The Convention of States: Is it time?

I was recently asked to speak at a meeting of the Convention of States. If you’re not familiar with this movement, they advocate constitutional amendments via the second way allowed by the Article V of the Constitution. Instead of both houses of Congress voting by a two-thirds majority to propose an amendment then sending it to the states, this process bypasses Congress. It requires two-thirds of the states to submit applications for a constitutional convention and these applications must deal with the same issue.

I went into the meeting a bit skeptical. The reason being, I actually proposed this on the air about ten years ago, specifically to address a balanced budget amendment. You wouldn’t believe the backlash I got from many people I respected. The reaction was so ardent that it made me question my own judgement. Had I missed something? Was a constitutional convention some sort of a trap? These people convinced me it was, and the way they did that was through the point that no one can control a constitutional convention. Their argument was that once it started there would be no limiting the damage that could be done, up to and including dissolving the Constitution completely.

I will be the first to admit that I’m not a constitutional scholar. I’ve always left that area of expertise to the experts. If there’s even one chance in a million that some leftist activists could somehow turn the entire convention to their advantage, then we must not take that chance. There’s got to be a good reason why this approach has never been taken before, right?

So, I put the matter out of my mind. When the Convention of States started up a couple of years ago, coincidentally, at the same time talk show host Mark Levin released a book on the matter, I dismissed it. Been down that road and learned my lesson. However, a colleague at work was helping coordinate the meeting and wanted me to speak. I told him of my skepticism and he suggested I come from that viewpoint, ask questions of the legislators who would be attending, and make up my mind based on what I heard.

One of the legislators mentioned a Bible verse during the course of the conversation. James 1:19: “Everyone should be quick to listen, slow to speak.” Never being slow to speak, I took the advice to heart. I asked the tough questions, and I listened intently to the answers.

Changing one’s mind is one of the hardest things we as humans will ever do. It’s also a most humbling experience. In order to change one’s mind, one has to let go of pre-conceived notions and admit that you may have actually been wrong about something. I think there’s a built-in mechanism in our sub-conscience that tells us we’ll lose all credibility if we change our minds. It’s true, politicians who change their minds too often are viewed as wishy-washy. However, when one is presented with facts that change the dynamics of the argument, it’s incumbent upon that person to be big enough to change.

Here’s what clinched it for me. Let’s just say, for the sake of argument, that George Soros and his lot infiltrate the convention of states and insert all sorts of crazy liberal — but I repeat myself — amendments. The fail-safe to this whole process is it take three-quarters of the states to ratify any amendment. I don’t think 38 states will ratify a crazy liberal agenda. If 38 states do, we deserve what we get.

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

Why we should continue celebrating Columbus Day

Columbus Day came and went with the usual bellyaching about it. Several cities around the country celebrate ‘Indigenous Peoples Day’ as a counter but that’s just plain silly, and I’ll tell you why in a moment. First, let’s get a clear picture of who Christopher Columbus was and who he wasn’t.

By all accounts and by admission of his detractors, Christopher Columbus never set foot in what is now called the United States of America. He landed in the Bahamas. Whatever terror he wrought on indigenous peoples was certainly not wrought upon American Indians. He never saw any. Excerpts from his own diary paint a picture of a man who pretty much had his way with the people he encountered. That was par for the course in his day.

What’s implied by all this Columbus-hate is he ushered Europeans into the Americas and that’s somehow horrible. It’s as if the Indians were just sitting around making beads and smoking peyote until the white man came and systematically slaughtered them. Ever heard of the Iroquois Nation? It was a confederacy of five Indian nations that subjugated other tribes by means of violent force. Those it didn’t kill or absorb into the nation it made them their slaves. Others it used for ritual sacrifice. Yeah, they tortured and killed people to appease the gods.

Point being that raping, pillaging, and plundering were standard for Columbus’ day. But that’s not why we remember him. We remember Columbus because he opened up the New World and we should drop to our knees in gratitude. You see, it doesn’t matter what your heritage is, your ancestors either chose to come here or were dragged in chains. Either way, we’re here and there’s no place quite like it.

It’s not that we’re all genetically superior to everyone else in the world. My ancestors are Spanish and I’m no better than my present-day counterparts in Spain. I’m just glad I’m here and not there. Even those of you who are American Indian, you’re much better off than your ancestors, despite the injustices. That is, unless you think you’d be better off living in a teepee with no electricity and no bathroom. Because that’s exactly where you’d be if the Europeans hadn’t come to America.

What makes us different from the rest of the world is the concept from our forefathers of freedom and self-government. That was a radical notion in its day. We take it too much for granted. While the rest of the world was under the rule of kings and tyrants, we were forging a brand new way. A country that presupposed we were all created equal, not born into classes we could never escape. Most people alive today in the United States really have no concept of how different their lives would be had they not been born here.

