Finally, I find something that we agree on. With one small addition.

That wasn't my quote. You've altered it and still posted it as if it were mine. But Rangel does enjoy support among the latino community in uptown as well but I don't think they will be as loyal to him as AA voters if it hits the fan.

Cibby I"ve been up to Sylvias for lunch many times .....you were not even born when Adam Clayton Powell kept the faith there .....to you it is all in books ..Keep the Faith Baby

Brasil is a punk moron

Rangel’s Strategy?
August 08, 2010 10:40 PM
By Robert Costa
The Washington Post reports that Rep. Charlie Rangel may wait until after his Sept. 14 primary to make a decision about his career:

Some observers have speculated that Rangel might resign as soon as he wins the primary: His name would remain on the ballot in November — validation from voters — but the district’s Democratic Party would tap a new candidate for a special election.

Rangel declined to comment for this story, but such a process would give him major influence in tapping his successor and favor someone such as [state assemblyman Keith] Wright. It would not, to say the least, favor a candidate such as Powell.

Rangel is facing Adam Clayton Powell IV, a state assemblyman, in the primary.

'

Just because you ate a few meals in Sylvias in decades past DOES not mean you speak for the people up there or that you have any idea as to which way the wind will blow. I'm in New York now, goulet...I'm in a position to tell you what's transpiring up here and not vice versa.

Rangel: 'Don't leave me swinging in the wind'

By LARRY MARGASAK
Associated Press Writer

Rangel: "I Am Not Going Away"




WASHINGTON (AP) -- A combative Rep. Charles Rangel told the House on Tuesday he's not resigning despite 13 charges of wrongdoing and demanded the ethics committee not leave him "swinging in the wind."

Rangel, who is 80, spoke without notes in an extraordinary, often emotional 37-minute speech that defied his lawyers' advice to keep quiet about his case.

The New York Democrat and 40-year House veteran had a sharp message in dismissing fellow Democrats who, worried about election losses, want him to quit: "If I can't get my dignity back here, then fire your best shot in getting rid of me through expulsion."

Expulsion is the harshest penalty that can result from an ethics case. It would be highly unlikely in Rangel's case because the former chairman of the tax-writing Ways and Means Committee is not accused of corruption. The four-member ethics panel that investigated Rangel suggested a reprimand, a statement of wrongdoing voted by the House, but that is only a recommendation to the ethics committee.

Several hours after Rangel spoke from the front of a half-full House chamber, Speaker Nancy Pelosi made clear in a written statement that she wasn't pleased with the congressman's choice of venue.

"As I have repeatedly stated, the independent, bipartisan ethics committee is the proper arena for ethics matters to be discussed," she said. "The process is moving forward in a way that will ensure that the highest ethical standards are upheld in the House of Representatives."

Pelosi faces the possibility of the House losing its majority in November. The Rangel ethics case isn't helping, nor are unrelated charges that Rep. Maxine Waters, D-Calif., improperly tried to help a bank where her husband had a financial interest. Waters is a senior member of the Financial Services Committee.

Rangel, who said he has lost much sleep during the two-year investigation, was interrupted by applause twice - including when he said: "I am not going away. I am here." A few Republicans clapped, but most support came from Democrats.

The Democrat from Harlem acknowledged that he made mistakes, especially in belatedly reporting hundreds of thousands of dollars in assets and income, but he insisted he was not corrupt. And he insisted the committee overstated the seriousness of his solicitations of businesses and foundations for the Charles Rangel Center at City College of New York.

Those solicited had major legislative issues before Rangel's committees, and the charges said "reasonable persons" could construe the donations as influencing Rangel's actions. Rangel said he was only guilty of "grabbing the wrong stationery" - a reference to solicitations he sent on his official letterhead.

Several Republican lawmakers embraced Rangel's call for swifter handling of ethics cases.

"Two years is longer than a normal criminal case usually takes," said Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif. He said charges against Rangel should have been brought much earlier.

Rep. Tom Cole, R-Okla., said Rangel drove home the point that lawmakers deserve "a fair process" when ethics allegations arise.

"I'm not asking for leniency. I'm asking for exposure of the facts," Rangel said in demanding that the ethics panel expedite the hearing of his case.

Rangel noted the committee is scheduled to convene Sept. 13, the day before his primary election, but that the main part of his ethics trial would not come until later in the fall.

