Wednesday, June 25, 2014

The case for voluntary sterilization

There’s a court case in Virginia that has liberals all in a tither. It involves a man who has fathered seven children with six different women. The judge took the unusual step of offering the man the option of getting a vasectomy in exchange for a lighter sentence. The liberals are crying that the deal harkens back to the days of eugenics when mentally deficient individuals were forcibly sterilized. The claim is not only hollow, it’s ironic.

You may not be familiar with the name Margaret Sanger so let me bring you up to speed. Sanger is the founder of Planned Parenthood. Sanger was one of the key figures in that eugenics program — the forced sterilization of individuals — that we all now so vehemently
 oppose. In a 1932 essay, Sanger advocated excluding immigrants “whose condition is known to be detrimental to the stamina of the race,” and advocated forced sterilization and segregation of those she and her cohorts deemed inferior. That’s Planned Parenthood’s ugly history which they choose to keep swept under the rug.

Now, back to the case in Virginia. The individual in question has proven himself to be irresponsible. He continues to procreate with no means of support. In short, he’s a menace to society. Should he be forcibly sterilized. Of course not, however, giving the man the option to have a vasectomy is no different than offering him the option to perform community service to lighten his sentence. It’s purely his choice, an option he accepted, by the way.

If we want to get to the heart of the welfare program, this case in Virginia does. There are far too many people having far too many children they can’t afford. Giving them an incentive to do the right thing only makes sense. If we, for example, were to offer a one-time cash award for anyone on welfare who would voluntarily take measures to break the cycle of generational dependency, shouldn’t we jump at that opportunity? Welfare recipients, both male and female, who would choose to stop having children they can’t afford would only benefit, not only society, but their own life situation.

There are millions of Americans who have already chosen to take measures to prevent pregnancy for myriad reasons. Those reasons range from financial constraints of the family to the limits of taking on the responsibility of more children. But they are all incentives nonetheless.

I would hope that more judges would seek the remedy of the judge in Virginia. If they do we will see a substantial reduction of the welfare caseloads in future generations. It’s not just about saving money, it’s about rebuilding lives and society. I don’t need to tell you that the housing projects are not only trapping millions in cyclical poverty, they are breeding grounds for crime. Ask any police officer in any town where the major crime area is and he or she will point you in the direction of the government housing projects.

The current course leads us into uncharted waters for America of more people riding the wagon than pulling it. We need only look south to the hordes of illegals coming here from third world countries to understand what that means to the well-being of a country. Soon we will be like them.

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

Wednesday, June 18, 2014

Don't fall in love with a DREAMer

The dreamer streamer continues unabated on our southern border. Kids are showing up on our country’s doorstep who are here to take advantage of President Obama’s open invitation of his Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program. He couldn’t get the DREAM Act passed in Congress so he did what he always does. He acted alone.

You know, there’s an irritatingly adolescent disconnect with this president. He petitions congress for things he wants done and then says, “If congress won’t act, I will.” He doesn’t
have the authority to act unilaterally but there’s no one with a backbone in congress to stop him.

DACA is supposed to be for children who were brought to this country when they were young and who have grown up here but it’s acting like a magnet for people all over Central America. These folks have figured out how to play the game. Here’s how it works. The parents sneak across first. Since there’s relatively no border control now their chances of making it successfully are very good. Traveling with children slows them down and increases their chances of getting caught so they leave their kids behind. Then they send money back to pay to have their kids come across.

Children crossing over is a totally different matter and with the message Obama is sending the world it’s no wonder they’re coming in droves. But here’s the really outrageous part. These kids are represented in court for free by organizations like The Safe Passage Project. They dispatch high-powered lawyers to argue for asylum. It’s not a difficult argument. The federal government places these illegal children in the custody of the Department of Health and Human Services’ Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR). The department is just what it sounds like. They’re in the business of resettling kids in the United States.

But here’s where it really gets ironic. These pro-bono lawyers take advantage of the Special Immigrant Juvenile Status (SIJS). This is a designation for kids under 21 who’ve been abused, neglected, or abandoned by at least one parent. Safe Passage says about 90 percent of these kids qualify for that designation. Their parents have abandoned them in Mexico or Honduras or wherever and came here to America. The judges routinely rule in favor of asylum and order the kids reunited with their parents who broke into our country and abandoned their kids in the first place.

Think about that for a moment. If American parents abandoned their American children the Department of Health and Human Services would make sure those parents never saw those kids again. Heck, there was one case recently where DHS was trying to take a 15-year-old boy away from his father because a kid at school complained that the boy was twirling a pencil in class like a gun. I’m not kidding.

This whole situation is absolute insanity. And in the middle of it all Obama held a ceremony honoring DREAMers who received temporary amnesty under DACA. I understand the motivation on the part of the people who welcome all these illegals. They see future Democrat voters. Obama says these DREAMers are the key to this country’s success. If they’re so wonderful, do we have the right to steal them from their native countries? If they’re so great, wouldn’t their own countries benefit from their greatness?

Truth is, they’re certainly no better than American children and most will end up as wards of the state or in prison. You thought the third world was bad? Just wait. The third world is no longer down south. It’s here.

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

Tuesday, June 10, 2014

The real motivation behind the Bergdahl swap

We’ve had some time to reflect on the Bowe Bergdahl prisoner exchange, and I’m of the opinion that we’ve been focusing on the wrong thing. Since his release, the news media have delved into the circumstances of Bergdahl’s capture. There’s little doubt now that he sneaked off the army post and into enemy hands. The big question remaining is was it intentional? We may never know.

