Anti-Palin Books Don't Sell: Leftists Write But Don't Read

The American Thinker reports that Anti-Palin books don't sell:

Palin-flamethrower, Geoffrey Dunn of the Huffington Post released The Lies of Sarah Palin: The Untold Story Behind Her Relentless Quest for Power May 10th and Frank Bailey, former Aide to Palin, teamed up with Palin-critic Jeanne Devon to release Blind Allegiance to Sarah Palin: A Memoir of Our Tumultuous Years on May 24th. Ardent opponents of Sarah Palin have been highly-anticipating these books which promised to tear down Palin's public image for the long-term.

Interestingly, Geoffrey Dunn's book has not even hit Amazon's top-100 list since its release; and after a week of media coverage including appearances on NBC, ABC's The View, Fox News, CNN, and many more, Frank Bailey's "memoir" disappointingly debuted at #40 and has already fallen to #75.

There is a good reason for that. Leftists don't read.

That goes along with the apparent fact that leftists either don't or can't think past step one of any problem. The typical example is minimum wage. The apparent obvious effect is that people with jobs get a minimum amount of hourly money. Step two is that there are fewer jobs. Step three is that minority youths are hurt the most by the lack of jobs. Leftists can't think past step one.

This sort of non-thinking is what leftist demagoguery appeals to. Hint to leftists: demagoguery by definition refers to appeals to emotion rather than logic. Every time I hear as leftist refer to a reasoned argument as demagoguery, I have to assume they don't know what the word means.

Reading implies thinking. So, it is not surprising that non-thinkers are also non-readers.

Buckeye Firearms Foundation, Inc. v. City of Cleveland

Drew Carey tried to save Cleveland, but Cleveland refused to be saved.

How bad is a city government that refused to recognize its state supreme court telling it that it has a loser case? That is what happened here.

Buckeye firearms sued Cleveland because Cleveland's gun laws conflict with state gun laws and the Ohio Revised code contains a clear preemption provision. The City of Cleveland went to the Ohio Supreme Court to challenge the preemption on "home rule" grounds. In Ohio, home rule for municipalities is quite strong, but the City of Cleveland lost in the Supreme Court.

Back in the common pleas court, the City of Cleveland is enjoined from enforcing is onerous, anti-gun laws. A copy of the preliminary injunction is here.

Moron of the Day: Debbie Wasserman-Schultz (D-FL and DNC Chairman)

Congratulations to our first repeat offender, Debbie Wasserman Schultz. This woman is so far left, she almost makes Sherrod Brown look rational. (Well, maybe that thought goes too far. Sherrod Brown is pretty moronic on the daily basis, and it would not be fair to other candidates to give him the Moron of the Day awards he probably deserves.)

Anyway, Ms. Schultz gets her award for not knowing that it is already illegal, indeed it is a now a criminal offense, to be in this country illegally. She thinks that making illegals, well, illegal, is part of a dastardly Republican plot.



Thanks, Debbie, for being our first repeater. You are definitely in the running for becoming our first Moron of the Year. Keep up the good work!

(Um, could somebody introduce Ms. Wasserman-Schultz to a comb?)

State v. Barnes Update

In State v. Barnes, the Indiana Supreme Court overturned hundreds of years of precedent to allow the prosecution of a resident in his home who resisted an illegal entry by the police on which I reported here.

Here is a protest in Indiana against that decision:

Obama In the U.K.

Barack Obama is in the U.K.

Do we really have to let him back in? Just some wishful thinking.

Republicans Block More Recess Appointments

After the United States Senate refused to confirm the appointment of Craig Becker, radical union lawyer, to the National labor Relations board, President Obama waited until the Senate recessed and appointed Becker anyway. Under the United States constitution, many officers must be appointed subject to confirmation by the United States Senate. However, there is an exception. If the Senate is not in session, the president may appoint and the officer does not need to be confirmed until after the next session of Congress.

According to the Washington Examiner:

Sen. Jim DeMint has confirmed that the House will block President Obama from making recess appointments, in the following statement emailed to the Examiner:

“President Obama has been packing federal agencies with left-wing ideologues, but thankfully he won’t be able to for at least the next week. The House will not be sending an adjournment resolution to the Senate, we will remain in pro forma session, and no controversial nominees will be allowed to circumvent the confirmation process during the break.”

According to the Constitution, these recess appointments are only supposed to be for vacancies that "happen during the recess." This is a procedure that President Obama and others before him have seriously abused.

Paul Ryan on Medicare

Paul Ryan gets the economics correct.



It boggles the mind that the Obama "progressives" think that a bankrupt, failed centrally planned system is "progress." I don't. Do you?

Obama Botches Toast to the Queen of England.

