Political Correctness: I refuse to play

Comedian Jerry Seinfeld, certainly not known for his right-wing politics, recently went off on political correctness on college campuses. He’s not alone. Many top-tier comedians have given up the college circuit because of the lack of sense of humor. Tasteless comedian Sarah Silverman, however, has succumbed to the pressure. She now says comedians need to change with the times. In other words, allow some college kids to dictate what you say.

The PC landscape is ever-evolving. That’s one of the things that makes it so annoying. Who knows what’s PC from day to day? I recently was recounting a story of an elected official who quoted an online urban dictionary and the definition included “retarded monkey.” Now, I understand in that context it probably wasn’t very nice and an elected official should probably know better but it set off a debate over the word “retarded” itself.

Calling someone a “retard” is not polite. I get that. However, when someone has a diminished mental capacity they’re referred to as mentally retarded. Or, at least, I thought so. I got it with both barrels from some hysterical woman who said my use of the phrase “mentally retarded” was hate speech. Hate speech? I asked, pray tell, what I’m supposed to use in its place. “Intellectually challenged,” she said. Really? Intellectually challenged? That’s about the dumbest thing I’ve ever heard, if I’m still allowed to use the word “dumb.”

I thought I remembered an organization called ARC, the Association for Retarded Citizens, so I went to their website. Apparently it’s no longer ARC, it’s Arc. In other words, they’ll still call it Arc but it doesn’t really stand for anything. However, right there under the ‘Who Are We’ section is the dreaded word. “The National Association for Retarded Citizens,” it reads, “was founded in 1950 as the National Association of Parents and Friends of Mentally Retarded Children.” Oh, my. Hate speech right there on the Arc website.

Please don’t misinterpret my frustration. I have a special place in my heart for mentally retarded citizens and give regularly to organizations like Special Olympics. My problem is with the overly-sensitive PC police who feel it necessary to change the language.

Oftentimes it’s done to try and erase a negative connotation. Take the word “liberal,” for instance. Liberals don’t like to be called liberals anymore because it’s a negative, so they want to be called “progressives.” They’re still liberals and they’re still wrong so it’s only a matter of time before “progressive” becomes a dirty word.

They’re doing the same thing with “illegal.” Illegal alien is a perfect description for someone who’s broken into our country and isn’t supposed to be here but that word has become so negative. Well, yeah, it is a negative. They’ve tried to paper over the problem by calling them “undocumented workers.” They even try to ban the word “illegal.” We should probably just refer to them as what they are: Undocumented Democrats.

Pardon me if I sit out this silly game of musical words. There are apt descriptions of people and things that fit perfectly and there’s really no need to change them. Am I opposed to changing with the times? Not always. I don’t use “gee whiz” or “far out” so I certainly understand how language changes. However, I naturally resist tossing words just because a few people don’t like them anymore. I wrote in The Conservative’s Handbook that political correctness is the liberal version of fascism, and it is.

Controlling language is the first step in controlling thought and I refuse to be bullied.

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

Is Kim Davis right?

Interesting test case in Kentucky where a county clerk, Kim Davis, refused to issue marriage licenses because of her opposition to gay marriage and was subsequently jailed. A judge later ordered her release and she has vowed not to issue marriage licenses to gays and lesbians under her name.

Is she right?

Well, of course, that depends on what side of the argument you’re on. I’ll take a non-partisan position and let’s see. First of all, we must determine whether or not the state requires clerks of court in Kentucky to issue marriage licenses or allows it. That’s a critical point. My understanding is Alabama allows clerks to issue marriage licenses. That’s why the clerks there who have refused to issue licenses haven’t been jailed. It’s my understanding that Kentucky requires it, which would put Kim Davis in contempt.

But that doesn’t settle the argument. There’s the matter of objecting to a law because of your religious beliefs. Remember Muhammad Ali objected to the selective service law and was allowed to avoid the draft. In fact, exemptions are made for all sorts of people based on their religions. The Amish come to mind.

The bigger question is who has authority over the Kentucky matter. It troubles me that federal marshals detained Mrs. Davis. It’s my opinion that marriage is and always has been a matter of the state government, not the federal government. Federal authorities jailing an elected official over something that is clearly not under the authority of the federal government is troublesome, to say the least. What compounds the concern is how many times federal government officials refuse to enforce the law or unilaterally countermand with no negative repercussions.

