This has been around since March, but I have yet to post it. The Congressional Budget Office has a record of being more accurate than most presidents. The CBO estimates that from 2010 to 2019 the Obama budget we will have a total budget deficit of 9.27 trillion dollars.

If you're like me and you want to see the data for yourself, click here (requires Excel). If you want to check out all the information, check out the Congressional Budget Office.

I like how the mainstream media bragged up Hillary Clinton today in regards to the off-hand remark she made about Dick Cheney. They make it sound like she brazenly stood up to that "former criminal of a Vice President"and gave him what for. Here's how Reuters put it:

Asked about Cheney's request this week to declassify documents showing the "success" of some widely condemned, harsh interrogation techniques launched by ex-President George W. Bush after the Sept. 11 attacks, Clinton had a caustic reply.

"It won't surprise you that I don't consider him (Cheney) a particularly reliable source," Clinton told the House of Representatives foreign affairs committee.

And that's where they cut the conversation off. No follow up regarding who she was talking to, no rebuttal, no nothing. I heard the live clip on the radio today, so I already knew what was said. But do you think I could find it on one MSM website? Just one? Nope. I had to go all the way to the Argentina Star to find it, and even they didn't get it completely right. Here's how the conversation really went.

Rohrabacher: "Are you in favour of releasing the documents that Dick Cheney has been requesting be released?"

Clinton: "Well, it will not surprise you that I do not consider him a particularly reliable source of information."

Rohrabacher: "Madam Secretary, I asked you a specific question. ... Dick Cheney has asked that specific documents be declassified. ... I didn’t ask you what your opinion is of Dick Cheney and if you want to maintain your credibility with us, what is your opinion on the release of those documents?”

I guess the MSM were in a such a hurry they accidentally left the "shut your pie-hole Hillary and answer the question" remark out. Hey, whatever it takes to make a Democrat look better than a Republican , right? Its just another normal day in our biased liberal media.

I thought I would add the video so you could watch it for yourself. Fast forward to 4:10 to see the little tussle.



UPDATE:

I found the conversation at ABC News Blogs, who actually took their "don't speak ill of the Obama Administration" policy one step further: they deleted half of what Rohrabacher said. Here's how they think it should be written:

"Are you in favor of releasing the documents that Dick Cheney has been requesting be released?," asked Rep. Rohrbacher.

"Well, it won't surprise you, I don't consider him a particularly reliable source of information," responded Secretary Clinton to a smattering of laughter in the hearing room.

Congressman Rohrbacher appeared none too pleased and went at it again. "Madam Secretary, I asked you a specific question," he said sternly.

"Congressman, I believe we ought to get to the bottom of this entire matter. I think it is in the best interest of our country and that is what the president believes and that is why he has taken the actions he did," said Clinton.

The funny thing is, even though ABC purposefully edited Rep. Rohrbacher's statement to make Hillary Clinton sound better, they still posted a video of the conversation for everyone to see. ABC's rather sad attempt at trying to hide the stern warning Hillary received made me think of a line from Forrest Gump.

"Are you crazy, or just plain stupid?"

Most of you have already heard about the blanket report on Right Wing Extremism issued by the Department of Homeland Security. For those who missed it, the report basically says anyone one who believes in limited government, the second amendment, lower taxes, secure borders, are anti-abortion, served in the military, wear blue jeans, or drive a rusty Chevrolet could be a right wing extremist. I spent 10 months in Iraq with the Minnesota Guard before losing my right arm to an Iranian Weapons Expert in Baghdad. As a proud Veteran, I take more than a little offense to this report.

Coincidentally, I was bouncing around from link to link last night, reading random stuff that happened when I was too young to know anything, and stumbled upon this lovely tidbit of information (4th paragraph from the bottom) involving Janet Napolitano when she served under Clinton back in 1996.

The BATF and U.S. Attorney Janet Napolitano may have overlooked the weaknesses in the case against the Vipers because both were eager for some good press. Napolitano, a Clinton appointee, last January 1996 declined to seek search warrants requested by U.S. postal inspectors who were finishing a two-year child pornography sting operation. The inspectors, who had received 106 warrants with the help of other federal officials during the investigation, were surprised. They turned to Maricopa County officials, who obtained the warrants and made the arrests. A search of the prime Phoenix suspect's house yielded numerous photos and videotapes of children having sex with men, plus a confession that the suspect had sodomized numerous boys. The case became a public issue in May when a postal inspector appeared on ABC's 20/20 with a letter from Napolitano stating that she had refused to take the child pornography case because it unfairly targeted homosexual men. Perhaps she was right, but the case has generated local criticism and a Senate investigation.

