'Justice' is the word

I found it ironic that Merriam-Webster chose the word ‘justice’ as its word of the year for 2018. They said in a statement, “The concept of justice was at the center of many of our national debates in the past year: racial justice, social justice, criminal justice, economic justice.” Then they mentioned some newsworthy events in which they say justice played a role. The Mueller investigation was the most prominent one. They cited the confirmation of Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh as another.

Neither case radiated much justice. We’ve been told for 19 months now that there was some sort of collision between President Trump and the Russians. Now we’re bogged down in a debate over whether or not hush money to a mistress constitutes a campaign contribution. If so, what kind of campaign work did Stormy Daniels do for the money? 

Then there’s Brett Kavanaugh. Not much justice there. Oh yes, he made it onto the Supreme Court, but at what cost? His entire life was dragged through the mud. He was made out by the left to be a rapist. His family was put through untold torture and humiliation just because the Democrats in the senate couldn’t get past the notion that the president of the United States, whoever he is, gets to pick whomever he chooses for the court, so long as they’re qualified. And Justice Kavanaugh most certainly is. Michael Avenatti, the creepy porn lawyer for Stormy Daniels, surfaced during the hearings with supposed bombshell allegations against Kavanaugh that proved to be totally unfounded. Still, the damage was done. Justice?

Too many people measure justice by whether or not they get their way. One of the dictionary definitions of ‘justice’ is “the administering of deserved punishment or reward.” Kavanaugh may have technically gotten the ‘reward,’ but confirmation to the Supreme Court is not about the individual justice. It’s about seating the court with qualified jurists. Where’s the deserved punishment? Christine Blasey Ford had not one shred of evidence, and those whom she claimed were witnesses had no recollection of the event in question. Was there any downside for her? Quite the contrary. She walked away with a hefty payday from crowd sourcing and is probably in negations for a huge book deal.

You want to know what justice really is? Justice is allowing the person the American people elected as their president to do his job. Chuck Schumer actually had the audacity to tell President Trump that elections have consequences. This from a leader who just lost the senate…again. The president reminded him that elections do have consequences, and that’s why we’re doing so well. 

Justice is a wall. The wall the American people wanted when they elected Donald Trump president. 

Justice is bringing to a close this endless harassment of the president over Russia. Despite the perjury traps and convictions totally unrelated to Trump, the relentless pursuit of impeachment continues.

Justice is allowing Supreme Court nominees to answer civil questions about their qualifications and not have their reputations torched in the process.

Justice is abiding by an election without snowflakes melting down like it was Armageddon.

Justice is media coverage of a president that isn’t 92 percent negative just because those reporting it hate him.

Merriam-Webster based their choice of ‘justice’ in part on how many people searched for the word on their site. A spokesman for the company said people didn’t look up the word because they didn’t know how to spell it. They were looking for its true meaning. Perhaps that’s because they don’t recognize it in today’s political landscape.

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

More than Kavanaugh, this is for November

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

Supreme Court ruled correctly on Voting Rights Act

Just for background, the 1965 Voting Rights Act was passed to make sure areas of the country that were prohibiting blacks from voting would have to prove to Washington that they were no longer engaging in such tactics.  It was a good law.  It was a necessary law.

Is it still necessary?  Probably not but the Supreme Court did not strike down the law per se.  It merely said the federal government can no longer use election data from 1972 to decide which parts of the country must seek Washington's approval for changes in election procedures.

Times have certainly changed since 1972.  The reason Democrats don't want to acknowledge that is because they have been using the Voting Rights Act to commit voter fraud.  Most people with good sense understand the logic in requiring someone to show their ID when they vote.  Democrats have used the Voting Rights Act to prohibit certain areas that were under its control from changing their laws to require voter ID.

Make no mistake about it.  The only reason one could possibly oppose voter ID is because they want people who aren't supposed to be voting to vote.  They say it's an undue burden and have filed lawsuits to stop it but not once have they filed lawsuits to stop stores from carding people when buying alcohol.  Not once have they filed a lawsuit saying it's an undue burden to require someone to show an ID when cashing a check or using a credit card or buying cigarettes.  These are certainly things that occur with much more regularity than voting.  If it were really about some kind of undue burden then why haven't they challenged these other instances where you're required to show your ID?

No, you see, proponents of not changing the Voting Rights Act to reflect modern times wanted to use antiquated data from an ugly era in our history to get as many Democrats elected as possible.  That's what this argument has been about.  It's shameful that such an important piece of legislation has been used in such a despicable manner.  But it shouldn't come as such a surprise.  The NAACP is now the NAAPC.  It's no longer about the advancement of colored people.  It's about the advancement of political correctness.

Don't believe me?  Ask Clarence Thomas and Condi Rice.

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