Wednesday, September 21, 2016

The snake among us

It’s interesting how history has placed the right person in the right place for the right job. Ronald Reagan wanted to be president in 1976, but it was not yet his time. It’s amazing how different the circumstances were four years later and the rest, as they say, is history.

The inability or unwillingness of President Obama to understand and act upon domestic terrorism is one of the driving factors behind the recent Trump surge.

Trump has become fond of reading the lyrics from the song “The Snake,” which was written by the late Oscar Brown, Jr. It’s based on one of Aesop’s fables and tells the story of a woman who takes in a half-frozen snake she found by the side of the road and nurses it back to health only to have the snake turn on her once he’s healthy and kill her with a venomous bite. The snake, of course, represents the terrorists we’re taking in through our ill-conceived refugee program.

Trump gets it. The premise is so simple and rings so true that most Americans get it, too. Ironically, the family of Oscar Brown, Jr. doesn’t. They want Trump to stop using his lyrics. But the story so succinctly incapsulates the times in which we’re living. Obama is that woman. He’s in such denial that he couldn’t even utter the word “terrorism” in connection with the recent bombings and stabbings in New York, New Jersey, and Minnesota. 

Obama claims there’s no connection between the attacks, but there is one obvious and undeniable link. ISIS. For months now, they have been urging followers across the globe to embark on acts of terrorism wherever they live. No one is off limits, according to ISIS, if they turn away from their radical worldview. 

Even when Obama does utter the word “terrorism,” he refuses to use it in the same neighborhood as “Islamic.” However, he’s fond of referring to the current band of barbarians terrorizing the Middle East and Europe as ISIL. The subtle difference is worth noting. ISIS stands for Islamic State of Iraq and Syria. ISIL stands for Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. That takes in a much bigger swath of the Middle East including Syria, Lebanon, Palestine, Jordan, and, yes, Israel. This difference is totally ignored by the media. It gives ISIS credit for having influence over a much larger area.

For someone who refuses to say “radical Islamic terrorism,” Obama is saying it every time he mentions ISIL. Not matter if you call them ISIS or ISIL, there’s one commonality. Islamic State. If Obama doesn’t believe the terrorists are truly Muslim, why does he keep referring to them as the Islamic State? If he doesn’t believe the terrorists are truly Muslim, why does he insist on accommodating occupants of Gitmo with Qurans and halal, the Muslim diet?

Obama brags that he’s ahead of schedule in allowing refugees into this country. He wants to bring in another 110,000 next year. We know that ISIS controls several passport offices in Syria. That fact alone makes it clear that we have no way of safely vetting refugees from that country. The FBI has made that clear. We simply don’t know who’s who, yet Obama and Hillary refuse to see the problem for what it is. The American people are starting to see, and Trump’s surge is indicative of it.

The snake has been taken in by naive nations across Europe that ignore its true intention and believe they’re being compassionate. Now, the snake is here, and there’s only one man who’s willing to kill it.


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





Wednesday, September 14, 2016

The fog that surrounds Hillary Clinton

Imagine if Donald Trump left an event, suddenly was unable to stand, and was dragged into a waiting car and whisked away. Instead of going to the hospital, the car drove him home where he rested and emerged later as if nothing had happened. What do you think the mainstream media would do? 

Such an event would be disturbing, to say the very least.

The circumstances surrounding Hillary Clinton’s 9/11 health emergency are so bizarre that one is left wondering what is really going on. The obfuscation by the Clinton camp is now so routine that nothing they present as the truth is believable.

For weeks, we were told that any questions surrounding Hillary’s health were merely conspiracy theories cooked up by the ‘alt-right,’ whatever that’s supposed to be. The morning of 9/11, those conspiracy theories suddenly had credence. Even the big networks couldn’t ignore the obvious, but they quickly reset to their default mode of denial. 

Here’s what we know. Something is wrong with Hillary. What’s wrong is left to speculation since the Clinton campaign continues to cover its tracks. I have been hesitant to join the speculation, but just take a look at the video of Hillary leaving the 9/11 commemoration ceremony. Why did only one camera capture her departure? I’m being told that the media following her were prohibited from following her out of the event. That, in and of itself, should raise suspicion.

