Grizzly bear fishing for salmon, Brooks Falls, Katmai National Park, Alaska. Image credit: Craig Mellish, Florentine Films.

A Coon Rapids, Minn. man named Michael Boardley won big last week. He succeeded expanding free speech in national parks for all Americans. In Michael Boardley v. Department of Interior, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit determined that Americans do not need permits in order to ‘demonstrate, distribute brochures or engage in other “expressive” activities in parks,’ reports the Los Angeles Times.

The appellate court’s decision is worthy of celebration given the scrutiny that the current administration is giving to free speech. Remember when I told you about the FCC bubble wrapping the internet? Politicians clamping down on Facebook? Comedy Central micromanaging South Park? Today, it is my pleasure to report a positive story about free speech.

In 2007, Boardley had significant difficulty obtaining a permit to distribute Christian literature in South Dakota’s Mount Rushmore National Park. He tenaciously pursued a legal challenge to the inconsistency and difficulty in the permitting process.

Mount Rushmore. Image credit: KAREN BLEIER/AFP/Getty Images.

Boardley argued that, “Yosemite … required speech permit applications to be submitted at least 10 days in advance, while Yellowstone National Park requested applications several months in advance,” reports McClatchy Newspapers.” Last Friday, the three-panel court ruled in favor of Beardsley by determining that the national park system’s permitting requirement violated the First Amendment.

Judge Janice Rogers Brown explained the court’s decision with ‘several hypothetical examples, including a Girl Scout leader who musters her scouts at Glacier National Park in Montana and “proceeds to lecture them about the effects of global warming.” This could be construed as a “gathering” that needs a permit, Brown reasoned.’

“It is offensive, not only to the values protected by the First Amendment, but to the very notion of a free society, that . . . a citizen must first inform the government of her desire to speak to her neighbors and then obtain a permit,” Brown noted, citing an earlier Supreme Court ruling,’ reports McClatchy Newspapers.

This case illustrates the power of tenacious citizens to defend the Constitutional rights of all Americans. Boardley’s persistence and logical reasoning paid yielded a big win for expanding and preserving free speech in America.

Alaska Brown Bear in Hallo Bay, Katmai National Park, Alaska. Image credit: 'Charge!' by Marshmallow on flickr.

Katie Kieffer on Peter McClellan Show - AM 1570 Twin Cities Business Radio. Image copyright Katie Kieffer 2010. All rights reserved.

Yesterday, I had the pleasure of being a guest on The Peter McClellan Show on AM 1570 Twin Cities Business Radio.

I enjoyed talking to Peter, and I think you’ll find our conversation helpful, whether you are a small business owner, an aspiring entrepreneur or a college student.

Podcast

Below is the podcast of our conversation. Enjoy it as you surf the web, fish off your dock or jog around the lake:

Katie Kieffer on AM 1570 Twin Cities Business Radio – The Peter McClellan Show (MP3)

Peter McClellan is the President of The 401K Latte® Company. You can learn more about him and his wealth management company by clicking here.

Cotton candy in Lanzhou, Gansu province, China. Image credit: Jimi Zhang（洁米）/慕容左.

Let me take you on a tour of the candy shop called “China.”

Disclaimer: This tour is about getting your hopes up for a grand and substantial treat – like a baseball stadium full of bubble gum, a life-size model of The Great Sphinx of Giza made out of chocolate chip cookie dough, or a mile-high ice cream cake skyscraper – and instead receiving a candy cloud that instantly dissipates on your tongue.

Chinese young professionals and students walk through this “candy shop” on a daily basis. Here’s what they see:

Cotton Candy Chinese Dream

One million – mostly college educated – young professionals – who are deemed “overqualified” to work in their small hometowns are flocking to China’s metropolises, particularly Beijing, and the wealthiest provincial municipality in China, Shanghai.

China’s government promises “social security” – but only if you work in your hometown. So, young, educated and overqualified, they leave the the comfort of their families for an “Ant Colony” skirting a metropolis. Some so-called “ants” live with 5 to 7 other people in a single room. They find temporary work in the city and log long hours in hope of eventually finding a job in their career path.

