Hypocritical Sore Losers! Obama’s Democratic Party’s New MO; “If There Are NO Campaign Finance Rules, Regulating GOP/Conservatives Advertising Operating Moneys; then we’ll RAT you OUT to the IRS!”

Hypocritical Sore Losers! Obama’s Democratic Party’s New MO; “If There Are NO Campaign Finance Rules, Regulating GOP/Conservatives Advertising Operating Moneys; then we’ll RAT you OUT to the IRS!”

By Marc Chamot

“The Democratic Party has filed a complaint with the Internal Revenue Service complaining that a conservative foundation spending millions of dollars on ads in election battleground states is violating its status as a tax-exempt organization.”

Well I’ll be doggone? When it comes to being over matched in advertising campaign dollars, Democrats never stop their vengeances.

At a time when Labor Unions, mainly government unions, all laden with multi-million dollars for their preferred Democratic political candidates and their cronies. Including leftists groups like Moveon.org, who “practically” single handedly financed President Barack Obama’s 2008 presidential race, are NOW crying FOUL?

So here they go again, to the IRS. They are worse than “vipers;” these slimy "viperous" bunches will do just about ANYTHING, to KILL the opposition’s chances and electoral opportunities. And they keep wondering why they’re going down the tubes?

Group broke tax code for ads, Dems tell IRS 
“The Democratic Congressional Campaign committee filed the complaint this week, charging that Americans for Prosperity Foundation, founded by billionaire conservative David Koch, is airing ads that violate federal regulations because they "constitute political campaign intervention."

The foundation began running $4.1 million in ads last week in 13 states. This week it went on the air with a $1.4 million ad campaign that will run in Arizona, Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania through Sept. 8.

The ads don't mention candidates or parties, but attack Obama administration policies to rescue the financial sector, the economic stimulus and the new health care law.

"We are confident the complaint is without merit," foundation president Tim Phillips said in a statement Friday. "The ads are genuine issue ads that expose the big government policies embraced by some politicians."

The foundation is covered by a section of the tax code that applies to charities that are "prohibited from directly or indirectly participating in, or intervening in, any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office," according to the IRS. The organization may carry out educational activities, however.”

Calling it what it is, they are “Anchor Babies;” Smooching off Our Broken Welfare Systems:

Calling it what it is, they are TRULY “Anchor Babies;” Smooching off Our Broken Welfare Systems:

By Marc Chamot

The truths; not only have ILLEGALS come across the border to conceive babies, mainly younger illegal aliens, those who are already here in the United States, are conceiving the MOST. 


Since being illegal, disqualifies them for most Federal benefits, such as food stamps and section 8 housing, but their kids being U.S. citizens aren't. And the more the merrier!  

They aren’t satisfied with just one or two; they must have three or more “anchor babies,” to be able to GET the MAX out of our BROKEN welfares systems.

Not too long ago, we accused another race of people doing the exact same thing. But according to last U.S. Census, Latino groups conceive averages of three children per family, far larger than any other races in America.  Take that to your “Bake Sale.”

That’s the real TRUTHS, but the problem, the Chronicle editorials and other pro-immigrant thinkers, don’t want to think of these realities. And yes, they do know about it, but they aren’t saying it.  

ONE simple answer for San Francisco Chronicle’s Sunday opinion piece; the wrong way to fix a broken border policy; “The pitch from Graham, who had backed the ill-fated immigration overhaul three years ago, was crudely simple. Too many illegal immigrant mothers are "swimming the river" to "drop a child" here, he said in broaching the idea last month. These citizen-infants, known to detractors as "anchor babies," could be used to shield a family from deportation, Lindsey suggested.”

Anchor Babies Grab One Quarter of Welfare Dollars in LA Co.

The anchor baby scam has proven lucrative for illegal aliens in Los Angeles County, at considerable cost to our own poor and downtrodden legal citizenry.

The numbers show that more than $50 million in CalWORKS benefits and food stamps for January went to children born in the United States whose parents are in the country without documentation. This represents approximately 23 percent of the total benefits under the state welfare and food stamp programs, Antonovich said.

"When you add this to $350 million for public safety and nearly $500 million for health care, the total cost for illegal immigrants to county taxpayers far exceeds $1 billion a year -- not including the millions of dollars for education," Antonovich said.

