Category Archives: Criminal Acts

Wednesday’s Notes

Posted on by

The news is filled with the riots, looting and arson occurring in and around Ferguson, Missouri. Rioters claim the police target blacks and that’s the reason for all the trouble. They claim blacks are arrested 34% more often than whites. The mainstream media and a state politician spread that bit of misinformation.

The truth is that the population of Ferguson and the surrounding area is 65% black. That means that it is a higher statical probability that more blacks will be meeting with police than whites. According to census data, the mean age of Ferguson is 33 years and the average income is $36,000 compared to Missouri’s state-wide average of $45,000. With that information, we can assume that the population of Ferguson, MO is mostly young, black and has lower incomes that the state’s average.

According to that same census bureau website, Ferguson’s crime rate is approximately 25% higher than the rest of the state. I’m not surprised more blacks are arrested in Ferguson than whites. The answer is that there are more blacks in Ferguson than other ethnic and racial groups.

I suppose that little bit of research is too difficult for the mainstream media to uncover.

***

If you weren’t aware, America’s manned space program is effectively grounded. The US has had no manned launch vehicles since the end of the shuttle program. NASA has to hitch a ride to the International Space Station from the Russians and with the current exchange of sanctions over Crimea and the Ukraine, that access will likely end…soon.

With that, what do we see in the news this morning? If Russia is the 1st in space, it now appears that communist China is second.

China To Send Orbiter To The Moon As U.S. Watches

Posted 08/12/2014 06:36 PM ETVisitors to the Smithsonian's National Air and Space Museum view a depiction of space exploration on the 45th anniversary of the Apollo 11 lunar...

Leadership: As our space program, once an example of American exceptionalism, now sits mainly in museums, Beijing’s ambitious program takes another leap forward toward an eventual return of man to the moon.

As the world unravels, efforts to leave it don’t seem very newsworthy, and efforts by our strategic rivals to do what we did decades before seem redundant and almost irrelevant to more immediate concerns. Yet China’s space program does matter, as it’s part of that country’s dream of world leadership and, yes, domination.

It represents a commitment to world leadership that we have lost under this administration.

Beijing sees its multibillion-dollar space program as a symbol of its rising global stature and mounting technical expertise as it builds a military with global reach and flexes its strategic muscle.

Its moon orbiter has been transported to the Xichang Satellite Launch Centre in the southern province of Sichuan for launch later this year, according to a statement Sunday by China’s State Administration of Science, Technology and Industry for National Defense.

The orbiter will test technology for China’s ambitious Chang’e-5 mission, which aims to gather samples from the moon’s surface and return them to earth.

It will follow a free-trajectory path, circling behind the moon and then using its gravity to whiplash the orbiter back to earth, as our Apollo 13 did on its ill-fated moon mission.

It’s one more small step in China’s long march to the moon, which late last year saw China land a lunar rover.

The saddest part of all this is that when Obama is gone, the nation will be in such sad economic state that it will take decades to recover…and we’ll still be behind the others who will not stand still waiting for us to catch up.

***

Did you know that if you are conservative, a church-goer, an advocate for Right-to-Work and Voter-ID, own guns and believe in the Constitution that you are a “Neo-Confederate?” Yep, that’s right! It’s the new liberal name for us.

Liberals Urge Southern Secession on Gamechanger Salon

By: briansikma (Diary)  |  August 12th, 2014 at 11:06 AM

The nation would be better off if Southern states seceded from the union, and Republicans pushing for right-to-work, voter ID laws and other reforms are “neo-Confederates” according to a candid exchange between a major Democratic donor and liberal organizers on Gamechanger Salon. The forum, a secretive and exclusive digital gathering of over 1,000 leftwing leaders, activists and journalists, was recently made public by Media Trackers, and email exchanges between members offer fascinating insights into the group’s inner deliberations.

Gamechanger Salon participant Jon Stahl sparked a conversation last October about the role of the South in American politics when he posted a link to Michael Lind’s piece for Salon magazine entitled The South is Holding America Hostage. “I thought this was an impressive (if tough) piece of big-picture political strategy and prescription,” Stahl explained before remarking, “Would be interested to hear others’ opinions of whether he is on target or way off…and if so what that might imply.”