While most Chinese young professionals would love to be homeowners, the lack of jobs and the high cost of living within a big city like Beijing force them to live like ants – piled on top of each other in one-window rooms without air conditioning or running water.

Cotton Candy Real Estate Market

American hedge fund manager James Chanos predicts China’s real estate market to be “…a world-class – if not the world-class – property bubble.” Zhang Xin, billionaire co-president of the largest real estate development firm in Beijing, SOHO China, told China International Business magazine that, “We do have a view that this is a bubble. Real estate is very much driven by government policy …”

Zhang Xin. Image credit: © Imaginechina via AP Images.

What kind of government policies?

On the residential side, consider China Youth Daily‘s report that, while the government ordered an end to subsidized housing, it continues to underwrite a substantial portion of housing expenses for government workers.

According to China Youth Daily, “If the law has banned it [welfare housing], but civic organs are doing it openly, then that is public corruption! This kind of corruption not only destroys the government’s incentive to regulate the housing market, it gives government employees a vested interest in the continued rising of housing prices. Because government employees can get houses easily, the value and profit potential of their property increases as the amount of property they have goes up.”

As Forbes‘ Gady Epstein put it, “This is the Chinese economy in a nutshell–sellers selling a product for which there’s no natural demand, buyers buying whether they need it or not. In a market boosted by government-directed lending, both sellers and buyers have been getting only more ambitious and frenzied.”

Wealthy investors are disgruntled because they have very few places other than real estate to put their money. China bans its citizens from nearly all foreign investments, its stock market is weak and there are few tax incentives for charitable investments. One Beijiing tax analyst told Foreign Policy, “The government is so blame.”

Another reason the “ants” can’t find housing in Beijing is because the government – not a free market system – controls the economy. Hence, government policy induces investors to make seemingly market-backwards moves, like hold prime property without renting it out.

Xin further stated, “These [apartment] buildings are not fully occupied and people should be worried about it … Because of where China is with asset bubbles, people want to buy the assets regardless of whether they can be leased out or not. People just want to hold [property], even if it is empty.”

Cotton Candy TV

China’s government is so afraid that young people might get frustrated with their horrid living conditions and clamor for a better system that it banned the popular TV show Wo Ju (Narrow Dwelling) that chronicled the journey of a young, ambitious, and educated couple in a quest for home ownership.

Wo Ju

The couple eventually is able to “afford” a home – but only after the young wife has an affair with a corrupt government official. In other words, the movie portrayed young people as aspiring toward home ownership and the government as the corrupt barrier.

China’s fear of young adults aspiring for what its over-regulated economy can’t offer is reminiscent of our own Federal Reserve Chairman’s speech to graduating college students implying that they should avoid aspiring toward high salaries.

When the government tries to control the market, it typically falls flat on its face. China is real-time proof of what happens when the government tries to “solve” and “control” all economic issues: Corruption rules while logic and realism fall to the wayside.

I’ll take a free market system and Constitutional freedoms over China’s corrupt and inefficient system any day. I would prefer not to live in an ant hole with cotton candy dreams.

Image credit: FRANCOIS GUILLOT/AFP/Getty Images

When was the last time the government intervened in your life and you felt safer? When the current administration accepted campaign funds from BP and then exempted BP from an environmental impact analysis that might have prevented the Gulf of Mexico Oil spill? When Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) staffers scoured the web for porn and then self-righteously accused Goldman Sachs of internal corruption?

As I blogged last week, the FTC wants to control Facebook, and more broadly, the FCC wants to control the internet. The FCC wants to have overt regulatory control over the internet, purportedly so that it can “protect consumers.”

Caution: When the government tries to “Bubble Wrap®” things, it typically ends up dropping them on the floor before they get bubble wrapped.

The Internet

The FCC tried to gain regulatory control over the internet through it’s “ancillary” authority (authority not directly granted by Congress, but a presumed extension of a different task Congress had assigned to it). But, on April 6, 2010, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia denied the FCC’s broad interpretation of its own “ancillery authority” in Comcast v. FCC.

