Thursday, October 11, 2018

Where does #MeToo go after Kavanaugh?

I’m sitting here wondering how all of the pink hat ladies can reconcile the fact that they so opposed Justice Kavanaugh because of some unsubstantiated claim of sexual assault yet they turned out in droves to support Hillary Clinton who has a long history of covering up for an alleged predator. It does really make one question the sincerity of the movement. And to see Hillary herself in interviews day after day saying we have to believe the women. Not one interviewer confronted her with the ugly truth that she was in charge of “bimbo eruptions” while her husband was running for president and after he won.


The Democrats aren’t through with Brett Kavanaugh. They vow to impeach him if they take control of Congress. All the more reason that these people shouldn’t be anywhere near the keys of power. Someone needs to remind them that you can only be impeached for conduct while you’re in office. That goes for justices and presidents. In other words, they can’t reach back in the histories of Kavanaugh and Trump and remove them from office. Chances are if they ignore their own inconsistencies on sexual assault they’ll ignore the Constitution too.

I was told of a conversation with a drunk millennial recently. The night after Kavanaugh’s confirmation he insisted “the bastard is guilty.” When pressed on what he was guilty of he eventually had to confess that he hadn’t followed the story and didn’t really know what he was accused of. But whatever it was, he was guilty.

Both sides engage in this type of judgement against the other all too often. We all have our preconceived notions and we all make our assumptions. However, when it comes to something like sexual assault it is totally irresponsible to assume guilt. Should we #BelieveSurvivors? If they’re really survivors of sexual assault, sure. That’s the problem. We have no idea how many of these unsubstantiated claims are made up. We have no idea how many of these women screaming at senators claiming they’re “survivors” have actually survived anything. That’s not to diminish the horror that victims of sexual assault have gone through. Quite the contrary. Those who have been proven to be victims deserve our deepest sympathy and their attackers deserve our fiercest rage. But just claiming someone did something is not—and should not be—good enough for victim status.

If there’s one thing we’ve learned from the whole Kavanaugh circus it’s that there’s now a new standard when it comes to sexual assault. If you’re accusing a conservative, you’re automatically believed. If you’re accusing a liberal, then the burden of proof is on you. We saw this with Bill Clinton. We saw this in the midst of the Kavanaugh hearings with Rep. Keith Ellison. Here’s a guy with far more evidence against him than Kavanaugh, yet a lawyer from a law firm that gave $500,000 to Democrats says she could find no evidence against him.

The left tried to tell us that normal standards of proof didn’t apply to Brett Kavanaugh because this wasn’t a trial, it was a job interview. OK, let’s go with that. So you’re saying that anybody who applies for a job can be immediately disqualified if someone just accuses him of something?


When this #MeToo movement first started I joked with a female conservative activist friend of mine on the air about this being a conspiracy to silence men. She laughed. She’s not laughing any more. Make no mistake about it, this is a war against men. Specifically white men. No one should be silenced through false allegations.


Phil Valentine is the host of the award-winning, nationally syndicated talk radio show, 
The Phil Valentine Show.





Wednesday, October 3, 2018

More than Kavanaugh, this is for November

The Democrats insist that the confirmation proceedings surrounding Brett Kavanaugh are not a trial. They could not be more wrong. But it’s not a trial of Brett Kavanaugh. This is the trial of the Republican Party writ large. That’s why I went against the grain of many of those on my side of this issue to call for an FBI investigation even before Sen. Jeff Flake did. This is seen as capitulation by many. In actuality it’s a necessary step toward justice.

By noon on the day of the infamous dueling testimony of Dr. Christine Ford and Judge Brett Kavanaugh it was clear Kavanaugh’s nomination had taken a torpedo under the water line. To simply ignore Dr. Ford’s testimony or hope its impact would subside was folly. Her testimony was compelling. That’s not to say that the events as she described them were believable, but she, herself, was. How can that be? How can someone be lying and simultaneously believable? There are multiple explanations.

Some believe that something traumatic happened to Dr. Ford. Could it be something really did happen? If so, how could she so vividly remember the details of the layout of the inside of the house yet have no idea where the house was? I haven’t given up on the theory of false memory syndrome. We may never know. The inconsistencies of her testimony, however, did not erase the doubt about Brett Kavanaugh in many people’s minds.

