Is porn addiction real?

Sometimes you never know what topic will explode on a talk radio show. No doubt, you’ve heard of the travails of Josh Duggar, one of the 19 “kids” on the now-defunct reality TV show, 19 Kids and Counting. The show was cancelled after it was revealed that he’d molested several girls when he was about 15, including his own sisters. After the cheater’s website, Ashley Madison, was hacked, we learned he was one of the cheaters exposed. He claims he’s a porn addict. But is there really such a thing?

The Fifth Edition of the Diagnostic Statistical Manual for Psychatric Disorders (DSM-V) does not recognize sexual addiction and porn addiction as clinical diagnoses. That may come as a shock to some, especially some of my listeners who argued pornography was as addictive as heroine.

One listener went so far as to claim he has PTSD and porn addiction was a by-product of that. I don’t mean to be unsympathetic but come on. In my rant about Josh Duggar I said something to the effect of “who doesn’t like to look at naked pictures.” My PTSD listener said that was an indication that I, too, may have a porn addiction. Let me be clear. I don’t.

These advocates of porn addiction tell me that one’s brain is stimulated by pornography much like a drug addict’s brain is stimulated by drugs. I would submit to you that anything you find exciting will stimulate your brain in a similar manner. I get excited looking at boats. Maybe that’s boat porn. I joke that I have to keep naked pictures at the ready on my computer just in case my wife walks in the room and I’m looking at boats.

From where I’m sitting, it’s simply a matter of willpower. If you can’t turn on the computer without going directly to a porno site, turn the computer off. Self-described addicts tell me it’s not that easy. My PTSD listener tells me he was “blessed with a spiritual awakening” that allowed him to “see God’s plan where sexual purity is concerned.” He made my point for me.

He didn’t have to go to porn detox. He didn’t have to be iced down in the bathtub or go the Betty Ford Clinic. What he had to do was come to the realization that sitting around looking at dirty pictures is destructive and a waste of time and let his conscience be his guide.

I fear that too many people make addiction excuses in order to justify their aberrant behavior. We’re in short supply of personal responsibility these days and adding another “addiction” to our lexicon is not going to help matters. What we need is a frank discussion about what is appropriate behavior and what is not. If you want to sit around and look at dirty pictures, more power to you. This is America. But don’t complain that you can’t help it.

I’m sure the sex addiction defense is going to be widely used by those caught in the hackers’ web of the Ashley Madison cheater’s site scandal. Maybe Jared from Subway can claim he’s addicted to teenage girls. I hope we’re smart enough to see through all of this. People make choices in life and some of those choices are bad ones. Let’s focus on that and encourage us all to make better choices instead of making better excuses. We build a stronger society by taking the high road on this.

But, just in case the “addiction” claim is embraced, can I get the government to pay for my boat?

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

What if it's Trump?

I have long believed the candidate who makes illegal immigration the centerpiece of his or her campaign will win. That’s exactly what Donald Trump has done and he’s still winning. He’s still winning despite a lackluster debate performance. The latest CNN poll has him up 11 points over his nearest rival. And Trump is fleshing out his illegal immigration policy.

Not only does he want to build a wall on the southern border, he wants to make Mexico pay for it. Skeptics tell him that he could never get Mexico to go along but it’s not a matter of getting Mexico to go along. It’s a matter of making them do it.

There are multiple ways to do that. We send almost a billion dollars to Mexico in aid. Why? Why would we give them anything when they’re flooding our country with illegals? That money should be cut off immediately. Trump proposes impounding all remittance payments going from illegals here back to Mexico until the wall is built. Skeptics say it’s unworkable since bitcoin and other digital currencies allow people to move money across borders undetected. That may be so, but the bulk of the money leaving the country now is via wire transfer. I’d like to see either a 50 percent tax on remittances or a requirement that one proves they’re in the country legally before they can transfer money out at all, but I’ll take impounding the money instead.

