Category Archives: By The Book

Phil Valentine suggests Walmart be fair all around after the retailer’s kneejerk response to the Confederate Flag kerfuffle


Coach is Right thanks Staff Writer Ed Wood for this head’s up

Legendary conservative talk show host Phil Valentine penned an Open Letter to Doug McMillon, CEO of mega-retailer Walmart, after McMillon decided that all things Confederate must be immediately removed from store shelves across the country. Mr. Valentine’s letter speaks for itself:

The Great Walmart of China


Dear Mr. McMillon:

I would like to first say that I’m not a big fan of the confederate flag although I do support people’s right to own it and fly it. I also support your right not to sell it. However, something you said on CNN has stayed with me. You said, “We just don’t want to sell products that make anyone uncomfortable.”

Mr. McMillon, I’ve felt uncomfortable about some of your products and I figure now is the time to let you know about it so maybe you can stop selling those items, too.

I don’t have precise numbers but best estimates are between and 70 and 90 percent of your products are made in China. I do hope you’re aware that China is governed by a brutal communist regime that has killed millions of its own people and has enslaved or imprisoned millions more.

Consider this:

More than 73 million Chinese have been killed by the communist Chinese government since it came to power.
More than 50 million Chinese have passed through China’s slave labor camps.
And if you think that’s all history, think again.

• Amnesty International says today countless numbers of Chinese are routinely rounded up and sent to ‘Re-education Camps’ for up to four years for doing something as innocent as speaking out against their government.
• China continues to persecute people for their religious beliefs.
• China continues to torture innocent citizens.
• China continues to control information to its people through Internet and media suppression.

Two years ago a woman in Oregon bought Halloween decorations and found a note inside from a Chinese worker. It asked the recipient to send the letter to the “World Human Right Organization” saying that “thousands people here who are under the persicution (sic) of the Chinese Communist Party Government will thank and remember you forever.”

Ironically, when one was able to buy the General Lee car from the TV show Dukes of Hazzard in your stores, it was made in China.

In light of what I’ve just laid out, it’s apparent that the words ‘Made in China’ are far more offensive than any flag could ever be. Unless, of course, that flag happens to belong to the People’s Republic of China. Which is for sale right now where? At Walmart.


Phil Valentine
Talk Show Host
Westwood One Radio Network

Supreme Court finds Congress irrelevant as Justices award law making powers to president and…Supreme Court

By Doug Book, editor

Coach is Right recently alerted its readers to the importance of the upcoming Supreme Court decision in King v Burwell, a case which would determine whether the Internal Revenue Service had the authority—on the orders of Barack Obama–to re-interpret the Affordable Care Act in a manner favorable to Obama and contrary to the clear language and intent of the Act as written by Congress.

Though Obama and members of his Regime have already re-written the Act (contrary to the Constitution) on 31 separate occasions, it was hoped—certainly it was never more than a hope—that the Court would uphold the will of a Congress which wrote 7 times in the Act that subsidies to ObamaCare policy holders would be made available only by ObamaCare Exchanges built by one of the 50 states. The law clearly made subsidies and tax credits unavailable in any state with an ObamaCare Exchange built by the federal government.

A ruling which found that “An Exchange established by the State” was indeed “An Exchange Established by the State” would of course make subsidies unavailable in the 34 States with an ObamaCare Exchange built by the Federal Government. Policy prices would not be competitive in 2/3rds of the nation and the Affordable Care Act would rapidly meet its demise.

But on Thursday, the Court’s decision was published and as many feared, the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that the clear language and intent of Congress were not acceptable to the Court as the clear language and intent of Congress. As Justice Scalia wrote in the dissent he shared with Justices Alito and Thomas, “…normal rules of interpretation seem always to yield to the overriding principle of the present Court: The Affordable Care Act MUST be saved.” (My Caps)

Justice Scalia’s dissent is one for the ages as he not so politely eviscerates the majority, for “The somersaults of statutory interpretation they have performed (‘penalty’ means tax…‘established by the State’ means not established by the State) will be cited by litigants endlessly, to the confusion of honest jurisprudence.”

For anyone not paying attention, Justice Scalia has just accused his colleagues of being dishonest. It is a statement beyond the simply critical of Justice Roberts and to a lesser degree, Justice Kennedy, as Scalia goes as far as he can in accusing both of malfeasance, corruption and, well, dishonesty.