First to respond was Guy Saperstein, a wealthy California mega-donor to Democratic candidates and leftwing causes. “In the alternative, could we just let the South secede?” the part owner of the Oakland Athletics baseball team queried.

He was serious.

“My comment was not made in jest at all,” Saperstein wrote in a follow-up explanation. He expanded on his theory:

“For more than 100 years, the South has been dumbing down national politics, tilting the country in a conservative direction, supporting militarism, all while demanding huge financial subsidies from blue states. It would be 100% fine with me if the South was a separate nation, pursuing its own priorities and destiny. And if people like you succeed in blunting the conservatism of the South, more power to you.”

Saperstein is not a fringe activist hiding out on the far reaches of the left. He’s a well-heeled funder of Democratic campaigns, a former president of the Sierra Club Foundation, and founder of The Patriotic Millionaires, a group of self-conscious millionaires begging the government to raise their taxes.

Reached via email by Media Trackers, Saperstein doubled-down on his theory. Asked about the consequences for African Americans if secession became a reality, he said “secession would be a gradual process, giving any blacks who felt threatened time to relocate.”

According to Saperstein, civil rights victories “would not be lost for any blacks willing to relocate and the ones who relocated would do much better in their new environments.”

I’ve written about a possible future civil war before. Most, maybe all of my readers thought I was being facetious. I wasn’t. The column above proves that I’m not the only one who thinks about a breakup of the country. The difference is that I fear a civil war and will do my best to prevent one. On the other hand, liberals and democrats would welcome civil war believing they would come out on top.

If such a civil war occurs, the libs will be surprised that the ‘south’ is larger than they thought.

***

It’s always three…James Garner, Robin Williams, and Lauren Bacall. Rest in peace.

Facebook

Criminal goverment

Posted on by

That is a shocking title for a post, but it is accurate. We have governments, federal, state, and local, that commit criminal acts…and get away with it. Some years ago, our county commission approved contracts where some commissioners had a monetary interest and would profit. One commissioner resigned and another lost his re-election bid.

At the state level, we have the commander of the State Highway Patrol illegally send personal information on all Missouri CCW holders to the federal government, not once, but twice. In addition, the DMV, or whatever name it is, collected personal data from CCW and driver license renewals and new applicants and sent that information to an outside organization, again, in violation of state law.

Then there are the feds. For them, the list seems to be endless from shipping guns to the drug cartels in Mexico, to refusing to enforce numerous federal laws, to arbitrarily changing federal law without authorization. I call it thugocracy.

But I guess, nothing reaches the level of one of our elected officials advising the public to commit manslaughter at best or murder at worst.

Joe Biden gets a Detroit woman killed.

By: Moe Lane (Diary)  |  November 12th, 2013 at 10:00 AM

Good job there, Mr. Vice President:

It was shortly before 1 a.m. Nov. 2 and Renisha McBride was involved in an accident with a parked vehicle in Detroit.

More than two hours later and six blocks away, she was shot in the face by a man who told police he thought someone was breaking into his Dearborn Heights home. The 54-year-old homeowner, according to police, said his 12-gauge shotgun discharged accidentally.

…and by “good job” I mean “I hope that you’re happy, Joe Biden.” Because that homeowner did what Joe Biden told people to do (bolding mine):

V.P. BIDEN: Well, the way in which we measure it is—I think most scholars would say—is that as long as you have a weapon sufficient to be able to provide your self-defense. I did one of these town-hall meetings on the Internet and one guy said, “Well, what happens when the end days come? What happens when there’s the earthquake? I live in California, and I have to protect myself.”

I said, “Well, you know, my shotgun will do better for you than your AR-15, because you want to keep someone away from your house, just fire the shotgun through the door.”

And he told them that more than once:

In a Facebook town hall hosted by Parents magazine, vice president Joe Biden responded to a woman concerned that bans on various weapons may make law-abiding citizens more susceptible to criminals with the following advice: “If you want to protect yourself, get a double-barreled shotgun.” “You don’t need an AR-15, it’s harder to aim, it’s harder to use,” he stressed.

Biden indicated that he has given his own wife the same advice. “I said, ‘Jill, if there’s ever a problem, just walk out on the balcony here, put that double-barreled shotgun and fire two blasts outside the house,’” he said, and urged viewers, in closing, “Buy a shotgun, buy a shotgun!”