You see, a lot of presidential candidates have talked around the edges of the illegal immigration issue but Trump is grabbing it by the horns. Another CNN poll asked people which Republican candidate they thought would change Washington. It wasn’t even close. Trump had 44 percent. Ben Carson was in second place at 9. That, in a nutshell, is the reason for Trump fever. Other politicians talk about changing Washington but when Trump says it, people actually believe it.

Now, I’ve said that Trump is an empty vessel into which people pour their hopes and dreams, and there’s a lot to that. People attribute all sorts of things to Trump that he never said. They either think he said it or wish he had. Either way, they’re on the Trump train and it really doesn’t matter why. Yet.

Except for the illegal immigration issue, Trump has been short on details. One would think that would have to change if Trump is to maintain his humongous lead. But, of course, one would have thought his McCain remarks would’ve derailed the Trump train. If not that, one would have thought a poor debate performance would have. Nothing yet has come close and the Washington elites are longing for that so-called inevitable moment. They may be waiting quite a while.

At the first debate, the candidates were asked if there was anyone on stage who couldn’t promise to support the nominee, whoever that might end up being. Trump was the only one raising his hand. He caught a lot of flack for that. The other candidates, by not raising their hands, pledged to support the eventual nominee. What if it’s Trump? Will Rand Paul support Trump? Will all of the others support Trump? Now that Trump’s chances are growing, it’s something each of these candidates needs to consider. Instead, most of them would rather throw stones at him, which is understandable in a primary, but someone will emerge victorious. 

Several of the candidates are heaping on insults and criticism of Donald Trump in an effort to somehow stop him. Are they ready to eat those words when the process is done?

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

Is Donald Trump a sexist SOB?

I find the Donald Trump/Megyn Kelly dust-up interesting for a whole host of reasons other than what people focused on after the debate. To bring you up to speed, Megyn Kelly is a Fox News host who asked Trump about his insults directed at women. I’ll get to the merits of the question in a moment. Trump responded afterward on another network by saying Kelly was so angry “you could see there was blood coming out of her eyes, blood coming out of her wherever.” Many took that as a reference to her menstruating. Trump claims he meant blood coming out of her nose or ears.

I’m here to explain why it doesn’t matter where he insinuated the blood was coming from. 

Let’s review Trump’s record of insults. He’s called John McCain a “dummy.” He says Karl Rove is “a total loser.” He’s insulted Rick Perry, Gov. Abbott of Texas, Jeb Bush, Lindsay Graham. What do all these people have in common? They insulted Trump first. Oh, and he called Rosie O’Donnell a “slob.” For that the mainstream media labeled Trump a misogynist. That’s someone who hates women, by the way. Did you know there really is no word for women who hate men? Is that sexist?

That’s really my point in all of this. I’m not defending Donald Trump, mind you. He’s certainly capable of doing that himself and he doesn’t need my help. I just want to focus on the hypocrisy. Women want to be treated as equals, and rightfully so. Then why is everyone all up in arms because Megyn Kelly is being treated just like Trump treats every other man?

You can’t say that you want equal rights for women then call Trump a misogynist for doing it. And it’s important to note that everyone’s been fuming about Trump’s comments regarding Megyn Kelly except for one person: Megyn Kelly.

Now, to the debate question that set all this off. Megyn Kelly’s questions, in general, were designed to embarrass the candidates, not enlighten the voters. She said to Trump, “You’ve called women you don’t like ‘fat pigs,’ ‘dogs,’ ‘slobs,’ and ‘disgusting animals.’ Trump interjected, “Only Rosie O’Donnell.” Turns out, he was right. It also turns out that Rosie started the feud back in 2006 when she referred to Trump as a “snake-oil salesman” with the “moral compass of 20-year-olds in America.” From there, it degenerated into a back and forth with Rosie certainly throwing as many punches as Trump.

Kelly went on to ask Trump, “And how will you answer the charge from Hillary Clinton who was likely to be the Democratic nominee, that you are part of the ‘war on women’?” It’s like asking a candidate, “Have you stopped beating your wife yet?” It was a “gotcha” question. She did the same thing to Scott Walker and Ben Carson. She asked questions that were designed to make them squirm, not elucidate their positions on the issues. She defended the questions as being tough and they were that, but they were tough only in the sense that they made the candidates uncomfortable.

