California Can't Say It Wasn't Warned: 'Amazon Terminates Contracts With CA Affiliates'

“Governor Brown has signed into law the bill that we emailed you about earlier today. As a result of this, contracts with all California residents participating in the Amazon Associates Program are terminated effective today, June 29, 2011.”--- Portion of Amazon's termination letter.

25,000 California websites and small businesses were just terminated by Amazon.com due to a law California Governor Jerry Brown just signed which would require Amazon.com and other large out-of-state retailers to collect sales taxes on purchases that their California customers make online.

Had Amazon not terminated those contracts, Accounting predicted the tax would bring in an estimated $200 million a year, but the end result, which Amazon did provide adequate warning of, is a loss of $152 million California revenue instead.

Many of about 25,000 affiliates in California, especially larger ones with dozens of employees, are likely to leave the state, said Rebecca Madigan, executive director of trade group Performance Marketing Assn. The affiliates combined paid $152 million in state income taxes last year, she pointed out.

"We have to consider it," said Loren Bendele, chief executive of Savings.com, a West Los Angeles website that links viewers to hundreds of money-saving deals. "It does not look good for our business."

The terminations will effect affiliates of endless.com, myhabit.com and smallparts.com as well.

Since we are talking about the affiliate program, I will put my own affiliate Amazon banner below... just for my own personal entertainment and income.

More possible unintended consequences for California below the Amazon ad.





Although the California law's intent was to go after Amazon, Big Government points out one unintended company that may now be caught in the crosshairs- EBAY.

But from the Sacramento Bee, we learn that California-based eBay– a big name in the state– has also grown deeply concerned about the effects of the proposed legislation:

California lawmakers thought they were targeting Amazon.com, the out-of-state giant, when they voted last week to force Internet retailers to collect sales tax.

It turns out eBay Inc., California’s own golden child of e-commerce, isn’t so thrilled about it, either.

The San Jose online auction company says the legislation would hurt its business model, which relies on thousands of entrepreneurs who sell goods on its site.

The intent may have been to go after Amazon, but “we’re literally caught in the crossfire,” said David London, senior director for state government relations at eBay.

George Runner, a member on the Board of Equalization rips into Brown for signing the law. "Even as Governor Jerry Brown lifted his pen to sign this legislation, thousands of affiliates across California were losing their jobs. The so-called 'Amazon tax' is truly a lose-lose proposition for California. Not only won’t we see the promised revenues, we’ll actually lose income tax revenue as affiliates move to other states."

[Update] Retired Bill Quick on the money California just cost him, headlines with "Leftist Wreckers In California Just Stole $3500-$5000 A Year Right Out of My Pocket."

.

By The Numbers: Obama's False Tax Narrative

Barack Obama and liberals across the board continue to harp on raising taxes aka revenue as they battle against meaningful spending cuts, but the numbers, the data prove that narrative to be false.

Wall Street Journal's Review and Outlook explains:

But what about the liberal claim, repeated constantly, that the Bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 caused today's deficits? CBO has shown this to be demonstrably false. On May 12, the budget arm of Congress examined the changes in its baseline projections from 2001 through 2011. In 2001, it had predicted a surplus in 2011 of $889 billion. Instead, it expects a deficit of $1.4 trillion.

What explains that $2.29 trillion budget reversal? Well, the direct revenue loss from the combination of the 2001 and 2003 Bush tax cuts contributed roughly $216 billion, or only about 9.5% of the $2.29 trillion. And keep in mind that even this low figure is based on a static revenue model that assumes almost no gains from faster economic growth.

After the Bush investment tax cuts of 2003, tax revenues were $786 billion higher in 2007 ($2.568 trillion) than they were in 2003 ($1.782 trillion), the biggest four-year increase in U.S. history. So as flawed as it is, the current tax code with a top personal income tax rate of 35% is clearly capable of generating big revenue gains.

CBO's data show that by far the biggest change in its deficit forecast is the spending bonanza, with outlays in 2011 that are $1.135 trillion higher than the budget office estimated a decade ago. One-third of that is higher interest payments on the national debt, notwithstanding record low interest rates. But $523 billion is due to domestic spending increases, including defense, education, Medicaid and the Obama stimulus. Mr. Bush's Medicare drug plan accounts for $53 billion of this unanticipated spending in 2011.

The other big revenue reductions come from the "temporary" tax changes of the Obama stimulus and 2010 bipartisan tax deal. CBO says the December tax deal—which includes the one-year payroll tax cut and the annual fix on the alternative minimum tax—will reduce revenues by $196 billion this year. The temporary speedup in business expensing will cost another $55 billion.

The payroll tax cut was sold in the name of stimulating growth and hiring, yet the economy has grown more slowly this year than in last year's fourth quarter. As we've long argued, the "temporary, targeted and timely" tax cuts favored by Keynesians and the White House don't do much for growth because they don't permanently change incentives to save and invest. Mr. Obama was hawking more of those yesterday, even as he wants to raise taxes overall.

Bloomberg points out that that in yesterday's speech, the same speech that MSNBC senior political analyst Mark Halperin is catching flack for calling Barack Obama a "dick" for, Obama mentioned corporate jet benefits and ending tax breaks for corporate jet owners, six times, yet as the article informs it's readers, that would account for "less than one-tenth of 1 percent of his target for reducing the federal deficit."

Obama's purpose in specifying that one item is to feed into a class warfare mindset, an "everyone should hate the rich because we are not rich too" type of thought.

Heritage seems to find it ironic that the very benefits Obama was criticizing in his speech, were "created by his own stimulus package."

But the corporate jet tax break to which Obama was referring – called “accelerated depreciation,” and a popular Democratic foil of late – was created by his own stimulus package.

Proponents of the tax break lauded it as a means to spur economic activity by encouraging purchases of large manufactured goods (planes). So the president’s statement today – and his call to repeal that tax break generally – is either a tacit admission that the stimulus included projects that did not, in fact, stimulate the economy, or an attempt to “soak the rich” without regard for the policy’s effects on the economy.

Redistribution of wealth is Obama's meme again,, where those that earn more money than others should be soaked for more than 35 percent of their income to provide for those who make less, is popular among liberals and Barack Obama, but even if the government stole 100% of the so-called rich's money, our debt would still not be paid off.

Obama is desperate for a platform for his 2012 reelection campaign since his actual record is weak because his policies have failed to stimulate the economy, failed to bring unemployment down but has seen it rise during his term, failed to cut government spending, and has instead created more debt and more spending.

Obama has simply failed across the board so he cannot run on his "success" because he has none economically and polling shows the public knows it and severely disapproves of his whole handling of the economy and deficit problem as I noted and linked to various polls from multiple organizations in the "by the numbers" portion of yesterdays post showing Obama is losing yet another portion of a demographic, pro-Israel Jewish Democrats, approval.

His swan song is old and I seriously doubt the majority of the American public, aside from his most liberal base, is going to join him in singing the chorus this time around.

.

Video- MSNBC Analyst Mark Halperin Calls Obama A 'Dick', Apologizes, Then Gets Suspended

Video below:



Call me amused.

The Politico reports that editor-at large for Time, Mark Halperin, who is also a senior political analyst for MSNBC (suspended now)was referencing Barack Obama's speech yesterday and said "I thought he was a dick yesterday."

During the Morning Joe show, host Joe Scarborough hoped to prevent the comment from being broadcast, saying, “Delay that. Delay that. What are you doing? I can’t believe… don’t do that. Did we delay that?”

Just minutes later, Halperin quickly apologized on the air to the president and viewers for his choice of words. “Joking aside, this is an absolute apology. I shouldn’t have said it. I apologize to the president and the viewers who heard me say that,” Halperin said.

