Saturday, December 20, 2014

Hollywood's brave face

I have to say I'm disappointed. I had planned to go see the new Sony Pictures film The Interview on Christmas Day and now Kim Jong-un has ruined my Christmas. Thanks to the leaked script and some spoilers from folks who attended a sneak preview, it probably wasn't going to be all that anyway. Now everyone wants to see it just because they can't. It's human nature.

Something that puzzles me, and I heard it on both CNN and Fox News, is this notion that Sony should never have made this movie in the first place. What the heck is that supposed to mean? The folks who spout that nonsense don't elaborate. We're left to suppose that they mean Sony shouldn't be making fun of a sawed off, narcissistic dictator who thinks he's God. Quite frankly, the dude is ripe for the picking.

And what's up with the president, who can't get the stars of the movie straight (he called James Franco James Flacco), piling on Sony like they had a choice in pulling the movie? Look, when the top five movie chains say they're not going to show your movie, it's over. That's not to say that the movie can't come back at some later date but don't act like Sony Pictures is somehow a coward for scrapping the run.

The real cowards are in Hollywood. George Clooney tried to get a letter of solidarity with Sony signed by the major movers and shakers. There were no takers. Because the execs at Sony had made some Obama jokes in their e-mails, everyone else was afraid to be anywhere close to them, despite the fact that the very same attack could happen to them. They're so brave.

And to make matters worse, some theaters wanted to run the movie Team America instead. The movie, using "supermarionettes," makes fun of Kim's father, Kim Jong-il. Although it's unnecessarily crude, it is pretty darn funny. The weenies at Paramount Pictures put the kibosh on that. Funny. No condemnation from the Dalai Bama on that one.

OK, so the higher-ups at Sony were proved to be liberal hypocrites who make fun of a black president in private e-mails. Is this really such a shocker? I had a self-proclaimed Democrat tell me many years ago that she couldn't be a racist because every time she sees black folks her heart just breaks. No, dear, that's not racist. You're supposed to pity anyone who's not white. Reminds me of Wolf Blitzer's comment during Hurricane Katrina when he observed that many of the victims were "so poor and so black." You folks who are "so black" keep that in mind next time a liberal tells you they're here to help you.

Despite all that, we have been attacked by North Korea and probably little, if anything, will be done about it. Newt Gingrich said this was the first cyber war involving the United States and we lost. He's right.

It wouldn't surprise me if the Hollywood crowd, who ran and hid during the whole Sony cyber attack, doesn't give Sony Pictures a special medal of freedom award at the Oscars. It'd be just like 'em.

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

Boehner has to go

The recent budget fight was a case of Pork and Porkier. Democrats and Republicans alike piled on their pet spending as the budget reached the finishing line. There’s money to promote travel destinations like Las Vegas. Guess who put that one in there. Yep, soon to be senate minority leader, Harry Reid.

The bill fully funds the Export-Import Bank, a government agency that provides taxpayer-backed loans to corporations and foreign governments. The government has no business making such loans and this program should’ve ended long ago.

Probably the most egregious spending is for the DREAMer streamers and Obamacare, two issues the American people screamed at the top of their lungs about. This bill spend $948 million on unaccompanied illegal children coming to this country, something that should’ve been stopped instead of funded. It also fully funds Obamacare. The American people gave the Republicans the majority in Congress specifically to stop Obamacare. The GOP has had show vote after show vote repealing it in the house but everyone knew it was going nowhere in the senate. The only way to stop it is to defund it. 

The Republicans have now had a half-dozen chances to do just that and they’ve refused to do it. Why? Because of John Boehner. The GOP speaker is spineless. Worse, he works in conjunction with the free-spending liberals on the other side of the aisle to keep the gravy train rolling, and he may single-handedly bring the Republican Party to its knees.

It’s no secret that the Republicans lost the presidency in 2008 and 2012 because their base stayed home. Their base stayed home because it saw little difference between the Republican candidates and Barack Obama. This same base has been somewhat encouraged by the tea party Republicans who have been sent to Washington as reinforcements. However, these reinforcements do little to no good as long as Boehner is their general.

Boehner’s a is political animal. He’s been in Washington for 23 years and you’ll have to blast him out with a stick of dynamite. You’ve heard of Potomac Fever? Boehner has a terminal case. He’s destined to die in DC unless he’s defeated, and that’s not likely. The folks in his district in Ohio apparently like their congressman being the speaker. He won his last election with over 67 percent of the vote.

Where he’s vulnerable is in the house itself. He only won the speakership with 50.8 percent of the vote. That means about half the house doesn’t want him, including a good number of Republicans. He’s already been nominated by his party for this next term but there is a way to oust him even after he’s re-elected speaker.