Kavanaugh’s testimony was equally compelling. The left attacked him for being so forceful, but if you had been accused of the atrocious crimes he was accused of you would lash out too. Kavanaugh’s testimony may have tilted public opinion back toward him, but it did not undo the damage that had been done that morning by Dr. Ford’s testimony. So why is public opinion so important? Because this is not just about another seat on the Supreme Court. This is about November. And that’s why Republicans should not only have welcomed an FBI investigation, they should have insisted on one.

You lawyers know testimonial damage when you see it. Kavanaugh took a direct hit, and thus so did the Republican Party. When such damage is done you don’t simply clean up the debris and move on, you have to repair the damage.

What will an FBI investigation accomplish? If you’re a Republican you hope it accomplishes two things. First, it must corroborate what the Senate Judiciary Committee already uncovered. That being that Dr. Ford has one memory of the night in question, the witnesses she identified have an entirely different account. In other words, it’s not he said/she said, it’s she said/they said. The second thing the Republicans hope to accomplish is to get the FBI’s seal of approval stamped on the facts as we know them. Peter Strzok notwithstanding, the majority of Americans still have a tremendous amount of faith in the FBI.

The Democrats already are learning this can blow up in their faces. A recent poll in Missouri shows half the voters are now less likely to re-elect Democrat Claire McCaskill because of her opposition to Judge Kavanaugh. Her GOP opponent has slipped ahead by two points. In Tennessee, senate candidate Phil Bredesen is afraid to take a side. This is not quite going as the Democrats had envisioned.


If Republicans allow Lindsey Graham to make a point-by-point presentation of the FBI’s findings to the Senate just prior to the vote then this thing’s over. If several Democrats end up voting in favor of Judge Kavanaugh’s confirmation then so, perhaps, is November.




Phil Valentine is the host of the award-winning, nationally syndicated talk radio show, 
The Phil Valentine Show.




Wednesday, September 26, 2018

It's open season on men


The #MeToo movement has gotten out of hand. Brett Kananaugh’s accusers are to believed, but Rep. Keith Ellison’s accuser—with far more evidence—is totally ignored. Not only ignored by the same leftists who want to crucify Kavanaugh but by the complicit left-wing media.

Part of this is our fault. We allow the New York Times and the Washington Post to drive the narrative. CNN says it’s a hot story and we just go along. 

Let me tell you what’s a hot story. A sitting member of the Senate, Democrat Mazie Hirono from Hawaii, tells men to “shut up.” She said, “Guess who’s perpetuating all these actions. It’s the men in this country.” The men in this country? The left has long lectured the rest of us about profiling and stereotyping. Now we’re going to put all the men in one deplorable basket? It’s obvious how inflammatory that would be if a male member of the Senate had told all the women to just “shut up,” but how about saying that to all black people? Or all Hispanics?

We’re told not to stereotype, but that’s exactly what the #WeHateMen movement is doing.

I’m no psychologist, but I see a pattern with these liberal women who hate all men. Most are in relationships with a horrible guy, someone who’s treating them like dirt, and for some reason they stand there and take it. Hillary Clinton, Huma Abedin, and many other so-called feminists draw their anger from their personal relationships with men. Lord knows where Sen. Hirono’s anger comes from, but how would you like to be married to her?

In a piece for the Washington Post, Northeastern University professor of sociology, Suzanna Danuta Walters asked “Why can’t we hate men?” She said, “Maybe it’s time for us to go all Thelma and Louise on their collective butts.” In other words, it’s time to start killing men. She then tells men, “Don’t run for office. Don’t be in charge of anything. Step away from the power. We got this. We have every right to hate you. You have done us wrong.” Obviously another woman who’s been in a horrible relationship. It’s not hard to imagine the never-ending outcry if such a broad stereotype were ever applied to any other group. 

But enough is enough. It’s time for men—and the women who love them—to fight back.