What immediately struck me while watching the video is how routine the whole episode seemed. The Secret Service and Hillary’s staff appeared not at all alarmed. Again, imagine if that were Donald Trump. There would be absolute panic if he were unable to board the vehicle under his own power. At the very least, the car would’ve headed immediately to the emergency room.

Instead, the Secret Service seemed to fall into a routine pattern. Two of them lifted her off her feet into the waiting vehicle while the rest closed ranks to block out prying eyes. Obviously, they had seen this all before. The only person on the scene who seemed panicked was a New York City cop who rushes toward the van as Hillary collapses. Everyone else is as nonchalant as if she just left an event normally.

She has a history of fainting at events going back as far as 2005. The circumstances surrounding her concussion are still murky. Again, it’s blamed on a virus and being dehydrated. Why would she fall so hard as to cause a concussion and double vision? As the Daily Mail put it, “Hillary’s shielded medical history is no longer just for conspiracy theorists as her ‘penchant for privacy’ gets serious scrutiny.”

The mainstream media seemed jilted by the 9/11 event, asking why the campaign lied to them. They have to ask?

Hillary’s entire life has been shrouded in inexplicable excuses and stories that turned out to be outright lies. For example, her marriage to a serial woman abuser, and her desperate attempts to destroy any woman who came forward with accusations. Her odd—and illegal—use of a private server while secretary of state. The unbelievable number of meetings while in that office with direct donors to the Clinton Foundation. The missing e-mails. The classified information that was loosely handled by her and her staff. 

Now speculation swirls around her very ability to physically endure the office of the presidency while getting to the real story is, again, made nearly impossible. Whether Hillary is up to the task is beside the point. Now it’s simply a matter of trust.

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




Wednesday, September 7, 2016

Eric Trump's unanswered question

Eric Trump, the son of presidential candidate Donald Trump, asked an obvious question of the Clintons that the mainstream media seem determined to ignore. “What product were they selling to make $150 million?” he asked. It’s an interesting question. The wealth of most people can be traced to something tangible. There’s no such trail leading back to the Clinton wealth.

Courtesy: TheFederalist.com
It’s now obvious to most everyone that the product the Clinton’s have long peddled is influence. Dick Morris told me that while in office they used money to buy influence. Now they use influence to make money.

Hillary Clinton had a private e-mail server for one purpose. To hide the tracks of the dealings of the Clinton Foundation. Like a UV lamp at a crime scene, we now clearly see the footprints leading from the State Department to the Clinton Foundation and back again, over and over. More than half of the private citizens Hillary met with at State had made donations to her Foundation. What are the chances that people meeting with any government official would, more than half the time, give to the very same charity? I’d love to have a Vegas oddsmaker run those odds.

Bill Allison, a senior fellow with the government watchdog group the Sunlight Foundation, tells the New York Post, “It seems like the Clinton Foundation operates as a slush fund for the Clintons.” It’s not a direct charity, per se, rather it’s a pass-through, a conduit for other so-called charities to receive donations, like Al Sharpton’s much-maligned National Action Network. 

And there’s the impropriety. Hillary signed off on a deal while secretary of state that allowed a Russian company to control one-fifth of our uranium output in the U.S. That was after a principal in a Canadian company that was sold to the Russians gave $130 million to the Clinton Foundation.

The ‘charity’ is also top-heavy in administrative expenses and short on real giving. According to their IRS filing in 2013, they brought in $149 million that year and disbursed only $9 million to charities. 

The Clinton’s are lauded for their generous charitable giving, as gleaned from their tax returns. The problem is the charity they’re giving to is their own. Ninety-six percent of their donations went to their own charity. They not only reap the tax benefits from giving to it, they travel first class on its dime. But it’s even worse than that. 

According to the Washington Times, the little they gave to other charities came back to them in spades. For example, the Clintons gave $42,000 to a charity called the Desert Classic Charities. That charity then wrote a check to the Clinton Foundation for $700,000. Sounds like Hillary’s cattle futures windfall all over again.