The speaker can be removed by a resolution declaring the Office of Speaker vacant. If that happens, the speaker pro tempore becomes speaker. Right now that’s Congressman Kevin McCarthy. Would he be better than Boehner? Hard to be worse, but there’s no assurance that the maneuver would work. The tea party Republicans would also need some Democrats’ help and it’s unlikely they would trade in a RINO for a tea partier.

But something has to be done. If the Republicans continue to do pretty much what the Democrats would do then what’s the point? The Republicans were sent to Washington to dismantle Obamacare. That should be Job One. Instead, they seem to think we’ve all moved on. We haven’t. Elections have consequences. The consequence of the last election was no more Obamacare and amnesty. If Boehner doesn’t get that message then the Republicans need to replace him.

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

Wednesday, December 10, 2014

The women who cry rape

Ever heard of Lena Dunham? Don’t feel too bad. She’s huge with the artsy crowd. She’s created a television show for HBO called Girls but she’s about to become a household name for another reason. In her new bestseller, she apparently wrote an account of being ‘raped by a Republican’ in college. It’s also apparently not true.

Lena’s story is becoming the new refrain, unfortunately, with some women who’ve learned that crying rape months, if not years, after the fact is a way to either get even or get attention. And nobody questions it. Until now.

A reporter from actually went to Oberlin College where Dunham claims she was raped and interviewed dozens of people. He soon found that Dunham’s story was a complete fabrication. The damage done by such stories is not only incalculable to the person accused, it does unbelievable damage to the credibility of real rape victims. Feminists like Dunham are held up by the left as victims while the real victims become less discernible because of the false accusations.

You’ve probably heard of the University of Virginia gang-rape story by now. A woman who goes by “Jackie” told Rolling Stone magazine that she was taken on a date to a frat party, lured upstairs, and raped by seven pledges. Once a real journalist started asking questions they found that there was no person by that name at the fraternity, no one at the fraternity worked at the aquatic center as she had claimed, and there was no party at the frat house on the weekend she said the incident happened. In fact, the rape support group that had rushed to her side is now saying the story is falling apart.

That didn’t stop the University of Virginia from suspending all greek life on campus. Even now, they refuse to apologize saying that even if that particular rape didn’t occur it’s still a problem on campuses.

A lot of this stems from the California law that’s now sweeping the nation. This legislation has shifted the burden of proof in campus rape cases from the accuser to the accused. In other words, you’re guilty until you prove yourself innocent. Under the law, you have to verbally or physically affirm your consent and your consent has to be “ongoing” throughout the sexual encounter. Oh, and any use of alcohol negates your consent. 

That’s what Lena Dunham has latched onto. She admits using drugs and alcohol on the night of her alleged sexual encounter. She even admits to taking the guy back to her apartment. She says after the sexual encounter she started thinking that it just didn’t feel right and now she says it was rape. She identifies her rapist as a prominent campus Republican named Barry.

Oberlin has less than 3,000 students and, as John Nolte with Breitbart points out, “Republicans stand out like nuns on a football field” so it wasn’t too hard to find the “Barry” that Dunham was talking about. He tells National Review that “he has never met Dunham and had no relationship with her.” Doesn’t matter. Dunham is speaking to sell-out crowds about her horrible encounter and has become the poster child for date rape.

Meanwhile, the fraternity at UVA is preparing a lawsuit against Rolling Stone for the reckless article they published. The magazine apparently took “Jackie’s” story at face value, never bothering to interview any of the accused.

And this is where we’re heading with this ridiculous California law. There are unscrupulous women who have learned how to weaponize their vaginas. Everyone knows what rape is. It’s a horrific crime. But so is maliciously and falsely accusing someone of it. 

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

Friday, December 5, 2014

Professor says American Dream is a myth

A University of California, Davis professor has caused quite a stir by essentially saying that the American dream is a myth. We’ve always believed that America was special. That you could break out of your social status and be all that you could be. Not so, says Professor Gregory Clark. He says America has no higher rate of social mobility than medieval England.

Clark said he studied figures from the last 100 years but we’re not privy to those figures. He did single out illegal immigrants as being no more socially mobile than their parents but there’s a problem with using that group. First, the current avalanche of illegals is hardly 25 years old. The professor also doesn’t take into consideration the status of the illegal in the country he left. It’s hard to argue that they aren’t better off in America or so many wouldn’t have come. As to what happens to their children, they will certainly be at a disadvantage compared to legal immigrants. All the more reason we should insist people come to this country the right way.

He claimed black folks weren’t socially mobile, which is absurd if you’re looking at data over the last 100 years. With civil rights legislation and an awakening of the American conscience there’s no doubt that black citizens as a whole are much higher socially than they were 100 years ago. Is there a disproportionate number of blacks in poverty? Sure, but that’s another issue altogether. Government programs continue to trap too many blacks in poverty but there are far more rich black people than there ever has been in American history.

