Alinsky again

If you don't know what is happening, and like staying focused on the daily diatribe of our country, we really need to take note of the origins of Socialism.

Noted on Glenn Beck yesterday, "Do we really know who Barack Obama is?

One answer, for now, answers the question. In blogs past, I bring up Saul Alinsky, a socialist thinker in the mid-20th Century, with whom Obama studied.

A really good analysis was published on Eagle Forum.

In order for us to know exactly where we are headed, we must know socialism's roots. There are those who have been putting these plans into motion from the beginning of time.

For those who have ears to hear...!

Congress's "power of the purse"

Following the signing of our future away by the 111th Congress, you may have noticed the DOW drop. Now at 2:08 CST, it is still down 356, at 7915.

Toxic billing, toxic government, toxic administration and its defiant attitude, "I won, get over it!"

From Wikileaks a report from the United States Congressional Research Service for members and committees of Congress states:

The federal budget implements Congress's "power of the purse" by expressing funding priorities through outlay allocations and revenue collections. Over the past decade, federal spending has accounted for approximately a fifth of the economy (as measured by gross domestic product--GDP) and federal revenues have ranged between just over a fifth and just under a sixth of GDP.

In FY2008, the U.S. government collected $2.5 trillion in revenue and spent almost $3.0 trillion. Outlays as a proportion of GDP rose from 18.4% in FY2000 to 20.9% of GDP in FY2008. Federal revenues as a proportion of GDP reached a post-WWII peak of 20.9% in FY2000 and then fell to 16.3% of GDP in FY2004 before rising slightly to 17.7% of GDP in FY2008.

The budget also affects, and is affected by, the national economy as a whole. Given recent turmoil in the economy and financial markets, the current economic climate poses a major challenge to policymakers shaping the FY2009 and FY2010 federal budgets. Federal spending tied to means-tested social programs has been increasing due to rising unemployment, while federal revenues will likely fall as individuals' incomes drop and corporate profits sink. As a result, federal deficits over the next few years will likely be high relative to historic norms.

In addition to funding existing programs in a challenging economic climate, the government has undertaken significant financial interventions in an attempt to alleviate economic recession. The ultimate costs of federal responses to this turmoil will depend on how quickly the economy recovers, how well firms with federal credit guarantees weather future financial shocks, and whether or not the government receives positive returns on its asset purchases. Estimating how much these responses will cost is difficult, both for conceptual and operational reasons.

Despite these budgetary challenges, many economists believe that fiscal policy (i.e., federal borrowing and spending) would be the most effective macroeconomic tool under current conditions. Past fiscal stimulus measures, which are being considered as possible options for 2009, have included extensions to unemployment benefits, aid to state and local governments, tax rebates, and expanded infrastructure spending.

Federal loans or loan guarantee programs may help provide liquidity to distressed financial markets and stimulate economic activity, but may also expose the federal government to substantial credit risks.

While many economists concur on the need for short-term fiscal stimulus, widespread concerns remain about the long-term fiscal situation of the federal government. The rising costs of federal health care programs and Baby Boomer retirements present serious challenges to fiscal stability.

Operating these programs in their current form may pass on substantial economic burdens to future generations.

NO sh*t Sherlock!

At the end of post DOW down 405, well Mr. Prez, looks like your henchmen, s'cuse me, Congressmen, know how to restore faith in the economy!

What does religion have to do with the stimulus?

Curious,after the prez's speech last night, I wanted to take a deeper look at this so-called "stimulus plan".

I found a note this morning referencing that no one from either party is objecting to the health provisions slipped in without discussion. Health provisions?

These provisions reflect the handiwork of Tom Daschle, until recently the nominee to head the Health and Human Services Department. Republican Senators are questioning whether President Barack Obama’s stimulus bill contains the right mix of tax breaks and cash infusions to jump-start the economy.

Hm mm, but what does health provisions to do with the jump-starting of the economy?

As I scanned the document, I found the following information contained in the bill under the whistle blower portion...

SEC. 1273. CLARIFICATION OF WHISTLEBLOWER RIGHTS RELATING TO SCIENTIFIC AND OTHER RESEARCH.

(a) In General- Section 2302 of title 5, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

`(f) As used in section 2302(b)(8), the term `abuse of authority' includes--

`(1) any action that compromises the validity or accuracy of federally funded research or analysis;

`(2) the dissemination of false or misleading scientific, medical, or technical information;

`(3) any action that restricts or prevents an employee or any person performing federally funded research or analysis from publishing in peer-reviewed journals or other scientific publications or making oral presentations at professional society meetings or other meetings of their peers; and

Now where does religion play in the stimulus bill, notably the whistle blower section?

`(4) any action that discriminates for or against any employee or applicant for employment on the basis of religion, as defined by section 1273(b) of the Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act of 2009.'.