"Don't leave me swinging in the wind until November," he demanded.

Rangel, known for his friendly, backslapping demeanor but also his toughness on legislative issues, said he had his own interpretation of President Barack Obama's remarks in a CBS interview on July 30. The president said: "He's somebody who's at the end of his career. I'm sure that what he wants is to be able to end his career with dignity. And my hope is that it happens."

Rangel said, "When the president said he wanted me to end my career in dignity, he didn't put a time limit on it."

White House spokesman Bill Burton would not elaborate on what Obama meant, including whether the president was sending Rangel a not-so-veiled suggestion that he leave Congress.

"I think the president's words speak for themselves," Burton said.

Rangel said his legal bills have reached nearly $2 million and he can't afford to keep paying - especially when "nobody is going to read the defense."

In addition to solicitations of donors who lobbied Rangel's committees, he's also accused of belated payment of taxes from income on his rental unit at a Dominican Republic resort; the inexcusable - Rangel's word - failure to file his disclosure statements on time; and of taking advantage of a New York rent subsidy for residential units, by using a Harlem apartment as a campaign office.

"In the haste of sending out hundreds of letters" to donors for the Rangel Center at City College of New York, Rangel said there "has to be a penalty for grabbing the wrong stationery." He quickly added, "It may be stupid, it may be negligent, but it's not corrupt."

He said the office set aside for him at the center is hardly a gift.

"Who the heck needs an office ... in a broken-down building?" he asked.

Stock stake mires former Manhattan DA Robert Morgenthau in Charles Rangel ethics case

BY ERIN EINHORN
DAILY NEWS CITY HALL BUREAU

Wednesday, August 25th 2010, 4:00 AM




Rep. Charles Rangel with Robert Morgenthau in 2005 when Morgenthau was still Manhattan DA.
RELATED NEWS
ARTICLES
Rangel swats back at President Obama in candidates forum
Challengers for Rangel's seat hope for an upset, but even the frontrunner has drawbacks
Rangel slams critics telling him to resign, admits he 'may be making a lot of mistakes'
Former Manhattan DA Robert Morgenthau had a financial stake in a company linked to the ethics case against Rep. Charles Rangel, according to disclosure records.

In a 2006 meeting in Morgenthau's office, Rangel solicited a donation to a school in his name at City College from an oil company exec named Eugene Isenberg.

Around the same time, Isenberg's Nabors Industries successfully lobbied Rangel's House committee to preserve a tax loophole.

Rangel has cited the role of the highly regarded Morgenthau to buttress his defense that the donation meeting was aboveboard.

"One of the biggest allegations was a result of my friendship with Robert Morgenthau," he told the Daily News after the ethics charge was filed. "Mother Teresa wasn't involved, but I don't know what the heck it takes for people to say, well, let me take ... another look."

Morgenthau's investment in Nabors appears in reports filed with the city's Conflict of Interest board, as The New York Times first reported on its website yesterday. The value was not disclosed.

Morgenthau and Isenberg could not be reached for comment. A spokesman for Rangel did not respond to a request for comment.

In testimony before the ethics committee, Isenberg said he never sought or received special consideration from Rangel.



Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2010/08/25/2010-08-25_stock_stake_mires_morgy_in_rangels_ethics_case.html#ixzz0xblEAERR

Charles Rangel may be suffering from Taxheimer's disease
written by: sammy da BS

Rangel forgets he hates bowties. A symptom of Taxheimer's
Charles Rangel may be suffering from Taxheimer's disease. His lawyers are being silent about this disclosure but reliable sources have confirmed that the eighty year old congressman is suffering from this rare malady that affects one in every one and a half billion people. This disease actually is a very rare form of Alzheimer that usually kicks in during tax season.

It was March 2004 when a symptom of the dreaded Taxheimer’s first reared its ugly head. Rangel was inspired by new Clinton presidential center and decided he also deserved such an honor. He forgot that as a member of Congress he was not permitted to use any congressional influence to solicit funds for the proposed Rangel Center at City College of New York. It has since been revealed that old Charlie wrote fundraising letters on official Congressional letterhead. This is a rookie mistake not the actions of a savvy forty five year congressional vet. These actions make no sense. Obviously this was Rangel’s first bout with the dreaded Taxheimer’s.