It is true that so much about us is shaped by our parents. The predominant deciding factor in which political party you’ll support is familial. There’s no question it’s harder to break that cycle but it’s done all the time, especially when it comes to social status. Even today we hear of people who are the first in their family to go to college. Most parents on the lower end of the economic spectrum strive to give their children a better life than what they had. That doesn’t mean it will always work out that way.

I would argue, however, that Americans, in general, have made fantastic strides in the last hundred years. I’ve been to third-world countries. Many citizens of these countries have hardly moved an inch from where their forebears were a century ago. Look at us as a country. Even the poorest live better than all but the richest citizens of a hundred years ago.

A study by the Heritage Foundation found that a typical household defined as poor by our government had a car, air conditioning, cable TV, a DVD player, an Xbox, a microwave, washer and dryer, ceiling fans, and a coffee maker. The study found poor Americans had more living space than average Europeans.

I suspect Professor Clark was trying to make a case that America never has been exceptional or extraordinary. That seems to be the modus operandi of many college professors. The data just don’t bear that out. Immigrants have been coming to this country for centuries because of the unique opportunity it offers. Those of us who are natives have several steps on the rest of the world just by being born here.

The professor is certainly right on one count. There’s no guarantee that you’ll break out of your parents’ social status. The difference in America is that you can. The opportunity exists for everyone. Whether or not you take advantage of it is up to you.

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

Wednesday, November 26, 2014

The Star of political correctness

You want to know how crazy this illegal alien issue is getting? The Indianapolis Star had to apologize for a Gary Varvel cartoon that ran in their paper depicting an illegal family coming through a dining room window. The father of the family sitting down for a Thanksgiving meal says, “Thanks to the president’s immigration order, we’ll be having extra guests this Thanksgiving.” 

The usual chorus of overly-sensitive boobs raised holy you-know-what and the executive editor published an apology. It’s really frightening how far these people have been able to scare common sense into a corner.
Maybe Varvel should’ve drawn a cartoon of illegals raping women or one of them killing families in drunk driving accidents. Perhaps he could show them executing people as MS-13 gang members or robbing convenient stores. Or, if that’s too insensitive, he could depict them stealing the job of an American worker by undercutting his salary.

Don’t get the wrong impression. I’m not saying that all illegal immigrants are inherently bad people but a disproportionate number of them are. Over two-thirds of the immigrants who come across our border from Mexico come legally. That’s a very important stat to remember. It’s the third who come illegally who are the problem and if twice as many come legally there’s bound to be a reason why some come illegally. The answer is many would not be allowed to come otherwise, either because of criminal records or terrorist ties or disease or some other reason that precludes them from coming the right way.

Allow me to lay some alarming figures on you from Citizens for Immigration Law Enforcement. In Los Angeles, 95 percent of all outstanding warrants for murder are for illegal aliens. Illegals cost taxpayers around $113 billion a year. The notion that the president’s new amnesty decree will make taxpayers out of 5 million illegals is a farce. Remember, half the people don’t pay income taxes to start with. About 40 percent actually make money at tax time through the Earned Income Tax Credit. Is there any doubt that the newly-minted ‘legal’ illegals will apply for EITC? That means even more of a tax burden, not less.

For every 100 illegals who find a job here, 65 Americans lose theirs. Illegals constitute less than 5 percent of the general population but over 25 percent of the U.S. prison population. Educating illegal children runs $52 billion per year.

As I’ve always said, illegal immigration may not be the biggest problem in America but it’s part of every major problem we face. It’s a large part of the crime and prison problem. It’s a large part of the education problem. It’s certainly a major component of the jobless problem.

The politically correct have tried to sterilize the illegals. In fact, they say that using the term ‘illegals’ is racist. Hogwash. Illegal is exactly what they are. These people who defend them — and they’re on the right and the left — want to blunt the language so they can change the perception. It’s not working. A recent NBC News poll showed 48 percent of Americans oppose Obama’s amnesty while 38 percent approve.

In the meantime, the people who want to put a happy face on illegal immigration will continue to yell racism any time anyone dares criticize illegals. Like they did with the Indianapolis Star.

I don’t know if the folks at the Indianapolis Star got the memo but the word ‘indian’ is now offensive to a lot of people. They should change their name to the NativeAmericanapolis Star just to be safe.

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

Tuesday, November 25, 2014

Lessons from Ferguson

What did we learn from Ferguson?

We learned that rent-a-thugs are responsible for much of the agitation and unrest in situations like this. These professional riot organizers ride into town with an agenda. That agenda is to divide the town by race.

We learned that most of what we heard about the case before the grand jury decision was untrue. It was passed along as fact that the officer had no knowledge of Brown's strong-arm robbery just moments before and that he was stopping him for merely walking in the middle of the street. Now we know that Darren Wilson stopped Michael Brown because he matched the description of the suspect and had the proceeds of the robbery in his hand.