The complaint about having Trump on the stage was that the debate would take on the feel of a reality TV show. Ironically, it was the questions from the moderators that contributed to that atmosphere, not Trump.

Politics is a contact sport. I’m thrilled so many women have chosen to participate but everyone should understand that there aren’t two sets of rules for men and women. As the saying goes, you wrestle with a pig, you’re going to get dirty. 

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

It's the sun, stupid!

President Obama is determined to kill the coal industry through his specious argument that carbon dioxide is destroying the planet so he’s ordered coal producers to reduce their CO2 output by 32 percent below 2005 levels by 2030. He calls it “carbon pollution” which is a clever tactic employed by those out to destroy our economy. Take something that is actually beneficial to the ecosystem like carbon dioxide and make it sound sinister. “Carbon” instead of “carbon dioxide.” Sounds like something black and dusty, like we’re dumping coal into the atmosphere.

This is NOT pollution. It's steam!

Hey, I think we’re onto something. Make “carbon” synonymous with coal and it’s a short step to banning coal outright. It was no coincidence that another coal company announced bankruptcy the same day Obama announced his EPA initiative to put them out of business. Alpha Natural, which operates 60 coal mines, filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy reorganization, trying to stay alive under the withering attacks from the Obama administration.

Despite overwhelming evidence debunking the manmade global warming theory, Obama has become desperate to implement his job-killing policies before he leaves office. Perhaps he knows that time is not on his side. With each day that passes it becomes more and more certain that we’ve been bamboozled by the global warming alarmists into dismantling the greatest free-market society known to the human race.

Let’s review what we know. The global warming theory posits that an increase in carbon dioxide will necessarily result in an increase in global temperatures. Carbon dioxide emissions have increased by 35 percent since the dawn of the industrial revolution. We’re told they’ve accelerated in the last 20 years. That means the earth’s temperatures should have gone up considerably as well. They haven’t. Temperatures have certainly increased slightly since the end of the Little Ice Age which ended in about 1850. However, if you look at satellite data, it shows we haven’t warmed since December of 1996. If the earth had a fever, as Al Gore once claimed, apparently that fever broke 19 years ago. 

NPR says global warming is on vacation. Vacation? How much vacation does global warming get? What, is he union? I think they better send out a search party for global warming. They might find that he’s gone to work for the competition: global cooling.

Yes, many scientists are coming to the conclusion that we’re in the beginning stages of a cooling period. Yeah, I’d say if we haven’t warmed in 19 years we’re certainly not in a warming period. To what do they attribute this cooling? The sun. That’s something that’s baffled me for years and we explored in our movie, An Inconsistent Truth. Why is it that people can be fixated on a gas that makes up four-hundredths of one percent of the atmosphere and they totally ignore that big burning ball of fire in the sky?

Slate.com’s astronomy blog tried to calm the fears of the global warming hysterics by saying, “While changes in the Sun’s activity have a very marginal effect on global warming and/or cooling, human contributions to carbon dioxide in our atmosphere completely overwhelm the Sun’s influence.” Again, they’re assuming a trace gas in the atmosphere is more of a deciding factor on the earth’s temperature than the only thing that actually controls warmth: the sun.

It’s nonsense, of course. If the sun is heading into an inactive phase it logically follows that temperatures will drop. If carbon dioxide really does cause the earth to warm then we better be spewing all we can into the atmosphere. We’re going to need it.

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

Why the Export-Import Bank needs to go

So little is known about the Export-Import Bank because, let’s face it, it’s a rather boring subject. That was until it became a bone of contention between Sen. Ted Cruz and his majority leader, Mitch McConnell. Cruz chastised McConnell on the Senate floor for lying to him and others when McConnell said he wouldn’t allow a vote on reauthorization of the bank in exchange for getting Democrat support for fast track authority for the president. McConnell did allow a vote and all the Democrats voting supported the Export-Import Bank along with 22 Republicans.