So here were two known child molesters. This wasn't a "might be" situation. They weren't sitting outside gay bars searching people's cars, following people home, or wiretapping outspoken homosexuals simply for being homosexual. These were child molesters hurting innocent children. There was obviously enough evidence to obtain 106 warrants against these individuals previously, yet Janet Napolitano declined because she felt it would be unfairly targeting homosexuals.

So let me see if I have this straight. According to Janet Napolitano, it is wrong to target known child molesters if they are homosexuals, but it is ok to target anyone who is basically right leaning in their ideology.

Oh, I get it! This is about politics!

I've already touched on our current and future tax situation in several other posts. This video sums things up even better. (credit to hotair for the video)

Obama is showing the world how well he works with others, and what he really thinks of private business. We are moving closer and closer to a government run, government owned society where the government tells us what we can and cannot have or earn.

Arrayed around a long mahogany table in the White House state dining room last week, the CEOs of the most powerful financial institutions in the world offered several explanations for paying high salaries to their employees – and, by extension, to themselves.

“These are complicated companies,” one CEO said. Offered another: “We’re competing for talent on an international market.”

But President Barack Obama wasn’t in a mood to hear them out. He stopped the conversation, and offered a blunt reminder of the public’s reaction to such explanations. “Be careful how you make those statements, gentlemen. The public isn’t buying that.”

“My administration,” the president added, “is the only thing between you and the pitchforks.”

“The only way they could have sent a more Spartan message is if they had served bread along with the water,” says a person who attended the meeting. “The signal from Obama’s body language and demeanor was, ‘I’m the president, and you’re not.’”…

The president spoke of public outrage over the high flying executive lifestyle. “The anger gentlemen, is real,” Obama said. He urged pay reform and said rewards must be proportional and balanced, and tied to the health and success of the company.

In other words, "If you don't take this bottle of KY and bend over, we're going to stir up another angry mob and throw you to them." Slublog sums it up:

"So let me see if I’ve got this right. The Democrats helped cause the crisis through bad policy, fanned the flames of outrage against CEOs and Wall Street and are now saying they’re the only ones who can protect the CEOs from all of those angry people out there.”

Hotair adds:

Anyone recognize the phrase “the anger is real,” though? The last time Obama used it was in his speech on race to back off all the haters who thought, inexplicably, that a would-be president should have piped up about Reverend Wright sometime in the course of 20 years. Evidently it’s a favorite formulation when he wants to lean on his audience. In which case, if he’s so worried about pitchforks, instead of creepily exploiting the threat of mob violence to centralize the economy, how about our modern-day Lincoln gives a speech asking Americans to cool off before bailout fatigue leads to someone getting killed? After all, the anger really is real.

You know all those retroactive AIG Taxes they threatened to pass? They quietly let them die. Americans need to start calling Obama's bluff and stand up to his class warfare agenda. Remember, this is all about politics. If any of this were an actual legal matter, half of the house and senate would be in jail.

I've been saying this for a while now. We have massive tax increases coming, the kind of tax increases that force people to delay retirement and sell off property. The only way we can possibly pay for all of Obama's massive spending is by taxing people back to the stone age. The Wall Street Journal has the breakdown. Hiding money gold in a mason jar in your backyard might be a good idea at this point.

What does $6.5 trillion of additional debt imply for the typical family? If spread evenly over all those paying income taxes (which under Mr. Obama's plan would shrink to a little over 50% of the population), every income-tax paying family would get a tax bill for $163,000. (In 10 years, interest would bring the total to well over a quarter million dollars, if paid all at once. If paid annually over the succeeding 10 years, the tax hike every year would average almost $34,000.) That's in addition to his explicit tax hikes. While the future tax time-bomb is pushed beyond Mr. Obama's budget horizon, and future presidents and Congresses will decide how it will be paid, it is likely to be paid by future income tax hikes as these are general fund deficits.
.
We can get a rough idea of who is likely to pay them by distributing this $6.5 trillion of future taxes according to the most recent distribution of income-tax burdens. We know the top 1% or 5% of income-taxpayers pay vastly disproportionate shares of taxes, and much larger shares than their shares of income. But it also turns out that Mr. Obama's massive additional debt implies a tax hike, if paid today, of well over $100,000 for people with incomes of $150,000, far below Mr. Obama's tax-hike cut-off of $250,000. (With interest, the tax hike would rise to more than $162,000 in 10 years, and over $20,000 a year if paid annually the following 10 years). In other words, a middle-aged two-career couple in New York or California could get a future tax bill as big as their mortgage.

Make sure you read the whole thing. And remember as you read it that 30% of Americans pay no taxes whatsoever.

Think I was fear mongering yesterday? Here is Neil Cavuto blowing his top over one of the senators looking to give unprecedented power to Treasury Secretary "I-don't-pay-my-taxes" Geithner. They are giving power to the treasury with no limitations.