One liberal on Fox News the night of the decision and subsequent rioting was lamenting the fact that one out of every three black males today will go to prison in his lifetime. She called this a travesty and an injustice. She seemed to focus on the statistic rather than the reason. The reason one in three black males will go to prison is because they're committing a disproportionate amount of the crimes. Also, ninety-three percent of the murders committed by black males are committed against other blacks. Where was her sympathy for the black victims?

She acts as if we would just stop locking up black men then everything would be fine. Has anyone considered that babies being born out of wedlock might have something to do with the problem? Today, over 70 percent of black children are born to single mothers. Perhaps that has more of a bearing on one's life than perceived racism.

We learned that we are still a nation divided. If anyone thought that electing a black president would heal the wounds of racism in this country they were gravely mistaken. Matters have only gotten worse. This president and his attorney general have used their high offices to fan the flames of racism in the black community. This has been the most divisive presidency in the history of America.

Prior to the grand jury decision, Obama was meeting personally with the community agitators. I don't recall his meeting with the Ferguson police. Wonder which side he was on.

Me? I could see it going either way, based on what we knew, much of it now known to be erroneous. I was curious about the outcome but I had sympathy for both sides. The Browns lost a son, which is pain beyond comprehension. Darren Wilson's life is irreparably damaged. The story ended up not being about the shooting itself but the reaction to it. That told more about our country than anything else.

We all need to do a little soul searching. Anyone who was pulling for a decision either way needs to check themselves and face the vestiges of racism still residing in their hearts. If you were hoping for an outcome there's a reason for that feeling and it's probably not a pretty one.

It's sad but true that, at the end of the day, when all the facts were examined, the president of the United States sent emissaries to the funeral of not a symbol of oppression but a common street criminal. And the president did this all because of the racism in his heart. 

It's a lesson to learn that if you truly are for truth and justice then learn the truth before you determine the justice.

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

Thursday, November 20, 2014

The truth about Keystone XL

Rarely have we seen so much ado about saving one senate seat. The vote on the Keystone XL pipeline was an exercise in futility. It was never going to get the signature of President Obama yet it was fast-tracked through the U.S. senate after six years of blocking it only so Sen. Mary Landrieu of Louisiana could vote for it.

It fell one vote short of passage in the senate and that was by design. Harry Reid was never going to allow this out of his chamber to potentially embarrass the president. The thinking was it would give Landrieu a shot in the arm in her run-off race, but she can’t hide from voting 97 percent of the time with Obama.

The person who may be most damaged by the vote is Harry Reid himself. He’s up for re-election in 2016 and he barely got 50 percent of the vote in 2010. If the Republicans put up a stronger candidate than Sharron Angle, and it’s likely they will, this Keystone vote could be a big issue.

Sen. Michael Bennet of Colorado sure thought it was. He’s a Democrat up for re-election in two years and he voted for it. It would be nice if it would scare other Democrats into voting for it when the Republicans bring it back up after they take over in January but that’s not likely. The other nine Democrats up for re-election in 2016 are in pretty safe seats. Names like Schumer and Boxer and Wyden and Mikulski.

What I’m trying to wrap my mind around is why this is even an issue in the first place. The Canadian oil starts its trek south in the town of Hardisty, Alberta. There already is a Keystone pipeline into the United States. It originates in Hardisty, goes east across Saskatchewan province to the province of Manitoba then heads south just west of Winnipeg into North Dakota. From there it heads straight to the Gulf Coast through South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma and Texas. The newly proposed leg would essentially be a shortcut to Kansas. It would enter the U.S. in Montana then head southeast until it connects with the original line at the Nebraska/Kansas border.

The dirt people who are all frapped up about global warming would like for you to think that this is some sort of breach into the United States. They talk about not wanting the “dirty oil sands oil” in our country. What they call “dirty” is something that generates more carbon dioxide. And it does create about 9 percent more CO2 than the average U.S. crude. But CO2 is not a pollutant. In fact, it’s beneficial to the planet. It helps plants grow faster, heartier and bigger. We learned this in third-grade science class.

So, there’s really no reason not to approve the Keystone XL pipeline. According to our own government’s analysis of the issue, that oil is going to be burned anyway. We may as well create a bunch of jobs by piping it to the Gulf Coast.

And while we’re at it, let’s open up more public land to oil exploration. Experts say we could be energy independent within five years. Would that not be an awesome thing? No more bowing to Saudi kings. No more turning a blind eye to the illegal invasion from Mexico because we need their oil. No more wars over oil. What’s not to like?

The only thing holding us back is this silly notion that we’re destroying Earth by emitting plant food. It’s time to grow up.

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

Thursday, November 13, 2014

Is Net Neutrality really neutral?

Net neutrality is back on the table thanks to the Obama administration’s push to reinvent it after the courts struck it down. There are many otherwise freedom-loving, free market advocates who are starting to fall for net neutrality under the false assumption that it’s about keeping the Internet free. It’s anything but.

