Category Archives: By The Book

Supreme Court has made confiscation of firearms a breeze

By Doug Book, editor

Last year, Democrat Senator Ed Markey (NY) and Democrat Rep. Carolyn Maloney (Mass) introduced legislation suggesting Barack Obama’s Centers for Disease Control (CDC) be paid $10 million/year to fund “…research on gun violence prevention and firearm safety.” According to the far left Markey, “it is time we study the issue of gun violence like the public health crisis that it is. If we want to prevent injury and deaths from guns, we need to know what can be done to prevent it.”

Truth be told, Markey and Maloney believe the best way to prevent gun violence is by making it illegal or at the very least, impossible, to own a gun. Maloney recently introduced legislation which would require all gun owners purchase liability insurance for their firearms and pay a $10,000 fine should they be discovered without it. Naturally, members of law enforcement would be exempt.

“An insurance requirement would allow the free market to encourage cautious behavior and help save lives,” said Maloney. “Adequate liability coverage would also ensure that the victims of gun violence are fairly compensated when crimes or accidents occur.” Only a leftist would claim that liability insurance is necessary to make gun owners exercise appropriate caution with their firearms.

Each year, about 60% of gun deaths are the result of suicide. Would Maloney demand insurance companies pay off in cases of suicide? Would a suicide “victim’s” estate be charged the $10,000 fine if he was found to have been uninsured?

As to “fair compensation” in the event of a crime or accident, it is rumored that the overwhelming majority of gun crimes are committed by criminals. The odds against thieves, killers or rapists carrying liability insurance on their stolen firearm would be astronomical. Will Maloney recommend Progressive or The General provide “no fault” gun insurance, just in case? And would that absolve the criminal of guilt for having committed the crime, or just for having used a gun?

Perhaps the real question is why Representative Maloney believed it necessary to introduce this legislation in the first place. The nation’s hoplophobes have already been given the ultimate, winning hand against gun owners.

In 2012, Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts ruled that the federal government may demand the American people purchase a required item and tax anyone who refuses. Last month, Roberts and 5 other justices decided that the president, the Internal Revenue Service, even the Court itself may write, re-write and implement legislation. An act of Congress is no longer necessary, conflicting claims in the Constitution of the United States notwithstanding.

Given these recent rulings by the Roberts Court–the first on ObamaCare, the second in King v Burwell–Barack Obama’s Department of Justice will have the authority to create legislation demanding the purchase of a $1 million liability policy by every gun owner, for every gun owned. Those who refuse could be taxed the sum of, say,  $100,000 for each uninsured firearm. Simple and legal, at least according to the Court. And for those unwilling to either pay up or relinquish their weapons, Barack and the Supremes will confiscate their house!

Though such abuse of the American people may not happen over night, rest assured that it WILL happen.

 

Enjoy a great new commercial and a great old commercial

What follows below may be one of the most clever and entertaining commercials since Joe Greene swapped a young fan his priceless jersey for a Coke.    Enjoy

We’ve included the link for Joe’s commercial too.

Joe Greene’s a Coke and a Smile:

http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=joe+greene+coke+commercial&FORM=VIRE1#view=detail&mid=B27F78426A159422CA1AB27F78426A159422CA1A

 

A terrific offering from ToolStation:

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

AN OPEN LETTER TO WALMART CEO DOUG McMILLON

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.

Sincerely,

Phil Valentine
Talk Show Host
Westwood One Radio Network
PhilValentine.com

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?