More on FOOLISH Chronicle opinion piece; “It's ill-advised, for a batch of reasons. But it also shows how distant the country remains from the hard decisions it will take to settle a divisive issue. Immigration reform teetered close to a compromise solution in 2007. But when that plan cratered, it left the country with no direction and little consensus, as the latest suggestion shows.

Out of nowhere, Sen. Lindsey Graham, a South Carolina Republican considered a deal-making moderate, suggested scrapping the 14th Amendment. It gives citizenship to "all persons born or naturalized in the United States." It was adopted in 1868 to ensure citizenship for American-born children of freed slaves, and it's withstood court challenges since then.

The pitch from Graham, who had backed the ill-fated immigration overhaul three years ago, was crudely simple. Too many illegal immigrant mothers are "swimming the river" to "drop a child" here, he said in broaching the idea last month. These citizen-infants, known to detractors as "anchor babies," could be used to shield a family from deportation, Lindsey suggested.

It's straight-up pandering from a political pro looking to reconnect with immigration hard-liners. It's also disingenuous: The notion that parents of a child born here have a right to remain in the United States is pure myth. The law allows the child, at age 21, to apply for a visa for his or her parent - and, even then, the parent's legal status is neither automatic nor unconditional.

Graham knows his idea isn't going anywhere. A constitutional change requires approval by two-thirds of the House and Senate plus support from three-quarters of the states. This ultra-high threshold was designed by the Founding Fathers, who wanted a deep and wide moat around the bedrock document.

Graham's suggestion drew political gasps from GOP figures. The stop-and-search Arizona law had swept up public attention, putting Republican law makers in front on a potent election year issue. But the birthright issue threatens to undo this apparent advantage.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky mouthed vague support for hearings, not immediate legislation, on the topic. Arizona Sen. John McCain, who once backed wide-ranging immigration reforms, indicated he favored the idea but then backpedaled. In California, both gubernatorial candidate Meg Whitman and U.S. Senate contender Carly Fiorina oppose dropping the amendment.

No one wanted to add that ending citizenship birthright is a loser issue. It would push the Republican Party farther away from Latinos, the country's fastest-growing minority. Though 1 in 12 newborns had at least one parent who was illegal, it's far from clear that birthright citizenship was the primary draw to enter the United States. Economic opportunity was far more likely. Dropping the amendment would perpetuate the problem of illegal immigrants living in the shadows and give law enforcement a new job: patrolling the maternity ward.

This sideshow is the last thing the complicated, emotional topic of immigration reform needs. No one - not the anti-immigrant ultras or amnesty-for-all liberals - has a monopoly on answers. With so many illegal residents in the country, a solution won't be simple to work out or pleasing to all sides.

President Obama has talked up the need for immigration reform, but he's failed to supply specifics. The best Washington has done is a bill to spend $600 million more on border security. It's a Band-Aid, not a policy.

Maybe Graham and his oddball crusade to rewrite the Constitution can do the country a favor. Toss out his idea and then take up the challenge of finding a workable immigration policy.

If we want to really know the other truths, then why NOT FIX the broken border, we WOULDN'T have this problem? This statement is getting as old as the nation itself.

Worse than Vultures & Leeches; San Francisco Government/Public Employee’s Unions, SUE to Keep Measures Reforming Costly Pensions OFF Ballot:

Worse than Vultures & Leeches; San Francisco Government/Public Employee’s Unions, SUE to Keep Measures Reforming Costly Pensions OFF Ballot:

By Marc Chamot

During bad economic chaos, government employees and unions want theirs, regardless the costs to taxpayers, or the damages being done to the private sectors. They are unwilling to deal, settle, or lower their skyrocketing pension’s wages.

Unions and government employees’ are truly worse than vultures and leeches; when it comes to San Francisco’s out of control, highly paid, the (very greedy) government workers, and their public employees’ unions.

They’ll just do anything to save their cushy, taxpayer financed paychecks and pensions, they’ll even SUE and use their well CONNECTED judges, to help keep pension reform ballot measures, from appearing in front of the voters.

This is YOUR fine country at work, folks. But REAL change begins in the 2010 midterms, remember that!  

Lawsuit targets pension reform effort "A group of public employee unions are suing to keep the pension reform measure championed by Public Defender Jeff Adachi off the November ballot. 

The lawsuit is rather technical and alleges that people who signed the petition to put the measure on the ballot were not provided with the full text of the proposed law, that the summary of the initiative shown to people who signed was different than the one submitted to the Department of Elections, and that ballot measures are only allowed to address one subject, but the pension measure changes pension, health care and union bargaining rules.

