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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.