So, what is this Export-Import Bank? It’s a vestige of the Great Depression. Basically, it’s the official export credit agency for the federal government. It finances and insures high-risk loans for companies that can’t get financing in the private sector because the risk is too high. In other words, it’s corporate welfare. 

Supporters argue that it helps small business but 65 percent of the bank’s business went to foreign companies so they could buy Boeing aircraft. Sure, it helps some small businesses but these are businesses that couldn’t get such financing in the private sector. Supporters say that’s why we need the Export-Import Bank but that’s exactly the point. If you can’t get financing in the private sector you don’t need to be doing business.

For example, the Export-Import Bank gave $10 million in loan guarantees to Solyndra. That solar panel company went belly-up with a bunch of other taxpayer money, as well. Yes, there have been many success stories and supporters point to all the jobs the bank has helped create. That’s all well and good but the government is not in the business of creating jobs. If that were the case then we’d have the government take everyone unemployed and hire them as crossing guards at intersections across the country. Then we could brag about full employment but the cost would be staggering.

Such it is with the Export-Import Bank. Supporters say it makes money but the reality is it loses money. It props up businesses that don’t need propping up, like the oil business and green energy. It gives them access to money they wouldn’t ordinarily have access to because the risk is too great. That alone tells you the bank is nothing more than a welfare program.

Why do so many Democrats support this bank, especially given its history of risky oil ventures? Because they’re Keynesians who ultimately have little faith in the free market. They love the role government takes in ‘helping’ the economy along. They’re bureaucrats who love being ‘useful’ to their constituents which gives them a sense of purpose.

The reality is the free market is the best determiner of where capital is allocated. Private sector businessmen and businesswomen who are held accountable by boards of directors are far more careful with money than government employees whose very existence hinges on how many risky loans they can guarantee.

The Export-Import Bank clings to a depression-era mentality that the only way the economy can grow is through government subsidy. Many studies now show that the Great Depression was so great because the government intervened and gummed up the works. Economists say FDR prolonged the depression by at least 7 years with his intervention policies and the Export-Import Bank was one such ‘solution’ he created.

It’s a very simple principle. If others who have money think your enterprise is worth risking their money to bankroll, they’ll loan it to you. We certainly do not need the government short-circuiting that process.

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

Why do we love Trump?

What is it with Donald Trump? No, really. This is something we rarely see in politics. I remember Ross Perot and the enthusiasm about him. It was special, too, but Trump is different. I’ve never really cared for the man. I’ve always found him egotistical, bombastic, confrontational for confrontation’s sake, but I have to admit I’ve gotten caught up in Trump fever. Why?

Well, I’m still trying to sort through that myself.

I remember when Perot jumped in the race in ’92. I was part of a small group at a reception for him just before he went on Larry King Live and was ‘talked into running.’ I asked him a question — about what, I couldn’t tell you — but I remember his response. I remember how his gaze was the most intimidating of any person I’d ever met. And he was a short, little fellow, too, but I was scared to death of him. I had to fight to keep from being stared down and looking away but I held his gaze, with beads of sweat forming on my brow.

Perot was a straight-talker, too. He was a businessman like Trump but his appeal was different. It was a Sam Waltonesque, folksy appeal. It was an almost “we can’t do any worse so let’s try Perot” appeal.

Trump is different. He has a sort of arrogant charisma. It’s one of those intangibles you can’t quite put your finger on. The man’s worth $10 billion, for crying out loud. It’s not like Romney money or Kerry money. It’s so much money that it puts him in another stratosphere. He’s like royalty. It’s funny because people who normally hate the rich love Trump. It’s like he’s a walking, talking caricature of himself. The expensive suits. The Trump scowl. The hair.

He doesn’t hold fundraisers because he doesn’t need fundraisers. He’s not meeting in back rooms with lobbyists. He doesn’t need them. He’s the only presidential candidate to come along in who knows when who is totally self-contained. He doesn’t need anything from anybody. It’s rather refreshing. All the people who’ve been wanting to get the money and influence out of politics? Trump’s your man.

