Category Archives: By The Book

Nancy Pelosi reveals the GOP conspiracy behind Democrat midterm disaster


By Doug Book, editor

Countless politicos and media pundits have offered what each believes  the real reason for the drubbing Democrats took on November 4th.  A few mavericks even suggested the impossible–that Barack Obama’s policies were to blame for the carnage rather than his Blackness.

But leave it to San Francisco’s brainy congresswoman, Nancy Pelosi, to provide the indisputable skinny on a midterm catastrophe which strengthened the GOP hold on the House and robbed Harry Reid of the Senate. As Nancy explains it, “to succeed, we must inspire, educate and remove obstacles to participation. Only by changing our political environment and broadening the universe of the electorate can we build a strong sense of community and an economy that works for everyone.” According to the Pelosi-English Dictionary, Nancy is claiming that the Democrat loss was caused by “voter suppression.”

Wanting very much to retain her leadership position in the House, Nan explained that the results of the midterm had nothing to do with voter mistrust of Barack Obama or the far left direction in which she herself was leading the Democrat minority. Even the laughably bogus claims Pelosi has made time and again to the American public played no part in the holocaust. The fact is there were simply not enough votes to put Democrat candidates over the top. And the reason? Republicans were preventing Democrat voters going to the polls.

Not that Republican backers had decided to emulate the well-meaning, well armed Black Panther poll watchers of 2008. Rather, Pelosi claims the GOP conspiracy began in 2012 with Republicans filing “frivolous” contempt of Congress charges against A.G. Eric Holder, “…the person who [was] assigned to stop the voter suppression in our country.”

The congresswoman didn’t exactly explain how the filing of Contempt of Congress charges against Eric Holder for his refusal to provide information on the DOJ role in Fast and Furious could prevent people from voting. As a matter of fact, the issues appear completely unrelated. But Pelosi certainly deserves credit for spot on, post-election analysis in which she shrewdly connects Democrat losses with a shortage of people voting for Democrat candidates.  The agility of the Democrat mind is a remarkable thing to behold.

Phony claims of a Republican War on Women also suffered a richly deserved death on Election Day as pro-life Senators replaced that body’s pro-abortion crowd and the votes of married women went to GOP candidates by a  54%-44%  spread. Of course, Nancy claimed these unfortunate, anti-abortion numbers were also a result of voter suppression.

 As a rule, Midterm elections have found wealthy, white, conservative, married voters dominating the polls. The question is whether the Republican Party will give conservative voters the necessary reasons to turn out in even greater numbers in 2016. If so, Nancy Pelosi may be shrieking about far more than voter suppression 2 years from now.


Get your free PDF of Coach’s book “Crooks Thugs& Bigots: the lost, hidden and changed history of the Democrat Party.” If you don’t know the truth, all you’ll have are Democrat lies.

Just ask at


Ferguson Missouri’s “Don’t Shoot Coalition” issues rules for police behavior but not for rioters

By Doug Book, editor

The New Black Panther Party, Amnesty International, Sistahs Talkin’ back, CAIR and the Organization for Black Struggle are but a few of the groups which make up the “Don’t Shoot Coalition,” a collection of individuals and organizations which has taken it upon themselves to decide how police and other government officials must respond should demonstrations take place in response to a Grand Jury decision against indicting Officer Darren Wilson for the shooting death of Michael Brown.  

Nineteen proposed Rules of Engagement have been released by the Coalition for the purpose of “ ‘…[deescalating violence]’ without tamping down on peaceful protest action.” I have included a link to the Rules below.

But although the “Don’t Shoot Coalition” was quite specific in telling police and government officials which of their methods of handling rioters/protesters would not be permitted, there were no similar restrictions placed on the activities of the demonstrators themselves!

For example, Rule #7 leaves the safety of police to the tender mercies of protesters, many of them professionals shipped in from other areas of the nation. “Police will wear only the attire minimally required for their safety. Specialized riot gear will be avoided except as a last resort.”  Rule #8 states that “Crowd Control equipment such as armored vehicles, rubber bullets, rifles and tear gas will not be used.”

Protesters taking part in demonstrations as long as 2 months after the shooting have consisted of “Vietnam-era peace activists, New York City seminarians, college students and hundreds of fast-food workers bused in from Chicago, Nashville and other cities.” Fast food workers from Chicago??

Surely St. Louis city officials and police will ignore rules designed to place officers in deadly peril. But, St. Louis politicians typically more interested in the appearance of political correctness than the safety of their officers “…said their department “endorses the statement from the Don’t Shoot Coalition regarding the sanctity and preservation of human life. To that end, and in the spirit of building communications, members of the Unified Command (St. Louis area police and law enforcement) have met with the coalition to define common goals.”