“We’re going to have a meeting after the show,” Scarborough said.

According to Scarborough, there had been a mishap with the seven-second delay button – a new executive producer apparently didn’t know how it worked. “You are supposed to know how to do the job,” Scarborough said of his producer. “I would tell you what I think of him, but he doesn’t know what button to push.”

Later in the show, Halperin again apologized, saying, “I can’t explain why I did it. It’s inappropriate, disrespectful. I’ve already apologized, and I will again to the President. I’m sorry, I’m sorry to the viewers…It is disrespectful, what I said was disrespectful to the president and the office but it also lowers our discourse.”

Everyone issued statements, Halperin with yet another apology on Twitter and via statement, MSNBC and Scarborough himself again at the end of the show.

Hat Tip Hot Air via Ed Morrissey's Tweet

Morrissey also has a updated question he ends his piece with: "Did MSNBC get mad because of the word, or because it was aimed at Obama?"

Still amused here at the fuss Halperin's Obama "was a dick" comments are creating around the blogosphere.

[Update] CNN does a piece on this and cannot even bring themselves to spell out the word dick in their article:

MSNBC contributor Mark Halperin was suspended indefinitely Thursday from the cable network after calling President Obama a "d**k."

They actually do that twice.

.

Obama to North Dakota: Tough Luck Cracker Honky Whitey

While the president is playing golf and making excuses, the people of Minot, North Dakota are rolling up their sleeves and trying to save their town after the floods. Please help them if you can.

http://www.tygrrrrexpress.com/2011/06/obama-to-north-dakota-tough-luck-cracker-honky-whitey/

eric aka the Tygrrrr Express

“Standing with Indiana” Petition Against Obama Administration's Bully Tactics

H/T Hot Air for pointing to the video below and the I stand with Indiana petition.



Ed Morrissey explains what the petition is about.

Indiana recently stripped the nation’s largest abortion chain store from receiving Medicaid funding, a decision that has the Obama administration fuming. The White House has threatened to hold $4.2 billion in federal Medicaid funds from Indiana unless it restores Planned Parenthood as a Medicaid provider, claiming — as does Planned Parenthood’s national leadership — that the decision leaves women without reliable gynecological care. Is that true? Live Action Films made phone calls to PP clinics across the state, and as it turns out, even Planned Parenthood admits that women can find that care easily in their communities:

He also points readers to Live Action’s fact-check of Planned Parenthood’s claims in Indiana.

Read the entire Hot Air piece, follow the links, read up and determine if you stand with Indiana in defunding Planned Parenthood, if you do, please sign the petition.

.

'Rookie Mistakes And Bumbling' Concern and Appall Die Hard Jewish Democrats

Every election year we see Republicans claim they are making inroads with the pro-Israel Jewish community. A donor here and a donor there, some Jewish American votes are inroads when the majority of time Jewish Americans vote for Democrats.

When die hard Democrats and Jewish Obama defenders start saying they are "appalled by Obama’s “rookie mistakes and bumbling” and other pro-Israel "traditional" Democrats state that to their own astonishment they are considering voting Republican in 2012, then Barack Obama's inexperience and stumbling has cost the Democratic party more than just votes, but donors as well.

The Politico concludes, after what they refer to as several dozen interviews with center-left American Jews and Obama supporters many of which were Democratic donors, that a "tipping point has been reached."

Matasar remembers his friends’ worries over whether Obama was “going to be OK for Israel.” But then Obama met with the community’s leaders during a swing through Cleveland in the primary, and the rabbi at the denominationally conservative synagogue Matasar attends — “a real ardent Zionist and Israel defender” — came back to synagogue convinced.

“That put a lot of my concerns to rest for my friends who are very much Israel hawks but who, like me, aren’t one-issue voters.”

Now Matasar says he’s appalled by Obama’s “rookie mistakes and bumbling” and the reported marginalization of a veteran peace negotiator, Dennis Ross, in favor of aides who back a tougher line on Netanyahu. He’s the most pro-Obama member of his social circle but is finding the president harder to defend.

“He’d been very ham-handed in the way he presented [the 1967 border announcement] and the way he sprung this on Netanyahu,” Matasar said.

A Philadelphia Democrat and pro-Israel activist, Joe Wolfson, recalled a similar progression.

“What got me past Obama in the recent election was Dennis Ross — I heard him speak in Philadelphia and I had many of my concerns allayed,” Wolfson said. “Now, I think I’m like many pro-Israel Democrats now who are looking to see whether we can vote Republican.”

By the Numbers

Obama won the 2008 presidential election against John McCain by 7 percent 53 to 46 percent.

No one bloc of voters will guarantee Obama's reelection or loss of reelection in 2012, but numbers show that Barack Obama is losing some support from virtually every demographic.

According to Gallup in April, 2011, when Obama took office in 2009, 60 percent of non- Hispanic whites approved of Barack Obama, that number has dropped to 39 percent.

73 percent of Hispanics approved of Obama in 2009, that is down to 54 percent.

93 percent of non-Hispanic blacks approved of Obama in 2009, that is down to 85 percent.

Approval from Independents, a bloc helped Obama win in 2008, for Barack Obama fell from 47 percent in February to just 37 percent in March according to a Reuters/Ipsos poll.

Pew Research shows that Independents, like Republicans are more likely to view the economy as poor and a McClatchy-Marist poll shows that 60 percent of Independents disapprove of Obama's handling of the economy.

Gallup, Rasmussen, McClatchy-Marist and Democratic leaning pollsters from Democracy Corps, all show Obama with a higher disapproval rating than approval overall.

According to Gallup and Rasmussen, both in June 2011, a Generic Republican would beat Obama in the presidential election if it were held today, by a 4 to 5 percent margin.

Add the unhappy pro-Israel demographic that Politico just reported on into the mix and that 7 percent margin that won Obama the 2008 election is gone.

.

Boeing and gay labor unions

What do the floods in North Dakota and the Boeing plant in South Carolina have to do with gay marriage in New York? Today I tie together the conspiracy.

http://www.tygrrrrexpress.com/2011/06/boeing-and-gay-labor-unions/

eric aka the Tygrrrr Express

Obama Still Hitting New Polling 'Lows' On Economy

According to the latest McClatchy-Marist poll, despite 50 percent of voters having a favorable impression of Obama with 44 percent having an unfavorable impression, and a majority believing Obama inherited the problems, 58 percent of voters disapprove of Obama's handling of the economy with only 37 percent of voters approving.

So, voters like Obama personally, they understand he inherited the problem but they are unhappy with how he has handled the problem.

Breakdown:

Independents- 60 percent disapprove of Obama on economy
Republicans- 91 percent disapprove of Obama on economy
Democrats- 31 percent of Democrats disapprove of Obama on economy

Other findings show that more disapprove of the job Obama is doing (47%) than approve (45%) and 61 percent of the voters disapprove of how Obama is handling the budget deficit.


Related: Dems Have No Plan For Jobs, Concerns of Middle-Class Families

Much of this discontent stems from Washington Democrats’ reliance on failed ‘stimulus’ policies over responsible, long-term solutions to address the key cost-of-living issues facing families and small businesses:

	Democrats who run Washington	Republicans
High gas prices	No plan.	Republicans’ American Energy Initiative is focused on stopping government policies that drive up energy prices and removing barriers to job-creating energy production.
Skyrocketing health care costs	No plan.	Republicans have voted to repeal the job-crushing health care law, and are working to replace it with common-sense reforms to lower costs and protect jobs.
Cost of creating jobs	No plan.	Republicans’ Plan for America’s Job Creators builds on the Pledge to America with measures designed to get government out of the way so our economy can get back to creating jobs.
Cost of government	No plan.	Republicans’ Path to Prosperity budget pays down our debt over time and lays the foundation for long-term private-sector job growth.