Now, the FCC will likely try to challenge the Court’s decision by pushing to “reclassify” broadband as a “telecommunications service” rather than an “information service” so that it can more easily regulate it.

Head of the FCC, Julius Genachowski. Image credit: Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images.

The FCC is intended to be an “independent” agency. In reality, it is chaired by a man who is arguably operating from a biased political agenda, namely Julius Genachowski.

Prior to 2009, when President Obama appointed him to chair the FCC, Genachowski “advised and guided the Obama campaign’s innovative use of technology and the Internet for grassroots engagement and participation.” Upon Obama’s election as President, Genachowski chaired a working group to map out a policy plan for future government intervention in technology, which promised to “fundamentally change” the landscape of technology as we know it.

Here are some questions worth considering:

What is wrong with the current landscape of technology? Today, the internet still operates under an essentially free market system. Sure, there is unsavory information on the internet. But, I think individual Americans should be able to decide what they want to see on the internet, not the FCC or any other arm of the government. If you don’t want to see it, filter it, baby!

Swearing-in ceremony for FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski on July 15, 2009. Image credit: Official White House Photo by Pete Souza.

If we allow the government to start telling us what we can and cannot view on the internet, the U.S. will take one step closer to looking like China, where the government gets to censor what it doesn’t want the people to know or hear. Bottom line: Should we be forced to pay for “McGovernment” on top of McAfe to protect ourselves online?

Is this really why we have these government agencies – so they can spend American tax dollars surfing for porn and controlling minute aspects of what we see, share and do on the internet?

Telecom policy analyst at Reason Foundation, Steven Titch, outlines a few more reasons why you don’t want the FCC to gain more control over the internet by reclassifying it:

“The FCC also wants more control over your cell phone, and more regulations will arise as the Internet increasingly goes mobile through devices like the iPhone. The FCC wants a say in what Apple does, what Google does, how apps work together or with your phone, where and how an ISP and application provider work together. That level of micromanagement from government bureaucrats is a disaster in the making for an always-changing, rapidly evolving tech industry.

There are countless other ways the FCC is about to get involved in our lives:

Away from home and want to use your laptop to set your DVR to record the finale of “Lost”? Not if the FCC places restrictions on the way cable companies can link set-top box features to broadband Internet connections.

Want to turn on your house alarm remotely with your cell phone? Not if the FCC prevents or regulates service bundling or co-branding between broadband ISPs and alarm companies.

These are just two examples of consumer-friendly services that are available today. They arose out of the unregulated broadband ecosystem that could now be subjected to FCC intrusiveness if the agency gets its way.

There’s no telling where else the government might demand jurisdiction. Going forward, when an ISP wants to develop and introduce an Internet service or feature it will have to be concerned about whether it will run afoul of, or draw scrutiny from, the FCC.

And more regulation means higher costs. As a result, many tech companies will be less likely to innovate and will build less broadband infrastructure. So instead of Internet speeds that have continued to grow, the government’s net neutrality plans could stall future advancements and lead to deteriorating broadband infrastructure in some parts of the country.

Ultimately, any costs that tech companies and ISPs do incur from FCC meddling will be passed on to us, the end users. So we can probably expect higher bills, and perhaps all those surcharges and administrative fees found on phone bills will apply to our Internet service, too.”

By Katie Kieffer

Jobs. Low gas prices. National security. Oh, yes, and did I mention JOBS?

If America wants to ensure any or all of the above, then, in B.o.B‘s hip hop style, “America could really use a drill right now, drill right now.”

The April 20, 2010 Gulf of Mexico spill has given drilling critics a feather for their paper-mâché hats. As environmentalists clamor for a ban on new drilling and President Obama describes the recent BP oil spill as a “massive and potentially unprecedented environmental disaster,” we remember that the current administration has a shady record on drilling.

Apparently, the President thinks Americans see themselves as “above” drilling for oil and would prefer to watch their neighbors “dirty” themselves in it.

In 2009, the President approved $2 billion to fund Brazil’s off-shore drilling. Now, we discover that President Obama was the highest recipient of BP’s PAC funds and that the government granted BP a “categorical exemption” from performing an environmental impact analysis on its Gulf of Mexico lease less than two weeks before the spill.