It’s a place where migrants could come and create things they could never create in their home countries. It was freedom and liberty and capitalism that gave us most of the wonderful inventions we now enjoy. Things like air conditioning, airplanes, motion pictures, breakfast cereal, computers, the washing machine, television, telephones, the revolver, refrigerators, potato chips, microwave ovens, radio, razor blades, lipstick, even sliced bread. All invented in the United States of America.

Those Americans who came before us gave us some of the most wonderful inventions in history. But, their greatest invention was the United States of America. And none of it would be possible without Christopher Columbus. So, liberal America-haters, put that in your peace pipe and smoke it.

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

Libs have run out of causes

Did you hear the story about the mom in California who was shopping at REI and her 12-year-old daughter encountered a man in the bathroom? No, it wasn’t a guy dressed like a woman. It was just a man going in there to do his business. You would think the man would be arrested or at least chastised by the manager. According to the mom, the store manager lectured her instead, telling her no one has a right to tell someone which bathroom to use.

This seems to be the trend. Since Caitlyn Jenner hit the seen, transgender is all the rage. A recent New York Times article cites sources estimating that 0.3 percent of the population identifies as transgender. In other words, they have 99.7 percent of the population bending over backwards to accommodate a segment of the population that makes up less than one half of one percent. It’s ridiculous. 

But it’s not so much about transgenders. People have run out of legitimate things to change. Think about it. Since our nation’s founding there have been all sorts of things that needed fixing. Slavery was a big one and we ended that. Women’s right to vote was another one and we fixed that. Then came the Civil Rights era with the Jim Crow laws and we fixed that. Every generation wants to leave its mark. All the big problems have been solved so where does this generation turn? To transgenders.

Look, I get it. I’m an iconoclast from way back. I’m always bucking conformity. I’ve never liked doing things just because people say that’s the way it’s always been. I question everything and if there’s a better way to do it, I’m all in. It’s just with going to the bathroom, separate facilities for men and women just makes sense.

Now, let’s be honest. Not many guys are going to complain about a woman coming into the men’s room. If they do, we’re going to have to ask for their man card. Women, on the other hand, are quite disturbed by men invading their space. Is that sexist? You’d have to ask the women. They’re the ones upset about this and I’m behind them 100 percent.

If the libs are going to push through this shattering of bathroom tradition they at least need to be consistent. They’re the same bunch who think men are pigs and we’re all sexual predators. If that’s the case, why are they encouraging these pigs and sexual predators to use their bathroom? Why are they putting their daughters in danger?

And don’t tell me you have to be a transvestite to use the ladies’ room. If I “feel” like a woman it doesn’t mean I have to dress like one. That leaves the door wide open — literally — for every pervert and child molester in the country. Not to mention the straight guys who will show up just because they can. Heck, if I could’ve gotten away with hanging out in the girls’ locker room in high school I would’ve worn a dress to school every day.

It’s pretty simple. If you have a wee-wee you go to the men’s room. If not, you go to the ladies room. It doesn’t matter what you’re wearing.

Believe it or not, generally speaking, it’s not against the law for a guy to use the ladies’ room in most states. Several are trying to change that. It’s really a shame that lawmakers would even have to consider such a law. Before, it’s was a matter of common decency. Apparently, we’ve run out of that.

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

The Trump tax plan

Although most of the presidential candidates have released their tax plans, it’s Donald Trump’s that’s getting all of the attention. And no wonder. The media — CNN especially — are obsessed with the man. Aside from the illegal immigration issue, his positions have been short on detail. Taxes are in Trump’s wheelhouse and he has some really good ideas. He also has at least one that’s not.

First, let’s look at what’s good about the Trump tax plan. It lowers the corporate tax rate from 35 percent to 15 percent. Personally, I would take that to zero but that’s probably not realistic given the level of class envy in this country. Some of you reading this right now are balking at lowering the tax on corporations because you’ve been conditioned by the left to want to punish them. Let’s think through this logically. What happens when you tax a corporation? Let me ask it another way. What happens to your grocery bill when the price of gasoline goes up? The price of your groceries goes up. Everyone understands that concept. Why are taxes any different from gasoline? They’re not. They’re both expenses and they both help determine the price of products. It stands to reason that if you raise taxes you raise prices. Conversely, if you lower the corporate tax you’ll lower prices. The market will see to it.

Trump’s reduction in the corporate tax would apply to small businesses and freelancers, as well as corporations, and the potential to stimulate the economy is enormous. Republicans have advocated either lowering or eliminating the corporate tax for decades but it’s always been demagogued by the left. It may take someone like Donald Trump to get this passed.

