This Tuesday the White House released their Mid-Session Review admitting they made a $2 trillion miscalculation in the size of the federal deficit that President Barack Obama’s borrow and spend policies would inflict on our nation. Heritage senior policy analyst Brian Riedl details the carnage:

• While President Obama claims to have inherited the 2009 budget deficit, it is important to note that the estimated 2009 budget deficit has increased by $400 billion since his inauguration, and the whole point of the “stimulus” was to increase deficit spending to nearly $2 trillion based on the unproven notion that would it alleviate the recession.
• The 22 percent spending increase projected for 2009 represents the largest government expansion since the 1952 height of the Korean War (adjusted for inflation). Federal spending is up 57 percent since 2001.
• In 2009, Washington will spend $30,958 per household–the highest level in American history–and under President Obama’s budget, the figure will rise above $33,000 by 2019.
• The White House brags that it will cut the deficit in half by 2013. The President does not mention that the deficit has nearly quadrupled this year. Merely cutting it in half from that bloated level would still leave budget deficits twice as high as under President Bush.
• The public national debt–$5.8 trillion as of 2008–is projected to double by 2012 and nearly triple by 2019. Thus, America would accumulate more government debt under President Obama than under every President in American history from George Washington to George W. Bush combined.

From the Foundry, the blog of the Heritage Foundation

His followers don’t think they’re funny and other people don’t think they’re jokes.

“Make no mistake, tax cheaters cheat us all, and the IRS should enforce our laws to the letter. ” Sen. Tom Daschle, Congressional Record, May 7, 1998, p. S4507.

Fast forward:

UPDATE: February 2, 9:15AM: WASHINGTON (AP) — Tom Daschle says he’s “deeply embarrassed and disappointed” about his failure to pay more than $120,000 in taxes.

And

Also, the financial disclosure form Daschle filed about a week ago shows that he made more than $200,000 in the past two years speaking to members of the industry that President Barack Obama wants him to reform.

Obama has said that no one in his administration who has lobbied on a set of issues within the past two years can deal with the same subject matter.

Jenny Backus, a spokeswoman for Daschle, said the money he earned in speaking fees from health care interests do not pose a conflict for the health care reform Obama wants him to lead.

Daschle said in a letter to the Department of Health and Human Services ethics office that if he’s confirmed by the Senate, he will resign as a senior policy adviser at the Washington law firm of Alston and Bird LLP. He reported earnings of more than $2 million from that firm during the past two years.

Daschle also earned more than $2 million in consulting fees from InterMedia Advisors LLC of New York, an investment firm specializing in buyouts and industry consolidation. He said he also intends to resign from that firm upon his confirmation.

Glenn Reynolds notes:

from Glenn Reynolds

OUCH: “Tom Daschle never met a tax hike he didn’t like for us. But why the hell can’t he pay his own taxes?”

One of my co-workers said that he voted for Barack Obama because he (the co-worker) believed that Obama would govern more centrist than what he campaigned.

“So…you’re saying that you voted for the man because you believed that his campaign promises were lies?”

Within minutes of our new president taking the oath of office, the White House web page had been changed.  A few of the “changes” on his agenda could directly target Christians and Christian organizations.

• It could become illegal for a Christian hospital to deny abortions for any reason.
• It could become illegal for a Christian adoption agency to adopt only to heterosexual married couples.

“Changes” directly contradict the Constitution’s mandate of “state’s rights”.

FOCA would effectively make ALL abortion issues federal issues and would effectively (and purposefully) overturn laws made at a state level.

FOCA would not only take away state’s rights to make laws that do not concern things in the Constitution, they also take away the citizen’s rights to vote on proposals concerning abortion at the state level.

President Obama’s agenda is a two-prong offensive against

• state’s rights
• Christians following their consciences in matters of the gay agenda and the abortion agenda.

I will pray for our president’s safety and health.  I will pray that God guide his heart and change his attitude toward the most innocent and vulnerable of our citizens – the unborn.  I will pray that God sway his mind in a way that guides his toward the Living God.

I will not support him, which includes by necessity supporting his agenda.

I will “all work together” in much the same way that liberals “worked together” with President Bush.  They fought him every step of the way and were outspoken about where they disagreed.

So will I be.

A Michigan blog I’ve just discovered:  Torch Lake Views.

~~~

From Dark Roasted Blend (one of my favorite photo blogs)

~~~

Gay activists are angry at Barack Obama;

Pro-lifers are angry at Rick Warren…

heh.

~~~

The Dugger family welcomes child #18.  (profanity alert:  the link goes to the Huffington Post and evidently the only time “pro-choice” applies is when a family is “choosing” a small family…or better yet, abortion.)