It was also learned that as the disease progressed Rangel needed more places to hang his hat. He would often forget where he lived and therefore needed many apartments in various areas of Harlem. Rangel had four rent-stabilized apartments in Harlem. It did not matter that these apartments were subsidized by the government and rented well below market value. We all know the government stabilized these apartments so that lower income people could get affordable housing. We also know that old Charlie would never use his influence to deprive living quarters for his poorer constituents. Obviously Taxhemier’s was taking hold of old Charlie’s brain.

Finally in 2007 full blown Taxhemier’s sets in. Charles Rangel forgets he owns a villa in the Dominican Republic and does not report income from the Villa on his tax return.

This unfortunate problem of Taxhemier’s will not prevent old Charlie from his performing his Congressional duties as Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee. Taxhemier’s will not inhibit Charlie’s ability to levy new taxes on the folk. Mostly it will inhibit his ability to remember that he too had to pay his taxes. Don’t fret; help is on the way for poor old Charlie. The doctors tell me a few years in the slammer would cure him.

Did Charlie Rangel Double-Cross American Taxpayers?

Written By: Robert DePosada



How Rangel Secured $6 Billion in Tax Revenue Kickbacks for a British Liquor Conglomerate

Corrupt political leaders of U.S. Virgin Islands managed to fleece the rum tax rebate program in order to line the pockets of British liquor conglomerate, Diageo – and through all this process, they were aided and abetted by Rep. Charlie Rangel.

What will Mr. Rangel and his cronies get in return?

Background:

U.S. territories receive a rum tax rebate from the Federal Government (known as the Cover Over tax subsidy). Most of the federal excise tax on rum sales is returned to the territorial government where the rum was produced.



In order to increase their level of tax subsidy revenue from the federal government, the Government of the U.S. Virgin Islands (USVI) and British owned company Diageo developed a scheme in 2008 by which Diageo will produce its Captain Morgan rum in a facility to be built in the USVI. Unfortunately, this is one of the most outrageous gifts to a foreign company at the expense of US taxpayers. This sweetheart deal is nothing more than a “kick-back” program that gives Diageo about half of the tax revenue rebate and a huge number of other gifts, under the thinly-veiled guise of “economic development.” What is the most shocking provision in this $6 billion agreement is that Diageo is required to hire only 40 employees.



The tax subsidy is two times the cost of producing the rum! The cost of producing a gallon of rum in a Puerto Rico distillery is $3.07 per proof gallon. Diageo has finagled a deal from elected officials that can pay them $6.38 per proof gallon for producing the same rum. That means that they could sell the rum for $.01 plus the excise tax and still make money! American manufacturers of bourbon and whiskey do not enjoy the same sweetheart tax breaks and ingredients subsidies and, in fact, would be undermined if USVI rum producers decided to engage in a liquor price war. Who wouldn’t drink to such a sweet deal from the U.S. taxpayers?



The Sweetheart Deal:



The Gift from Taxpayers: $50 million and a new State-of-the-Art Distillery. The USVI is building Diageo a state-of-the-art distillery financed with a $250 million government bond. Bonds issued will be repaid using future tax subsidy revenues by the USVI, not by Diageo. This is a turnkey facility and the deal grants Diageo the property title of this state-of-the-art facility. The deal also provides $50 million to be granted to Diageo as a gift for its use as working capital and with no financial risk to the British company.



Is Wall Street back to its crooked old ways? Why would Wall Street be giddy over this bond deal when the Virgin Islands makes California look fiscally responsible? Why would the financial analysis believe that there are almost no chances for the Cover Over tax Subsidy to be limited or capped in this Congress? The fact is that legislation (H.R. 2122) was introduced before Congress to limit to ten percent (10%) the amount of the tax subsidy revenue that can be paid directly to a rum producing company, which would effectively kill the Diageo deal. The only way analysts would come to that conclusion is if they received private assurances directly from the House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Charlie Rangel that no legislation that could affect the Cover Over Tax Subsidy would see the light of day in his committee.



British Company gets over $6 billion in U.S. tax subsidies. The Diageo deal would also give this British company about half of the Virgin Islands’ Cover Over tax subsidy revenues during the next 30 years. These kickbacks are worth about $2.7 billion. Diageo can unilaterally renew this agreement for an additional 30 years, making this deal worth over $6 billion to Diageo at the expense of US taxpayers.



More tax benefits for the British Company. As if this wasn’t enough, the deal also gives Diageo a 90 percent corporate income tax reduction; exemptions on real property taxes, gross receipts taxes and excise taxes on materials and equipment.