This is what a Democrat politician thinks is a ‘pro gun’ message, by the way: shake the Magic Boom Stick in the air and fire the Devil Bees in random directions until the Bad Man flees into the night. Out in the real world, what actually happens when you try that is that you run an unacceptably high risk of having a woman take a load of buckshot to the face.

Look, guns are not toys* and they are not magic staffs. They are very dangerous tools, designed to do a very specific job. If you do not treat them with respect and caution, you run the risk of misusing it, and thus causing a tragedy. If this is too difficult, it’s best to not have a gun in the first place. But even if you do not have a gun, it is still in everybody’s best interest if people speak responsibly about firearms. That includes the people that do not like firearms.

So you do not COWBOY it, Mister Vice President. This is not the WILD WEST or a VIDEO GAME. This is the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA and IN the USA there are people who think that surely the government would not let the Vice President say stupid things that would get people KILLED. Until they figure out that we really are letting Joe Biden do that, I suggest that Joe Biden stop talking.

Facebook

The Abuses of Militarized Police

Posted on by

A story has come from Nevada of a lawsuit that was filed on July 1st, 2013. It contends the Henderson, NV, police violated the 3rd Amendment rights of a man and his parents.

Amendment 3 – Quartering of Soldiers

No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

The issue in this complaint against the Henderson PD is that “militarized” police, i.e., their SWAT organization, seized the home of a man against his wishes. When the SWAT police didn’t get permission to enter, they broke in the door, assaulted him, arrested him and took him off to jail. They subsequently, using a subterfuge, did the same with his parents who lived in another, nearby residence. The following day all charges were dropped. Clearly the arrest was a ploy to remove the man from his home and his parents from their home against their protests.

You can read the complaint of the lawsuit here.

Henderson [Nevada] police arrested a family for refusing to let officers use their homes as lookouts for a domestic violence investigation of their neighbors, the family claims in court.

Anthony Mitchell and his parents Michael and Linda Mitchell sued the City of Henderson, its Police Chief Jutta Chambers, Officers Garret Poiner, Ronald Feola, Ramona Walls, Angela Walker, and Christopher Worley, and City of North Las Vegas and its Police Chief Joseph Chronister, in Federal Court….

The Mitchell family’s claim includes Third Amendment violations, a rare claim in the United States….

“On the morning of July 10th, 2011, officers from the Henderson Police Department responded to a domestic violence call at a neighbor’s residence,” the Mitchells say in the complaint.

It continues: “At 10:45 a.m. defendant Officer Christopher Worley (HPD) contacted plaintiff Anthony Mitchell via his telephone. Worley told plaintiff that police needed to occupy his home in order to gain a ‘tactical advantage’ against the occupant of the neighboring house. Anthony Mitchell told the officer that he did not want to become involved and that he did not want police to enter his residence. Although Worley continued to insist that plaintiff should leave his residence, plaintiff clearly explained that he did not intend to leave his home or to allow police to occupy his home. Worley then ended the phone call.

Mitchell claims that defendant officers, including Cawthorn and Worley and Sgt. Michael Waller then “conspired among themselves to force Anthony Mitchell out of his residence and to occupy his home for their own use.”

The complaint continues: “Defendant Officer David Cawthorn outlined the defendants’ plan in his official report: ‘It was determined to move to 367 Evening Side and attempt to contact Mitchell. If Mitchell answered the door he would be asked to leave. If he refused to leave he would be arrested for Obstructing a Police Officer. If Mitchell refused to answer the door, force entry would be made and Mitchell would be arrested.’”

It continues: “The officers banged forcefully on the door and loudly commanded Anthony Mitchell to open the door to his residence.

“Surprised and perturbed, plaintiff Anthony Mitchell immediately called his mother (plaintiff Linda Mitchell) on the phone, exclaiming to her that the police were beating on his front door.

“Seconds later, officers, including Officer Rockwell, smashed open plaintiff Anthony Mitchell’s front door with a metal ram as plaintiff stood in his living room.

“As plaintiff Anthony Mitchell stood in shock, the officers aimed their weapons at Anthony Mitchell and shouted obscenities at him and ordered him to lie down on the floor….

“Although plaintiff Anthony Mitchell was lying motionless on the ground and posed no threat, officers, including Officer David Cawthorn, then fired multiple ‘pepperball’ rounds at plaintiff as he lay defenseless on the floor of his living room. Anthony Mitchell was struck at least three times by shots fired from close range, injuring him and causing him severe pain….”