Should we believe every woman who comes forward with an allegation of sexual abuse against a man? The leftists, like Sen. Kamala Harris, tell you yes. #BelieveSurvivors. The short answer is absolutely no. We should not automatically believe every woman who comes forward with an accusation. Need I remind you of the UVA gang rape accusation against the fraternity? Completely made up. Mattress Girl at Columbia? Made up. The Duke Lacrosse team gang-rape allegation? Made up. 

There are certainly many cases of men who abuse women. They are not the norm. Nobody I know condones such behavior. However, every woman who ever slept with Harvey Weinstein to get a part in his movies is not a victim. As his lawyer put it, he didn’t invent the casting couch.

The irony is such independent and powerful women choose to portray themselves as powerless victims when they do something despicable to advance their careers. Monica Lewinsky’s now a victim? Please.

The days of simply being able to step forward, levy an accusation, and destroy a man have got to come to a stop. The presumption of innocence is still a cornerstone of our judicial system. That doesn’t change just because you’re a man.


Phil Valentine is the host of the award-winning, nationally syndicated talk radio show, 
The Phil Valentine Show.

Tuesday, September 25, 2018

Politicizing Puerto Rico and Hurricane Maria

President Trump caught a lot of grief for questioning the mortality numbers out of Puerto Rico concerning Hurricane Maria. Politifact said Trump was wrong. Why? Because the death toll that curiously jumped from 64 to 2,975 is “based in science.” Based in science? How about a body count? It shouldn’t be that hard, but the estimate didn’t come from bodies in the ground. It came from an estimate conducted by George Washington University.


There’s an old joke that 67 percent of statistics are made up on the spot. There’s no doubt that the inflated numbers in Puerto Rico were designed to make this particular disaster “Trump’s Katrina.” What the left-wing media chose to ignore as they reported on the numbers they say are not in dispute is the malfeasance on the ground in Puerto Rico. Large pallets of supplies sent to help the hurricane victims sat rotting and never got to their intended destination. When Mayor Cruz appeared on TV with a ‘NASTY’ t-shirt the situation on the ground in Puerto Rico had undoubtedly turned political. This was her chance to do something for the ‘resistance.’ What she did was use her own people as pathetic pawns to score points against Trump.

At least CBS News reported that “donated food sent to Puerto Rico in the aftermath of Hurricane Maria were left to rot in a parking lot of a government facility.” They said, “about 10 containers filled with non-perishable supplies sat at the government facility for 11 months.” If the death toll in Puerto Rico is actually dramatically higher, it’s no doubt due to the ineptitude of the people on the ground tasked with distributing much-needed supplies.

The New York Times, which themselves put the death toll at 1,000, savaged the president for questioning the GWU numbers. They came up with 1,000, but if somebody else says it’s essentially three times that then, yeah, let’s go with that. Again, they take the numbers at face value without questioning them.

It’s only when you start to peel back the layers of the study that you find the flaws. The GWU study counted indirect deaths like people having trouble refilling prescriptions. Any increase in diabetes deaths over the prior year were blamed on the hurricane. One would assume under this methodology that if a plane went down carrying Puerto Rican refugees to Florida that number would be counted too. They even counted increases in suicide and Alzheimer’s disease!

The left is famous for taking unrealistic numbers at face value if they advance their cause. Who can forget the 97 percent consensus among climate scientists that humans are causing the earth to warm. That claim has been totally discredited numerous times but continues to be stated as fact by the left.

Congressman Steve King’s office did a study several years back trying to determine how many Americans are killed by illegal aliens. Through news reports and government statistics they arrived at 25 Americans per day, on average, killed by illegal aliens. The left-wing media went after King’s numbers with a vengeance. And I’m not saying they shouldn’t question them. They should, but they should also question numbers coming from the left. But they don’t.


As the saying goes, figures don’t lie, but liars figure. Both the right and left will continue to use statistics to further their cause. It’s up to us as consumers of this data to question everything, especially if the figures don’t pass the smell test. You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time.


Phil Valentine is the host of the award-winning, nationally syndicated talk radio show, 
The Phil Valentine Show.




Thursday, September 20, 2018

This ain't Obama's economy


It was 2016 when then-President Obama told us to forget about it. Manufacturing jobs are not coming back. Now they’re coming back and he’s out on the campaign trail taking credit for it. Remember when Obama said GDP growth would never top 3 percent again? There was never a quarter during his presidency when it did. In fact, he was the first president to never have a year of growth topping 3 percent. Now it’s at 4.1 percent. And now Obama’s trying to take credit for it.

