Link

Even some Democrats are chaffing at the heavy-handed clampdown on debate. Abortion opponent Rep. Bart Stupak, D-Mich., on Thursday lashed out at his party's leaders for denying him and others a chance to vote on restoring a long-standing directive by Congress blocking taxpayer-funded abortions in Washington, D.C.

At issue are 12 bills totaling more than $1.2 trillion in annual appropriations bills for funding most government programs—usually low-profile legislation that typically dominates the work of the House in June and July. For decades, those bills have come to the floor under an open process that allows any member to try to amend them. Often those amendments are an effort to change government policy by adding or subtracting money for carrying it out.

The tradition has often meant laborious debates. But it has allowed lawmakers with little seniority to have their say on doling out the one-third of the federal budget passed by Congress each year. It was a right the Democrats zealously defended when they were the minority party from 1995 through 2006.

Now, people when I say that look at me and say, ‘What are you talking about, Joe? You’re telling me we have to go spend money to keep from going bankrupt?’” Biden said. “The answer is yes, that's what I’m telling you.”

* * * * * * *

Keep spending, spending into oblivion.

Link

"Why is Congress so sympathetic to transparency?" Paul wonders. "The American people are demanding it. They've awoken and said 'we want to know what's going on with our money. Why are you bailing out the rich guys?' The timing is right. The conditions are right."

"Imagine if we had all the records that showed every communication between the Treasury and the Fed and Goldman Sachs?" Paul muses. "That would be really something. That's why they're ganging up [to oppose the audit]. They're a lot more powerful than I am. I have no clout whatsoever."

Link

As far as the Texas Congressman is concerned, healthcare is not a right. "I don't have a right to medical care," he emphatically states. In his view, the constitution only guarantees citizens "life, liberty and (the right to) keep the fruits of my labor."

In the aftermath of her decision to drop out and cash in, Palin’s standing in the G.O.P. actually rose in the USA Today/Gallup poll. No less than 71 percent of Republicans said they would vote for her for president. That overwhelming majority isn’t just the “base” of the Republican Party that liberals and conservatives alike tend to ghettoize as a rump backwater minority. It is the party, or pretty much what remains of it in the Barack Obama era.

USA Today has a similar story too.

* * * * * * * *

There are probably several Republicans who are much better than Palin. Looking to Palin to save the GOP in 2010 is a serious mistake.

Ed McMahon died at a hospital in Los Angeles this morning, his agent said today.

The 86-year-old TV personality died this morning at Ronald Regan UCLA Medical Center.

In Memory

I really want to see the attendance announcement during the 8th inning. If I see 45-46,000, I really want to shout bullcrap!!! Who can bet only several thousand are still there in the stadium? (About 10,000 were at the game)

I understand that we won't play the Nationals after this 3-game series. I understand the importance of trying to play this game.

I couldn't go today, so my friend and his father went and they waited five hours before leaving. Essentially, they could not get any details from Guest Services. They were told a 3pm start, then a 4pm start, then 5:15pm, and eventually 6:30pm. They were pretty much frustrated just like many other fans.

So the fans that had tickets from the grandstand to the premium seats lose out since they're going to play the game after all. Is that still right after what the fans have endured? Since fans could not leave the stadium during the delay, they were essentially held as "prisoners." It was either stay and keep on waiting, or leave and lose out that $20 to $2000 ticket. Is that still right?

Common sense would dictate that if were 1-2 hours, I am sure fans would tolerate it. But everyone saw the weather outlook. If this game was the last of the season, fans would stay. If this were a game that would determine the postseason, the fans would stay.

So right now the Yankees are basically screwing over 3/4 of the fans that could not stay or did not come because of the weather. Can we at least consider some bit of compensation? Like using our ticket to another game? We are not asking for much, just an opportunity to make up one game.

UPDATE 6/19/09

Yankees announced that fans who could not go to the game or they went home during the rain delay will be able to use their game ticket to another Yankees game for no charge. So fans can still get to see another game, and fans who went are pretty much given a free game. That is good news and most considerate of them.

PETA spokesman Bruce Friedrich
"We support compassion even for the most curious, smallest, and least sympathetic animals. We believe that people, where they can be compassionate, should be, for all animals."