Officers then arrested him for obstructing a police officer, searched the house and moved furniture without his permission and set up a place in his home for a lookout, Mitchell says in the complaint. — The Volokh Conspiracy.

If you read the complaint, you’ll note the Henderson Police also violated their 4th Amendment rights as well by searching both homes without warrants nor any probable cause.

Amendment 4 – Search and Seizure

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

The police searched, ransacked the house, for what reason?

When plaintiff Linda Mitchell returned to her home, the cabinets and closet doors throughout the house had been left open and their contents moved about. Water had been consumed from their water dispenser. Even the refrigerator door had been left ajar and mustard and mayonnaise had been left on their kitchen floor.” — Courthouse News.

The Mitchells, son and parents, had broken no law. They were not the subject of the domestic dispute—that was their neighbor. So what justification did the police have for their actions other than they could? From what a number of legal professional have determined, none. There was no justification.

The crux of this suit is whether militarized police constitutes “soldiers” within the definition of the 3rd Amendment. They are agents of the state, as are soldiers. Many will say SWAT police are soldiers if you use the “walks like a duck, looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, it is a duck” logic.

Although it’s not well known, there is a history of US military forces violating the 3rd Amendment. That last such occurance was during WW II.

During World War II, after Japan attacked the Aleutian Islands off Alaska’s coast, the United States forcibly evacuated the islands’ natives and quartered soldiers in private homes. That hitherto unremarked violation of the Third Amendment gives us a fresh perspective on what “Property” means in the U.S. Constitution. As a general legal matter, property includes not just real estate – land, fixtures attached thereto, and related rights – but also various kinds of personal property, ranging from tangibles such as books to intangibles such as causes of action. That knowledge would, if we interpreted the Constitution as we do other legal documents, tell us just about everything we need to know about the scope of constitutional property. Case law and commentary do not speak as plainly, however, raising troubling questions about what “Property” means each of the four times it appears in the Constitution. In particular, some authority suggests that the Takings Clause protects personal property less completely than it does real property. The unjust treatment of Aleutian natives during World War II shows the risk of giving constitutional property so peculiar and narrow a definition. This paper describes the troubling inconsistencies that afflict the law of constitutional property and invokes the Third Amendment, that oft-forgotten relic of the American Revolution, to argue for giving “Property” a plain, generous, and consistent meaning throughout Constitution. — The Volokh Conspiracy.

The issue above is, that while troops “may” be quartered in private homes during wartime, the act must follow specific law. In other words, Congress must pass specific legislation that clarifies the circumstances when the 3rd Amendment doesn’t apply, compensation to the owners for damage, and the legal procedures to enact the seizure. That clarifying legislation has never been passed making the acts during WW II illegal.

The event in Henderson, NV in 2011 doesn’t have the quasi-justification of occurring during war. That is, if the Henderson PD does not consider themselves at war with the residents of Henderson.

The abuses of militarized police are growing across the country. It is a manifestation of a growing police state that has been actively encouraged by the federal government.

Whether our front door is kicked in by a group of lawless thugs, or by armed and armored SWAT troops acting like lawless thugs, it is still a violation of our castle. Theoretically, we could be justified in resisting under the auspices of castle laws. Of course, it wouldn’t matter when the SWAT team kills us. We’re still just as dead. And…the SWAT team would likely get off without charges.

It does beg the question. Can people defend themselves against police when it is the police who are violating the law? That is something for our Legislatures to address.

Facebook

Countdown

Posted on by

The Missouri Primary is a week from today. The weaker candidates have begun, or in the case of a couple, continue their mud-slinging, negative ads. It is interesting to note the most of recipients of that mud have not responded in kind.

I don’t like mudslinging, especially by those who initiate it or take advantage of 3rd party attacks on their opponent. For me, it makes my choice of candidates easy. Easier still when I vet the claims personally (it’s easy with Google and internet search engines) and find them false.

I wonder why, in this internet age, more voters don’t do the same. I also wonder why my establishment ‘Pub friends don’t vet their candidates better when all the facts are readily available with only a few minutes search. Apparently one county office candidate not only does not live in the county, he doesn’t even live in the state! How did he get approval by the party to run? Good, unanswered question.