In the meantime, the Democrat talking points have turned to the 25th Amendment. This is the amendment in the Constitution that gives the vice-president the power—with the consent of congress—to remove the president because he’s no longer mentally fit to hold office. Let me tell you something. With an economy booming like this, anybody who wants get rid of Trump is nuts. Maybe we should start proceedings against all these members of congress with Trump Derangement Syndrome. It has to be a clinical diagnosis by now. So many people have it.

I’ve told you before, if you’re expecting these crazy people on the left to go quietly into the night you’ve got another thing coming. The more successful Trump is, the more deranged they become. Here’s what we’re looking at. We’re looking at a distinct possibility that the economy does so well and so many people get off the government dole that the Democrats will never seize power again. They see November as possibly their last chance.

They don’t have the economy to run against, unless their only strategy is the feeble attempt to give Obama the credit. The only card they have left to play is ‘Trump is unstable.’ They can’t really point to domestic policy to make their case so they claim his foreign policy is reckless and dangerous and we have to get him out before he blows us all to kingdom come.

And then Kim Jong Un chimes in saying he’s planning on de-nuking before the end of Trump’s first term. So much for kingdom come.

Oh, but the tariffs are going to destroy the economy. So far, so good on that front. Economists tell us there aren’t any ill effects because of the tariffs. At least not yet. But we’re being mean to our allies. Our “allies” have been hosing us economically for decades. Remember when Trump was spatting with the EU over auto imports to the U.S.? And he put the tariffs on the EU automobiles? And remember when the EU threatened to tariff soybeans and everybody freaked out? Then Trump upped the ante and vowed to increase steel and aluminum tariffs and raise the auto tariffs even further. That European Commission goomer was on a plane to the White House so fast it would make your head spin. In the end, the European Union pledged to import more soybeans from the U.S. than before. That’s how you do it, son.

See, the United States is the biggest market for a lot of countries in the world. Germany is the third largest exporter to the U.S. and they drive that train at the EU. If Germany ain’t happy, nobody’s happy. And when you start to monkey with their car exports to the U.S. you can bet they light a fire under the European Commission to do something and do something quick.

China is the leading exporter to the U.S. followed by Canada. And you can bet those two will make a deal quick. Oh, but Trump’s crazy.


Phil Valentine is the host of the award-winning, nationally syndicated talk radio show, 
The Phil Valentine Show.


Wednesday, September 5, 2018

Losing R-E-S-P-E-C-T for the left

Aretha Franklin’s funeral may have set a record for the longest celebrity eulogy. There were heartfelt tributes to the Queen of Soul. There was a long list of celebrities who came to pay their respects. Then there were the controversial moments, like when one reverend seemed to move his hand too close to Ariana Grande’s breast. Jesse Jackson, of course, chose to turn the event political when he chastised the crowd for lining up to see Aretha yet not showing up at the polls in Michigan in the 2016 presidential election. He also recognized Maxine Waters for the “work” she’s done, which was taken to mean her tireless rants against President Trump.


Al Sharpton lectured Trump on showing some R-E-S-P-E-C-T when several days before on his television show he didn’t even know how to spell it.

The event was marred with the presence of known racist and anti-Semite Louis Farrakhan sitting on the stage with Bill Clinton, Jesse Jackson, and Al Sharpton. One can only imagine if David Duke had spoken at the funeral of a white singer.

But none of that drew even a peep from the family. It was the words of Rev. Jasper Williams, Jr. that drew gasps of horror. The reverend described children in a home without their father as “abortion after birth.” He told the crowd,”Black lives must not matter until black people start respecting black lives and stop killing ourselves.” A Franklin family member called the remarks “very, very distasteful.”

So, Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton bashing Trump from the pulpit and giving face time to one of the most famous racists of our time wasn’t distasteful, but a pastor urging black folks to stop killing each other was? It’s a sad commentary on where we are as a country.