All the while Hillary plays dumb on the whole server scandal. She claimed not to know what the marking ‘C’ on her e-mails meant. Instead of meaning ‘classified,’ she claimed to the FBI that she thought it referenced paragraphs in alphabetical order, despite the fact that there was no ‘A’ or ‘B’ or any other letter of the alphabet marked on the e-mail. She said she’d never received any training on how to handle classified material, but signed documents prove otherwise. And don’t forget she was intimately familiar with classified material as a United States senator.

She claimed that all work-related e-mails were turned over, but they keep popping up.

So, we’re back to Eric Trump’s question. What product is Hillary Clinton selling? The answer is obvious. Herself, and to the highest bidder.


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








Wednesday, August 31, 2016

San Fran QB is a champion of the wrong cause

The whole issue of San Francisco 49ers quarterback Colin Kaepernick not standing for the national anthem should not surprise anyone. This has been coming for a long time. It’s the product of a divider-in-chief and his willing accomplices in the media.

Let’s look at Kaepernick’s supposed beef with America. He believes black men are being gunned down indiscriminately in the streets by white cops. Why does he believe this? Because the president takes every opportunity to harp on it and the media cherry pick every case of unarmed black men being shot by police and act as if it’s the norm. It’s not.
Kaepernick wearing t-shirt with Castro
and Malcolm X with the caption
'Like minds think alike'

First of all, police shootings of innocent people are extremely rare. Yes, police do occasionally make a mistake. I’m not here to excuse that. What I’m here to do is set the record straight on police shootings in general and race.

Here are the true statistics. In 2015, 50 percent of the fatal shooting victims by police were white, while 26 percent were black. This according to statistics compiled by The Washington Post. What needs to be noted is the vast majority of these ‘victims’ had a gun and were threatening the police.

Before you jump to a conclusion about percentages, it’s important to note that blacks commit roughly 62 percent of the robberies and 57 percent of the murders. Taken in that context, blacks are less likely to be shot by police in relation to the crimes they commit. In other words, white folks are far more likely to be shot by police, especially considering their relatively low crime rate.

Kaepernick is basically a victim of the disinformation machine coming from the left. That’s not to let him off the hook. It’s to explain, possibly, why he’s acting as he is.

Of course, there’s always the possibility that he sees the handwriting on the wall and knows his days in San Francisco are numbered. Perhaps he’s trying to create a controversy around which it would be hard for the 49ers to cut him. But he should be cut because of the controversy.

Everyone wants to talk about Kaepernick’s right to voice his opinion. How about the 49ers’ right to fire him because he’s becoming a circus side show? Their only goal on any given Sunday is to win games. Can you imagine what the season will be like when every eye is on Kaepernick to see if he’ll stand for the national anthem? The questions in the locker room won’t be about the win or the loss but about what the other players think of Kaepernick’s stand.

And his cause will surely spread like a cancer throughout professional sports to other athletes equally ignorant of the facts. There is no more fertile ground for the left than those who are completely in the dark. Elucidation is the antidote to liberalism.

Instead of blaming cops for protecting us, how about if Kaepernick were to focus on the real problem? It’s unconscionable that blacks—predominately black males—are committing over half the murders. The other half of that startling statistic is their victims, over 90 percent of the time, are black.

The issue can be traced to the destruction of the black family. Over 70 percent of black kids today are born to a single mother. Broken homes are breeding grounds for crime, no matter the race.

Kaepernick’s mother gave him up for adoption so that he would have a better home than she could provide as a single mother. If Kaepernick really wants to change the world, his own story would be a good start. 

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









Tuesday, August 30, 2016

Trump to black voters: 'What the hell do you have to lose?'

For the last fifty years, ever since the mass exodus of the black vote, Republicans have grappled with one question: How do they get the black vote back? It took Donald Trump, in his no-nonsense style, to approach black voters from the obvious angle. Donald Trump asked blacks, “What the hell do you have to lose?”

Of course, he was excoriated by the mainstream media. Jennifer Rubin, the Washington Post’s best effort at a ‘conservative’ voice, tried futilely to answer Trump’s question. All she could come up with was that Trump had overdramatized the problem in the so-called black community and that he was ignoring “legitimate complaints in the African-American community about policing.” Complaints in the black community about policing are not legitimate. Study and study proves that innocent blacks are not being gunned down by police at a greater rate than any other segment of society.