Source Speaker.gov.

.

Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice Altercation: Who Approached Who?

NRO provides more details into the recent Wisconsin Supreme Court saga where a female Justice Ann Walsh Bradley charged Justice David Prosser with "choking" her and other witnesses in attendance claim she went at Prosser with "fist raised" and he did nothing more than push her away.

Here are some questions to ask all the eye witnesses: Who approached who? Who got into who's personal space? Who provoked any type of physicality?

Who was the provocateur?

If it was Prosser the next question is very relevant. If it was Bradley, the next question is already answered.

The followup questions would then turn to, why leak it to the press (George Soros–funded Wisconsin Center for Investigative Journalism) instead of filing charges with authorities?


Previous:

Alternate Headline Of Bradley/Prosser Justice War: 'She charged him with fists raised'

.

Debt Limit Talks: Bush Era Rates Off Table And House Democrats Feel Ignored

After the bipartisan talks imploded last week when Democrats insisted that part of the deal include $400 billion in tax increases. This forced Barack Obama to finally come to the table in negotiations over raising the debt ceiling, which stands at $14.3 trillion now, to allow the U.S. to borrow more money.

There have been a flurry of meetings that now include Obama, Senate majority leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), a separate meeting with House Speaker John Boehner and another meeting with House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (Calif.), Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (Md.) and Rep. James Clyburn (S.C.), assistant to the leader.

The Hill reports that the administration has stopped insisting on ending the Bush-era tax cuts.

I am starting to get a vague sense of deja vu though as I see headlines like "House Democrats feel jilted by the president in budget, debt talks."

Just as House Democrats did in December after Republicans took a large net gain of House seats,the biggest turnover of seats in decades, to take control of the House of Representatives, House Democrats are now upset, feeling that they are being taken for granted and ignored and complaining publicly.

“How is it that the House Democrats played such an important role [in the majority], and all of a sudden [the White House says], ‘Forget it, we’ll work with the Senate and the Republican leadership?’ ” asked Rep. Henry Cuellar (D-Texas), vice chairman of the Democrats’ Steering and Policy Committee.

House Democrats’ frustration with Obama is boiling in the intense heat of negotiations to reach a budget deal and raise the nation’s $14.3 trillion debt ceiling.

Capitol Hill Democrats have been steaming for months, since being sidelined during talks to extend the George W. Bush-era tax rates and fund the government this year. Many say the White House takes their support for granted but ignores them when it comes to making policy.

“Before this year we were playing a strong role,” said Cuellar, but “now a lot of us feel like we’re almost being ignored.”

Before this year they played a strong role because they had an overwhelming majority, and they had a Democratically controlled Senate and White House and were able to shove anything that they wanted through because the GOP could not stop them from railroading laws and bills.

November 2010 midterms ended that one party reign.

They are frustrated, speaking out to reporters, angry and aren't at the point where they can admit the reason they are being "ignored" treated as if they are "irrelevant" is because House Democrats are irrelevant at the moment.

Of course Obama is taking them for granted, who else are they going to support in 2012? The Republican candidate against Obama?

I don't think so.

Obama knows the answer to that question and so do the House Democrats that are throwing their temper tantrums.

The Obama administration needs the debt ceiling voted on, passed and raised by August 2, 2011.

Republicans have made it clear that for any debt ceiling raise to pass the House of Representatives, an equal amount of spending cuts be part of the deal. Want $2 trillion (example) then cut that same $2 trillion. Republicans want a balanced budget amendment to show they are serious about stopping the practice of spending more money than we have.

Republicans seem to have learned their lesson when they were thrown out of leadership positions the last time by their base for spending like drunken sailors with taxpayer money. They understand they campaigned in 2010 on the premise of cutting spending and lowering our deficit and if they do not fight to keep those promises, they can be replaced again in the next election.







Wasteful Government Spending

Gallup found that 73 percent of national adults understand what liberal Democrats and Barack Obama (yes, redundant) do not seem to be able to... that wasteful government spending is more to blame for the rising federal budget deficit than not raising enough money in taxes.


Corporate Taxes vs Budget Cuts

In May, a New York Times/CBS News poll (neither organization can be accused of a "conservative slant") shows that most Americans prefer budget cuts over raising corporate taxes.

In general, however, few Americans back increasing taxes on American businesses: only 37 percent said corporate taxes should be increased to help reduce the federal budget deficit. The rest agree with an alternative argument that increased taxes would discourage American companies from creating jobs and hurt them in the global marketplace. Thirty-two percent would rather see corporate taxes remain as they are now and 26 percent said taxes on corporate profits should be decreased.

Government Shutdown vs Spending Cuts

In April Rasmussen found that 57 percent of polled voters suggest that a government shutdown would be preferred to not doing the deep spending cuts necessary to get the federal budget on its way toward balance. Only 31 percent believe that avoiding a shutdown is more important.


The bottom line here is that this battle, like the previous budget battles since November is being aired publicly with the same public referred to in the polls above, watching as Republicans fight for spending cuts, a balanced budget amendment and Democrats fighting to raise taxes.

I can almost see all those public statements used in GOP campaign videos with Democrats and Obama stating over and over again "raise taxes" with the GOP candidate saying "cut spending."

Democrats need to stop playing to their 13 percent fiscally liberal base and start playing to Americans as a whole or even to the 38 percent that view themselves as moderate on fiscal issues, or 2012 is going make their massive losses in 2010 look like a walk in the park.

.

The NOW Leftist Conference of 2011

The National Organization for Women had their annual conference this past weekend. They remain a pathetic organization.

http://www.tygrrrrexpress.com/2011/06/the-2011-now-left-wing-activism-conference/

eric aka the Tygrrrr Express

Anti-Semitism directed at Vikings Owner Zygi Wilf

The anti-Semitic email I received attacking Minnesota Vikings Owner Zygi Wilf will be updated as information is uncovered.

http://www.tygrrrrexpress.com/2011/06/anti-semitism-directed-at-vikings-owner-zygi-wilf/

eric aka the Tygrrrr Express

Why Is The Media Always Mistaken In Reports About Sarah Palin?

The mainstream aka lamestream media constantly reports news about Sarah Palin by taking a grain of actual fact and spinning a story out of it and once again today, they have done the same thing.

Here is The Politico's headline: "Sarah Palin team reaching out to Iowa activists for meetings"

Palin's response via Twitter: "*sigh* media making things up again MT @POLITICO2012: Sarah Palin reaching out to IOWA operatives http://politi.co/j9kQko by@maghabepolitico

So, the grain of truth? People were invited to a meet-n-greet after the premiere of "The Undefeated", a pro-Palin film, which Palin will be attending.

Was it "Sarah's team" that issued the invite?

Clarification: An earlier version of this post, based on an interview with Laudner, described "meetings" with Palin, which he later emailed to say was a post-film meet-and-greet with her, put together by an Iowa-based backer of the former Alaska governor.

Novel idea to the media, confirm, verify THEN write up the story.

[Update] RCP did their homework:

Laudner said that he received an invitation to attend the festivities surrounding the movie premiere from Peter Singleton, a California native who moved to Iowa several months ago to help organize in the state in advance of a possible Palin presidential run. Singleton is acting on his own and is not a Palin aide but has often been confused for one as he has made his presence known across the state.

"Putting me on this list doesn't really mean much to me," Laudner told RCP. "I'm on a list to go to this event, but I didn't expect there was going to be high drama. . . . He just said be there, and I said OK."

For his part, Singleton confirmed to RCP that he has not been working with the Palin camp.