First of all, Aretha’s funeral should’ve been about Aretha. The race-baiters and their divisive rhetoric should’ve been stopped at the door. The fact that the family allowed them to speak sullied the event. But if you’re purposely making it a political event by inviting lightning rod figures to speak then you shouldn’t be shocked by anything that’s said. And you certainly shouldn’t be shocked by someone naming the problem for what it is.

We have an epidemic of black-on-black crime in this country. Half of all murders are committed by primarily black males. Over 90 percent of their victims are also black. It’s easy for white folks to ignore the problem. Chances are it will never affect them, but part of our American family is hurting. It’s going to take the majority to change it. It’s not at all helpful when blacks themselves not only ignore the problem but are outraged by anyone who doesn’t.

Colin Kaepernick divides a country with his refusal to stand for our national anthem and is rewarded with a Nike ad. Why don’t we do this? Why don’t we start a dialogue on how to solve the problem? If you think the judicial system is racist and turning loose black convicts from prison until prisons looks like America is the solution then you obviously don’t understand the problem. And kneeling is not the solution. It’s actually part of the problem too. It’s whistling past the graveyard. 


Rev. Williams had the courage to speak the truth to a room full of people who weren’t ready to hear it, in front of men like Sharpton, Jackson, and Farrakhan whose rhetoric has largely contributed to the problem. And it’s Rev. Williams who’s the embarrassment? We have a long way to go.


Phil Valentine is the host of the award-winning, nationally syndicated talk radio show, 
The Phil Valentine Show.



Wednesday, August 29, 2018

Settling the impeachment question once and for all

Back during the Bill Clinton impeachment I was trying to cut through all the noise of whether what Clinton did was actually an impeachable offense. While everyone was debating it on television I actually went to the Department of Justice sentencing guidelines and looked it up. I knew that treason and bribery were specifically listed in the Constitution as impeachable offenses. It made sense to me that if perjury or suborning perjury were more serious than either of those then Clinton could be convicted. They both were. Bribery is a base offense level 8 in the sentencing guidelines. Perjury or subornation of perjury is a base offense level 14.

After pounding this on the air for several weeks I got a late-night phone call at home from then-Congressman Lindsey Graham. He was one of the House Managers charged with prosecuting Bill Clinton in the senate trial. He had heard about my theory and invited me to fly to Washington to address the House Managers. I did, and I explained that one only need look at what the Constitution specifically says is impeachable and then compare that with the Department of Justice Sentencing Guidelines to see if they have a case.

Despite the obvious, they assigned one of the lawyers assisting in the case to study it. By this point the impeachment trial had started. I had a ringside seat in the Marble Room of the Senate as this drama played out. I got a call the night before what would turn out to be the last day. It was the House lawyer and a Florida congressman on a conference call. This was several days after I’d made my pitch to the House Managers. The lawyer announced with some surprise that I was right. The congressman on the phone said he’d be making the point on the Senate floor the following day. 

I watched the next morning with great anticipation. This stood to be a historic moment. The congressman was given the floor and launched into some flowery pronouncement about the geese landing on the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool and the journey that had taken them to this moment. Before I knew it, he had droned on so long that his time had expired and he never made the point about the sentencing guidelines. Senator Trent Lott appeared in the Marble Room to announce to the House Managers that the trial was over. The Senate voted and, as you know, they fell short of the votes needed to convict.

Why do I tell you all of this now? Because the very same logic can be used to determine if anything President Trump has done is an impeachable offense. The lowest rung in the Constitution is bribery. As you now know, bribery has a base offense level of 8. What we’re hearing from the left is Mueller is going to charge the president with obstruction of justice. What exactly is that? Sentencing guidelines aren’t clear. Most suggest that obstruction is an aggravating circumstance to another crime. In other words, if you bribe someone then obstruct the investigation the guidelines say you should add another 2 levels. The best I can tell, obstruction of justice by itself is a base offense level 3.


Logic would dictate that there has to be an underlying crime for the president to even commit obstruction of justice. Since there’s no indication that he’s obstructing an investigation into his own crimes then the highest level for his obstruction would be a 3. That falls far short of an impeachable offense. But don’t tell the Never Trumpers.


Phil Valentine is the host of the award-winning, nationally syndicated talk radio show, 
The Phil Valentine Show.