Net neutrality is a subjective term. Proponents argue it gives equal access to everyone on the Internet. That sounds fair and open but most people don’t realize there’s limited bandwidth and simply allowing everyone to “do their thing” results in a slowdown for everyone.

I like to compare it to an interstate. There are a finite number of lanes. When there’s a normal flow of traffic then everyone gets to their destinations on time. However, when a road hog like one of those wide loads with the yellow lights and the pilot car come through during rush hour it brings the interstate down to a crawl.

The Internet Service Providers (ISPs) are putting those wide loads in the HOV lane and charging them extra for it. Obama wants that stopped. The company everyone likes to hold up as an example is Netflix. They claim it’s unfair to charge Netflix more but Netflix is an Internet hog. Streaming movies takes up a lot of bandwidth and ISPs think it’s fair to cut special deals with these types of companies.

Quite frankly, I’m not sure what all the hubbub is about. I have cable Internet and Netflix. I never experience a slowdown. It would be hard to argue that Netflix has been harmed by any ISP deals. Their stock has gone through the roof and they’ve launched original hit television shows like House of Cards. In short, it’s not clear who Obama’s new proposal is designed to protect.

One thing it does is turn ISPs into public utilities with the government regulating what products and services they can offer and at what price. Sen. Ted Cruz summed it up in a tweet. “Net Neutrality is Obamacare for the Internet; the Internet should not operate at the speed of government.” Exactly. This is a solution in search of a problem.

Most folks have no problem with their Internet access. In fact, most people love their Internet access. They can do more, see more, experience more than ever before. And that’s happened without government interference. If you don’t like your ISP you have choices. Competition. That’s what makes everyone better. If the government sticks its nose in the middle of it the innovation will be stifled and your ISP will be turned into any other public utility.

Nothing against your local electric company but there’s not much incentive for innovation. The last thing we need to be doing is turning your ISP into another public utility.

At the epicenter of the net neutrality movement is an assumption that you have a right to the Internet your way. These folks forget just how recent dial-up was. The cable companies invented broadband. The phone companies followed. Our lives have been wildly enriched by the whole process. Why would we want to alter the matrix of how we got here? 

If the government wants to be useful it can stop allowing these big telecommunications companies to merge. I supported the president when he blocked the merger of AT&T and T-Mobile. We should be inviting and encouraging more competition. We should be blocking attempts by the big boys to gobble up the little guys. More competition is what this market needs. The very last thing the market needs is more government control.

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

Thursday, November 6, 2014

Carpe navitas: Seize the energy

You’ve probably noticed the lower gas prices by now. Experts say prices will go still lower through the end of the year. One of the reasons they expect prices to fall is because retailers can switch back to winter gas blends which are cheaper. Some of the mainstream media reports only nibble around the edges as to the primary reason for the low prices. Most ignore the truth altogether.

The reason oil prices are low — and, subsequently, gas prices — is because of what’s going on in North Dakota, Texas and now Ohio. North Dakota is home to the enormous Bakken shale reserves. They’re in the midst of an oil boom, with the lowest unemployment rate in the country. Thanks to innovations in hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling, oil companies are able to get at oil that, just a few years, was too expensive to find. And this has been primarily on private land.

The Obama administration loves to brag about our newly-found energy but all of this is happening in spite of them. Texas is now producing more oil per day than the entire country of Iran, mostly on private land. In fact, while we’re surpassing Saudi Arabia in oil production, the oil we’re getting from federal land is down six percent since 2009. Natural gas production on federal land is down a whopping 28 percent.

According to J. Winston Porter at The Hill, 87 percent of federally-controlled offshore oil reserves are off limits to oil and gas exploration. Imagine how our economy would come roaring back if we were able to get at all that oil. Experts say we could be completely energy independent inside of five years.

To put things into perspective as to how gas prices affect our economy, for every one-cent drop in the price at the pump there’s an extra $1 billion in consumers’ wallets, according to a study by Deutsche Bank. That’s $75 billion extra since just this past spring.

The irony is Barack Obama could lay claim to probably the most robust economic recovery in a generation if he would stop his war on oil. Instead, he continues to pump billions into green energy initiatives, many of which sink like the Titanic with our tax dollar aboard.

I have no problem with alternative sources of energy. In fact, as featured in our documentary, An Inconsistent Truth, I’ve made my own biodiesel. But there is simply not enough of the alternative energy to even come close to replacing oil and natural gas. It would make sense for us to squeeze out every drop of energy we can from the sources available while we wait for alternative technology to catch up. That’s how it’s done in a free economy but this administration has no interest in a free economy.