The suit also argues that changing employee contribution rates deprives them of property without due process of law.

This all may sound scary, but Adachi’s people aren’t too concerned.

“I’m confident that we will prevail,” said Darcy Brown, who’s managing the campaign for the pension reform measure.

The lawsuit has been referred to Superior Court Judge Harold Kahn, who ordered Elections Director John Arntz and Adachi to respond to the union’s complaint by Monday. I asked some fancy attorneys about Kahn and they tell me that he’s fair and efficient. Given the importance of this issue and the fact that the November ballots go to the printer Sept. 1, fair and efficient sounds like exactly what we need."

S.F. unions sue over Proposition B "San Francisco's largest city labor unions filed a lawsuit Tuesday asking a judge to strip a measure from the November ballot that would overhaul their pension and health care benefits. 

The lawsuit, brought by five individual city workers and labor unions for police officers, firefighters and others, contends Proposition B is unconstitutional and the petitions that more than 49,000 San Franciscans signed to get the measure on the November ballot misled voters and violated state election law.

The initiative, sponsored by Public Defender Jeff Adachi, calls for city employees to pay more into the retirement system and to pick up more of the health care costs for their dependents."


 

The HIDDEN Costs of Returning American War Veterans; Great Arguments for Using Nuclear Options or WMD’S in Future Wars, Like the One Possibly against Iran?

The HIDDEN Costs of Returning American War Veterans; Great Arguments for Using Nuclear Options or WMD’S in Future Wars, Like the One Possibly against Iran?

By Marc Chamot

America’s Wars: a hidden San Francisco Bay Area’s liberal Democrat scion and U.S. Representative Jackie Speer, came out with a San Francisco Chronicle OP-ED piece; “Overlooked cost: Veteran’s Benefits.” 

Actually, there were two articles about Veterans Benefits written in the Chronicle’s Sunday’s Insight and the other was Linda J. Bilmes’ “as fighting winds down, costs soar.”

Insight is San Francisco’s Sunday opinion piece section; it’s usually laden with liberal Democrat’s political opinions and views. Very few conservatives are in it.

In Jackie Speer’s piece, she goes on to say the nation needs to recognize that veterans aren’t included in direct war expenditures, or are included in our nation’s $700 billion defense budget, which surpasses all other world nations combined.  We are incurring future war debts with little public debates.

With eye-opening research by Harvard Professor Linda Bilmes and Nobel laureate Joseph Stiglitz put the lifetime costs of benefits for Iraq and Afghani war veterans at 663 billion. When congress appropriates money for war efforts, it does not include moneys for post military healthcare and disability payments for suffering war veterans.

The money for Veterans is appropriated to the Department of Veterans Affairs directly, which Representative Jackie Speer voted against the $58 billion supplemental appropriations for the war efforts that were approved by the house.  Those funds will go to war, not our Veterans!

This is about the same amount of money that will be needed to fund the Veterans Administration, to provide healthcare for ALL Veterans. This year the VA will need $5 billion to compensate for the six weeks of the first Persian Gulf War.

The new war veterans, who are seeking treatments from the VA have five health issues. Drug addictions, hearing losses, head injuries, sleeping disorders and post traumatic stress syndromes. The War wounded is kept alive at much higher percentages than in Vietnam, 90% versus 76%.

With the WAR and now with the economic situation, Jackie Speer sees serious threats to the VA system in the future. It’s already happening now. Some VA doctors are reporting patient loads of one doctor for every 3,000 Veterans. While VA’s preferred ratios should be one doctor per 1,000 Veteran.

According to Lind Bilmes the peak for paying out World War I costs, didn’t occur till 1969, more than fifty years after the war. And the peak for World War II was in the 1980’s and while we haven’t reached into Vietnam War Veterans peak yet.  

We’ve spent one trillion dollars in Iraq, out of two million deployed to both wars, 450,000 of Veterans are on disability, and over half a trillion dollars will be needed to care for our Iraqi Vets in the next fifty years!

In my humble opinion, I think it’s time to invest on better war technologies, bigger, stronger and effective bombs, and even go to nuclear options if we have to. Actually, two nuclear bombs brought down Japan and an ABRUPT end to World War II. We’ve got to go back to those options that we’ve ABANDONED.

The BOTTOM line, if we or Israel do decide to take on Iran, neither nation can REALLY withstand the high costs of another Iraq and Afghanistan, that’s for sure. 