Workers attending to the Gulf of Mexico Oil Spill. Image credit: Deepwater Horizon Response

This spill still pales in comparison with the U.S.’s worst spill on record, the 1989 Exxon Valdez spill in Alaska’s Prince William Sound. Additionally, this spill pales in comparison to international oil spills.

The Earth is more resilient than the administration and the left-wing media will admit. The facts regarding this spill show that, while serious, it does not warrant a ban on drilling. Rather, now is the time for the U.S. to drill more.

There is a huge source of revenue and energy available to America in a tiny section of Alaska’s Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) known as the “1002 area.” Out of ANWR’s 19,000,000 acres, the 1002 area’s 1,500,000 acres were set aside for potential energy resource production.

The biggest controversy over drilling in ANWR’s 1002 area is that it would supposedly harm wildlife, especially the Porcupine caribou. However, the facts show otherwise. Indeed, the Central Arctic Caribou herd migrates through and calves in the vicinity of an existing oil field on Alaska’s North Slope known as Prudhoe Bay every year.

Caribou take refuge in the vicinity of Prudhoe Bay's oil field.

The Central Arctic Caribou herd has actually grown from 5,000 to at least 32,000. The caribou seek refuge from mosquitoes in the oil field. In fact, ABC’s Lee Dye, who lives in Alaska, reported, “I personally saw caribou climb on top of the pipeline in a futile effort to escape the hoards of mosquitoes that drive them crazy. Sometimes, they have to be shooed off the runway so planes can land.”

Drilling is popular with Americans

Don’t take it from me. Take it from your fellow Americans. Numerous recent polls show that the majority of Americans favor drilling for oil and gas.

Apparently most Americans recognize that we are in a recession, and for the first time in Gallup‘s 9-year history of conducting an energy vs. environment opinion poll, more Americans “favored energy production over environmental protection.” Thus, Frank Newport, PhD and Editor in Chief of Gallup concludes, “these parlous economic times are ripe for the announcement of policies that focus on energy development rather than the environment.”

Drilling creates jobs.

Furthermore, most Alaskans also favor drilling as they understand the value it brings to their families and communities. Dye also testifies to the benefits he witnessed in Alaska when drilling in Prudhoe Bay:

“About 15 years ago, a decade after oil began flowing through the Alaska pipeline from the Prudoe Bay field, which is west of the refuge, I visited a high school in Point Barrow at the northern tip of the state. Before oil, the impoverished community housed its students in quonset huts. But the new school had everything, including computers on every desk, and an Olympic-sized indoor swimming pool. The $50 million school wouldn’t have been there without oil.”

Here is a short recap of what America has to gain from drilling:

Jobs

Drilling for oil would produce hundreds of thousands of jobs for Americans and would provide an economic benefit to every state.

Low prices on goods

Whispers about $5 gas coming this summer should have America scouting for a better way: Drilling.

Buying Gas

Actually, more drilling  would yield more than low gas prices. Drilling would also help about keep down the cost of indulging in your morning coffee, replacing your tires, baking banana bread, or serving shrimp at your next summer cocktail party. As the oil spill off the coast of New Orleans has spread, it has temporarily shut down prosperous fishing grounds and could also jam up shipping at the mouth of the Mississippi River, causing prices to rise.

Coffee and banana bread. Image credit: flickr/photos/yehwan/.

Just like you want to protect your blood sugar from spiking because of the detrimental impacts on your energy levels and overall health, our country should proactively search out ways to buffer the economy from “spikes” or crashes should a natural disaster, government oversight or corporate mistake jumble the natural flow of production. If we had a more self-sufficient drilling system in this country, we would be a richer country overall. It seems logical that we would be able to create a “buffer” from economic price hikes if we drilled in ANWR, for example.

National security

Our country is secure when it is independent. China already owns much of our debt. How would we feel if China pressured us into handing over the fuel we are unwilling to drill for ourselves? Consider this: Less than a month ago, Venezuela’s President Hugo Chávez announced that his country had accepted $20 billion in loans from China as part of a venture where Venezuela agreed to supply the world’s second-largest consumer of oil with an ample supply of the crude oil from the Orinoco Belt.