For nearly the first 100 years of the Republican Party, the vast majority of blacks were Republican. Many fault Barry Goldwater’s nomination as the party’s standard-bearer in 1964 as the reason for the exodus, but it actually started long before that. FDR got 71 percent of the black vote in 1936. That was the beginning of the welfare state as we know it. Eisenhower was able to pull some of the black vote back to the Republicans in the ‘50s, but the Civil Rights Act cemented Democrat support by black Americans.

However, it wasn’t the reality that forever changed the voting demographics, it was what the media now love to call the ‘optics.’ The image of LBJ shaking the hand of Martin Luther King, Jr. after signing the Civil Rights Act into law is indelibly etched in the minds of all Americans. The truth is something far different. LBJ fought hard against the 1957 Civil Rights Act. Then-Senator John F. Kennedy voted to table the measure instead of bringing it to a vote. The Republicans provided the majority of the 60 votes needed to pass it in 1964, but their efforts have forever been forgotten thanks to the ‘optics’ and the efforts of the mainstream media to rewrite history.

Here’s the truth. A greater percentage of Republicans in both the House and Senate voted for the Civil Rights Act than did Democrats. Far more Democrats voted against it. After all, this was the slavery party, the party that spawned the KKK, and the party that gave us Jim Crow laws. All of the segregationists of the ‘50s and ‘60s were Democrats. Lyndon Johnson deserves much credit for pushing the legislation through, but were his efforts genuine? What’s not in dispute is that LBJ was a dyed-in-the-wool racist. He was fond of using the N-word and saw the Civil Rights Act as a way to placate blacks in America and bring them over to the Democrat Party.

Former Washington Post reporter, Ron Kessler, quotes LBJ as saying, “I’ll have those niggers voting Democratic for the next 200 years.” Kessler says the remark was made to two Southern governors aboard Air Force One. Many journalists dispute this account but two things are certain. Kessler is a journalist of impeccable credentials, and LBJ was a known racist.

Whatever the motivation, the damage was done. Blacks have now certainly left the party of Lincoln. Since the advent of the Great Society, the illegitimacy rate in the black community has gone from 7 percent to 73 percent. The black poverty rate has only marginally improved.

Trump’s question is a good one, and one for which Democrats have no answer.


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







Wednesday, August 17, 2016

Are we as divided as the media portray us?

Carolina Panthers QB Cam Newton tells GQ we’re beyond race, as a nation. The release of the interview happened to coincide with the burning of Milwaukee over the shooting of a black thug by a black police officer. In light of all the Black Lives Matter violence, is Cam right?

I think he is.


That’s hard to jibe with what’s happening in many cities across the nation, but it’s not when it’s put into perspective. Despite the Divider-in-Chief in the White House, I truly believe people are sick and tired of hearing about race. The very fact that we have a black president should be evidence enough that we’re over it. The only ones obsessed with race are the media and the liberals. Their reasons are now obvious. They thrive on division. The liberals have nothing else to stoke their base. The media have nothing else to draw viewers. When cities like Milwaukee burn, people tune in to cable news in droves.

And it’s not because we’re particularly obsessed with race. It’s the traditional fascination we humans have with disaster, any disaster. That’s why CNN milked the Malaysian airlines crash long past when it was either relevant or decent. The heart of any good story is conflict and racial conflict is just easier to conjure up.

Understand that Black Lives Matter was totally manufactured by cable news and social media sites. The movement was getting no traction whatsoever until the liberals who run both decided to make it important. The BLM Manifesto that was released recently exposes the movement for what it really is. It’s a limited number of malcontents who somehow still believe they’re owed something from white America.

News flash: We’re over you. And by ‘we’ I mean all Americans, of all colors.

We’re sick of the whining. We’re sick of the division. We’re sick of little weenies with service monkeys frantically searching for a safe space. We’re sick of political correctness and race pimps like Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson. We’re just sick of the whole mess.