"If Governor Palin was setting up meetings, she wouldn't set them up with me," Singleton said. "Not a single activist I've talked with has said anything about that. . . . I'm not affiliated with the Palin organization. I invited Chuck because he's a really great friend and a really nice guy."

Maybe Politico should ask RCP writers for some pointers on the confirm, verify thingie.

.

VIDEO: Crossroad GPS Launches 'Shovel Ready' $20 Million Television Ad Campaign Against Obama

Crossroads GPS: Shovel Ready video below:




Script here

From the Crossroad GPS site:

Crossroads GPS Launches $20 Million National Television Initiative to Frame Debate on Jobs, Economy, Deficits

First phase of massive advertising blitz to define President Obama’s economic and spending record includes $5 million national TV ad, “Shovel Ready,” with national cable TV and network buys in key states.

SNIP

The spot’s $5 million television buy covers national cable news channels as well as local network affiliates in key states, including Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, North Carolina, New Mexico, Nevada, and Virginia.

The new ad will start Monday and run for two weeks and can be viewed here, with a script here.

“President Obama may have inherited a recession, but his policies have made things worse for everyday Americans by running up the debt and causing economic uncertainty,” said Steven Law, president of Crossroads GPS. “Now Obama seems checked out of efforts to reduce America’s dangerous debt load, while his party is pushing massive tax increases and even more spending.”

H/T Washington Examiner.

.

New York Politics: Mike Bloomberg Vs Andrew Cuomo

New York Post editorial teaser:

Cuomo's first six months yielded:

* A budget that actually cut spending -- and plugged a $10 billion gap without tax hikes or new debt.

* The first statutory ceiling on property-tax hikes in New York history.

* A three-year wage freeze from the union that represents about a third of all state employees.

* New ethics rules that, despite loopholes, will boost transparency in Albany.

Not a bad start.

And Bloomberg?

Bupkes.

The budget he forged last week hikes spending by another $2.5 billion (nearly 4 percent) -- even as the city faces massive budget gaps in coming years.

The 4,100 teacher layoffs he'd been threatening for months?

Bluff bait. Forget about it.

Read the whole thing.

.

Rod Blagojevich Found Guilty On 17 Counts UPDATED: Coverage Links

Former Illinios Governor Rod Blagojevich guilty on 17 counts, not guilty on one count and 2 charges the jury could not come to an agreement on.

Charges ranged from the alleged sale of Obama’s vacant Senate seat (11) wire fraud counts as well as conspiracy to commit extortion, attempted extortion and conspiracy to solicit a bribe (9).

Some of the charges carry a maximum of 20 years in prison. A status hearing for sentencing was set for Aug. 1.

Saw the news on television, will provide links as soon as I find them.

.
[Update] Links are coming out fast.

ABC:

A jury has convicted Rod Blagojevich of trying to sell or trade President Barack Obama's old Senate seat and other corruption charges.

Jurors delivered their verdicts Monday after deliberating nine days.

Blagojevich had faced 20 charges, including that he sought to sell or trade an appointment to President Barack Obama's vacated Senate seat and schemed to shake down executives for campaign donations.

Blagojevich testified for seven days, denying wrongdoing. Prosecutors said he lied and the proof was on FBI wiretaps. Those included a widely parodied clip in which Blagojevich calls the Senate opportunity "f------ golden."

Another ABC link.

Chicago Tribune, Sun Times Publication Naperville Sun.

Of the counts, 11 of them involved the alleged sale of Obama’s vacant Senate seat — nine wire fraud counts, as well as conspiracy to commit extortion, attempted extortion and conspiracy to solicit a bribe. Prosecutors broke down the case into five alleged shakedown schemes, including regarding the Senate seat and charged that he held up official acts on the Illinois Tollway, horse-racing legislation, a school grant and on Children’s Memorial Hospital while demanding campaign contributions.

Townhall reminds us:

Blago faces multiple years behind bars for his crimes. He is the second consecutive Illinois Governor to go to prison. Stay tuned for updates...

Bloomberg:

The twice-elected Democrat was accused by prosecutors of attempting to trade official acts, including the appointment of a U.S. senator to replace Barack Obama in 2008 for personal favors and campaign cash.

Blagojevich was convicted of 17 counts, including wire fraud, and acquitted of one count of soliciting bribes. The jury deadlocked on two counts of attempted extortion.

Blagojevich remains free on bail. U.S. District Judge James B. Zagel confined Blagojevich to the Northern District of Illinois.

More at LA Times.

Houston Chronicle and Examiner articles out as well now.

Another MSNBC piece.

According to Chicago Tribune reporter Stacy St. Clair, Blagojevich turned to his wife Patti and whispered "I love you" after the verdict was read.....

Wall Street Journal:

After court was dismissed, Mr. Blagojevich hugged his wife and kissed her on the top of her head. Mr. Blagojevich was found guilty on counts including wire fraud and attempted exortion. He was found not guilty of soliciting bribes.

His attorneys have until July 25 to request a retrial. The judge told Mr. Blagojevich he may not travel outside the northern district of Illinois without permission of the court. "That doesn't mean I will never grant permission," Judge Zagel said.

More coverage from CBS News.



Still adding links as they come out.






.

Supreme Court Strikes Down California Ban On Violent Video Games

In a 7 to 2 decision the Supreme Court has struck down a California law which would ban the sale of violent video games to minors saying the law violates the First Amendment.

The decision cannot be called partisan because as the WSJ article states it "scrambled the court's typical ideological lineup."

The 2005 California law prohibits selling or renting such games to minors based on legislative findings that they stimulate "feelings of aggression," reduce "activity in the frontal lobes of the brain" and promote "violent antisocial or aggressive behavior." The law, signed by then-Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, never took effect because lower courts found it violated free-expression rights.

More at Wall Street Journal.

I have always maintained that games, movies nor music will make a child violent. If a child is taught right from wrong, moral and ethical values from their parents, then no outside source is going to pressure them or create a monster.

Medical and chemical imbalances excluded.

Game makers have a rating system which suggest the age appropriateness of a game and parents have the right and responsibility to decide what their children should and should not be buying, playing, watching or listening to.

Not the state.

There are already areas where the government and laws usurp parental rights and more should not be added. Parents should be responsible for the decisions that affect their minor children in every aspect of life.

Seems the Supreme Court agrees.





Wired reports that Supreme Court Justice Justice Antonin Scalia writes for the majority:

“Our cases have been clear that the obscenity exception to the First Amendment does not cover whatever a legislature finds shocking, but only depictions of ’sexual conduct,’” Scalia wrote. He added that the video game law “abridges the First Amendment rights of young people whose parents (and aunts and uncles) think violent videogames are a harmless pastime.”

Six other states and several local governments had adopted similar bans — which provide for a $1,000 fine for sellers. Every court that has heard a challenge to all these laws has struck them down on First Amendment grounds.

MSNBC:

Scalia also shot down California's arguments that video games were different enough from books to require a First Amendment exception. "As Judge Posner has observed, all literature is interactive. '[T]he better it is, the more interactive.'" He called California's scientific evidence that violent video games can hurt kids "not compelling."

He denied a state need for a law, given that, he argued parents may not all agree that their kids need protection from violent video games. He cited studies of the current video game ratings systems and said they have been shown effective enough to work. "Filling the remaining modest gap in concerned-parents' control can hardly be a compelling state interest."

More on the Entertainment Software Rating Board (ESRB)can be found here.

Supreme Court ruling, PDF found here.

.

Andrew Breitbart: The Man Liberals Love To Hate And Why

Liberals despise Andrew Breitbart with a passion. Conservatives cheer him on for the most part and from a recent profile piece in The New York Times, Breitbart seems to be overly accessible, willing to make contact with him easy by volunteering his email and his phone number whenever asked and even when not asked.