Trump lowers the top tax rate from 39.6 to 25 percent and cuts the tax brackets from seven to four. NPR quoted Howard Gleckman, senior fellow at the left-leaning Tax Policy Center as saying, “Bush’s was a large tax cut aimed at high-income people. This is an even bigger tax cut aimed at high-income people.” That’s a rather ridiculous statement given that the plan pushes another 75 million people off the tax rolls. Yes, it lowers the top tax rate but it lowers all the rates. Any individual making less than $25,000 or couple making less than $50,000 pays no tax under the Trump plan. This is the part I have a problem with.

Before I get into it, understand that we already take care of the poor. Food stamps, housing subsidies, outright cash payments, we go above and beyond what we should be doing to compensate low-income individuals and families. Already nearly half of Americans pay no federal income tax. Trump’s plan apparently pushes us over the 50 percent mark. To me, it’s unconscionable that a couple making $50,000 a year would pay nothing toward the well-being of this country.

That’s been part of the problem already. Too many people have no ownership stake in this country. If you don’t have any money invested, why would you care how much the government spends? Everybody needs to have some skin in the game, no matter how little they make. Instead, the Trump plan continues to move us in the opposite direction.

That doesn’t even take into account the 40 percent of people who get more from the Earned Income Tax Credit than they pay in. They certainly don’t give a rat’s hat about runaway government spending.

There’s an old saying that when you rob Peter to pay Paul you’ll get no argument from Paul. We need more Peters and fewer Pauls.

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

Lessons from the VW scam

The car company that Hitler built may be coming to an end. No doubt, you’ve heard about the Volkswagen emissions scandal. Because of the conscious confusion of the global warming agenda there’s confusion over just what Volkswagen has done. Let me elucidate. They have admitted to rigging some of their “clean diesel” vehicles to fool smog tests. When the vehicle is hooked up to emissions-testing equipment the cars emit far fewer nitrogen oxides, which are major components of smog. Once the cars are on the open road, they emit far more nitrogen oxides than are allowed by U.S. law. Understand, this is real pollution, as opposed to the trumped up charges against carbon dioxide.

In an article from vox.com they stated the following: “While diesel cars get better mileage and emit fewer carbon-dioxide emissions, they also emit more nitrogen oxides (NOx), which help form smog, and particulate matter, which can damage lungs. Both types of pollution can have serious health effects.” (emphasis added) Here’s the problem. Carbon dioxide poses absolutely no health effect. Also, there is no CO2 in smog. I’ll repeat. There is no CO2 in smog. Al Gore and the global warming alarmists have cleverly conjoined CO2 and smog by shortening carbon dioxide to just “carbon” to make it sound sinister. CO2 is not a pollutant and, in fact, is essential to life on earth. It’s known as plant food.

The problem with Volkswagen is they weren’t trying to get around the CO2 regulations, which would’ve been excusable. They were getting around the smog regulations, which is inexcusable. They will be fined heavily and they should be. How heavily? Estimates are a minimum of $18 billion. To put that in perspective, VW’s pre-tax net income last year was roughly $4.7 billion.

This could mean an end to the car company Adolf Hitler started back in 1937. Hitler wanted an affordable car for the masses. The problem was even with his subsidy plan, few Germans could afford it. Then came World War II and production of the VW halted. It wasn’t until after the war, when Allied forces were inspecting a bombed-out factory, that the discovery was made of several VW prototypes. The Americans used Volkswagen as the centerpiece of their efforts to rebuild the German economy.

In 1959, an American advertising agency dubbed the VW the “Beetle” and an automotive phenomenon was begun. Twelve years later, VW surpassed the record set by Henry Ford and his Model T, selling more than 15 million vehicles. By the 1970s, the Beetle was looking tired and sales began to fall off. VW made a comeback in the ‘80s and in 2011 had built a production facility in Chattanooga, TN. The car company laid out about $1 billion. Federal, state, and local governments chipped in another $577 million in incentives.

That looked like a great deal to proponents of government welfare until the proverbial defecation hit the fan. Now Tennessee is scrambling to figure out what to do. What they should do is not defend the indefensible. As someone who has fought the misinformation of global warming for many years, I understand the problem of real pollution. In California, for example, vehicles account for about 60 percent of the smog. That’s a real problem. The way to address the problem is through cleaner-burning engines. The trick is dodging the CO2 requirements while making a cleaner engine.

In a perfectly combustible engine all you get is CO2. Perhaps the Volkswagen case will be a wake-up call. CO2 is not smog. It’s the alternative to smog.

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

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.