As football season approaches, nothing proves this point better than our rabid love — or hatred — for the players and the teams. Our passion is color-blind. If you’re a Panthers fan, you love Cam Newton, I don’t care what color you are. If you’re a fan of a rival, then you think he’s a cocky SOB who got his comeuppance at the last Super Bowl.

You have to be a die-hard Browns fan to not think Johnny Manziel is a complete idiot. And now that he’s left Cleveland, you’ll be hard-pressed to find a fan of any color.

The Olympics are always a welcome reminder that race doesn’t matter. The only colors we cheer for are red, white, and blue. OK, I may have celebrated the green, black, and gold of Jamaica when Usain Bolt crossed the finish line in the 100 meter. Yeah, I know he’s cocky, but there’s just something about him.

We don’t celebrate race at the Olympics (unless you’re a leftist member of the media). We celebrate excellence. There are no quotas. There are no set-asides or affirmative action. It simply comes down to who is the best. What a beautiful thing. Unless, of course, you’re one of those weenie parents who thinks everybody should get a trophy. There’s gold, silver, and bronze. That’s it.

I even saw a guy disqualified for literally jumping the gun in a race. Four years of training and he’s sent packing in one second. And he was black! Where’s Al Sharpton when we need him?

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








Tuesday, August 16, 2016

Media drop pretense about liberal bias

Jim Rutenberg, a columnist for the New York Times, has finally let the cat out of the bag. As if we didn’t know the mainstream media are in the tank for the Democrats, especially Hillary Clinton, Rutenberg laid it all on the line. He summed up Donald Trump as someone playing to our darker tendencies of racism and nationalism. He addressed America’s journalist with this admonition: “If you view a Trump presidency as something that’s potentially dangerous, then your reporting is going to reflect that. You would move closer than you’ve ever been to being oppositional.”

Rutenberg’s wild rantings against Trump sound strangely familiar. Saying “that he would be dangerous with control of the United States nuclear codes” sounds just like the hysteria leveled against Ronald Reagan back when it looked like he might take down perhaps the most inept presidency in American history. Reagan was a cowboy, a wild man, a lunatic with his finger on the button.

Now, let me say, Donald Trump is no Ronald Reagan, but he’s just as dangerous to the liberal agenda as Reagan was. Back in Reagan’s day, the economy was in shambles. Today, our economy is certainly not as bad as 1979, but it’s the socialist policies of Barack Obama that make this the worst economic recovery in our history. 

Trump’s policies would change that.

He would lower taxes across the board, which has stoked the economy every time it’s been tried. He would lower the corporate tax from 35 percent to 15 percent. That would undoubtedly stimulate industry and create jobs, but it doesn’t punish those evil corporations as the liberals would like.

He wants to stop the endless stream of illegals coming up from Mexico. That has been the one issue that has resonated with the American people. Both Democrats and Republicans have been afraid to run on it for the presidency for fear of alienating the Hispanic vote. Trump saw it for the national security and economic stabilization issue it is. What liberals see coming up from the border is an endless stream of votes. They see another group of people they can trap on government dependence and blackmail with welfare programs, ensuring Democrat rule in perpetuity.

Mr. Rutenberg at the Times is scared to death that Donald Trump is getting ready to destroy their plan to establish a liberal caliphate in America. He offered as evidence of Trump’s unfitness for office media manufactured stories like Trump’s supposed “fight with the family of a fallen American soldier.” Or Trump’s supposed enticement of Russia “to meddle in a United States presidential election by hacking his opponent.”

Just for the record, asking if a Muslim, who openly advocates sharia law over U.S. constitutional law, allowed his wife to speak at the Democrat convention is not fighting with the family. It may have been a question better left unasked, but it was the question on everyone’s mind.

Trump also joked that the Russians had Hillary’s missing 30,000 e-mails and the media would surely reward them if they released them. The liberal media acted as if they didn’t get the joke, instead accusing Trump of advocating a hack. Another ridiculous media fabrication.

But now we know the gloves are off. You can already see the hatchet stories all over the news. Donald J. Trump is the most dangerous man in America, according to the whacked-out libs in the media. They get in line behind Black Lives Matter and all the advocates of illegal aliens. If this is the crowd that’s most upset about a Donald Trump presidency, let’s do it.

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