Oil workers near Maturin, Venezuela. Image credit: Tommy Images.

If our country wishes to stay safe, we need to remain economically independent from other countries. It is particularly concerning that China, a communist country that censors free speech, utilizes sweat shops and opposes freedom of religion (remember the Dalai Lama?) is growing stronger in many ways while the U.S. is starting to look more and more like Venezuela - dependent on China.

Wouldn’t it be better to occasionally clean up an oil spill than to become a socialist country without individual freedoms and private property rights?

To read Part 1 in this series, click here.

The SEC conveniently had Goldman Sachs to distract the public from its own internal corruption. Now, liberal politicians have embraced “privacy concerns” to reframe their power grab to “protect” Americans from social networking entrepreneurs like Facebook‘s founder, Mark Zuckerburg.

A group of four liberal Senators, including my own Sen. Al Franken, have launched an attack against Facebook’s new tools called “social plug-ins,” and its “Instant Personalization Pilot Program,” claiming that they could violate individual privacy. The FTC even wants to “weigh in” on the debate.

These politicians, led by the same Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.), who called a flight attendant a “bitch” for asking him to follow in-flight cell phone rules, want to press new rules on Facebook such that all users would have to “opt-in” to Facebook’s changes versus “opt-out.”

Is it necessary that the government control Facebook?

The primary reason liberal senators like Franken say they are opposed to Facebook’s new pilot program, which can share your information with third parties, is not a serious privacy-related allegation at all. Rather, it is that it is too difficult for people to “opt out” of this feature.

Sen. Chuck Schumer

I just opted out of the pilot program myself. Facebook provides directions to “opt out” on its site. It’s easy and it only takes a few minutes to do.

It’s slightly insulting that our Senators think we can’t read Facebook’s simple “opt-out” directions and figure out how to follow them. Will Franken and Schumer start mandating that Apple provide consumers with a personal assistant the first week they own a new laptop or an iPhone to help “train them in?” After all, a laptop or iPhone manual is much more complicated than figuring out how to opt out of Facebook’s pilot program.

Here’s a video showing how quick and easy it is to opt out:

Politicians are likely drooling at the opportunity to leverage more control over elections by framing themselves as “champions of privacy.” If the government had its way, it would probably oversee social networking sites like Facebook. What could be more powerful than access to the data in a social networking site like Facebook for politicians wishing to secure votes in 2010, 2012 and beyond?

Don’t our elected officials have anything better to do than monitor people who are smart enough to tend their Farmville crops multiple times a day but somehow need assistance from the government to figure out how to manage their Facebook Privacy Settings? Our country is in the middle of a devastating recession and our politicians are spending precious time and taxpayer money monitoring and controlling Farmville users.

Perhaps Facebook should change some of its policies, or at least make them more user-friendly, but its own users will speak loud and clear if they dislike them. A Facebook group with over two million members has already popped up lobbying the Facebook Site Governance to change its rules – without the government needing to step in and oversee social networking.

No one is forcing us to participate in Facebook. No one is charging us to participate in Facebook. So, Zuckerburg doesn’t owe us an apology if we simply don’t want to take the time to “opt out” of Facebook’s new pilot program.

Participation in social networking sites like Facebook is not a Constitutional right. If we dislike the rules or we can’t figure them out, we are free to set up a profile on a different site or even form our own social networking site. Rather than “protecting” Americans from new media entrepreneurs like Zuckerburg, our politicians should focus on protecting our country’s national security and our small businesses.

Facebook image credits: Scott Beale / Laughing Squid.

South Park creators, Matt Stone and Trey Parker. Image credit: Michael Yarish/Comedy Central.

If you felt like you were watching an episode of South Park instead of the signing of Obamacare into law when Vice President Biden famously pronounced, “This is a f-ing big deal,” you had good reason. The f-bomb is like oxygen for the cartoon characters in Comedy Central‘s animated sitcom that is currently ensnared in a free speech controversy.

South Park’s creators, Trey Parker and Matt Stone keep nothing off-limits. South Park has found fans by refusing to play political games and by poking fun at grown ups who act worse than children by telling other grown ups what to do.