It reminds me of an old science fiction novel.  A planet is colonized by three groups. One group consists mostly of fundamental Christians (this novel was written in a time when Christian-bashing was not in vogue,) another group was anarchists (what we’d call dyed-in-the-wool libertarians today,) and the the last group was Amish.

When the planet is visited centuries later, the society on that planet is viable and growing. There is no government as such (some local committees are implied,) no money nor coinage, and…no poverty, no illiteracy, no crime.

When I said there was no money, I didn’t mean to say there was no medium of exchange.  In a nutshell that medium was…”You scratch my back, I’ll scratch yours.” Obs or obligations was that medium. If someone needed a pair of shoes, he went to a cobbler and got a pair. In exchange, he agreed to perform an obligation to the cobbler. That obligation could be tilling a field or helping with a harvest or teaching someone a trade.  Obs could be major or minor…and could be traded.

Obs are much like politics. In exchange for support, obligations are given, or traded. That ob can be called immediately, such as campaign support, or at some future date.  In today-speak we some times call this compromising. A distasteful word that—compromise. A weakening of a personal, philosophical or moral stand to gain some advantage.

I have to question the values of a person who would violate their personal values for gain in some form. That gain usually is ambition.  The old you support me, I’ll support you. Yes, I may be naive, but I find it difficult to compromise my values at any time.

That’s why I’ll never run for office.

I’ll close this segment with a question. When you vote next week, what obligation have you given…or received for your vote. Will your vote be given because you truly think your candidate is the best of all those running? Or, will your vote be given to one who owes you an obligation, who has purchased your vote. For me, it will be the former.

***

Remember the New Black Panther voter intimidation charge from 2008? The New Black Panthers were found guilty of intimidation. The penalty phase was in progress when Eric Holder’s Department of Justice dropped the charges allowing the New Black Panthers to go free.  There was a lawsuit filed over the interference of the DoJ during that process and a Judge has ruled.  Last week in fact.

Federal Court finds Obama appointees interfered with New Black Panther prosecution

July 30, 2012

A federal court in Washington, DC, held last week that political appointees appointed by President Obama did interfere with the Department of Justice’s prosecution of the New Black Panther Party.

The ruling came as part of a motion by the conservative legal watch dog group Judicial Watch, who had sued the DOJ in federal court to enforce a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request for documents pertaining to the the New Black Panthers case. Judicial Watch had secured many previously unavailable documents through their suit against DOJ and were now suing for attorneys’ fees.

Obama’s DOJ had claimed Judicial Watch was not entitled to attorney’s fees since “none of the records produced in this litigation evidenced any political interference whatsoever in” how the DOJ handled the New Black Panther Party case. But United States District Court Judge Reggie Walton disagreed. Citing a “series of emails” between Obama political appointees and career Justice lawyers, Walton writes:

The documents reveal that political appointees within DOJ were conferring about the status and resolution of the New Black Panther Party case in the days preceding the DOJ’s dismissal of claims in that case, which would appear to contradict Assistant Attorney General Perez’s testimony that political leadership was not involved in that decision. Surely the public has an interest in documents that cast doubt on the accuracy of government officials’ representations regarding the possible politicization of agency decision-making.
…
In sum, the Court concludes that three of the four fee entitlement factors weigh in favor of awarding fees to Judicial Watch. Therefore, Judicial Watch is both eligible and entitled to fees and costs, and the Court must now consider the reasonableness of Judicial Watch’s requested award.

The New Black Panthers case stems from a Election Day 2008 incident where two members of the New Black Panther Party were filmed outside a polling place intimidating voters and poll watchers by brandishing a billy club. Justice Department lawyers investigated the case, filed charges, and when the Panthers failed to respond, a federal court in Philadelphia entered a “default” against all the Panthers defendants. But after Obama was sworn in, the Justice Department reversed course, dismissed charges against three of the defendants, and let the fourth off with a narrowly tailored restraining order.

“The Court’s decision is another piece of evidence showing the Obama Justice Department is run by individuals who have a problem telling the truth,” Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton said. “The decision shows that we can’t trust the Obama Justice Department to fairly administer our nation’s voting and election laws.”

The Fat Lady has yet to sing on this case.