Breitbart runs websites like Big Government, Big Journalism and Big Hollywood and was responsible for the outing of Anthony Weiner by being the first to publish and expose Weiner's online antics, which resulted in Weiner eventually resigning after first claiming his Yfrog, Facebook and Twitter accounts were hacked.

Breitbart's sites were also responsible for publishing videos about ACORN which subsequently resulted in Congress ending grants to the organization and federal agencies severing ties.

Liberals love to hate Andrew Breitbart, in my opinion, because he plays the game by the rules liberals and the liberal media created and he is better at it.

Some examples listed below will show how liberals do exactly what they claim to hate about Breitbart.

Conservative example via Breitbart:

Breitbart published an edited video he received of Shirley Sherrod (USDA employee when Breitbart published the video) speaking at the March 2010 NAACP Freedom Fund dinner in Georgia where her words from the edited video implied heavily that she discriminated against a white farmer.

The correction on Breitbart's initial post says "Correction: While Ms. Sherrod made the remarks captured in the first video featured in this post while she held a federally appointed position, the story she tells refers to actions she took before she held that federal position."

Subsequent events showed that the posted video was an excerpt of broader comments that conveyed alternate meaning. Breitbart said he did not edit the video and did not have a copy of the entire speech at the time.

The NAACP, who actually had the entire speech the whole time condemned Sherrod before watching it, then apologized, and Sherrod was forced to resign and is now attempting to sue Breitbart.

Liberal pundits toss Sherrod's name consistently claiming Breitbart's treatment of Sherrod was unethical, accusing him of editing the video himself all without one bit of proof or evidence to support their allegations.

Then they do the same thing they have accused him of.

Liberal examples:

Sarah Palin, October 2010, referenced the 1773 Tea Party and members of the far left liberal progressive portion of the Democratic party decided to deride her for her lack of knowledge, it was tweeted, retweeted, reported on and generally the left were having a field day stating that Palin didn't know the date of the Tea Party.

Cuffy Meigs at Perfunction provides a nice list of examples of liberal pundits and media personalities that jumped on that bandwagon before simple searches showed... oooops, Palin was right.





A more recent example from this past week of liberals providing a partial story, jumping into the fray, providing condemning headlines before the whole story emerges.

The Wisconsin Supreme Court flap where an initial story set liberals on a crash course with a brick wall, head first before the rest of the facts emerged.

From yesterday's post:

Latest Wisconsin news involves Supreme Court Justice Ann Walsh Bradley and Supreme Court Justice David Prosser where initial headlines quoting an anonymous source claimed that Justice Prosser "choked" Justice Bradley. No arrests were made and no charges filed against Prosser but liberals sites jumped off the cliff fast and furiousy before subsequent reports added a few facts to the news accounts.

Such as, there were other witnesses and according to another unnamed witness, Bradley charged after Prosser with fist raised and Prosser "put his hands in a defensive posture," adding "He blocked her."

That led to headlines from Think Progress such as "Four Ways Justice David Prosser Can Be Removed From Office", which discusses how the alleged choking was a class H felony, headlines from FireDogLake stating "Reports: Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice Prosser Choked Colleague Before Anti-Union Decision," and more.

Those are just the tip of the iceberg where liberals report before they have the full facts, before they know the whole story, even as they condemn Breitbart of doing the same thing.

At least with the Sherrod affair, Breitbart actually had a video where the words came out her mouth, giving a legitimate reason for jumping fast and adding corrections after.

Do as I say, not as I do seems to be a liberal's prevailing mindset.

Back to Andrew Breitbart, who is accused by liberal pundits relentlessly of making up stories, hacking, photoshopping all allegations made against him in regards to the Weiner pictures and story before Weiner admitted he did do it all.

Breitbart wrote a book called RIGHTEOUS INDIGNATION where he talks about how one needs to deal with the liberal news world head on and the reason Breitbart is so hated within the liberal community is because he does just that, he meets them toe to toe, he plays the game by the rules they set up and he wins, time and time again.

Breitbart exposes their agenda, shines a light on their hypocrisy and beats them at their own game.

We need more Andrew Breitbarts.

.

GOP Convention 2011--Utah

Speaking today to the GOP ladies in Hollywood. Meanwhile, here is my coverage of the recent Utah GOP Convention.

http://www.tygrrrrexpress.com/2011/06/gop-convention-2011-utah/

eric aka the Tygrrrr Express

"Unchartered Depths": Obama Policies Provide The 'Worst Recovery' In A Lifetime

WSJ shows that the Joint Economic Committee has chronicled how weak Obama's recovery has been compared to others since World War II. Here is how Obama's recovery compares to previous post 1960 recoveries: (From report called "Unchartered Depths")

Click image to enlarge

In a report entitled "Unchartered Depths," the Committee finds that "employment is now 5.0% below what it was at the start of the recession, 38 months ago. This compares to an average rise in employment of 3.7% over the same period in prior post-WWII recessions."

On economic growth, real GDP has risen 0.8% over the 13 quarters since the recession began, compared to an average increase of 9.9% in past recoveries. From the beginning of the recession to April 2011, real personal income has grown just .9% compared to 9.4% for the same period in previous post 1960 recessions.

The standard response from Obama apologists is that recession of 2008 and 2009 was different because, as former Clinton administration economist Robert Shapiro puts it, "this was a financial crisis, and these take longer to recover from." In fact, in most cases, the deeper the recession, the stronger the recovery to make up for lost ground.

That was what Ronald Reagan's critics said when the U.S. economy soared during 1983 and 1984 with quarterly growth numbers exceeding 7%. At the time, liberal Keynesians yawned and declared the good times nothing more than a normal snapback from the deep recession.

So where is the normal snapback now? Even $4 trillion in deficits since 2009 and nearly $2 trillion of asset purchases by the Fed haven't pulled the economy from its funk.

No one denies Obama inherited a bad economic situation, as have other presidents in the past. Comparing the the results from Obama's actions with the actions and results of previous administrations faced with inherited economic difficulties tells a story of a failed recovery.

Here are a few of the differences between what Reagan successfully did to spur recovery compared to what Obama has done:

Like President Reagan, President Obama inherited an economy in crisis. But Obama came into office vowing to implement policy ideas that were exactly opposite the ideas that inspired the successful Reagan Presidency.

* Reagan cut income tax rates. Obama spent his first two years promising to increase tax rates on “the rich,” mostly small business owners and investors. In December he signed legislation that schedules his tax increase to take effect two months after the 2012 Presidential election

* Reagan cut “discretionary” spending. Obama dramatically increased it.

* Reagan reduced regulation and government intervention in the private sector.

* Obama has implemented waves of new regulation and under his leadership Congress passed legislation that will require new regulations of health insurance and virtually every detail of banking and finance – even ATM cards.

He and Democrats spent when they should have cut. Obama and Democrats fought change when they should have ushered it in. Obama and Democrats focused on Obamacare, against the opposition of the majority of Americans, when they should have focused on job creation. Obama and Democrats spent trillions in monies we did not have, so they borrowed more to spend more. Obama and Democrats have declared all out war on businesses, which are a huge source of job creation and could give the economy the boost it needs to recover.

Every economic decision Barack Obama has made has pulled the so-called recovery farther back instead of pushing it forward.

It is Obama's failed policies that has made this the worst recovery of a lifetime, pure and simple.

.

Random acts of kindness Sunday

I was the recipient of a pair of acts of random kindness. This world has some really good people in it.

http://www.tygrrrrexpress.com/2011/06/random-acts-of-kindness-sunday/

eric aka the Tygrrrr Express

Alternate Headline Of Bradley/Prosser Justice War: 'She charged him with fists raised'

After conservative leaning Supreme Court Justice David Prosser won the controversial election earlier this year handing liberals a painful loss, then the recount where Prosser still came out ahead, one would think liberals wound have licked their wounds and moved on.