Remember when Parker and Stone brought us the movie, “Team America: World Police, Putting the “F” back in Freedom?” In this movie, South Park’s creators took Hollywood elitists like Michael Moore to task for thinking they have the solutions to the world’s problems and ridiculed American politicians who try to police the world.

Apparently, Parker and Stone are unimpressed by self-aggrandizing socialites like Hugh Hefner and Gov. Schwarzenegger who pulled $12.5 million together, not for charity, but to “preserve” the historical Hollywood sign from urban sprawl. Stone once famously said that he and Parker are, “more right-wing than most people in Hollywood,” and “I hate conservatives, but I really (expletive) hate liberals.”

Make no mistake, Parker and Stone take shots at both the right and the left. They have targeted nearly every religion with their satire. But, what they also do, is fearlessly thumb their noses at politically correct (PC) culture, elitist snobbery and bureaucracy. Watch Comedy Central’s Jon Stewart explain the current controversy that South Park’s creators find themselves in for ignoring PC culture and exercising free speech:

In the third video below, Parker and Stone discuss their fearless philosophy behind depicting the Prophet Muhammad in South Park’s 200th episode, which compiled some of the sitcom’s most controversial moments over time. They depicted the Prophet in their “Super Best Friends” episode in 2001, and again after the Danish Cartoon controversy in 2006 (although Comedy Central refused to air the full image in 2006). So, Parker and Stone included a caricature of the Prophet, hidden in a bear suit, in South Park’s 200th episode.

But, when a radical New York-based Muslim group sent threatening messages to Parker and Stone, Comedy Central ended up pulling episode 200 from online streaming channels and also released an “episode 201″ depicting “censored” images of the Prophet Muhammad.

Whether or not you enjoy South Park’s potty humor and dark satire, the politically incorrect sitcom is an example of what free speech fosters: Creativity, open dialogue, discussion and debate. Disagree with South Park’s message if you will, but please don’t have the audacity to live in New York, enjoying American freedoms, and then dole out death threats to American artists who exercise the right of free speech.

We need to preserve South Park’s free speech in order to help preserve all free speech. Not to steal South Park’s (and Biden’s) favorite letter, but it’s time to put the “F” back in free speech.

When a Presidential player starts calling his neighbors terrorists, you wonder whether he is just worried about Peeping Toms outing his next rendezvous.

Former President Clinton is making speeches, writing columns, and appearing on TV as an “expert” on the Tea Party movement and terrorism. Clinton implied in an April 16th keynote address to commemorate the 15th anniversary of the Oklahoma City bombing that Tea Party supporters, who are calling for fiscal reform and a return to Constitutional principles, could be the next Timothy McVeighs.

Even a slinky would have a hard time making Clinton’s stretch. Take a listen:

Around the same time as Clinton’s remarks, two of the Administration’s key officials actually vested with protecting our country from terrorism, Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Attorney General Eric Holder, are subpoenaed to explain details regarding the Ft. Hood shooting to the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee.

How convenient for the Administration to have a smooth-talking former president with no political ambitions defend its incompetency and ridicule the millions of Americans who espouse the Tea Party’s ideas of limited government, fiscal responsibility and Constitutional principles?

Let’s quickly run through Clinton’s qualifications to discuss the Tea Party movement and terrorism:

1. He’s an expert on extramarital affairs and dress-staining. Unlike Tiger, Clinton was even brazen enough to redefine “sexual relations” to avoid confessing.
2. He possesses two terms worth of “experience” cracking down on domestic terror, Doughboy style. Hoo, Hoo!
3. He chose a tree-hugging poet to be at his side in the White House.
4. He christened the thriving economy Reagan handed him, “Great Recession,” in honor of Henry Cisernos.

So, now that we’ve determined that Clinton is clearly an expert on the Tea Party movement and fighting terrorism, let’s consider the motivation behind his comparisons of frustrated and peaceful Tea Partiers to the extreme anger and violence of Timothy McVeigh in the Oklahoma City bombing.