***

I have never been a Romney fan. I thought, and still think there are better, stronger candidates in the field. But Romney is the chosen one by the ‘Pub establishment and he has the committed votes to insure his nomination. That said, the following news item brought a grin to my face.

Mitt Romney Spokesman Tells Reporters ‘Kiss My …’ at Polish Holy Site

WARSAW, Poland – A Mitt Romney spokesman reprimanded reporters traveling with the candidate on his six-day foreign trip, telling them to “kiss my a**” after they shouted questions from behind a rope line.

As Romney left the site of the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier in Warsaw and walked toward his motorcade parked in Pilsudski Square, reporters began shouting questions from the line where campaign staffers had told them to stay behind, prompting traveling press secretary Rick Gorka to tell a group of reporters to “kiss my a**” and “shove it.”

It seems the “reporters” where shouting questions such as, “Governor Romney, do you have a statement for the Palestinians?” and “Governor Romney, are you concerned about some of the mishaps of your trip.”

The questions were not about Romney’s visit to the Polish War Memorial but were designed to cause embarrassment. Romney’s PR guy responded appropriately, in my opinion. In fact, he deserves a bonus.

And the MSM complains about losing business and the approaching bankruptcy. Newsweek is dropping their print magazine in favor of a website. By subscription, I presume.  That won’t help.  It’s not the medium that is causing their problems, it’s biased content. People recognize bias treatment of the news and out-right lies when they see it. The MSM is doomed. In a decade there will be only a handful left.

And few of us will care. It’s another example of Evolution in Action.

Facebook

Friday Follies, Part II

Posted on by
Last Friday, I wrote how the democrats are ignoring law and undermining the Constitution.  Continuing today with that theme I present another example, the failure of the democrats to pass a budget.  It’s been over 1,000 days, more than three years since the last budget was passed. The democrats had overwhelming control of both houses of Congress for two of those three years and failed to pass a budget.  Harry Reid continues to block any budget bill that comes out of the House.  Criminal charges should be levied against Pelosi and Reid, but that won’t happen as long as Obama is in office and Holder is the AG.
The Investor’s Business Daily, along with the Ramirez cartoon above, posted this editorial.

Democrats Failure To Pass Budget Is Illegal

Posted 02/10/2012 06:33 PM ET
Leadership: Two top Democrats in Congress say the legislature doesn’t really need to pass a budget. Excuse us, but passing a budget isn’t optional; it’s required by law. Is this the future of rule under the Democrats?
House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer is tired of passing budgets as the law demands. He thinks Congress can just keep spending money without any sort of budget.
“The fact is, you don’t need a budget,” he said last Tuesday. “We can adopt appropriations bills. We can adopt authorization policies without a budget. We already have an agreed-upon cap on spending.”
Actually, “the fact is,” Congress is required under the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 to pass a spending plan and then have it scored by the Congressional Budget Office and signed by the president. That none of this happens suggests a level of disrespect for the law and the people found only among criminals. (Emphasis mine: Crucis)
As for the “agreed-upon cap on spending” mentioned by Hoyer: How’s that model of fiscal restraint working out? Well, a new report out Thursday notes that Congress has already blown right through the spending “cap” put in place just last summer.
According to the Heritage Foundation, “last week’s Congressional Budget Office report shows they (Congress) have exceeded their official Budget Control Act limits for the current year by a stunning $156 billion.”
Stunning indeed. It’s now been 1,020 days, or 2.8 years, since Congress last passed a budget. Rather than an official document, Congress has passed a series of continuing resolutions and spending bills, periodically raising the debt ceiling so it can spend even more.
Hoyer is not only in his dereliction. On Friday, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said: “We do not need to bring a budget to the floor this year. It’s done, we don’t need to do it.” In short, laws are for the little people.
As for President Obama, he’s set to release his own budget proposal Monday. Is he annoyed that Congress has made his budget a dead-letter before it’s even released?
“Well,” said Jay Carney, the president’s spokesman, “I don’t have an opinion to express on how the Senate does its business with regards to this issue.”
This is fiscal gangsterism, nothing else. It has nothing to do with the current fiscal crisis, or the slow economy. It has everything to do with Democrats’ refusal to admit that their unparalleled spending binge and exploding debt will soon lead to a tidal wave of tax hikes on average Americans.
The editorial calls this situation fiscal gangsterism.  That’s not quite correct. It’s democrat gangsterism.