Here’s hoping lunacy doesn’t prevail and police officers are not exposed to injury or death in a display of “good will” on the part of brainless and spineless city officials. Read the entirety of the Rules of Engagement below. It provides a direct link to the mind of the left.

Sources:    Rules of Engagement

Get your free PDF of Coach’s book “Crooks Thugs& Bigots: the lost, hidden and changed history of the Democrat Party.” If you don’t know the truth all you’ll have is Democrat lies.

Just ask at

Those damned, rich White people cost Democrats the Senate

By Doug Book, editor

Making yet another of those insightful statements for which he will be forever remembered, V.P. Joe Biden told CNN News just before Election Day that, “if you look at every single major issue of the campaign, the American public agree with [the White House] position.” But if the vice president’s latest laugh line were actually true, why would his fellow liberals want to do away with midterm elections?

A “public policy” professor and a junior at Duke University have written an Op-Ed piece for the New York Times in which they claim that “the 2 year [election] cycle isn’t just unnecessary; it’s harmful to American politics (read Democrat Party).”  For the authors maintain that after a president with a well-developed agenda (such as Hope and Change) enters the White House “…the midterm election cripples that same president’s ability to advance that agenda.”

Could it be that midterm voters want no more of that “well-developed agenda” after 2 years have revealed what it is actually about?”

There are 2 simple reasons for the left wanting to end midterms. First, since World War II, Democrat presidents “have lost an average of 31 House seats and 4-5 Senate seats in midterms.” Republican presidents have lost an average of 20 House seats and 3 in the Senate.

Secondly, midterms attract an electorate “…which is whiter, wealthier, older and more educated than presidential elections.” Is it possible that the liberal authors of the Times op-ed are suggesting that the effect of white voters on election outcomes should be limited or curtailed by eliminating midterms?

The full effect of those whiter, wealthier and smarter votes was felt yesterday as Republicans re-claimed the Senate and extended their lead in the House by 10 seats.

Will the left ever understand that it won’t have to amend the Constitution and cancel elections if only it will begin running pro-American, pro-Constitution candidates?

But then, it wouldn’t be the left, would it!


Get your free PDF of Coach’s book “Crooks Thugs& Bigots: the lost, hidden and changed history of the Democrat Party.” If you don’t know the truth all you’ll have is Democrat lies.

Just ask at


Terrorists leave a mark on defenseless, it-can’t-happen-here Canada

by Doug Book, editor

On Monday, Muslim convert Martin Rouleau ran down 2 members of the Canadian military, killing one and injuring another before he was shot and killed by police. Yesterday a second Muslim convert and terrorist Michael Zehaf-Bibeau killed a soldier outside of the Parliament building in Ottawa before sauntering inside to wound a number of MPs. Countless other members of the Canadian government had “…barricaded themselves behind doors reinforced with furniture.”

“It’s terrifying to think how high the body count may have been if not for the courage of Sergeant-at-Arms Kevin Vickers. The former Mountie is being widely praised as a hero after he shot and killed Zehaf-Bibeau just outside the parliamentary library before he managed to reach the MPs.”  And how is it this lunatic Islamist was able to frolic into Ottawa’s Parliament building, killing a soldier and shooting others along the way? Well it seems no one in Canada may carry a firearm unless they are able to prove that protection afforded them by police will be insufficient. Though it may be difficult to believe, such a claim almost never results in permission being granted to carry a gun! Imagine that. (By the way, both soldiers carried rifles for which they were NOT allowed to have ammunition!)

So one 58 year old former Mountie and current Sergeant at Arms,  Kevin Vickers–apparently the only Canadian armed at the time–found himself responsible for protecting all of the firearm wary MPs who had taken to diving behind furniture as the common-sense method of protecting their lives.  Seems Canadian politicians have far less concern for their safety than those incomparably, self-important folks in Washington, DC. This nut would have been met with the fire of countless “assault weapons”– the real, full-auto kind–had he pulled this stunt in the District!

Both of these terrorists were assisted in murdering innocent people by a Canadian government which revoked their passports, concerned that the desire expressed by these loons of traveling to Turkey might result in their joining ISIS! A brilliant stroke by politicos who are apparently the same all over. After all, better these murderous Islamists are kept where they can kill Canadians  than be released to another country where they might get into trouble!