Give me a second to say "UGH!!!"

It doesn't end there. PETA is sending Obama the Katcha Bug Humane Bug Catcher, a device that allow users to trap a house fly and then release it outside.

Thankfully, White House Deputy Press Secretary Josh Earnest had no comment.

Let's hope this piece of news dies quickly.

Link

Wall Street Journal Article

This smells of political favoritism. I wonder how can we continue to trust Obama's promise of open transparency. In fact, President Obama, as senator, co-sponsored the Inspectors General Reform Act, which requires the President to give Congress 30 days notice, plus a reason, before firing an Inspector General.

How can the White House cite that Mr. Walpin of misconduct and having improper charges on Kevin Johnson? How can they say it was "just pure coincidence" to dismiss Mr. Walpin during the St. HOPE controversy?

Something is quite fishy here.

* * * * * * * * * *

Dailykos is siding with the reasoning that Walpin's investigation was politically motivated because he was a Bush appointee and he was out to get Obama support Kevin Johnson. They cited that acting U.S. Attorney Lawrence Brown (a fellow Bush appointee) questioned Walpin's conduct during the investigation and said he did not have the proper evidence to file charges against Johnson's involvement with St. HOPE. Plus since the relevant authorities determined that no crime had been committed, they allege that Walpin tried to undermine that by appealing to Congress.

Yet they failed to note that Lawrence Brown decided to cut Walpin out of the loop, and arranged a settlement with Johnson that featured a watered down financial repayment and no charges against Mr. Johnson. That was why Walpin went to Congress because he felt that the settlement between Brown and Johnson and St. HOPE did not fit the crime that was committed.

So St. HOPE had to pay back half of the $850,000 AmeriCorps grant (with a financial assist by Mr. Johnson). It also required Mr. Johnson to take an online course about bookkeeping.

And the 30-day waiting period before firing Walpin. That was taken care of when they put Walpin on 30-days paid leave, then they will fire him at the end of that.

Plus there's a Walpin allegation that there is a great deal of money that is not being properly allocated at AmeriCorps. Will this be investigated?

From the Democrat/liberal viewpoint, they think Walpin was running a politically-motivated investigation, and drumming up weak charges against Johnson, one of their Obama supporters and now San Francisco mayor.

From the Republican/conservative viewpoint, they think Walpin was fired because he was criticizing a favorite liberal program (AmeriCorps) and going after certain supporters that had the ear of the President.

Can this be solved via independent counsel?

On the 20th anniversary of the brutal suppression of protestors and citizens in and around Tiananmen Square, the Communist Government of China continues to recognize this event by blocking Twitter, Flickr, MySpace, Facebook, YouTube (already blocked well before), and many other social media and blog sites; bar foreign reporters and Chinese activists from the square; and confined dissidents to their homes or forced them to leave the capital city.

The Chinese government has never allowed an independent investigation into the military's crushing of the 1989 protests. It will be many years before a more moderate and reformed leadership will allow this to happen.

On June 2nd, the U.S. House of Representatives passed H. Res. 489, a resolution recognizing the 20th anniversary of the Tiananmen Square massacre, expressing sympathy to the families of those killed, tortured, and imprisoned in connection with the protests, and calling for the Chinese government to conduct a fair investigation and to release those imprisoned for participating in the 1989 demonstrations. Of course, this is a non-binding resolution, but expresses the sense of the Congress.

In Washington, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said in a statement Wednesday that China, as an emerging global power, "should examine openly the darker events of its past and provide a public accounting of those killed, detained or missing, both to learn and to heal."

In a statement marking the anniversary, Taiwanese President Ma Ying-jeou urged China to lift the taboo on discussing the crackdown.

"This painful chapter in history must be faced. Pretending it never happened is not an option," Ma said in a statement issued Thursday.

On June 4th in China, the only place that will publicly acknowledge the event will be in Victoria Park, Hong Kong, where organizers expect a record turnout. There will be rememberance events held around Washington D.C. In London, there will be a vigil held outside of the Chinese Embassy.