Sign UP! If you served in the U.S. Military, You’d better Check, Because You’ve Got “Free to Low Cost” Medical Care Coming to YOU! & Your Local Veterans Administrations’ “Stand Downs:”

Sign UP! If you served in the U.S. Military, You’d better Check, Because You’ve Got “Free to Low Cost” Medical Care Coming to YOU! & Your Local Veterans Administrations’ “Stand Downs:”

By Marc Chamot

VA Stand Downs are awesome for former American veterans who are struggling in these hard economic times. They are for any qualified former vets, men and women, all who have served in any of the branches of the U.S. military. Usually they last for four days, they are also considered for homeless vets, but they are also for unemployed vets.

It’s a unique way for veterans to get re-acquainted with their benefits. They also provide assistance to vets from jobs to housing issues. They provide on the spot “free” dental, medical checkups, and medications. All of it, on top of what VA regional medical centers do for people who have been out of the MEDICAL systems for a while.

The most glitzy thing about "Stand Downs," they take care of some of YOUR legal problems, whether behind in child support, driver's licenses suspended for UNPAID tickets, they have superior court judges, who wipe them out for YOU! It's second chance programs for unemployed veterans, those who have gotten into legal problems, it's to give them a new slate for JOBS. Note, they can wipe out most misdemeanors, but NOT felonies.

The skinny behind my story; I was enrolled in San Francisco’s Healthy San Francisco’s healthcare plan, when only a few months ago, I got a call from my VA regional medical center, saying is this “Marc Chamot” (a play on my real name)? Then, I said yes it is. I then hear “I’m from the VA, and I see in my records, you’re a VETERAN and are qualified for our healthcare.” I then go what?? And then he says you are Marc Chamot aren’t you? I said yes, I am.

And he goes on to tell me that San Francisco sends all its applicants for Healthy San Francisco to the VA, to crosscheck if they are already qualified for VA benefits, “they want to kick you out because they are short on MONEY, they don’t see paying for your care, when the VA is available for YOU, we’ll give you far better medical care anyway, come quickly and sign-up now.” I then give him a silent, what?? Wow!! I’ll be right over!!

Folks! For over thirty-three years, I wasn’t AWARE that I had VA medical benefits coming to me! Throughout my working years, I had paid healthcare through my former employers. Things are different right now, we’re in a different economy and we’re all struggling to make it right now.

Since 2007, I’ve lapsed on medical care, because of long term unemployment. I did use a few emergency facilities in the meantime, and ouch! They ruined my credit ratings for UNPAID medical bills. I understand how FOLKS feel, about medical care, I went through it too. 

During the past three months, the Veterans Administration Medical has been truly a God send to me. They are doing everything and I mean everything, diagnosis upon diagnosis for everything, costly things for cancer, diabetes anything that ails me, they are there.

They are so wonderful, caring and respectful, if they can MAKE this grown man shed tears, just by their care alone, all I’ve got to say, they are truly awesome!

Regardless of what you hear folks the VA, when you use public general hospitals and its emergency units, then when the bills don’t GET PAID, they come right after you and then they give you negative ratings, on your credit reports as uncollectable debts.

When I left the service back in the late seventies, they NEVER told me anything about my military medical care benefits. I was only aware about my educational benefits, which I didn’t use within the ten years allotment.

This could be YOU, folks!

Just listen to me, if you have served, even if it’s less than time required; you are still entitled to medical benefits from the VA. There are pretty affordable co-payment plans for those people who are working, but there are income LIMITS for those who earn a lot of money, yes, of course.

Your home states even provide MORE benefits on top of the federal governments.

It NEVER hurts to find out. Just go to the nearest VA hospital, or their satellite medical offices, and if you don’t have your DD 214 with you, don’t worry about it! Just give out your name and social security number, they’ll find YOU.

If you’re currently unemployed, or don’t make much money, JUST DO IT! For as long as you have general discharges under honorable conditions or better, you’re in the program!

I’ve got a BIG “Thank You for Serving,” to all those who served for OUR country.