Middle East expert Walid Phares brought the truth behind these attacks and the Canadian left’s unwillingness to expose the facts of terrorism into the United States to lay them at the feet of Barack Hussein when he stated that “the Obama administration’s obsession with political correctness in preference to honesty is disingenuous to the American people. Instead of calling these homegrown terrorists what they are, the violent acts of these radicalized jihadists are couched as “workplace violence” or random acts of violence.” 

These killings, however, have prompted even the Ottawa Sun to expose Muslim terrorists and Islamic jihadists for what they are.

Will Barack follow the example of Canada by telling the truth about the next act of “workplace violence” committed by one of his fellow Muslims? I wouldn’t count on it.


Get your free PDF of Coach’s book “Crooks Thugs& Bigots: the lost, hidden and changed history of the Democrat Party.” If you don’t know the truth all you’ll have is Democrat lies.

Just ask at



How Police have confiscated billions from law abiding Americans


By Doug Book, editor

Thirty years ago, the Department of Justice created a civil asset forfeiture program known as “Equitable Sharing.” Though originally created for the purpose of separating drug dealers from their ill-gotten assets and cash, since 2001 Equitable Sharing has been employed by the nation’s police to score $2.5 Billion in cash and assets from citizens “who were not charged with a crime and without a warrant being issued.” It is a high-dollar confiscation scam through which 298 police departments and 210 task forces have seized as much as 20 % of their operating budgets “…despite a federal ban [on the use of such money] to pay salaries or otherwise support budgets.”

A 2014 Washington Post article revealed that Equitable Sharing resulted in “…61,998 cash seizures made on highways and elsewhere since 9/11 without search warrants or indictments.” And this plunder was indeed shared equitably with $1.7 billion going to state and local authorities as “…the Department of Justice, Homeland Security and other federal agencies received $800 million. Half of the seizures were below $8,800.” The rather meager number of less than $8,800 hardly represents automobiles, airplanes or vacation homes confiscated from international drug rings.

How far removed are the nation’s police from the “Protect and Serve” mission we hear so much about? In 2012, John Anderson of San Clemente, California was pulled over by part-time deputy David Frye in Seward County Nebraska for “failing to signal promptly when changing lanes.” The stop for an issued warning ticket took just 13 minutes.

But according to court papers filed by Frye, he claimed to find “…several indicators of possible suspicious activity: an air freshener, a radar detector and inconsistencies in the driver’s description of his travels.” The Deputy asked Anderson if he was in possession of cocaine, heroin or large amounts of money and then sought permission to search Anderson’s BMW. When Anderson declined permission for the search, Frye “…radioed for a drug-sniffing dog, and [Anderson] had to wait another 36 minutes for the dog to arrive.” “I’m just going to, basically, have you wait here,” Frye told him. Upon arrival, the dog was said to have indicated the presence of drugs and although none were found, Frye confiscated $25,180 found in Anderson’s car.

And here’s the kicker. Frye handcuffed Anderson and told him he was under arrest. “Drug currency is illegal in Nebraska,” said Frye as he offered the undoubtedly shaken Anderson the following deal: “You’re going to be given an opportunity to disclaim the currencyto sign a form that says, ‘That is not my money. I don’t know anything about it. I don’t want to know anything about it. I don’t want to come back to court.’ ” Anderson was not read his Miranda rights until over an hour had passed in the “arrest” procedure. An hour later, after signing away his $25,000, Anderson was permitted to go. Fearing arrest, the possible destruction of career and reputation and how one might be treated over 1000 miles from home by a LEO obviously more interested in cash than justice, I wonder how many of us would follow Anderson’s example? Anderson has since gone to court to retrieve his money, saying he signed the waiver because he felt intimidated by Frye.

Deputy Frye committed a number of unconstitutional actions during his “arrest” of John Anderson. And though he will probably retrieve his money, Anderson will undoubtedly be required to sign away his right to sue, that being SOP for others who have decided to take a stand after having been intimidated by police into parting with money or property.

Could an innocent John Anderson have avoided the nerve-wracking hours of threat and intimidation suffered at the hands of a Deputy whose behavior was far more suggestive of John Dillinger than a member of law enforcement? The answer is yes. This week, Coach is Right will review the ways in which motorists may protect their rights from an officer trained to intimidate and confiscate rather than protect and serve.


Learn the truth about Democrats. Get your free PDF of Coach’s book “Crooks, Learn the truth about Democrats. Get your free PDF of Coach’s book “Crooks Thugs& Bigots: the lost, hidden and changed history of the Democrat Party.” Just ask at