Take President Obama, for example. How many times has he refused to enforce immigration law? Absolutely nothing has happened to him. In fact, not only has he refused to follow the law, he has instructed the Border Patrol to ignore it, as well. Innocent citizens have died because he has allowed criminal illegals to roam the streets.

Speaking of which, why didn’t the federal marshals detain the idiots in San Francisco who defied an ICE demand to turn a dangerous illegal alien over to them and, instead, turned him loose on the streets where he murdered someone? This happens all the time. Why aren’t those people in jail.

When it comes to gay marriage, why didn’t someone arrest the mayor of San Francisco several years ago when he ordered the city clerk to start issuing marriage licenses to gays even though it was against the law? Surely, if the federal government can arrest someone for not issuing a license when they believe it’s now legal, they could arrest someone for issuing a license when it was not.

That’s my problem with the Kim Davis issue. Personally, if I objected to issuing marriage licenses to gays I would simply resign. Apparently she wants to make a statement and she’s certainly doing that. It’s an issue that needs to be resolved. If we’re going to have religious accommodations for religion then we need to somehow accommodate Mrs. Davis. If we’re not, we need to end them for everyone, which many would argue violates their constitutional rights. Why aren’t these folks standing up for Davis?

Perhaps if she were Muslim things would be different. The politically correct are bending over backwards accommodating them. Perhaps out of fear, I don’t know. No matter the motivation, it’s time to be evenhanded. Maybe if the gays wanting to get married were confederates or, worse, lion-killers Davis would get a little bit more sympathy.

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

Is it over for Trump now that he's taking the money?

After I watched Donald Trump’s recent rally in Mobile I turned to my wife and said, “I don’t think anybody can stop him.” I’m modifying that remark. There is one person who can stop him, and that’s Donald Trump.

He came out of the gate like he was shot from a canon and blasted past the rest of the pack. The allure was confounding to the press but pretty easy to understand for the everyday American. Trump was so rich he was “unbuyable.” Special interests couldn’t buy him. Big donors couldn’t control him. What made him so attractive was the impression that he was going to shake Washington, DC to its core. He was an absolute phenomenon. It didn’t matter what he said. It didn’t matter what he’d said five or ten years ago. All that mattered was he was not a politician. He was immune to the mother’s milk of political campaigns.

Then everything changed.

He floated the idea of possibly taking campaign contributions. He suggested he may give the money to charity, which made no sense. Why take contributions in the first place if you’re not going to use them? You may as well tell the person contributing to give to their charity of choice. Then he said if he took any money he would only take it from individuals, not corporations. Then he said he would consider corporate contributions but there would be no strings attached. That’s what politicians have been saying for years.

“I’m really rich,” Trump said, but apparently not rich enough to finance his own campaign. Or, maybe he is. Maybe he’s just not committed enough to finance his own campaign.

When my father first ran for Congress back in the day, he said he wouldn’t put his own money in the race. The reason being, he said, was if he couldn’t persuade enough people to support his candidacy he had no business running. For a congressional candidate with limited resources that made sense. It makes sense for all the other candidates running for president. What made Trump’s candidacy so exciting was the prospect — and what turned out to be the illusion — that he was above the nasty business of fundraising. He didn’t have to beg for money. He wouldn’t be beholden to donors. He couldn’t be bought.

According to NPR, Trump has already taken $100,000 from a fellow developer who just happens to be his daughter, Ivanka’s, in-laws. There’s a donate button on his campaign web site and big money is reportedly rolling in. Is this problematic? I think it is. Not that he doesn’t have a right, just like every other candidate, to raise money. The problem is he set himself up as someone who was different. Someone who didn’t need the money. Someone who was “really rich.”

Trump now sloshing to the trough comes across as unseemly. It takes some of the shine off the apple. People naturally resent rich guys. Can you imagine if Mitt Romney had announced that he was “really rich?” Trump’s wealth is so off the charts that he’s in a different league, almost like royalty. He seemed to rise above even his own station in life, as if he were called to do something much more meaningful with his life than building things and employing thousands.

He seemed bigger than life, in part, because he couldn’t be bothered with the uncouth business of raising money for a political campaign. Then he bowed to the financial pressure, took the money and became a mere mortal again. Now he has to explain just what makes him different.

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

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.