very open about saying... 'Carolyn, if the NRA comes against a bill, I gotta vote with the NRA.' They're not going to take that chance. I understand that," said McCarthy of her Democratic colleagues. "Does it bother me? Of course, it bothers me because I'm not trying to take away anyone's right to own a gun."

Depending on where a given candidate hails from, gun rights can be a major issue.

Take the "Live Free or Die" state of New Hampshire where hunting is popular and the 2nd amendment has long been prioritized as a critical personal liberty.

"It's a freedom issue and that's what this is about," said Mitch Kopacz, president of Gun Owners of New Hampshire. "It's the canary in the cage if you will, the firearms... for free speech and other issues. If we have firearms we still have the rest of our rights."

While a contingent of voters will cast ballots strictly adhering to which candidate supports firearm freedoms, many others will prioritize other matters.

"Because the economy is bad and when the economy is bad all other issues get pushed to the side, including the issues about guns," explains Smith. "So I think what you're seeing with Democratic candidates is that the party has moved away from that more doctrinaire position against 2nd amendment rights."

Missouri Residents - Protect Your Health Care Freedom!

Please Missouri residents, it is important to vote on August 3rd. We have an opportunity to send a message to obama and his gang of thugs, including claire mccaskill.

obamacare is going to kill our health care system. If we allow this to stand, we will be paying more money for compromised care. Encourage your family and friends to get out and vote. This could be one of the most important votes of your life...

From Missourians for Health Care Freedom

The President and Congress have given us a health care reform package that will force people into government-defined health plans and penalize them for paying for services with cash!

Missouri’s Proposition C, on the August 3 primary ballot, will protect us from those government mandates by expressly stating that the government may not “penalize citizens for refusing to purchase private health insurance or infringe upon the right to offer or accept direct payment for lawful healthcare services.”

Furthermore, the august 3 vote is the FIRST TIME any voters in the country will have the opportunity to vote yes in order to protect their freedom from government regulation.

Vote YES on Proposition C and urge your friends and neighbors to do the same.