What’s puzzling about the Bergdahl affair is he was held captive, supposedly, for five years yet very few Americans had ever heard of him. This leads me to believe that the army knew all along he was a deserter. That’s why there was no national movement to bring him home.

I remember the POW bracelets of the post-Vietnam war era. The names of POWs left behind were engraved on nickel-plated bracelets with the soldier’s name, rank, and date of capture. We knew the names of these men. There were many of them.

Bowe Bergdahl was the only so-called POW left from the war in Afghanistan yet precious few of us knew of him. I believe that was on purpose. My theory is the army didn’t want to make him a hero, because he wasn’t one. In fact, sources say that Hillary Clinton, when she was secretary of state, had no intention of working on behalf of his freedom.

Why, then, all of sudden, was he exchanged for five high-value Taliban terrorists? That’s what I mean by our being focused on the wrong thing. It was never about Bowe Bergdahl coming home. It was about the Taliban prisoners getting out.

That may come as a shock, but remember President Obama’s campaign pledge when he was a candidate in 2008. He vowed to close Gitmo. Once he assumed the presidency, he found it was much more difficult than he had imagined. Congress wasn’t going along with it. Neither were many in his own party.

What does Barack Obama do when he hits a roadblock? He finds a way to go around it, even if it means trampling the Constitution and breaking the law to do it. He hit a wall on amnesty. Now we have thousands of illegals streaming across our border and nothing is being done about it. His cap-and-trade scheme for carbon dioxide emissions was stopped in the senate. Now his EPA is doing essentially the same thing without approval from congress. He’s wanted to ban guns but found little support in congress. Now he’s using the FDIC to label gun shops as “high risk” and banks are severing their relationship with them. If you can’t ban guns by law, the next best thing is to make it impossible for anyone to buy them.

The New York Post recently reported that Gitmo terrorists were being released for all sorts of crazy reasons. One because he had taken up yoga. Another because he wanted to start a milk and honey farm. Yet another because he had a positive attitude. The exact number of prisoners that have been held at Gitmo is a mystery. Best guesses by the news media put the number at around 775. Many of those have been released. Counting the release of the five Taliban terrorists, there are about 145 prisoners left. Some 70 are scheduled for release soon. About 30 percent have rejoined the jihad against America.

Very soon there will only be 80 prisoners left, and Obama is determined to release the rest before his term expires. He may not close Gitmo, but once he’s done there will be no one left to guard.

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

Tuesday, June 3, 2014

Bergdahl: Hero or Traitor?

It is impossible for me, as a father, to watch the news coverage of the release of Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl and not be elated for his family. It is impossible for me, as an American, to watch Bergdahl’s release and not be thrilled for America. However, I join many other Americans in my concern over the precedent this has set, and how it may affect many more American soldiers down the road.

There are two legitimate ways to look at this release. One is the way the Obama administration sees it. This was a prisoner of war exchange, plain and simple. Prisoner of
war exchanges are as old as war itself. Their goal was to gain the release of the last prisoner of war from Afghanistan.

The detractors argue that we just released five of the most dangerous Taliban in the world and are relying on Qatar, a country with a history of harboring terrorists, to make sure these five don’t re-enter the war against us. Quite frankly, it’s not at all likely that Qatar will honor its end of the bargain.

Remember, Qatar is the country that hid Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the mastermind behind 9/11, from American authorities when they had demanded his arrest prior to the September 11 attacks. It can be argued that had Qatar cooperated with us and arrested KSM, the 9/11 attacks would never have happened.

Now, we’re going to trust them to make sure five Taliban terrorists don’t return to action?

At a time when America is already perceived to be weak around the world, it now appears that we do, in fact, negotiate with terrorists, counter to our adamant claims to the contrary. A conventional POW exchange can only be claimed if one can argue that the war in Afghanistan has been a conventional war. That’s a tough case to make.

But even if this can be argued as a legitimate prisoner exchange, it seems the question of value has to come into play. Again, as a father, there’s nothing more valuable than your own child. When it comes to war, however, such emotions have to be set aside. What did we get and what did they get?

We got an American soldier who some claimed actually deserted. The circumstances surrounding Sgt. Bergdahl’s capture still remain murky. There’s no doubt he simply walked away from an American base in Afghanistan after asking a superior if he should take his weapon with him if he left. He was told he should not. He wrote an e-mail to his parents three days before his disappearance telling them he was “ashamed to be an American.”

He also told fellow soldiers of his plan to just walk away into the mountains of Afghanistan. A senior U.S. official at the time Leon Panetta was defense secretary and Hillary Clinton was secretary of state said neither cared anything about getting Bergdahl back.

Will anyone be bold enough to pierce the veneer of a returning POW to a hero’s welcome to get to the real story? Unless Bergdahl himself is forthcoming, we may never know the full story. If he was captured by the Taliban then, at best, we’ve traded a low-level soldier for five high-priority terrorists. Worse, if he deserted, then we’ve exchanged five valuable terrorists for a traitor. Neither scenario seems worth it in the long run.

Whatever the case, the deal has already been done, and also then, perhaps, the damage. We may have secured the release of Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl, but at what cost to future soldiers and our credibility?

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