The increasingly corrupt and pernicious purveyors of the legal system in the United States make predicting what should be the most straightforward of rulings virtually impossible. An irrepressible appetite to further a politically inspired agenda has replaced the Constitution as the foundation of American jurisprudence. Such a disgraceful and dangerous perversion of the most senior of American courts “…ignores the American people’s decision to give Congress “[a]ll legislative Powers” enumerated in the Constitution. Art. I, §1. They made Congress, not this Court, responsible for both making laws and mending them.”

But the Supreme Court, with Chief Justice Roberts in the lead, has twice “mended” the Affordable Care Act, improperly re-writing and willingly—shall it be called misinterpreting—both the text and the clearly presented desires of Congress.

America’s conservatives have lost the Supreme Court to the corruption and perversity of the left. As wanton dishonesty has replaced honor and integrity on the bench, it is difficult to imagine a time or means of returning the Court to an honest application of constitutional law.

How have so many Loons escaped the left’s abortion industry?

By Doug Book, Editor

According to numbers taken from the Guttmacher Institute and the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), some 53 million legal abortions were performed between 1973 and 2013 (inclusive). This number is an approximation as California, New Hampshire and Maryland have refused to supply state abortion numbers during recent years.

It is known that the number of abortions has declined over the past several years, for example, from 1.31 million in 2000 to about 984,000 in 2013. Though liberals are undoubtedly distraught that, in a year to year comparison, nearly 300,000 escaped the convenience of wholesale genetic profiling, a few unadulterated whack-jobs have both avoided the knife and made leftists proud thanks to the sheer lunacy of their beliefs.

By now many are familiar with the Sacramento high school teacher who refuses to teach Shakespeare “…because her minority students shouldn’t be expected to study ‘a long-dead, British guy’.” Teacher Dana Dusbiber summarily decided that her Black and Mexican students could have no interest in reading Hamlet, the most acclaimed work of arguably the greatest writer in history, simply because of their race/heritage.

But, doesn’t that conclusion on the part of the White Ms. Dusbiber incorporate just a teeny bit of racism? Blacks have no interest in, or shouldn’t be exposed to, great literature because of their Blackness! And isn’t this where we would all be saying something like, “It’s sure a good thing that teacher isn’t WHITE,” if Ms Dusbiber had been Black herself? Boy, would she be in trouble, Huh!

Well Ms. Dusbiber is not alone in her loony expression of White guilt. Naomi Friedan, a White science teacher also in Sacramento, has published an article in the Washington Post “…arguing that her students shouldn’t learn about Isaac Newton because he’s a dead, white male with questionable political views.” Like her colleague who refuses to expose her students to history’s greatest writer, Ms Friedan “…feels uncomfortable teaching Newton’s laws of motion, universal gravitation, optics, and calculus because her minority students shouldn’t be expected to study inventions of, “a long-dead, British guy.” And yes, all of the topics Friedan refuses to teach her Black and Mexican students were inventions of Sir Isaac, the greatest mathematician and physicist the world has known.

If Ms Friedan’s views should catch on in far left California, would it mean engineers graduating from state colleges and universities would not be required to know anything of Newton’s physics or mathematics? Would newly constructed buildings and bridges stand the tests of time and wear simply because those who built them displayed appropriate regard for political correctness?

The real question is, how did so many wacky liberals escape 53 million chances at them?

Executive Branch could lose much of its unconstitutional power

By Doug Book, editor

An injunction issued against the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) by federal judge Leigh Martin May could spell the beginning of the end for Administrative Law Courts and with them, 80 years of unconstitutional abuse of power by the Executive branch.

Administrative Law “…allows for the creation of public regulatory agencies and contains all of the statutes, judicial decisions, and regulations that govern them.”  These regulatory bodies include the EPA and the SEC. Many came into being during the reign of Franklin Roosevelt, the one president more arrogant and power hungry than Barack Obama. The law itself “…is created by administrative agencies to implement their powers and duties in the form of rules, regulations, orders, and decisions.”

What an efficient way of getting things done, given it is the Administrative Agencies themselves which write and implement much of the law by which they are governed in Administrative Courts! And it is the Executive Branch–the White House–which directs the agenda of these powerful administrative bodies.

Given the incestuous relationship between the Agencies and the Courts which implement their decisions, it is rare that a victim of White House/Executive branch overreach can successfully defend himself. In any event, a journey through the legal system in actual judicial courts is guaranteed to cost millions.

How corrupt is a quasi-legal system which targets “evil-doers” based as much on political persuasion as ability to pay outrageous fines? In 2014, 5 of the world’s largest banks “…plead guilty to conspiring to manipulate the price of U.S. dollars and euros in foreign currency markets.” For this illegal conspiracy, the banks were fined nearly $5.8 billion. The banks were also convicted of felonies!