One would be wrong if they thought so.

Latest Wisconsin news involves Supreme Court Justice Ann Walsh Bradley and Supreme Court Justice David Prosser where initial headlines quoting an anonymous source claimed that Justice Prosser "choked" Justice Bradley. No arrests were made and no charges filed against Prosser but liberals sites jumped off the cliff fast and furiousy before subsequent reports added a few facts to the news accounts.

Such as, there were other witnesses and according to another unnamed witness, Bradley charged after Prosser with fist raised and Prosser "put his hands in a defensive posture," adding "He blocked her."

Another source said the justices were arguing over the timing of the release of the opinion, which legislative leaders had insisted they needed by June 14 because of their work on the state budget. As the justices discussed the case, Abrahamson said she didn't know whether the decision would come out this month, the source said.

At that point, Prosser said he'd lost all confidence in her leadership. Bradley then came across the room "with fists up," the source said. Prosser put up his hands to push her back.

Bradley then said she had been choked, according to the source. Another justice - the source wouldn't say who - responded, "You were not choked."

He said, she said, they said.

Ann Althouse seems to be the go-to on this. Besides being a law professor, she also is local and is keeping a close eye on the situation and she makes a few good points.

I'm reading the Journal Sentinel's account as referring to 3 — not 2 — sources, with 2 of the 3 versions portraying Bradley as the aggressor: "the source... another source... [a]nother source...."

I want to know not only what really happened at the time of the physical contact (if any) between the 2 justices, but also who gave the original story to the press. If Prosser really tried to choke a nonviolent Bradley, he should resign. But if the original account is a trumped-up charge intended to destroy Prosser and obstruct the democratic processes of government in Wisconsin, then whoever sent the report out in that form should be held responsible for what should be recognized as a truly evil attack.

ADDED: Everyone who thinks Prosser must to resign if he attacked Bradley ought to say that if Bradley attacked Prosser, she should resign. If that happens, then the tactic of leaking the original version of the story to the press will have backfired horrifically for Democrats, as Governor Scott Walker will name the Justice to replace Bradley. If both Justices erred and must resign, that will be 2 appointments for Walker, both of whom, I would imagine, will be stronger, younger, and more conservative than Prosser, and, with Bradley gone, the liberal faction on the court will be reduced to 2, against a conservative majority of 5.

Byron York from Washington Examiner adds more detail.

I Own The World turns the original liberal headlines around now that there are more sources saying Bradley initiated the physicality of the exchange:

Four Ways Justice David Prosser Can Be Removed From Office

This was the heady “reporting” by Think Progress in the wake of the rumor that newly re-elected Wisconsin Supreme Court Judge Prosser had “choked” Judge Ann Walsh Bradley.

Think did a thorough job of detailing how the class H felony was going to lead to Prosser’s

a: Resignation b: Impeachment c: Removal by Address d: Recall

This is a very useful article. We can now use it to have Judge Ann Walsh Bradley removed from her position. It seems the worm has turned.

Bottom line is unless charges are filed against either Justice and there is a trial, no crime has been committed.

It works both ways, both individuals are innocent unless proven guilty in a court of law. Perhaps the liberals that jumped on this bandwagon should have thought of that before they starting touting unproven, false headlines in the first place.

[Update] Althouse also has some relevant questions about the initial stories and asking whether the first so-called journalist, bill Lueders, had both sides of the accounts and deliberately only reported the one to which liberals jumped all over. (H/T Instapundit)

Lueders needs to tell us whether or not he knew the Bradley-as-the-aggressor story when he presented his original work of investigative journalism under the name of the Wisconsin Center for Investigative Journalism. If he knew it, why didn't he present the whole context at first? And what was in the "reconstructed account" that got Prosser to decline comment? If Lueders didn't know the alternate version of the story, in which Bradley was the aggressor, why on earth didn't he know? The story he presented is so weird that any thinking person would demand to know more of the context. Did Lueders keep himself willfully ignorant of the more complicated version of the story, and if he did, why? What kind of journalism is that? Truly evil?

Now, let's go back to what Ian Millhiser said: "Should the allegations against Prosser prove true, it is tough to imagine a truer sign that our political system has broken down than if the calls to remove him from office are not unanimous." All right, Mr. Millhiser, I appeal to you. Let's be unanimous about this and show that our political system has not broken down. I agreed with you that if Prosser did what Lueders's story made it seem that he did, Prosser should resign. By your own standard, will you say that if Bradley initiated the physical aggression, running at Prosser with raised fists, that the integrity of our political system demands that there be unanimous calls for Bradley to be removed?

Finally, it must be said: If Lueders had the larger context of the story — including the allegation that Bradley was the aggressor — and he suppressed it in his original account, what he did was not only evil, shameful journalism, it was freaking stupid. All sorts of bloggers and tweeters like Millhiser committed themselves to the firm, righteous position that if Prosser did what is alleged, he must leave the court. Lueders's article lured them into stating a firm and supposedly neutral principle about physical aggression. With that principle in place, they are bound to call for Bradley's ouster, if Bradley really did take the offensive and transform the verbal argument into a physical fight.

Plenty Of Votes To Totally Defund Libya Mission In The House

Despite the failure to pass a bill through the House of Representatives to defund the war in Libya that Obama started without congressional authority, the votes to totally defund the war are there, and 70 Democratic members that voted against the measure to defund, did so because it didn't go far enough!!

Foreign Policy reports:

The vote failed 180-238 - but, in fact, there were more than enough lawmakers to pass the measure. Of the 149 Democrats who stuck with the president, up to 70 of them are totally opposed to the Libya intervention and want to see it completely defunded as soon as possible. They voted "no" on the Rooney's bill because they thought it was too weak, did not cut off all funds, and implicitly authorized the intervention.

These 70 Democrats make up the Congressional Progressive Caucus (CPC), the largest caucus within the House Democratic Caucus, whose leadership includes Reps. Mike Honda (D-CA), Barbara Lee (D-CA), Lynn Woolsey (D-CA) and Raul Grijalva (D-AZ).

Quotes from individuals progressive caucus members back up Foreign Policy's assertions, plus they add a statement from the Congressional Progressive Caucus (CPC) for those that think the individual statements were not clear enough:

The Co-Chairs of the Congressional Progressive Caucus Peace and Security Taskforce call on Congress and the President to immediately end our war in Libya. The US has been engaged in hostilities for over 90 days without congressional approval, which undermines not only the powers of the legislative branch but also the legal checks and balances put in place nearly 40 years ago to avoid abuse by any single branch of government.

We call on our colleagues in Congress to exercise their legitimate authority and oversight and immediately block any funding for this war. Before the Executive branch further weakens the War Powers Resolution, and before we attack another country in the name of our "responsibility to protect," we must recommit ourselves to our Constitutional duty and obligation to hold the purse strings and the right to declare war. For decades, the House recognized the need for appropriate checks and balances before another war was waged. We must do the same. We call on Congress to exhibit similar foresight by promptly ending this war and pledging to uphold the laws that characterize America's commitment to democratic governance.

If the Republican House leadership is to assert their authority on initiating acts of war and force Barack Obama to stop violating the War Act Resolution of 1973, they need to stop being complicit in allowing Obama to go war without authority to do so.

GOP, grow a spine.

.
.

Sarah Palin Heading To Iowa For Premiere Of 'The Undefeated'

Barack Obama and Sarah Palin will be in Iowa next week and on the same day.

Tuesday the pro-Palin film "The Undefeated" will premiere at the Pella Opera House at 5 p.m. central time, followed by a traditional Iowa cookout with Sarah and Todd Palin in attendance.