Now that the mid-term elections are behind us, it’s time for the congress to start focusing on energy, which has a real impact on us all, especially those at the lower end of the economic spectrum. The drop in gas prices just since spring means an average of $15 each time we fill up. If the average person fills up once a week, that’s an extra $780 a year that can go to buy something else besides gas. Certainly this administration sees how beneficial that is to lower-income households.

While oil prices have dropped, electricity prices have risen, primarily due to Obama’s war on coal. Let’s face it, this administration’s war on affordable energy is a war on the American economy and it’s time congress fought back.

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

Tuesday, October 28, 2014

Who creates jobs in Hillary's world?

Which came first, the chicken or the egg? It’s a question that’s been pondered for, perhaps, thousands of years. We may never have a definitive answer. There’s another question that’s been broached by the liberals in this country. Who creates jobs? Hillary Clinton recently stated, “Don’t let anybody tell you that it’s corporations and businesses that create jobs.” Oh, really? Then who creates jobs?

Hillary didn’t elaborate but some of her apologists did. Bob Beckel on Fox News said consumers create jobs. Beckel, and those who echo this sentiment, have a basic misunderstanding of how the economy works. Consumers don’t create jobs. Consumers create demand, which may or may not result in a job.

Let me give you an example. Consumers for years demanded airplanes. Inventors dating back to da Vinci had dreamt, even sketched, flying machines. It wasn’t until the Wright Brothers came along and made it happen that the first job in the aircraft industry was created.

By the way, consumers have been demanding flying cars since before I was a kid. There still aren’t a lot of jobs in that industry.

So, why would Hillary make such a ridiculous statement? To answer that, one has to realize that she’s not alone in her belief. Remember President Obama’s famous “you didn’t build that” line? Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts made similar comments. That’s probably why Hillary was making hers in Warren’s back yard of Boston. It was Warren who said, “There is nobody in this country who got rich on his own. Nobody! You moved your goods to market on the roads the rest of us paid for; you hired workers the rest of us paid to educate; you were safe in your factory because of police forces and fire forces that the rest of us paid for.” It doesn’t occur to these shallow thinkers that if these people didn’t have jobs they wouldn’t be able to pay the taxes that provide all these services.

I guess a more important question is, which came first, the job or the taxes? The answer would be the job. Whoever the first person was to hire the first employee changed economics forever. It’s certainly possible to have an economy without jobs. In the early days, a farmer and his family would trade corn or cattle with someone else who made whatever they needed. Once currency came along it became possible to sell your goods for cash and hire someone to help you produce them. Those were the first businessmen and they created the first jobs.

To say that businesses don’t create jobs is foolish but Hillary said something even more outrageous. In that same speech, she said raising the minimum wage creates jobs. Yes, she said she had voted to raise the minimum wage several times and her husband had raised the minimum wage and each time it created jobs.

Now, let’s study on that for a second. No matter your position on raising the minimum wage, there’s no way you can argue that raising it creates jobs. In fact, the vast majority of studies show it kills jobs. Again, you’re talking about a fundamental misunderstanding of how the economy works. With people like this already in charge, is it any wonder that our economy continues to struggle years after it should’ve recovered?

Hillary was attempting to exploit that innate dislike people have for the boss. She sought to demonize businesses and convince people that they were responsible for creating jobs all by themselves. In the process, she demonstrated just how unqualified she is to be president of the United States.

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

Thursday, October 23, 2014

Why Ebola is nothing like AIDS

The day after Eric Duncan died of Ebola in a Dallas hospital, CDC Director Tom Frieden said this to a conference of the World Bank in Washington: “In my 30 years in public health, the only thing that has been like this is AIDS. We have to work now so that this is not the world’s next AIDS.”

Comparing AIDS to Ebola is like comparing murder to suicide. The only commonality is death. I’ve stated this before but, obviously, it needs to be repeated. AIDS is the single-most preventible disease ever known to man. We know exactly how you get AIDS and we know exactly how to stop AIDS. It’s a behavioral disease.
Ebola, on the other hand, afflicts people at random. Knowing now Dr. Frieden’s mindset it’s no wonder that when Ebola first hit our shores the warnings of how you contract it were eerily similar to AIDS. It’s not transmitted through casual contact, they claimed. You can only get it through bodily fluids. What they didn’t tell us is, unlike AIDS, those bodily fluids included spit and sweat. That makes Ebola considerably more dangerous than AIDS.

Outside of those who contracted AIDS through a blood transfusion — which is extremely rare these days — the transmission of AIDS was then, and still is, purposeful and reckless. It’s transmitted primarily through promiscuous sex. It can also be transmitted by sharing a needle with someone infected. Hardly as innocent as someone sneezing on you but such is the political correctness of our CDC.

In framing Ebola in the same terms as AIDS, Frieden may have put many more people at risk. Many were initially lulled into a false sense of security that was eroded as time wore on and facts about Ebola began to surface. Facts that laid waste to the CDC contention that you could not contract the disease through casual contact.