Hotair.com is reporting on President Obama's botched toast to the Queen of England. He failed to wait until "God save the Queen" completed before completing the toast (or something). Here is the video:



This may reasonably viewed with mixed feelings. Here is our President, the guy who snubbed the British by returning the gift of the bust of Winston Churchill against showing his lack of cool. Or, we could just say that our president is not ready for the international prime time. Or, we could say that snooty British protocol stuff is part of the reason we broke away form those folks in the place.

Personally, I blame President Obama's staff (and the buck stops at the President) for inadequately preparing the President. He did not make a fool of himself on purpose.

David Gregory Reveals His Racist Thinking

By assuming that receivers of "food stamps" are black, David Gregory of NBC, shows himself to be racist (video below). Clearly David Gregory is racist in his head, because when he hears "food stamps" he thinks black people. How else can you explain his question to Newt Gingerich?

Sarah Palin calls Gregory out on his racism.



The real problem is that racism underlies so much of the progressive agenda. "Affirmative action" is the most egregious example, because the underlying assumption is that blacks are inferior to whites that they cannot make it on their own without a a "progressive" helping hand. I do not believe that. Sadly, blacks vote for Democrats in large numbers to take advantage of the Democrats' benevolent racism. The intentions may be a benevolent helping hand for the "disadvantaged" (as they prefer to characterize it), but the attitude is racist nevertheless.

Campaign Ads

Is President Obama listening?

Supposed Believers in First Amendment Petition to Limit Speech of Conservative Talkers

If I had the petition signers' names, there would be multiple morons of the day today.  Watch and groan.

Stupid Government Trick: Lottery Winner Gets Food Stamps

Here is another story from our entitlement culture:

Hate Crime: Saudi Woman Spits on Fellow Customer at Walmart

I am not a fan of hate crime enhancements.  What this woman did was awful, but it should not be a felony.



More on the story from The Blaze.

High School Soccer Trick Play

I am not a soccer fan, but this is fun:

Kentucky v. King: Welcome to the Police State

In Kentucky v. King, the United States Supreme Court continued the judicial encroachment on our fundamental freedoms. here are the facts from the court's syllabus:

Police officers in Lexington, Kentucky, followed a suspected drug dealerto an apartment complex. They smelled marijuana outside anapartment door, knocked loudly, and announced their presence. As soon as the officers began knocking, they heard noises coming from the apartment; the officers believed that these noises were consistent with the destruction of evidence. The officers announced their intent to enter the apartment, kicked in the door, and found respondent andothers. They saw drugs in plain view during a protective sweep of the apartment and found additional evidence during a subsequent search. The Circuit Court denied respondent’s motion to suppress the evidence, holding that exigent circumstances—the need to pre-vent destruction of evidence—justified the warrantless entry.

The apartment the police entered did not contain the drug dealer they were chasing. But after entry, the police charges these folks who were simply in their own apartment.

The court called this warrantless entry "objectively reasonable."  Really?

Moron of the Day: Steve Israel (D-NY)

Rep. Steve Israel (D-NY), the chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, prove that the Democratic party lacks the slightest clue about economics. Re. Israel said, yest actually said, that raising taxes on oil companies will lower gas prices. That's right, higher taxes will lower gas prices.

Here is a transcript:

CHRIS JANSING, MSNBC HOST: "Let me ask you is there anything Congress can do to lower fuel prices?"

REP. STEVE ISRAEL (D-NY): "Yeah, there's lots of things we can do. Start by eliminating the $4 billion subsidy that big oil companies get."

JANSING: "They say, Congressman, they say that will not affect the price of gas."

ISRAEL: "Well, of course they're going to say that. They're getting the subsidies. It doesn't surprise me that a bunch of rich oil executives would go to Congress and say 'don't touch our subsidies, you have to lower our taxes.' That's a self-serving argument. It is just ludicrous that we are continuing to provide $4 billion a year in subsidies to big oil companies that are making more profits than they've ever made. And the notion that we can end Medicare in order to fund tax cuts and tax subsidies to oil companies is really transforming this election and electoral battleground."

This guy is really a moron if he believes higher taxes on oil companies will lower gas prices. He may be even dumber than Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-OH). Hard to believe. the rest of his straw man argument is pure demagoguery.

Congratulations to Steve Israel, today's Moron of the Day.

(By the way, I agree with eliminating the depletion allowance for oil companies, the misnamed "subsidy" to which our Moron of the Day refers. However it is talking-point madness to suggest that the elimination of tax breaks would cause lower oil prices. Of course, I think we should replace the entire tax code with the Fair Tax, eliminating all tax breaks in the income tax.)