~~~

A “New Years Resolution” of a different sort?  Lignon Duncan will be reading and blogging through “Calvin’s Institutes” in 2009

~~~

For those who voted for Barack Obama because his expanded abortion policies would reduce abortion… (HELLO?  what happens when you make a service cheaper and more available????)

It seems that the “office of the president elect” has a page where you can write questions and people can vote on them.

Justin Taylor submitted a question:  “Would you consider rescinding your promise to sign the Freedom of Choice Act, given your desire to reduce abortions and to seek common ground, and in light of the fact that it would invalidate every measure and law intended to reduce abortions?”

notice: it was removed from the vote because “people think it is inappropriate”.

Myself, before I asked a question, I’d consider “Joe the Plumber”

Yes.  I believe that Barack Obama’s connection with William Ayers matters.  It matters a lot.

Yes, William Ayers was a member of a radical domestic terrorist group who bombed a number of buildings.  Yes, he is unrepentant.  Yes, Obama had to have known about Ayer’s history.

But…is it really the connection between terrorism and Obama that is important (or even real?)  Not really.

Obama’s connections to radical leftists of all sorts of flavors is the concern, whether or not they were “terrorists”.

Barack Obama’s list of radical, liberal associates is varied:

• Jerehiah (God damn America) Wright
• William Ayers
• the “New Party”
• ACORN

When one choose to have associations with radical left-wing people or groups, it is generally because one has idealogical commanalities.  The more you have in common with leftist idealogies, the more associations you have.

Ultimately, as with most elections, I think that the election will fall – not necessarily to Obama or McCain – but to the party that is liberal or conservative.

We tend to look beyond the problems with  “our” candidate – if we are relatively sure that the candidate will stick to the party line.

When looking at McCain, we ask, “what party line will McCain stick most closely to?

When looking at Obama, we can also ask, “what party line will Obama stick most closely to?” This is where his radical associations are most important, because they give the best clue into his idealogy.

I know the campaign protestations.

I know that Barack Obama says that he has always supported health care for infants.

This is “inaccurate”.

2001:  SB 1095

(…) Amends the Statute on Statutes. Defines “born-alive infant” to

   include  every  infant  member of the species homo sapiens who is born
   alive at any stage of development.  Defines "born alive" to  mean  the
   complete  expulsion or extraction from the mother of an infant, at any
   stage of development, who after that expulsion or extraction  breathes
   or  has  a beating heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite
   movement of voluntary muscles, regardless  of  whether  the  umbilical
   cord  has  been  cut  and  regardless  of  whether  the  expulsion  or
   extraction  occurs  as  a result of natural or induced labor, cesarean
   section, or induced abortion....

Obama voted "no" on even letting the bill pass out of committee, so that it could be voted on by the Senate

Obama’s comments are on pages 84 on.

2002 – Next verse, same as the first…SB 1662.

and 2003…SB 1082…

And Obama said…

“They have not been telling the truth,” Mr. Obama said. “And I hate to say that people are lying, but here’s a situation where folks are lying.”

He added that it was “ridiculous” to suggest he had ever supported withholding lifesaving treatment for an infant. “It defies common sense and it defies imagination, and for people to keep on pushing this is offensive,” he said in the CBN interview.

Here’s the problem…the Illinois Senate keeps minutes.

Obama lies, calls his opposition liars and his followers say…”ok”.

WASHINGTON — Barack Obama wants to speak at the Brandenburg Gate. He figures it would be a nice backdrop. The supporting cast — a cheering audience and a few fainting frauleins — would be a picturesque way to bolster his foreign policy credentials.

What Obama does not seem to understand is that the Brandenburg Gate is something you earn. President Reagan earned the right to speak there because his relentless pressure had brought the Soviet empire to its knees and he was demanding its final “tear down this wall” liquidation. When President Kennedy visited the Brandenburg Gate on the day of his “Ich bin ein Berliner” speech, he was representing a country that was prepared to go to the brink of nuclear war to defend West Berlin.

Americans are beginning to notice Obama’s elevated opinion of himself. There’s nothing new about narcissism in politics. Every senator looks in the mirror and sees a president. Nonetheless, has there ever been a presidential nominee with a wider gap between his estimation of himself and the sum total of his lifetime achievements?

Indeed.