When aid workers returned from Africa with Ebola despite treating patients dressed in hazmat suits, it became clear that Ebola was far more easily transmitted than we were told. The fact that so many thousands in West Africa have come down with it destroys the myth that it’s not easily contracted.

So, why the purposeful confusion?

That’s a very good question for which immediate and easy answers are not available. Perhaps the comparison to AIDS was designed to calm our fears and stave off a panic. After all, we’ve come to understand AIDS and to no longer be afraid to interact with AIDS patients. Surely the CDC understands this is nothing at all like AIDS. If they truly believe it is then we’re in deep trouble. The way you manage and contain the two diseases is completely different.

Beating AIDS is simple. You simply educate the public on how it’s transmitted. You discourage promiscuous sex — most specifically between men — and you warn of the dangers of shooting up. Oh, well what about all those women who are getting AIDS? It’s true that women account for about 20 percent of new HIV infections but those women are getting AIDS either from a man who’s had sex with a man or through sharing a dirty needle with someone with AIDS.

In short, AIDS is about personal responsibility. Ebola strikes randomly. In fact, even though AIDS kills about 15,000 people per year in America and only 1 person has died of Ebola, I have a much better chance of getting Ebola than AIDS. That’s something the CDC would never tell you but it’s true.

When this administration and the folks at the CDC lie, people die. It’s as simple as that.

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

Wednesday, October 15, 2014

Why so mysterious about Ebola patients?

If one were to go to Central Casting to find that stereotypical authority figure whose omnipresent face is on television to tell the public there’s nothing to fear in the face of certain catastrophe, it would be Dr. Thomas Frieden from the CDC. Of course, that’s not to say we’re facing certain catastrophe. Far from it. The chances of any of us contracting Ebola is slim. However, our chances are increasing daily by the bungling of this crisis by our government.

Normally, in times like this when there’s the potential of a pandemic, citizens are given an abundance of information in an attempt to stop the spread of the disease. Ebola is different and it’s different for one simple reason. Its coming from Africa has made it a political hot potato.

Early on, before the disease ever reached our shores, Dr. Margaret Chan, director general of the World Health Organization, said, “We must be careful not to characterize Ebola as an African disease.” She said we needed to ensure that the “affected countries aren’t stigmatized and isolated.”

Of course, everyone knows what you do with a disease you can’t cure. You isolate it. Not this one. Over 150 people come to America each day from the three countries in Africa where the outbreak is most severe. Everyone from President Obama on down tells us that banning flights from these countries would not help and might even hurt. That makes no sense whatsoever unless one applies liberal logic. Dr. Frieden says it’ll “backfire” because banning people from going to these countries will cut off precious resources they need to fight Ebola. Dr. Frieden, no one’s talking about banning people from going over there. We’re worried about people coming in this direction.

He says we can never reduce the risk of Ebola spreading in America to zero. Well, guess what, Dr. Frieden. If we had banned travel before, like any country with common sense would, Ebola would not be in America right now.

But you have to understand where Thomas Frieden is coming from. This is the guy behind New York Mayor Bloomberg’s ban on smoking, trans fats and his attempt to ban large soft drinks and limit salt. The very essence of Frieden is control, so it’s no wonder that when a disease escapes the confines of Africa and comes here he wants to control all the information about it. His expertise is in manipulating the public.

There’s absolutely no reason why we shouldn’t know everything the CDC knows when it comes to those with Ebola. Frieden withheld everything about Eric Duncan when he came to America with Ebola. It was the news media who discovered his name, his flight schedule, where he’d been staying, etc. There’s no reason we shouldn’t have been told all that from the beginning. 

The CDC is worried we’ll panic but what does panic look like? It doesn’t look like hysterical people running the streets in front of Godzilla. If I knew I was on a flight with Eric Duncan or sitting next to him at an airport restaurant and I started having symptoms of a stomach virus I would immediately seek medical attention. Otherwise, I ride that illness out. If it’s Ebola and I wait three or four days, I’m dead. And I’ve also spread it to who knows who in the meantime.

Of course, Frieden still doesn’t get it. With the cold-hearted cadence of an Orwellian authority figure he refers to Eric Duncan as “the index patient.” He continues to obfuscate while a potential 55,000 carriers of Ebola per year stream into America.

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

Thursday, October 9, 2014

Defining marriage — gay or otherwise

People are presuming that the recent Supreme Court decision not to hear gay marriage cases in five states means it's unconstitutional for a state to ban gay marriage. That presumes that the federal government has any authority over marriage in the first place.
The 10th Amendment clearly states that what's not in the Constitution is under the authority of the states. But, do the states, themselves, have any right to require a license? There are many who believe they do not. In fact, the marriage license is, historically, a fairly new invention. The first marriage licenses in America didn’t appear until after the Civil War
and were not commonplace in all states until the 1920s. Marriage was regarded — and still is by some — as a purely religious affair.