An Even Sweeter Deal… The deal provides a molasses (the key ingredient in making rum) subsidy to Diageo. While molasses sells for about $1.50 per gallon, Diageo will not have to pay more than 16 cents – even if the price skyrockets. Within the past 30 years alone, we have seen a barrel of oil fluctuate in price from $14 to over $90. Would U.S. lawmakers allow foreign companies that do business here to pay no more than $1.50 for a barrel of oil – subsidized with tax dollars – while all other American companies pay market rates? Not likely. One has to wonder why they are turning a blind eye to this outrageous use of tax dollars.



U.S. Congress’ Role:



Legislation (HR 2122) was introduced before Congress to limit to ten percent (10%) the amount of the tax subsidy revenue that can be paid directly to a rum producing company. For example, Puerto Rico uses 94 percent of this federal tax rebate to support investments in infrastructure, health, education, and environmental preservation. The additional six percent is being spent to promote the territory’s rum industry. Local law limits to ten percent the amount that can be used for this purpose. These funds DO NOT directly benefit individual rum companies.



As Chairman of the U.S. House Ways and Means Committee, Rangel was able to block the legislation imposing corporate kickback limits from leaving his Committee. By keeping the legislation from seeing the light of day, Rangel denied American taxpayers the opportunity to learn about and publicly debate the appropriate use of federal tax revenues and financial support for our nation’s territories.



The Players, and soon to be very wealthy former elected officials:



Donna M. Christensen, U.S. Congressional Delegate for the US Virgin Islands, lobbied heavily to make sure the Diageo deal was protected – by blocking HR 2122 – in Congress. Rep. Christensen is a key member of the Congressional Black caucus and a close ally of Charlie Rangel. It is interesting to note that Donna Christensen attended the Rangel-led, Citigroup-funded junket to the sunny Caribbean island of St. Maarten in 2008 that is included in the ethics charges against Rangel.



As it turns out, the Diageo deal was negotiated by her brother, Adam Christensen, who serves as USVI Governor John P. deJongh’s legal counsel. Not only did he decline to comment on this deal to the USVI state legislature using attorney-client privilege, the then quickly appointed him to the USVI Superior Court. Not only can he not be questioned on this matter now that he is a sitting judge, but he may receive immunity from any future prosecution. http://cruciansinfocus.com/2009/11/20/christian-bench-bid-should-be-withdrawn/ http://cruciansinfocus.com/2009/11/21/privilege-moves-judicial-bid-forward/



Should we worry about corruption? Absolutely! US Virgin Island Governor deJongh utilized $490,000 in federal funds allocated for road enhancements to make enhancements to his private home in St. Thomas. After a federal investigation by the Inspector General at the US Department of Interior, the report indicated that the funds were improperly diverted. http://cruciansinfocus.com/2010/01/23/ig-report-governor-misused-funds/.



His legal counsel, Adam Christian, determined this action was legal and appropriate. The Interior Department is demanding that the funds be returned. The same counsel that determined that it was OK to misappropriate federal funds was the key negotiator in the Diageo rum deal.



His sister Rep. Christensen worked closely with Rep. Charlie Rangel to guarantee no action against this deal in the House Ways and means Committee and to utilize his influence with Wall Street analysts to guarantee a low risk assessment for the initial $250 million bond necessary to get this sweetheart deal going.



Any which way you look at this sweetheart deal, you realize it was designed only to benefit the British company. From the initial gifts of the state-of-the-art distillery, to the $50 million “start-up” funding, to the 50% of the tax subsidy, to all additional local tax incentives, to the unbelievable subsidy on molasses, this deal is a major gift to a very wealthy foreign company at the expense of U.S. taxpayers. Should we be worried that the key players behind this sweetheart deal, from the VI Governor all the way to Congressman Rangel and his allies will receive golden parachutes after all components of this deal are in full effect?



Next Steps



American taxpayers should demand that the House Ethics Committee ask Charlie Rangel and his close ally Donna Christensen, under oath, if they will be receiving benefits from this sweetheart deal in the years to come. Will they or their family and staff receive massive gifts or consulting contracts from Diageo or any of their subsidiaries in the years to come?



Americans should demand an answer to why Rangel protected a $6 billion transfer from U.S. taxpayers to a British company, in exchange for only 40 jobs.