Here's a CNN video - first clip shows reporter being harassed by plainclothes policemen using umbrellas to block their camera shot. second clip is web pages being blocked in various Chinese Internet cafes, including a shot of CNN being blacked out when there is mention of Tiananmen Square.

New York Times reported swarms of police agents and plainclothes men covering Tiananmen Square.

Some Internet users tried to evade government censors by referring to June 4 as May 35 on electronic bulletin boards. Others wore white shirts, the Chinese traditional color of mourning, as a silent form of protest.

Related Articles
Associated Press - China bars reporters from Tiananmen; blocks blogs
CNN - Tiananmen Square a watershed story
Mail Online - Twenty Years after Tiananmen Square, blood is still on the hands of China's leaders
Family Security Matters - Chinese People are Human Beings Too
National Post - Tiananmen anniversary: China's democracy deferred
New York Times - Behind the Scenes: Tank Man of Tiananmen
PBS Frontline - The Tank Man
Forbes - China's Iron Grip on History
Wikipedia - Tiananmen Square protests of 1989
Time - Guarding History
China Digital Times - China Hard-Liners Send Troops to Beijing; Zhao Ziyang May be Out (Historical)
BBC News - Timeline: The Tiananmen protests
Guardian UK - Chinese websites mark Tiananmen Square anniversary with veiled protest
Washington Times - U.S. lashes Beijing on Tiananmen anniversary

For one Arlington woman, the answer was "no" after she hung an American flag in her office just before the Memorial Day weekend.

Debbie McLucas is one of four hospital supervisors at Kindred Hospital in Mansfield. Last week, she hung a three-by-five foot American flag in the office she shares with the other supervisors.

When McLucas came to work Friday, her boss told her another supervisor had found her flag offensive. "I was just totally speechless. I was like, 'You're kidding me,'" McLucas said.

Link

* * * * * * * * * * *

Memorial Day is an important event to remember by everyone. I question the reasoning on the supervisor who was offended by the flag.

Being told that a flag pole outside of the hospital is sufficient enough is ridiculous. I wonder if a patient who wanted an American flag in his/her hospital room would get denied.

In my office, there are American flags everywhere, and we even got a huge one mounted on the wall on our trading floor.

Link

In a 1,360-page document released this morning, Obama proposes abolishing preferential tax treatment for the two industries as part of a package of 121 federal programs the administration wants to eliminate. Doing so would generate about $26 billion over the next decade.

However, his budget fails to address the Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid imbalance that will jeopardize our long-term budget outlook.

As of May 5, 2009:

National US Debt is at $11.227 TRILLION DOLLARS!

Link on cleveland.com

However, the Democratic Congress has already rejected some of those cuts, so it's all going to be just a PR stunt anyways.

It goes to show how hard it is to eliminate a government program after it has been created.

But now Mr. Obama — who has said he opposes same-sex marriage as a Christian but describes himself as a "fierce advocate of equality" for gay men and lesbians — is under pressure to engage on a variety of gay issues that are coming to the fore amid a dizzying pace of social, political, legal and legislative change.

Social issues like same-sex marriage bring together deeply held principles and flashpoint politics, and many gay activists, aware that Mr. Obama is also dealing with enormous challenges at home and overseas, have counseled patience.

More on MSNBC

* * * * * * *

It has been past 100 days, and some gay activists are getting impatient with Obama. Do people think Obama can just do a complete 180 on the whole entire populace to accept gay marriage?

Now some are upset with Obama because he did not include any gays or lesbians in his cabinet, and even more upset if Obama does not pick a pro-gay Supreme Court nominee.

What if Obama could not find any good pro-gay candidates? I guess that does not matter. It seems to me just like with any other group, they can put it in a nice shiny press release saying that the Chief of Staff is the first [insert ethnic, religious, sex affiliation] ever to hold the position.

Could it even be said that gay issues may prove to be a conflict point within the Democratic Party? If Mr. Obama reverses on his stance on same-sex marriage, then he alienates the moderates and religious voters in the party. Of course, how can folks be sure that all Democrats are in favor of same-sex marriage? It is more likely that they would openly support same-sex civil unions, but marriage is always the touchy point. Semantics!

Gay issues are obviously a touchy topic to address but it must be done so in a patient way. If you push too hard, it will backfire.