Dumb and Dumber Drones

By Katie Kieffer

Image credit: “Drone vs Cow” by Lima Pix on Flickr via Creative Commons. Image unedited.

If U.S. drone policy weren’t so treacherous, it would be a comedy on par with the hit movie Dumb and Dumber. Instead, U.S. drone policy is just plain dumb. Today, I’ll walk through the most inane aspects of our drone policy so you can take action before you’re awakened from sunbathing on your patio by the buzzing of a drone snapping your picture overhead. My own mother was recently outside watering her flowers when she noticed a tiny drone flying above. A few days later, the drone returned. Whether drones like these are operated by snoopy neighbors or prying politicians—the threat they pose to our 4th Amendment right to private property is alarming. A new report unearthed by The Intercept on Oct. 15, 2015 shows that our foreign drone policy is even more corrupt and mismanaged than our domestic policy. According to The Intercept’s report, there have been more innocent civilian deaths due to this administration’s use of drones than due to all combined mass shooters in the United States over the course of Obama’s dual presidency. “Smart power” entails “showing respect even for one’s enemies,” says presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton. I don’t think so. Smart power is not treating innocent civilians in the United States and abroad like one’s enemies—while befriending known ex-terrorists like Underground co-founder Bill Ayers. This fall, Yale Daily News published an interview with Ayers and quoted him as saying: “I like to think that his [Obama’s] association with me got him elected in 2008.” Quite the opposite. If more Americans had known how cozy Obama was with folks like Ayers—and how callous he would be toward innocent citizens—they would never have fallen for Mr. Nobel Peace Prize. Let’s start with the dumb and proceed to the dumber—and end with a solution.

Dumb Drones

Put the federal government in charge of anything, and prepare for failure. From IRS Girl Gone Wild Lois Lerner—to a TSA with a 95% fail rate at detecting bombs and weapons, our federal government is A-rated in incompetency. For all the current administration’s efforts to make it more difficult to register guns—it has little qualm with making it super easy for anyone to register a drone—even when The Intercept report shows that drones are responsible for more mass killings of innocent civilians than guns. Last week, the Obama administration’s Federal Aviation Administration announced that it will be a piece of cake for third parties to register drones. “Unmanned aircraft users should know they probably won’t need help registering their drones when the system is in place,” proclaimed the FAA. Great. Criminals could get their hands on a drone with less work and less cost—just $24.99—than an 18-year-old college student expends on a fake ID to buy beer. 700,000 drones will be sold in America in 2015, estimates the Consumer Electronic Association. That’s nearly two thirds more as were sold in 2014. Unfortunately, the Obama administration just made it easier for snoopy neighbors, corrupt journalists, power-hungry politicians and petty criminals to obtain drones to silently survey or attack their prey—while failing to honor the average law-abiding citizen’s 4th Amendment right to private property and 2nd Amendment right to defend that property with a firearm. Our domestic drone policy looks even more moronic when you consider that our president plans to make it easy for random hoodlums to register drones—despite numerous recent drone pranks played on the White House. In January, a drone crashed on the White House lawn and in May the U.S. Secret Service arrested a man who flew his drone eerily close to the White House. As recently as October, the U.S. Secret Service handed out a citation to another man who illegally flew a drone near to the White House. Even if he’s not that concerned with our safety—doesn’t our president care about his own safety? Nope. Unfortunately, President Obama and his wannabe successor Hillary Clinton perceive dumb domestic drone policy as “smart power.”