(b) Definition- As used in section 2302(f)(3) of title 5, United States Code (as amended by subsection (a)), the term `on the basis of religion' means--

(1) prohibiting personal religious expression by Federal employees to the greatest extent possible, consistent with requirements of law and interests in workplace efficiency;

(2) requiring religious participation or non-participation as a condition of employment, or permitting religious harassment;

(3) failing to accommodate employees' exercise of their religion;

(4) failing to treat all employees with the same respect and consideration, regardless of their religion (or lack thereof);

(5) restricting personal religious expression by employees in the Federal workplace except where the employee's interest in the expression is outweighed by the government's interest in the efficient provision of public services or where the expression intrudes upon the legitimate rights of other employees or creates the appearance, to a reasonable observer, of an official endorsement of religion;

(6) regulating employees' personal religious expression on the basis of its content or viewpoint, or suppressing employees' private religious speech in the workplace while leaving unregulated other private employee speech that has a comparable effect on the efficiency of the workplace, including ideological speech on politics and other topics;

(7) failing to exercise their authority in an evenhanded and restrained manner, and with regard for the fact that Americans are used to expressions of disagreement on controversial subjects, including religious ones;

(8) failing to permit an employee to engage in private religious expression in personal work areas not regularly open to the public to the same extent that they may engage in nonreligious private expression, subject to reasonable content- and viewpoint-neutral standards and restrictions;

(9) failing to permit an employee to engage in religious expression with fellow employees, to the same extent that they may engage in comparable nonreligious private expression, subject to reasonable and content-neutral standards and restrictions;

(10) failing to permit an employee to engage in religious expression directed at fellow employees, and may even attempt to persuade fellow employees of the correctness of their religious views, to the same extent as those employees may engage in comparable speech not involving religion;

(11) inhibiting an employee from urging a colleague to participate or not to participate in religious activities to the same extent that, consistent with concerns of workplace efficiency, they may urge their colleagues to engage in or refrain from other personal endeavors, except that the employee must refrain from such expression when a fellow employee asks that it stop or otherwise demonstrates that it is unwelcome;

(12) failing to prohibit expression that is part of a larger pattern of verbal attacks on fellow employees (or a specific employee) not sharing the faith of the speaker;

(13) preventing an employee from--

(A) wearing personal religious jewelry absent special circumstances (such as safety concerns) that might require a ban on all similar nonreligious jewelry; or

(B) displaying religious art and literature in their personal work areas to the same extent that they may display other art and literature, so long as the viewing public would reasonably understand the religious expression to be that of the employee acting in her personal capacity, and not that of the government itself;

(14) prohibiting an employee from using their private time to discuss religion with willing coworkers in public spaces to the same extent as they may discuss other subjects, so long as the public would reasonably understand the religious expression to be that of the employees acting in their personal capacities;

(15) discriminating against an employee on the basis of their religion, religious beliefs, or views concerning their religion by promoting, refusing to promote, hiring, refusing to hire, or otherwise favoring or disfavoring, an employee or potential employee because of his or her religion, religious beliefs, or views concerning religion, or by explicitly or implicitly, insisting that the employee participate in religious activities as a condition of continued employment, promotion, salary increases, preferred job assignments, or any other incidents of employment or insisting that an employee refrain from participating in religious activities outside the workplace except pursuant to otherwise legal, neutral restrictions that apply to employees' off-duty conduct and expression in general (such as restrictions on political activities prohibited by the Hatch Act);

(16) prohibiting a supervisor's religious expression where it is not coercive and is understood to be his or her personal view, in the same way and to the same extent as other constitutionally valued speech;

(17) permitting a hostile environment, or religious harassment, in the form of religiously discriminatory intimidation, or pervasive or severe religious ridicule or insult, whether by supervisors or fellow workers, as determined by its frequency or repetitiveness, and severity;

(18) failing to accommodate an employee's exercise of their religion unless such accommodation would impose an undue hardship on the conduct of the agency's operations, based on real rather than speculative or hypothetical cost and without disfavoring other, nonreligious accommodations; and

(19) in those cases where an agency's work rule imposes a substantial burden on a particular employee's exercise of religion, failing to grant the employee an exemption from that rule, absent a compelling interest in denying the exemption and where there is no less restrictive means of furthering that interest.

(c) Rule of Construction- Nothing in this section shall be construed to create any new right, benefit, or trust responsibility, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or equity by a party against the United States, its agencies, its officers, or any person.

Well, looks like we really need to be "a-reading this here" information a lot more closely.

Does it matter? How close are we to finding out how our "representatives" have screwed us into oblivion? Whose pen is actively working to get this into law and why?

No one is reading this junk and laws are being set that folks will scan over it in their employee handbooks, not questioning, just blindly obeying...

After all, it is the law! There is a change coming. Are we ready for it?