Medicare Reform Video from Center for Freedom and Prosperity

I offer these videos from the Center for Freedom and Prosperity, because they are uniformly well-reasoned and thought provoking. This one is no exception, especially in the wake for Newt Gingerich's stumbling on Sunday's Meet the Press in which he criticized Paul Ryan's plan. Newt proved himself to be a big government politician, just not quite as big government as Barack Obama. Whoop-de-doo. That is not saying much. I'll say again, Good-bye, Newt.

David Evans Must Read, From Former Global Warming Alarrmist

Here is the teaser:

The whole idea that carbon dioxide is the main cause of the recent global warming is based on a guess that was proved false by empirical evidence during the 1990s. But the gravy train was too big, with too many jobs, industries, trading profits, political careers, and the possibility of world government and total control riding on the outcome. So rather than admit they were wrong, the governments, and their tame climate scientists, now outrageously maintain the fiction that carbon dioxide is a dangerous pollutant.

You know you want to read it all. Read it in the Financial Post (Canada).

Land of the Formerly Free

The 2011 Heritage Freedom Index is out, and the United States is barely in the top ten.

Read it and weep.

Allen West Exposes Obama Corruption and Ineptitude

A draft executive order would require people making proposal to the Department of Defense contractors to disclose their political contributions. The Obama official shown makes the claim that political contributions will never be a basis for selection. He is either a liar or stupidly naive. No responsible person in Washington could make that claim, It does not pass the straight face test. Why is he here, anyway?

Watch:



There is no reason to have anything in a contractor's request for proposal that will not be considered in the selection process.

Requiring contractors to disclose political contribution is an invitation to corruption. Nay, it exposes just how corrupt the Obama administration has become.

State v. Barnes: Government Takes Away Another Freedom

In State v. Barnes, the Indiana Supreme Court overturned 800 years of settled law to find, "We hold that there is no right to reasonably resist unlawful entry by police officers."

That is right. In Indiana, police officers now may enter your home illegally, and you can't resist.

One's home is no longer one's castle, at least not in Indiana.

Ohio still recognizes that a person has a right to resist an unlawful entry, and suggests that the right to refuse an unlawful entry is guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution (which is supposed to apply even in Indiana): State v. Holmes (9th Dist App.), 2005-Ohio-1632:

{¶16} The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution confers the right to refuse consent to enter a residence, and the assertion of that right cannot be a crime. State v. Robinson (1995), 103 Ohio App.3d 490, 496 (characterizing the right to resist an unlawful entry as a privilege sufficient to defeat obstruction charge). See, also, Ohio Const. Section 14, Article I. In the present case, the police officers admittedly forced the entry into the home, without justification of either a warrant or any exigent circumstance. Facially, this is an unlawful entry giving rise to a privilege to resist such an entry.

{¶17} Similarly, because the Ohio statute does not prohibit resisting an unlawful arrest under such circumstances, it follows that it will not per se prohibit resisting an unlawful entry. Elyria v. Tress (1991), 73 Ohio App.3d 5, 9 (reversing conviction for resisting arrest when police forced entry through defendant's door). See, also, State v. Cummings, 9th Dist. No. 20609, at *13-14, 2002-Ohio-213 (affirming the suppression of evidence obtained after a similar forced entry). Therefore, if we are to follow our prior holdings, we must conclude that the State failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt a necessary element of the crime of which Mr. Holmes was convicted, i.e., lawfulness of the officer's entry and absence of privilege. In re Winship (1970), 397 U.S. 358, 364, 25 L.Ed.2d 368.

There is an interesting discussion of State v. Barnes at The Volokh Conspiracy in the comments section. On commenter quotes an Indiana statute that specifically authorizes resistance to an unlawful entry. I guess the court simply magically created a exception for unlawful entry by police.

Any police entry by force causes me serious concern, both for the occupant and for the police. If the police do the right thing and announce themselves as police before entering sometimes violently, how is the homeowner to know it is really the police? How do they know it is not home invaders claiming to be police?

I know of arrests witnessed by people whose observations I trust. Aside from the automobile stop alongside the road, there is usually no good reason for a violent arrest tactic when the offender is not resisting. Unnecessary violence creates resistance, doesn't it? In more cases than not, the alleged offender will show up voluntarily at the police station just to avoid a violent arrest. I understand concerns for police safety, but there must be a better way than police exercising violent to arrest a passive alleged offender. It gives police a bad reputation, I think.

Good-Bye Newt Gingerich; Newt Responds

Here is a really good reason to forget Newt Gingerich as a candidate, from Meet the Press yesterday:

“Well, I agree that all of us have a responsibility to pay--help pay for health care,” said Gingrich. “And I think that there are ways to do it that make most libertarians relatively happy. I've said consistently we ought to have some requirement that you either have health insurance or you post a bond or in some way you indicate you're going to be held accountable.”