I would suggest that one motivation for Clinton to misrepresent Americans who are frustrated with big government would be loyalty to his wife, Secretary Hillary, who works for this Administration. Except, he cheated on her, so spousal loyalty is not a driving motivator.

More likely, Clinton’s motivation was the same as it always has been: To be loved. Clinton wants Americans to love him and to do so, he has to remind them of how he protected them from terror, lest we recall how incompetent, and possibly even complicit, he was with regard to the Oklahoma City bombing:

My own experience attending and speaking at Minnesota’s largest Tea Party rally proved what the polls show: Tea Party members are “mainstream” and “generally representative of the public at large,” Gallup reveals. They are also above average in terms of education and financial success, finds a recent poll conducted by The New York Times and CBS News.

I witnessed a group of patriotic, concerned and engaged Americans at this rally. Please enjoy watching this video of the Minnesota Tea Party Tax Day rally I created along with Forever Films, and form your own opinion of the Tea Party, unhindered by Clinton’s self-aggrandizing gossip.

By Katie Kieffer

Katie Kieffer speaks at Tea Party Tax Day Rally at MN State Capitol. Image copyright Katie Kieffer. All rights reserved.

Yesterday, I spoke at the Tea Party Tax Day Rally at the Minnesota State Capitol. I wanted to share the video and some photos from the Tea Party Rally with you so that you can judge for yourself what kind of event it was. While the mainstream media likes to mis-categorize Tea Partiers, a poll conducted by The New York Times/CBS News just came out revealing that they are more educated and successful than the vast majority of the population.

I hope that these photos will help you see the Tea Party for what it is – a movement that upholds fiscal responsibility, limited government and a return to Constitutional Principles. It is a movement that is focused on reform and freedom. To do this, it has separated itself from the corruption of established political parties. Minnesota Tea Party Patriots state coordinator, Toni Bachdahl, deserves a big round of applause for making this event possible.

I’ll share my speech and some photo highlights with you:

Video produced by Charles Eide and Mike Danielson of Forever Films. Copyright Katie Kieffer. All rights reserved. Neither video nor speech may be reproduced or altered without written consent from Katie Kieffer.

My favorite sign at the Tea Party Rally. Peaceful, humorous and impactful. Image copyright Katie Kieffer. All rights reserved.

Katie Kieffer takes the podium at the 2010 Tax Day Tea Party Rally. Image copyright Katie Kieffer. All rights reserved.

Section of the crowd at the 2010 Tea Party Tax Day Rally at the Minnesota State Capitol.

I was impressed by the amazing group of patriotic Americans who showed up to the Capitol! I had so much fun talking to the Tea Party supporters after my speech at the rally and hearing about their concerns and activities. I was also pleasantly surprised by how many young people and college students showed up to support the Tea Party movement. It was so good to know that I had inspired them to stay informed and involved.

Mike Danielson of Forever Films catches Katie as she talks to Tea Party supporters after her speech at the 2010 Tea Party Tax Day Rally.

Katie Kieffer motivates Tea Party supporters at the Tax Day Tea Party rally to reach out to young people. Image copyright Katie Kieffer. All rights reserved.

Mitch Berg of AM1280 the Patriot and Shot in the Dark blog energizes the crowd at the 2010 Tax Day Tea Party Rally at the Minnesota State Capitol.

Katie Kieffer speaks at 2010 Tax Day Tea Party Rally. Image copyright Katie Kieffer. All rights reserved.

Katie Kieffer talks with Tea Party supporter after her speech at the 2010 Tax Day Tea Party Rally. Image copyright Katie Kieffer. All rights reserved.

HBO's 'How to Make It In America' is a comedy-drama about two entrepreneurs who pursue the American Dream in New York City. Image credit: HBO.

“How to Make it in America” only works if capitalism reigns in America. I have positive news and ideas that will help you take America back to her capitalist and Constitutional roots in the wake of socialist and unconstitutional Obamacare, which I discussed here, here and here.

Let’s all agree that there is no silver bullet to halt this Administration’s apparent obsession with creating “historic moments” and “fundamentally different courses” for America. There is no Capitalist Fairy who can sprinkle Reagan Jelly Belly beans down on liberal politicians and eliminate their hatred and shame for America.