As a talk show host there’s one fast rule. You don’t criticize someone’s military record, especially if you haven’t served. Trump went after John McCain after McCain said Trump “fired up the crazies.” If Trump does have one weakness it’s the fact that he’s hypersensitive. He doesn’t take criticism well. He tends to lash out and he lashed out at McCain in an area he never should’ve gone. His time as a POW.

Any other politician would’ve folded the next day but Trump isn’t any other politician. In fact, he’s not a politician at all. That’s what people love about him. Even after the gaffe, his poll numbers rose. 

Gov. Martin O’Malley recently responded to a group of black folks chanting “black lives matter” by saying, “Black lives matter. White lives matter. All lives matter.” He later apologized saying he didn’t “mean to be insensitive.” You think Trump would’ve wimped out like that? O’Malley looked weak and pathetic, not the kind of guy you want standing up to Iran.

And maybe that’s the allure. We’re sick and tired of mealy-mouthed politicians who carefully watch every syllable that comes out of their mouths and apologize to any overly-sensitive weenie who complains. Trump’s attitude? Screw ‘em. It’s a tough world and people are going to say tough things. Get over it.

It’s refreshing now. The only question is if it will wear thin before the primaries.

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

Bernie Sanders targeting the wrong rich folks

Democrat presidential candidate Bernie Sanders recently said out loud what many liberals think, and the Washington Post applauded him for his courage. What did he say? He said, “Our economic goals have to be redistributing a significant amount of wealth back from the top 1 percent.” This is not merely scary socialism. This is outright communism. 

Let’s examine that statement. He uses the term “redistributing.” That assumes that the wealth was first “distributed.” Wealth isn’t distributed, it’s earned. I know, there are trust-fund babies who inherit money from their parents but those people make up a small portion of the rich. And even if they fell into a potful of daddy’s money, does that mean that everyone else is entitled to it?

According to the Tax Policy Center, the top one percent of wage-earners earned 17 percent of the income in 2014 yet they paid 45.7 percent of the individual income taxes. In other words, they paid 2.7 times their share of income in taxes. The Congressional Budget Office tells us that percentage has been going up since 1979 when the one-percenters earned 8.9 percent of the income and paid 18 percent of the federal income taxes. By 2011, they earned 14.6 percent of the income and paid 25.4 percent of the income taxes. So, during the so-called decade of conspicuous consumption, better known as the ‘80s (or the decade of Reagan’s tax cuts) the rich started paying an even more lopsided share of their wealth in taxes.

Did the rich get a tax cut under Reagan? Sure, but so did everyone else. Those tax cuts unleashed one of the largest peacetime economic expansions in the nation’s history. If you broaden the numbers you’ll find that the top 10 percent of income earners pay about 68 percent of all federal income taxes even though they earn 45 percent of all income. Conversely, the bottom 50 percent pay just 3 percent of income taxes yet they earn 12 percent of the income.

It’s not hard to see that there are plenty in this country who aren’t paying their fair share but it ain’t the rich. In fact, were you to eliminate the uber rich like Bernie Sanders and so many liberals want to do, you’d wipe nearly half of the income taxes coming into the treasury. Not to mention the tens of millions of jobs they create.

But it’s not just the uber rich who liberals want to target. If you make above $134,300 a year you are in the top 20 percent of wage-earners. Your group makes 51.3 percent of the income yet you pay 83.9 percent of the income taxes. This illustrates just how upside down our tax system is. “Fair share” is when everyone pays the same income tax rate. That’s never going to happen in this country because the bottom 40 percent not only pays no income tax, they get money through the Earned Income Tax Credit that they’ve never paid in!

According to a study from UC-Berkeley, the top one percent saw their income grow under Obama by 31.4 percent while the other 99 percent grew by only 0.4 percent. In other words, the uber rich got uber richer under Obama than at any time in recent memory.

Liberal regulations have choked off money to Main Street and funneled that money to Wall Street. What has resulted is a perverse alliance between the rich donor class of the Democrat Party and the lowest segment of wage-earners who get money from the government. It’s the unintended consequence of government meddling. 



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