He thinks that is going to make libertarians happy? In what universe? Not this one.

Newt is endorsing the individual mandate. That shows he is really just another big government type. Bad medicine.

Newt Gingerich for president? A definite and resounding NO from the Voice of Reason.

Update: Newt Responds:



Really? How can anyone explain the inconsistencies with yesterday's statement and for his 1993 support for an individual mandate (reported at CNS News)? When politicians say different things at different times to different people, color me suspicious.

Obama, A President Lost in Space

Where did the Democrats ever find this guy?

President Obama responds to a woman who was laid off from her government job: "Let me just first of all say that workers like you, for the federal, state, and local governments, are so important for our vital services. And it frustrates me sometimes when people talk about 'government jobs' as if somehow those are worth less than private sector jobs. I think there is nothing more important than working on behalf of the American people."

I don't know how you could get anymore wrongheaded. It is only private employment that generates the taxes that permits government jobs to exist. Of course government jobs are worth less than private jobs. Far too many government jobs exist at all. We need to focus on eliminating government jobs.

This is a government-uber-alles president.

On a related note, it is altogether wrong to ask what government agencies can be eliminated. We should instead ask what government agencies do we need to keep.

Chris Christie Responds to Evolution Question

Gotta love it!

From Fox Nation:

JERSEY CITY - Gov. Chris Christie refused to comment when asked if he believes in evolution or the theory of creationism when asked at a press conference earlier today.

"That's none of your business," Christie said.

He is right, of course. Even if he were a candidate for president, he would still be right. It is none of our business.

I don't care what President Obama thinks about that question either.

Lawyers and Justice

This is an interesting discussion from a PBS program "The Open Mond" about 30 years ago. This dicussion is about justice and the law. It is about our system and about the lawyers role in seeking the truth ... or not. It presents issues as fresh today as when originally broadcast. By presenting this video, I do not necessarily agree with everything Judge Frankel says, but it is extremely thought-provoking and highly recommended for anyone seeking justice from the law and from the courts:

Watch the full episode. See more The Open Mind.

Obama Running for Reelection?

The voters would have to be out of their minds to want to reelect Mr. Obama.



Of course the opponent matters.

Mitt Romney? Ecchh. Mr. Romeneycare, too similar to Obamacare. Loser.

Mike Huckabee? Anyone who supporte Michelle obama's federal child obesity initiative lack a proper understanding of federalism. Fighting obesity is not the job of Federal government on the taxpayer's dime. No, thank you.

Herman Cain? We love what we know about him so far.

More to come ....

Eat The Rich

This is also the title of a wonderful book by P.J. O'Rourke.

I like Herman Cain

I am not alone. This is a South Carolina Republican focus group, not a bi-partison group:



Note: I am not ready to endorse anybody, but I really like what he has to say and his experience.

"Natural Born Citizen" Before the Fourteenth Amendment

I quote here from a United States Supreme Court case, 1847, discussing the citizenship of a child who is born in the United States of a British citizen father and United States citizen mother:

4. The plaintiff in error being of legeance to the crown of England, his child, though born in the United States during its father's temporary residence therein,-twenty-two months and twenty days,-notwithstanding its mother be an American citizen, is not a citizen of the United States. It is incapacitated by its infancy from making any present election, follows the legeance of its father, partus sequitur patrem, and is a British subject. The father being domiciled and resident within the dominions of her Britannic Majesty, such is also the proper and rightful domicil of his wife and child, and he has a legal right to remove them thither. The child being detained from the father, its natural guardian and protector, without authority of law, the writ of habeas corpus ad subjiciendum is his appropriate legal remedy for its restoration to him from its present illegal detention and restraint; Constitution United States, art. 3, 2; Judiciary Act, 1789, 11; Inglis v. Trustees Sail. Snug Harb., 3 Pet., 99; 7 Anne, cap. 5; 4 Geo. 3, cap. 21; Warrender v. Warrender, 2 Cl. & F., 523; Story Confl. L., 30, 36, 43, 74, 160; Shelf. Marriage, Ferg., 397, 398.

Barry v. Mercein (1847), 46 U.S. 103, 46 U.S. 103 (How.)(Footnote 4).

Of course this rule of law as to citizenship of the child changed with the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, but it illustrates that a "natural born citizen" as used in Article II, Section 1 of United States Constitution when it was adopted excluded a child to a father who was a British subject, even though the child was born in the United States. The child had to be born with fealty to the United States alone.

Of course it will ultimately be up to the Supreme Court (eventually) to decide whether under the Fourteenth Amendment a "natural born citizen" is fully equivalent to a "born citizen" who may be born with dual allegiance. Stated differently, is sole allegiance to the United States at birth the determiner of "natural born citizen?" Or did the Fourteenth Amendment change that requirement?