VA site that will help you:

• 
  New to VA
• Benefits Booklet

U.S Department of Veterans Affairs

Inside Veteran Services

·         New to VA

·         Benefits Booklet

Benefits & Services

·         General Benefits Information

·         Disability Compensation

·         Pension

·         GI Bill

·         Vocational Rehabilitation & Employment

·         Vet Success

·         Dependents' Educational Assistance

·         Survivor Benefits

·         Home Loans

·         Life Insurance

·         Traumatic Injury Insurance

Health & Well-Being

·         Health Care Information

·         A-Z Health Topic Finder

·         My HealtheVet

·         Refill Prescriptions

·         Suicide Prevention

·         PTSD

·         Public Health

Assisted Living Foreclosures Threaten Residents' Rights:

Assisted Living Foreclosures Threaten Residents' Rights:

By Guest Blogger; Senior Homes

Assisted living facilities are just as susceptible to the economic crisis as everyday families. More than 100 assisted living residences in the San Francisco Bay Area went into foreclosure between October 2009 and April 2010, according to a recent report by The New York Times. This led to up to 700 residents being displaced from their homes.

As if having your facility foreclosed upon isn't enough, a loophole in California law does not require owners of senior living residences to notify residents when they miss a mortgage payment or enter foreclosure. When the Santa Clara County Sheriff's Office went to a home in April to enforce an eviction, they were shocked to find that the home was in use as a boarding home for the elderly and housed several bedridden residents – unaware that they were about to be evicted, according to the New York Times.

This is merely one example of hundreds of cases in which elderly and disabled residents are suddenly uprooted from their homes and the critical services they're receiving. Owners and administrators are under no obligation to keep residents or families abreast of financial troubles, and residents often don't become aware of a problem until the sheriff arrives to enforce an eviction. Families and social service agencies must rush to find alternative arrangements for displaced residents.

On a similar note, the United States Government Accountability Office (GAO) recently launched an investigation into the risks to residents of Continuing Care Retirement Communities (CCRCs), which typically require residents to pay a large "buy-in" fee that ensures they'll receive the care they need for the duration of their lives (in addition to monthly fees). 

However, a number of CCRCs have encountered financial trouble, leading to sudden increases in monthly fees or changes in services, especially if the facility enters new ownership. It's unclear whether stricter policies will be implemented to protect the rights and financial interests of residents.

Current laws don't do enough to protect vulnerable elderly and disabled citizens who reside in senior housing. It's up to residents and their families to stay abreast of conditions and situations that could impact their loved ones, but this is difficult to do. Administrators and owners are often resistant to disclosing financial information that they're not required to by law, and may become offended if asked to share what they consider personal financial information.

In order to reduce the risk of losing a financial investment or being displaced, seniors and their families are advised to choose carefully when selecting a San Francisco assisted living facility. Inquire about financial circumstances upfront. Those who are more willing to share what you need to know are less likely to have something to hide. Reputable facilities with a long history of serving the community and financial stability are typically safer choices.

Bio:Chris Rodde is the CEO of SeniorHomes.com, a free resource for people looking for senior housing or senior care for a loved one or themselves. With valuable articles and a comprehensive directory of care options, SeniorHomes.com is the best place to start your search for assisted living, independent living, Alzheimer's care, a retirement community or home care. 

Hello Supreme Court & Goodbye Obamacare; Fed Judge Won’t Dismiss Case; It's Okay for Virginia to SUE Fraudulent & Illegal Healthcare Bill:

Hello Supreme Court & Goodbye Obamacare; Fed Judge Won’t Dismiss Case; It's Okay for Virginia to SUE Fraudulent & Illegal Healthcare Bill:

By Marc Chamot

Putting it simply, Obamacare is a MASSIVE intrusion on OUR Tenth Amendments “State Rights.” 

The Federal Government cannot force; make people BUY healthcare insurance, or fine them for NOT having it. Automobiles and licenses, are forms of privilege, not a RIGHT and therefore states, NOT the FEDS can mandate auto insurances on the people.

Basically, if you don’t want to pay auto insurance, YOU don’t drive. 

But healthcare is NOT a privilege like driving automobiles, healthcare according to President Obama, is now a RIGHT and if you cannot afford it, or cannot pay for it, YOU still have rights for complete healthcare PAID FOR by OTHERS.

The last I heard, this is still America and NO ONE, can mandate OTHERS, like YOU and ME, having to PAY for people who cannot afford health or automobile insurance. They can bill the costs on the industry if they want to, but not on us.  

It’s NOT for Obama, Democrats and the FEDS, to dictate us and force us to pay, for any kinds of insurances, especially for other people, that's why there are public hospitals and taxations. Insurances are implemented and enforced by the STATES and only under certain limitations. Kabish?    