There are real people, like you and me, who have the right to vote, free speech and assembly. If you feel like you’re alone in this battle to preserve freedom, you’re not. You have more friends than you might think. I’m going to showcase your biggest friends in this race to combat socialist takeover of American free enterprise so you can join them in making your voice heard:

The Tea Party Movement

Well, didn’t Sarah Palin give Sen. Harry Reid’s hometown a nice little surprise on Saturday? Between 9,000 and 11,000 people showed up in the small town of Searchlight, Nev. to rally with Palin and support a return to fiscal responsibility, limited government and Constitutional principles.

Thousands of Tea Party supporters rally in Searchlight, Nev., Saturday, March 27, 2010. Image credit: AP Photo/Jae C. Hong.

Compare this peaceful Tea Party rally with the hate-filled anti-capitalist protests on Wall Street that the mass media somehow “forgets” to show you:

Anti-capitalist protesters brandish violent messages on Wall Street, Sept. 25, 2008. Image credit: Flickr/Christy Thornton.

Searchlight’s rally is just one example of many Tea Party rallies that are happening all over the country. If you live in Minnesota, mark your calendars for April 15, 2010 because the St. Paul Tax Day Tea Party rally will take place at the Minnesota State Capitol.

Minnesotans should come together to show our state and federal government that we are tired of bearing the brunt end of their spending sprees. I will be speaking at this rally on how conservatives can reach out to young people. There will be many other exciting speakers, and you can learn more on the rally’s Facebook page. I hope that you can join us!

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce

If you are a small business owner or an entrepreneur, you should pay close attention to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. The Chamber will alert you to issues impacting the small business community, so you can voice your opinion before it’s too late.

The same day Palin rallied with thousands of Americans to support free enterprise, the Obama Administration took yet another shot at capitalism and the American Dream by appointing Craig Becker to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB).

President Obama brazenly ignored the Senate’s constitutional responsibility to consent, and appointed Becker to the NLRB despite the Senate’s bi-partisan recommendation not appoint him, given his radical anti-business sentiments and shady ethical past (Can you say Acorn?).

Craig Becker

Here is a section of a letter that 20 trade associations, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, signed asking the President to refrain from appointing Becker:

“Mr. Becker has written that employers should have no role in union representation elections, thus calling into question whether they should be permitted to insist on secret ballot elections to determine union representation or whether they could be compelled to accept union authorization cards (“card check”). Furthermore, his writings clearly indicate that he would use his position on the NLRB to institute far-reaching changes in the law that would not merely interpret existing law, but would bypass the role of Congress in setting national labor policy.”

Given Becker’s affection for labor unions, which donated $300 million to put President Obama and Democrats in office, I can see why the President was unwilling to follow the advice of his congressional peers and the Constitution. What goes around comes around, right? Becker plus happy labor unions equals money in the President’s reelection coffer. ( By the way, the President’s contempt for the Constitution is nothing new. We witnessed it in his treatment of the High Court and in the backroom deal he cut with labor unions on the health care bill.) 

With Becker’s appointment, expect to see more states propose “solutions” to eliminating budget deficits such as taxing limousine rides, comedians, clowns, strippers, lawyers, hot air balloon rides and other previously tax-exempt services, as Bill Hemmer revealed on “America’s Newsroom” this morning. I’ve never been a stripper advocate, but these are all “solutions” that would allow states to reduce their debt by hurting business instead of confronting bloated labor unions.

Here is your positive hope for pro-business change: The Chamber has been fighting the Becker appointment by helping small businesses understand the reality of Becker’s viewpoints. If more small businesses had joined the Chamber in opposing Becker’s appointment, the President may have thought twice before groveling at the feet of labor unions.

The Chamber’s work to oppose Becker’s appointment is just one example of Chamber resources that small business owners should take advantage of and participate in. Small businesses, such as those I interviewed last week, can look to the Chamber as a resource to help them understand the political issues that face them and collaborate with other small businesses to restore America’s healthy business climate.

I have even more positive news for you, so stay tuned.