Wednesday, July 30, 2014

The Democrats' Impeachment Strategy

So, here is the Democrats’ new strategy. Gin up impeachment talk in order to garner sympathy for the president and raise a lot of money. It may be the first time in history that a political party is actually fanning the flames of impeachment for one of their own.

Dan Pfeiffer, Assistant to the President of the United States, floated the idea out to reporters recently at a Christian Science Monitor breakfast. He hinted that Obama might go outside the law and the Constitution and grant illegals amnesty by executive order and warned that such action would draw impeachment from Republicans.

In fact, President Obama seems to be daring the Republicans to impeach him. His numerous illegal delays on Obamacare, his blatant refusal to enforce immigration laws, not to mention deliberately selling guns to drug cartels in the
Fast and Furious scandal, demonstrate his contempt for the limits of his office. He routinely goes around — or over — congress when he doesn’t get his way, demonstrated by his famous “I’ve got a pen” remark.

He knows, however, that impeachment, as the power structure is currently aligned, is impossible. First of all, John Boehner doesn’t have the guts to launch impeachment charges. Second, it doesn’t matter if Obama held up a bank, Harry Reid’s senate would never vote to convict. That’s the sad reality of the Democrat Party. They circle the wagons when one of their own is under attack, even if they’re guilty.

Remember Watergate? Remember “What did the president know and when did he know it?” Those were Republicans asking the tough questions of a Republican president. Sen. Barry Goldwater marched a contingent of Republicans down Pennsylvania Avenue, not to stand behind the president, as the Democrats did Clinton, but to demand that Richard Nixon resign. It was Republicans who put aside petty politics and did the right thing.

Today’s Democrats are incapable of such conduct. No matter what one of their own does, they call it a witch hunt. The only time in recent memory where Democrats have gone after one of their own was the ethics trial of Congressman Charlie Rangel in 2010. Democrats voted with Republicans to convict Rangel of 11 ethics charges. Still, the Democrat leadership did not insist that Rangel resign and the idiots who reside in his district recently voted to return him to congress for a 23rd term. They get the representation they deserve.

Perhaps the same can be said of the country at large. It’s not like no one knew what they were getting with Barack Obama after the first term. People just weren’t paying attention. Now they have voter’s remorse. A recent poll showed that if the 2012 election were held today, Mitt Romney would win by 9 points. It’s too late for a do-over. 

The Democrats are making bank on impeachment talk. Big donors are ponying up big bucks any time folks like Dan Pfieffer even hint the Republicans might be ready to impeach, which has led the White House to believe the more they can push the issue the better off they are. They believe the more the president ignores the law and the Constitution the more money they can raise. They may have made a gross miscalculation.

If Obama does, in fact, sign blanket amnesty, as Pfieffer has suggested, there’s no doubt that would be an impeachable offense. If the act so angers voters that Republicans take the senate then Obama’s buffer between him and impeachment is gone. If the Republicans take control of both houses of congress the Democrats better be careful what they wish for.

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

Thursday, July 24, 2014

Rick Perry's Border Solution?

Governor Rick Perry is deploying the National Guard to the border. Well, sort of. The National Guard, in the words of Texas Adjutant General John Nichols, will be “referring and deterring” illegals. They won’t be detaining them. Not sure how much good that will do but at least a governor somewhere is doing something.

Texas Democrats accused Perry of militarizing the southern border, a charge the governor vehemently denies. But that’s the only thing that will stem the tide of illegals streaming across the border. As for those crossing, AG Nichols said, “We
think they’ll come to us and say, ‘Please take us to a Border Patrol station.’” Quite frankly, they’re already doing that.

If Rick Perry really wants to do something then he’ll use the National Guard in a manner that’s really effective, and that is to protect the border from invasion. People ask if I’m willing to have the National Guard shoot people who try to enter illegally. My question to them is what happens if someone tries to blast past a border crossing station? My assumption is there will be serious consequences. Just think of National Guard troops spread across the border as one big border crossing station. If anyone tries to breach that border then the same thing should happen to them that happens to anyone who crashes a border patrol station.

I found it very interesting that in Gov. Perry’s remarks announcing his deployment of the National Guard he cited a statistic that illegals had committed over 640,000 crimes in Texas alone since 2008, including over 3,000 murders. That figure jumped out at me. Over 3,000 homicides that would never have taken place were it not for our lax border enforcement.

It might not surprise you that I scanned the reports of every major media outlet and not one included the startling crime stats cited by Gov. Perry. In fact, CNN, NBC and others purposely edited out that section when they posted his press conference.

I’ve often told you that it’s not what the media tell you that should concern you. It’s what they don’t. Naturally, if the average American knew that illegals had murdered over 3,000 people just in Texas over the last six years they would be stunned and outraged. They might even be moved to insist we do something about. That’s why the media folks can’t let these little tidbits loose on the public. They’re no longer in the business of reporting events. They’re in the business of shaping them.

So far they’ve managed to put a poor, pitiful face on the border crisis. They blame drug violence and poverty for the sudden DREAMer streamer but these Central American countries have had poverty and drug violence for as long as anyone can remember. That’s not what’s drawing them here. They’re being drawn here by a president who promises they’ll get to stay if they come. So far, that’s been the case, and there’s no sign of that changing anytime soon.

My theory is the drug cartels are behind the exploitation of the president’s executive order. Notice that almost all of these so-called unaccompanied children are coming through one point at the border; the Rio Grande Valley sector. The federal government has had to scramble personnel and resources to that one sector, leaving the rest of the border vulnerable.