In accepting the invitation to attend the premiere, Sarah Palin stated, “We are very excited to visit historic Pella and its opera house and look forward to seeing the finished film for the first time with fellow Americans from the heartland.”

Responding to the Palin’s announcement that they will attend the Iowa premiere, Larry Peterson, Chairman of the Board of the Pella Opera House said, “We look forward to hosting Governor Palin and her husband, Todd, at our beloved opera house as we welcome them to our community.”

“We are incredibly excited about Governor Palin and her husband Todd’s attendance at a location that speaks to the basic core values of The Undefeated,” said Stephen K. Bannon, the writer and director of the film.

“We are delighted that Governor Palin and her husband Todd have accepted our invitation to join us at the Iowa premiere of what we believe is a truly moving and extraordinary film,” said Trevor Drinkwater, CEO of ARC Entertainment, the film’s worldwide distributor.

According to ABC News' The Note, Barack Obama will also be in Iowa on Tuesday and Michelle Bachmann is slated to be there Monday to launch her 2012 presidential bid.

.

Seeking Solace Saturday

Today is solace Saturday. As I fly from Dallas back to LA, I seek calm in the storm that is life.

http://www.tygrrrrexpress.com/2011/06/solace-seeking-saturday/

eric aka the Tygrrrr Express

Republican Controlled New York State Senate Passes Gay Marriage Bill

After the religious exemption issues were cleared up yesterday, the New York state Senate passed by 33 to 29, the first gay marriage bill from a Republican controlled Senate and was sent to New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo who signed the bill into law hours after it had passed.

Four Republicans joined with 29 Democrats in the New York Senate to pass this bill, tipping the scales in favor for passage and some opponents of the bill are expressing severe criticism of those four Republicans.

The state assembly approved the marriage bill for the fourth time in as many years last week. A 2009 same-sex marriage vote in the then Democratic-controlled senate failed with only 24 votes.

In defense of those four Republicans, I will point to an argument I made when Obamacare was passed against the majority opinion of Americans with Democratic Senators and Representatives voting for it despite their own constituents pleading with them not to.

An elected officials job is to represent their constituents first and foremost, not their party. They are honor bound, if they have any honor or ethics, to listen to those that elected them and New York is known to be one of the most liberal states in existence with a very large gay and lesbian community.

Unlike the Obamacare Democrats, these four New York Republicans, no matter their personal views, respected the wishes of the majority of their constituents after making sure the religious constituents were also represented in this bill.

Cuomo, the assembly’s majority Democrats and state senate Republicans agreed to the exemptions Friday afternoon. The key sticking point was a clause that throws out the entire bill if any part of it is voided in the courts.

As a side note---

The irony here is that this news which has gay activists cheering and almost every news article written making it clear that it was a "Republican controlled" Senate that passed this bill in the largest state yet to pass a same-sex marriage bill, comes just a week after those very same gay activists tore into their Democratic President (Obama) for changing positions and pretending to confuse civil unions with same-sex marriage.

Gay activists must feel like they are in the Twilight Zone, having to hail the actions of a Republican controlled Senate while ripping into a Democratic President over a gay rights issue.

.

Oh... Just One More Thing Video Tribute- RIP: Peter Falk Dies At 83

Famous as Columbo star, Peter Falk dies at 83 years old. Falk's cause of death wasn't reported but he had suffered from Alzheimer's disease and advanced dementia that intensified after a series of dental operations in 2007, the family did issue a statement saying Falk "died peacefully at his Beverly Hills home in the evening of June 23, 2011."


RIP Peter Falk.

Oh, just one more thing......








(Title changed from highlights to tribute)
.

Yet Another Obama Gaffe: Mixing Up Military Heroes

No excuse for this one. Offensive to the grieving military family and just shouldn't have happened.

Speaking in upstate New York to troops at Fort Drum Thursday, the president was remembering the times he spent with the US Army’s 10th Mountain Division.

“Throughout my service, first as a senator and then as a presidential candidate and then as a president, I’ve always run into you guys,” Obama said. “And for some reason it’s always in some rough spots.”

“First time I saw the 10th Mountain Division, you guys were in southern Iraq. When I went back to visit Afghanistan, you guys were the first ones there. I had the great honor of seeing some of you because a comrade of yours, Jared Monti, was the first person who I was able to award the Medal of Honor to who actually came back and wasn’t receiving it posthumously.”

Jared Monti was killed in Afghanistan on June 21, 2006. He was awarded the Medal of Honor posthumously, September 17, 2009.

Last word goes to BlackFive:

How does the Commander-in-Chief mix these heroes up? He put that medal around Giunta's neck and he stood with Monti's parents as they grieved. These fallen heroes leave such a great legacy, and we should know all their names. The ironic part of the speech, and this comes after the announcement of the politically pressured drawdown of troops in Afghanistan, was Obama's closing remark, "Know that your Commander-in-Chief has your back."

It shouldn't take a teleprompter for the C-in-C to get it right.

Authorization Of Libya Mission Fails To Pass In The House Of Representatives

Complete wording of the War Powers Resolution of 1973 is below the post for those that have not read it.

The vote was 295 to 123 against passage of a bill that would have authorized U.S. aid for the war in Libya and barred any deployment of ground troops. Roll call can be found here. Over 50 Democratic House members joined with the majority of Republicans in rejecting the bil with only eight House Republicans supported the authorization.

National Journal reports:

The House is now debating a second bill backed by the chamber's GOP leaders that would cut off funds for any U.S. combat missions as part of the NATO-led effort to oust Libyan strongman Moammar el-Qaddafi.

The bill, which is highly unlikely to pass the Senate, would still provide funding for support missions, such as combat search and rescue and aerial refueling. But it would block money for Predator drone strikes and other hostile actions.

Update to reflect failure of second measure to pass by 180 to 238 with almost three dozen Democrats voting for passage in a stinging rebuke to Obama from his own party m embers.

Barack Obama's administration insists that bombing from drones and participating in the war in Libya does not qualify as "war" and does not require the President follow the War Powers Resolution of 1973 which states that a President requires authorization from Congress to introduce our military forces into war.

From the Resolution:

(c) For purposes of this joint resolution, the term "introduction of United States Armed Forces" includes the assignment of member of such armed forces to command, coordinate, participate in the movement of, or accompany the regular or irregular military forces of any foreign country or government when such military forces are engaged, or there exists an imminent threat that such forces will become engaged, in hostilities.

Some Democratic and Republican House and Senate members believe that introducing our military into hostilities does equal war and that Obama does, indeed, need Congressional authorization to continue. Those same members are calling out Obama as being in violation of the War Powers Resolution already. As are some of the White House lawyers who Obama rejected the advice of when they told him he would be violating the WPA.

A bipartisan group of House members have also filed a lawsuit against the Obama administration because of this issue.

War Powers Resolution of 1973

Public Law 93-148
93rd Congress, H. J. Res. 542
November 7, 1973

Joint Resolution

Concerning the war powers of Congress and the President.

Resolved by the Senate and the House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SHORT TITLE

SECTION 1. This joint resolution may be cited as the "War Powers Resolution".

PURPOSE AND POLICY

SEC. 2. (a) It is the purpose of this joint resolution to fulfill the intent of the framers of the Constitution of the United States and insure that the collective judgement of both the Congress and the President will apply to the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicate by the circumstances, and to the continued use of such forces in hostilities or in such situations.

(b) Under article I, section 8, of the Constitution, it is specifically provided that the Congress shall have the power to make all laws necessary and proper for carrying into execution, not only its own powers but also all other powers vested by the Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.

(c) The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to (1) a declaration of war, (2) specific statutory authorization, or (3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.