Many Libertarians believe if the state is going to issue anything regarding marriage it should be a certificate, not a license. Marriage is a right and should not be licensed anymore than a birth should require a license. At birth our parents receive a birth certificate. It’s merely a record of a notable event that can be carried forward in life as proof of the event for any entity that requires it, but one should no more be required to obtain a license to marry than to be born.
Although the history of licensing marriage is murky the origins of what entity invented the license is not. The first marriage licenses came from states and spread to other states. They did not come from the federal government therefore it’s folly to believe that the federal government has any jurisdiction whatsoever over marriage.
The point of confusion is the difference between the right to marry and the right to license. I have a right to marry anyone I like insofar as I can find someone in an official capacity to perform the marriage. They are under no obligation to do so. Marriage is a personal commitment between people, sanctified, historically, by a church. However, if I want the state to sanction the marriage I must first obtain a marriage license. That doesn’t make me any more married. I just makes it official with the state. Think of it like a copyright. I automatically have a copyright on this material as soon as I create it and lay my thoughts down for others to read. I can go through the formality of obtaining an official copyright on the material but that doesn’t mean I’m any more entitled to copyright protection than if I didn’t.
What a marriage license basically signifies is that the people of that state recognize your marriage as legit. That’s why the current system of some states recognizing gay marriage and others not has worked out just fine. If you’re gay and you want to be officially married then congregate with people who think that’s cool.
If you don’t believe marriage is a state issue then remember what the justice of the peace used to say. We’ve seen it dozens of times in movies. "By the power vested in me by the state of Such-and-such..." The power over marriage licensing belongs to the state and the state alone. The power of marriage itself belongs to the individuals.
If the states ever want to wrest any power back from the federal government it's time for some governor somewhere to have the guts to tell these federal judges that they have no authority in regards to marriage. In other words, "Thanks for your opinion, now go pound sand."
I'm still waiting for a governor to stand up and say just that.

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

Thursday, October 2, 2014

Oil will save the economy

Two interesting phenomena are happening simultaneously that may prove to reduce the price at the pump dramatically over the next couple of years. First of all, the old “peak oil” predictions seem to be a thing of the past. So-called experts inside and outside the oil industry have predicted for years that we would run out of oil. Heck, J.D. Rockefeller’s partner at Standard Oil, John Archbold, famously sold some of his shares of stock at a discount in 1885 over fears the oil was running out.

Recent leaps in technology specifically hydraulic fracturing, or fracking — have brought once-dormant oil fields back to life. North Dakota is in the midst of an oil boom. The United States is set to overtake Saudi Arabia in oil production for
the first time since 1991. And this is happening on private land. This country could be completely energy-independent if the Obama administration would allow drilling on public land.

Instead, Obama has gone in the opposite direction, subsidizing green energy with direct payments and loan guarantees. There’s nothing wrong with green energy but wind and solar have been around longer than oil and they still haven’t managed to become commercially viable enough to make up a significant percentage of our energy sources.

The second phenomenon that we’re witnessing is the wholesale collapse of the global warming argument. This was the pretext for shifting away from oil to a so-called green economy. You wouldn’t know it was collapsing by the rhetoric coming out of the White House or the UN. They have doubled down on the notion that somehow we’re destroying the planet with harmless carbon dioxide. When one takes a step back, it’s laughable that something as essential to life on earth as carbon dioxide has been so demonized. It’s the equivalent of demonizing oxygen.

No one is denying that the production of carbon dioxide has gone up. In fact, this has been the plan all along. Inventions like the catalytic converter change harmful gases into harmless CO2. We should be encouraging more CO2 production. Any time CO2 is being released from an exhaust pipe or smokestack it is in place of something harmful and deadly. Yet the preachers of doom tell us that CO2 production causes temperatures to rise and the earth to bake. Turns out that over the last 18 years temperatures have remained steady while CO2 has gone, literally, through the roof. What happened?

What happened was the theory was seriously flawed from the beginning. The theory that more CO2 caused global warming was akin to the theory that a crowing rooster makes the sun rise. One has absolutely nothing to do with the other.

Temperature fluctuations are caused by all sorts of complicated combinations from solar output to the Pacific Decadal Oscillation. The climate is far more complicated than the over-simplistic notion that carbon dioxide causes warming. In fact, there’s a good reason why no one has been able to prove manmade global warming. Because it’s not happening.

According to Gallup, the percentage of people skeptical of manmade global warming has more than doubled since 2001. Much of the reason is because, with each passing year, the evidence of the global warming theory is evaporating.

Which means we’re in a great position for economic growth. Oil fuels the engine of our economy. When it’s cheap we have all sorts of disposable income to spend on other things. 

At the end of the day, it won’t be Obama, the Democrats, or green energy that get our economy going again. Much to their chagrin, it’ll be oil.

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