However, as is ALWAYS the case when criminality involves the “too large to fail” in Administrative Court circles, not only were the felony convictions not pressed by the SEC, “in exchange for pleading guilty and paying these hefty fines, the banks demanded that regulators not ban them from certain business practices.” That is, as part of a “plea deal,” the banks involved literally TOLD their accusers what the deal must consist of. As a result, the banks received waivers permitting them to engage in all of the practices of honest financial traders and companies. The effective punishment consisted of fines only.

And incredibly, the SEC “…has not appeared to be eager to publicize the waivers.” “They are posted on the SEC website, but they are not announced at the same time as the settlements and are not included in the court documents describing the settlements.” Wouldn’t want to make investors nervous or interfere with the profitability of massive banking corporations simply because they were managed by felons!

But now, all of this may have changed. The SEC recently charged Charles Hill with making an illegal stock profit. However, Federal Judge May “…ruled that the SEC agency violated the Appointments Clause of the Constitution by subjecting Hill to proceedings before an Administrative Law judge, who isn’t directly accountable to the president, officials in charge of the SEC, or the courts under Article III.” In short, the very cozy relationship between the SEC and its very own Administrative Court was at last, not going to fly.

If this ruling stands and the TRUE courts do what is right, the White House and the entire Executive Branch might have to obey both the laws of the land AND the Constitution. A thug like Barack Obama would no longer be able to threaten the coal industry with bankruptcy because he happens to own the EPA.

Will the Supreme Court deliver one final, unconstitutional ObamaCare ruling?

By Doug Book, editor

Before the end of its current term (June 30th), the United States Supreme Court will determine whether the law of the land is established in the Constitution or by the various bureaucracies working to impose the agenda of the Obama Regime. IF the Court decides in favor of the Constitution, ObamaCare–the Affordable Care Act–will be destroyed financially. It will effectively cease to exist.

In November of last year, the Court agreed to hear King v Burwell, a suit filed against the Internal Revenue Service for usurping the power of Congress by granting itself the authority to spend $800 billion tax dollars over the next decade, money not legally allocated for Service use.

The IRS engaged in this extraordinary abuse of power in order to save the Affordable Care Act (ACA) from a financial disaster guaranteed by a failed gamble on the part of the law’s authors.  According to the Galen Institute, the IRS scheme was one of 50 changes made to the ACA after it had been passed into law; “… at least 31 that the Obama Administration has made unilaterally.”

Will the Supreme Court adhere to the language of the Constitution—and the ACA itself—by finding the IRS power grab unconstitutional?

A number of the justices hardly distinguished themselves with their ObamaCare ruling of 2012. One expects decisions based purely on promotion of the leftist agenda from the 4 Marxist members of the Court. But the nominally conservative Chief Justice John Roberts ignored both the explicit language of the Act and the clear will of Congress in his decision to rewrite the ACA by transforming the specifically defined, individual mandate penalty into a tax. It was the tax manufactured by Justice Roberts which permitted him to find the ObamaCare individual mandate constitutional.

Incredibly, however, the tax which Roberts invented—though never named–is itself unconstitutional. For Justice Robert’s brainchild represents none of the tax types defined under the Congressional power to tax in Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution, or in the 16th Amendment.

How dangerous is the decision created by the chief justice? According to law professor Dave Kopel, writing for the Cato Institute, the Roberts ruling:

“…[will] give Congress the power to make laws on any subject, impose a fine for noncompliance, have the IRS collect the fine, and then claim that the entire regulatory structure is part of the tax power. The result would nullify Article I of the Constitution, which carefully grants Congress 18 specific powers – and does not grant a general power to legislate on everything.”

The Affordable Care Act “…will enable the Federal Government to regulate all private conduct and…compel the States to function as administrators of federal programs,” adds Justice Scalia. 7

The Origination Clause of the Constitution requires all tax raising measures originate in the House of Representatives. The Affordable Care Act began in the Senate.

The White House changed the ACA for political reasons 31 times, each illegal, unconstitutional or both.

The IRS has defied the Constitution, Congress and the law as it will confiscate nearly 1 trillion tax dollars from the American people in order to salvage the namesake legislation of the Service’s Lord and Master, Barack Obama.

The King ruling may represent the final opportunity of a “conservative” Supreme Court to right the corruption of the Congress, the President and one of the Court’s own.

I’m not optimistic that the 5 “conservative” justices will do the right thing by supporting the Constitution.