That was part of the reason why Perry called in the National Guard. Crime in other parts of Texas is going through the roof. 

It appears we’re being played and either the Obama administration knows it or they’re too dumb to see it.

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

Tuesday, July 22, 2014

The Logical Next Step

I knew it was only a matter of time. Last week, a judge in Australia dismissed some of the rape charges against a man accused of having sex with his sister. He allegedly had sex with her when she was 10 and he was 18. Those charges stood. However, the relationship began anew when she was 18 and he was 26. The judge ruled that since she was of age the sex was consensual, even though the woman was his sister.

Incest, he ruled, is no longer taboo now that homosexuality and gay marriage are widely accepted. This should come as no surprise, especially to advocates of same-sex marriage. You see, one can’t logically argue against incest while
arguing for same-sex marriage. If your argument is no one should be able to tell you who you can love then you should be prepared to stand by that argument, even if that person is the lover’s sister.

If you think that’s rather crude you need to understand something. Society — any society — sets its own norms. Western civilization, for the past several thousand years, has established a “norm” of marriage between one man and one woman. There have been pockets of societies that embraced polygamy but they were nowhere close to the majority. Marriage is a public proclamation to society of a joined union. It’s generally a way of conforming to the norms of society. Marriage is about tradition and traditionally marriage has been a union between a man and a woman. Once you venture outside that norm you better be prepared for anything.

Understand, sanctioning a marriage is not the same as allowing a relationship to take place within a society. We have evolved as a society to tolerate pretty much any relationship. In other words, the days of the police knocking down your door and arresting you for a homosexual relationship are over. But if we’re going to tolerate adult men and women making decisions about who they sleep with we need to be prepared for pretty much anything consenting adults can dream up.

I’m a live-and-let-live guy. If you’re a guy and you want to have a relationship with another guy, I’m not one to tell you how to run your life. Same goes if you want to sleep with your sister. Having society recognize and approve of such relationships is a different matter altogether. Again, no one’s trying to tell you how to live your life. It’s simply a matter of what society sanctions and what it doesn’t.

For example, most states, if not all, require you to be 21-years-old to buy alcohol. I remember a time when the drinking age for beer and wine was 18. The federal government got involved and threatened to withhold highway funding if states didn’t raise the drinking age so society was forced to do it. However, a law doesn’t always change societal norms. Many people think it’s perfectly acceptable for college-aged adults to consume alcoholic beverages. That’s an example of society ignoring the law.

Only time will tell how the gay marriage thing shakes out. Right now most people in rural states don’t cotton to it while more urban states do. That’s how this country was designed. To be honest, we’re a mix of societies. Each state has its own unique personality. So far, each state has decided the issue of gay marriage on a state-by-state basis, which is as it should be.

But look out for the next big trend. Incest will be coming to a marriage protest near you.

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

Wednesday, July 2, 2014

SCOTUS comes through for liberty

The Supreme Court has wrapped up its session and, all-in-all, it was a good run for liberty in America. The most high profile of the cases came at the end when the court ruled in favor of Hobby Lobby and similar “closely held companies.” What they meant by “closely held” is any business that is run on a day-to-day basis by its founder or owner. The news media reported that it was over religious objections to contraception but that was misleading. It wasn’t about condoms or birth-control pills. It was was about drugs like RU486 and other “morning after” medications that some refer to as “abortion pills.”

Proponents of RU486 claim it is not an abortifacient, rather it is used to prevent a pregnancy.
 Technically, that’s true, however RU486 is designed to end pregnancies in the first 7 to 9 weeks. It is, in fact, an abortion pill and that was the objection of Hobby Lobby. The owners of the company have a religious objection to abortions and feel they shouldn’t have to pay for such drugs. The high court agreed.

The hysteria from the left was predictable. The White House said the ruling would put women’s health in jeopardy. Ilyse Hogue, the president of NARAL Pro-Choice America told CNN, “They said it’s OK for bosses to make personal decisions about health care which we pay for with our labor.” What a ridiculous statement. Nobody is saying a woman doesn’t have the right to RU486 or abortions. This ruling confirmed the common sense position that if you want such things you need to pay for them yourself.

Remember Sandra Fluke? She thought Georgetown University, where she was a law student, should pay for her contraception. She, like others on left, tried to argue that it was somehow her right to have a third-party pay for her promiscuity. No one was stopping her from buying her own pills. The great misinformed masses out there have been brainwashed into believing that anyone who opposes a company having to pay for contraception is trying to ban birth control. It’s not about birth control. It’s about forcing someone else to pay for it.

That is the central issue in Obamacare and the Supreme Court sidestepped it yet again. It is unconscionable that in free America a company is forced to pay for someone’s health insurance; something that has nothing to do with their job. If you argue that one must be healthy to perform their job then you can also argue that one must be clothed, satiated and transported to do one’s job. No one is suggesting that your employer buy your wardrobe, food, and car. At least not yet.

The high court not only made the right decision in the Hobby Lobby case, they slapped back the unions, saying home-based Medicaid programs can’t be forced to pay union dues. They collared the Obama administration, ruling that the president can’t make so-called “recess appointments” when the senate is actually in session. And in a unanimous decision the court ruled that cops can’t search your cell phone without a warrant, a huge boost for privacy and liberty advocates.

This session of the Supreme Court was an exercise in the checks and balances inherent in our Constitution. It curbed the powers of the president, the congress and police who are all famous for coloring outside the lines. But Supreme Court rulings are only effective insofar as those scolded by its power adhere to its admonition. In the case of this presidency, specifically, that remains to be seen. 

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