CONSULTATION

SEC. 3. The President in every possible instance shall consult with Congress before introducing United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into situation where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, and after every such introduction shall consult regularly with the Congress until United States Armed Forces are no longer engaged in hostilities or have been removed from such situations.

REPORTING

SEC. 4. (a) In the absence of a declaration of war, in any case in which United States Armed Forces are introduced--
(1) into hostilities or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances;
(2) into the territory, airspace or waters of a foreign nation, while equipped for combat, except for deployments which relate solely to supply, replacement, repair, or training of such forces; or
(3) in numbers which substantially enlarge United States Armed Forces equipped for combat already located in a foreign nation; the president shall submit within 48 hours to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and to the President pro tempore of the Senate a report, in writing, setting forth--
(A) the circumstances necessitating the introduction of United States Armed Forces;
(B) the constitutional and legislative authority under which such introduction took place; and
(C) the estimated scope and duration of the hostilities or involvement.

(b) The President shall provide such other information as the Congress may request in the fulfillment of its constitutional responsibilities with respect to committing the Nation to war and to the use of United States Armed Forces abroad

(c) Whenever United States Armed Forces are introduced into hostilities or into any situation described in subsection (a) of this section, the President shall, so long as such armed forces continue to be engaged in such hostilities or situation, report to the Congress periodically on the status of such hostilities or situation as well as on the scope and duration of such hostilities or situation, but in no event shall he report to the Congress less often than once every six months.

CONGRESSIONAL ACTION

SEC. 5. (a) Each report submitted pursuant to section 4(a)(1) shall be transmitted to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and to the President pro tempore of the Senate on the same calendar day. Each report so transmitted shall be referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House of Representatives and to the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate for appropriate action. If, when the report is transmitted, the Congress has adjourned sine die or has adjourned for any period in excess of three calendar days, the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate, if they deem it advisable (or if petitioned by at least 30 percent of the membership of their respective Houses) shall jointly request the President to convene Congress in order that it may consider the report and take appropriate action pursuant to this section.

(b) Within sixty calendar days after a report is submitted or is required to be submitted pursuant to section 4(a)(1), whichever is earlier, the President shall terminate any use of United States Armed Forces with respect to which such report was submitted (or required to be submitted), unless the Congress (1) has declared war or has enacted a specific authorization for such use of United States Armed Forces, (2) has extended by law such sixty-day period, or (3) is physically unable to meet as a result of an armed attack upon the United States. Such sixty-day period shall be extended for not more than an additional thirty days if the President determines and certifies to the Congress in writing that unavoidable military necessity respecting the safety of United States Armed Forces requires the continued use of such armed forces in the course of bringing about a prompt removal of such forces.

(c) Notwithstanding subsection (b), at any time that United States Armed Forces are engaged in hostilities outside the territory of the United States, its possessions and territories without a declaration of war or specific statutory authorization, such forces shall be removed by the President if the Congress so directs by concurrent resolution.

CONGRESSIONAL PRIORITY PROCEDURES FOR JOINT RESOLUTION OR BILL

SEC. 6. (a) Any joint resolution or bill introduced pursuant to section 5(b) at least thirty calendar days before the expiration of the sixty-day period specified in such section shall be referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House of Representatives or the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate, as the case may be, and such committee shall report one such joint resolution or bill, together with its recommendations, not later than twenty-four calendar days before the expiration of the sixty-day period specified in such section, unless such House shall otherwise determine by the yeas and nays.

(b) Any joint resolution or bill so reported shall become the pending business of the House in question (in the case of the Senate the time for debate shall be equally divided between the proponents and the opponents), and shall be voted on within three calendar days thereafter, unless such House shall otherwise determine by yeas and nays.

(c) Such a joint resolution or bill passed by one House shall be referred to the committee of the other House named in subsection (a) and shall be reported out not later than fourteen calendar days before the expiration of the sixty-day period specified in section 5(b). The joint resolution or bill so reported shall become the pending business of the House in question and shall be voted on within three calendar days after it has been reported, unless such House shall otherwise determine by yeas and nays.

(d) In the case of any disagreement between the two Houses of Congress with respect to a joint resolution or bill passed by both Houses, conferees shall be promptly appointed and the committee of conference shall make and file a report with respect to such resolution or bill not later than four calendar days before the expiration of the sixty-day period specified in section 5(b). In the event the conferees are unable to agree within 48 hours, they shall report back to their respective Houses in disagreement. Notwithstanding any rule in either House concerning the printing of conference reports in the Record or concerning any delay in the consideration of such reports, such report shall be acted on by both Houses not later than the expiration of such sixty-day period.

CONGRESSIONAL PRIORITY PROCEDURES FOR CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

SEC. 7. (a) Any concurrent resolution introduced pursuant to section 5(b) at least thirty calendar days before the expiration of the sixty-day period specified in such section shall be referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House of Representatives or the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate, as the case may be, and one such concurrent resolution shall be reported out by such committee together with its recommendations within fifteen calendar days, unless such House shall otherwise determine by the yeas and nays.

(b) Any concurrent resolution so reported shall become the pending business of the House in question (in the case of the Senate the time for debate shall be equally divided between the proponents and the opponents), and shall be voted on within three calendar days thereafter, unless such House shall otherwise determine by yeas and nays.

(c) Such a concurrent resolution passed by one House shall be referred to the committee of the other House named in subsection (a) and shall be reported out by such committee together with its recommendations within fifteen calendar days and shall thereupon become the pending business of such House and shall be voted on within three calendar days after it has been reported, unless such House shall otherwise determine by yeas and nays.

(d) In the case of any disagreement between the two Houses of Congress with respect to a concurrent resolution passed by both Houses, conferees shall be promptly appointed and the committee of conference shall make and file a report with respect to such concurrent resolution within six calendar days after the legislation is referred to the committee of conference.
Notwithstanding any rule in either House concerning the printing of conference reports in the Record or concerning any delay in the consideration of such reports, such report shall be acted on by both Houses not later than six calendar days after the conference report is filed. In the event the conferees are unable to agree within 48 hours, they shall report back to their respective Houses in disagreement.

INTERPRETATION OF JOINT RESOLUTION

SEC. 8. (a) Authority to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into situations wherein involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances shall not be inferred--
(1) from any provision of law (whether or not in effect before the date of the enactment of this joint resolution), including any provision contained in any appropriation Act, unless such provision specifically authorizes the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into such situations and stating that it is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of this joint resolution; or
(2) from any treaty heretofore or hereafter ratified unless such treaty is implemented by legislation specifically authorizing the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into such situations and stating that it is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of this joint resolution.

(b) Nothing in this joint resolution shall be construed to require any further specific statutory authorization to permit members of United States Armed Forces to participate jointly with members of the armed forces of one or more foreign countries in the headquarters operations of high-level military commands which were established prior to the date of enactment of this joint resolution and pursuant to the United Nations Charter or any treaty ratified by the United States prior to such date.

(c) For purposes of this joint resolution, the term "introduction of United States Armed Forces" includes the assignment of member of such armed forces to command, coordinate, participate in the movement of, or accompany the regular or irregular military forces of any foreign country or government when such military forces are engaged, or there exists an imminent threat that such forces will become engaged, in hostilities.

(d) Nothing in this joint resolution--
(1) is intended to alter the constitutional authority of the Congress or of the President, or the provision of existing treaties; or (2) shall be construed as granting any authority to the President with respect to the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into situations wherein involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances which authority he would not have had in the absence of this joint resolution.

SEPARABILITY CLAUSE

SEC. 9. If any provision of this joint resolution or the application thereof to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the remainder of the joint resolution and the application of such provision to any other person or circumstance shall not be affected thereby.

(Post updated to reflect failure of second measure.)

.