Otherwise we’re living in China, Russia, and maybe other socialist country like Venezuela, not the GOOD old US of A.

As I said before, the Supreme Court are "licking their chops" for Obamacare. What was that I heard?

Castigating and embarrassing the Supremes over corporate campaign financing, during a nationally televised address to the nation speech, was an arrogant and IDIOTIC mistake, that’s what I heard, but I don't know, if you heard?....  

Judge refuses to dismiss Virginia challenge to ObamaCare

A federal judge has refused to dismiss the state of Virginia's challenge to the healthcare reform law that President Obama recently signed into law. The ruling puts the White House in the unenviable position of having to defend the constitutionality of the law at a time when members of the Democratic Party in Congress are fighting to keep their jobs. 

In his ruling U.S. District Judge Henry Hudson essentially gave the green light to a Virginia lawsuit, which posits that the requirement that its residents must buy health insurance is unconstitutional and conflicts with state law.

The judge wrote that "[t]he congressional enactment under review—the Minimum Essential Coverage Provision—literally forges new ground and extends the [Constitution's] Commerce Clause powers beyond its current high watermark.... This portion of the complaint [by Virginia] advances a plausible claim with an arguable legal basis."

The decision refocuses the spotlight on a law that 58 percent of Americans would like to see repealed. The Virginia ruling is likely to make ObamaCare an even more prominent issue as midterm election campaigns heat up.

 

CNN’s Don Lemon & Al Sharpton Say RACE; Motivating Factors in Charlie Rangel & Maxine Waters ETHICS Attacks:

CNN’s Don Lemon & Al Sharpton Say RACE; Motivating Factors in Charlie Rangel & Maxine Waters ETHICS Attacks:

By Marc Chamot

Lowlife Don Lemon of CNN insinuated with a well known race baiter, Al Sharpton in an interview, that attacks on African American Representatives, Charlie Rangel and Maxine Waters were more RACIALLY motivated.

I say what, RACE? I believe more the contrary happened. Here’s what I really think happened; since Obama became first African American president:

When President Obama became U.S. president, some (U.S. blacks), African Americans like “Gangbanger” Maxine Waters, known for having LA gangs and drug dealers, contribute thousands of dollars into her political campaigns throughout the years and Charles Rangel.

They BOTH felt some sense of entitlements being in office, because of their race and they were above the law, because with their President Obama being black, nothing could or would EVER happen to them.

But somehow, their harsh wakeup into world’s reality and with their days of reckoning coming soon, for their corruptive involvements; playing the RACE cards are the only solutions, to free them from their new FOUND world of troubles.  

Above the Law; it’s an attitude I’m seeing among some African Americans, because of their new found black president, they FEEL they should get better treatments than the rest of us, even if they break the LAW. 

Whoops! Marc Chamot! No you didn't! You didn’t say that, did you? You freakin' RACIST!!!

If it swims like a duck, if it walks like a duck and if it quacks like a duck, it MUST be a freakin' DUCK then! 

CNN Brings on Al Sharpton to Forward Idea that Rangel Probe Is Racially Motivated

On Sunday's Newsroom, CNN's Don Lemon conducted a softball interview of the Rev. Al Sharpton and helped him forward the theory that the congressional ethics investigations into Representatives Charlie Rangel and Maxine Waters are being conducted because they are black. Lemon also didn't go into much detail as to what the charges against the two were and what were the circumstances of their cases.

The anchor interviewed the liberal minister 12 minutes into the 6 pm Eastern hour. Before introducing Sharpton, Lemon did mention that Congressman Rangel was "accused of violating 13 House Rules" and that the "accusations range from financial wrongdoing to damaging the credibility of Congress," but never mentioned during the segment that the charges mainly involve rental properties the New York representatives owns in his district and in the Dominican Republic.

He also noted that Rep. Waters "has chosen to face a House ethics trial related to claims involving federal aid to a bank with ties to both Waters and her husband" but didn't give additional details about that case.

Lemon then set up his topic of discussion with the reverend: "Now, the investigations of such powerful people, like Rangel and Maxine Waters, have a lot of people talking.

The reaction in Washington seems to be centered on whether the two House members are guilty or not, but back home, in their respective districts, some of their constituents aren't so sure justice is being done, and some are openly questioning why two high profile African-American House members are coming under such tough scrutiny." He then asked Sharpton, "Do you think that black members are being targeted unfairly by the Ethics Committee?"