Dumber Drones

Our foreign drone policy is far dumber than our domestic policy—and this is no laughing matter. As alluded to at the beginning of this column, The Intercept’s report shows that more innocent civilians died due to the use of drones by the Obama administration than in the U.S. due to mass shooters like Adam Lanza, Dylann Roof, Major Nidal Hasan, James Holmes or Jared Loughner. As I’ve shown here, mass gun violence is at a historic high under the Obama administration. Trained U.S. military personnel cannot carry concealed on their own bases—even as madmen like Major Nidal Hasan and Aaron Alexis increasingly target their gun-free bases. And college women cannot carry concealed on their own campuses—even as reports of sexual assault rise. But our president has unethically authorized the use of lethal drone force against both Americans and non-Americans abroad—a process that has killed countless innocent civilians—in the name of hunting down terrorists. It would be easier to trust our president’s competence in overseeing our foreign drone policy if Bill Ayers hadn’t made the mistake of confirming that our president is on very friendly terms with at least one anti-American ex-terrorist: Bill Ayers. Documents leaked to The Intercept show that anyone deemed to be a “threat to U.S. interest[s] or personnel” could be targeted with lethal drone force. The broadness of this definition is concerning. Additionally, our domestic policy is vague enough to be misinterpreted to allow snooping to occur on my mother in her garden—or you sunbathing on your deck in your swimsuit. Solution: Your voice is more powerful than you may realize. An uplifting new report from the Congressional Management Foundation finds that it only takes 30 tweets to draw congressional office attention to an issue. Keep hope and tweet on. Spread your smart facts on social media—and before long politicians will be forced to reform our Dumb and Dumber drone policy.


Check Your Privilege, Obama

By Katie Kieffer
President Obama

Image credit: President Obama Talks to the Crew of Atlantis (P052009PS-0698) by “NASA HQ PHOTO” on Flickr via Creative Commons.

Check your privilege, President Obama. Specifically, your executive privilege. If we time-traveled to the days of our first presidents—George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, James Monroe, John Quincy Adams and Andrew Jackson—we would discover that they all used executive privilege. Here’s the catch: on average, these presidents invoked executive privilege less than once per year (0.79 times/year). Modern-day presidents abuse executive privilege, a license that is not overtly articulated in the Constitution. In some cases, the Supreme Court has upheld its use as a way for presidents to perform their existing executive duties. Chief Justice Burger describes the privilege thus in the majority opinion for US v. Nixon: “Whatever the nature of the privilege of confidentiality of Presidential communications in the exercise of Art. II powers, the privilege can be said to derive from the supremacy of each branch within its own assigned area of constitutional duties.”


Today I’ll discuss why Obama is one of the worst modern abusers of executive privilege and encourage you to hold him and future presidents in check. “Bush abused executive privilege too!” someone might protest. Bush is no longer president. Obama is. And Obama Junior—otherwise known as Hillary Clinton—has her eye on the White House. Executive privilege must be held in check. Obama has said so himself. At least he did back in 2007 when he sought to buy our votes. CNN’s Larry King to presidential candidate Obama: “Do you favor executive privilege?” Obama: “…there’s been a tendency on the part of this [the Bush] administration to, to, try to hide behind executive privilege every time there’s somethin’ a little shaky that’s taking place. And I think, you know, the administration would be best served by coming clean…” Once he became president, Obama was not shy about tooting his own horn:This is the most transparent administration in history,” he said in 2013. Unfortunately, nothing could be further from the truth.

The Record

Flash forward to 2015. President Obama has issued 219 official executive orders according to the American Presidency Project. On paper, Obama’s number seems “low” in comparison to Franklin D. Roosevelt (3,721 orders); or Woodrow Wilson (1,803 orders); and “reasonable” in contrast to George W. Bush (291 orders). We can’t go back in time and impeach Roosevelt and Wilson. We can hold our current and future presidents accountable. George W. Bush exerted executive privilege to prevent a “precedent” whereby a president’s staffers (like Karl Rove in Bush’s case) would be, in Rove’s words: “routinely subpoenaed” to discuss “internal White House deliberations.” Rove told Fox News’ Greta Van Susteren that Bush offered Congress a compromise: the ability to get “the substance of what they wanted” by making Rove available in a “private hearing” where Rove would be “sworn in” so that if he didn’t “tell the truth, he could be prosecuted.” In this way, Bush invoked executive privilege in line with Supreme Court precedent—to protect internal White House communications—while still proffering Congress a way to obtain the information. Obama does the opposite. He claims executive privilege on matters that he himself has declared the White House to have zero involvement in. For example: Fast and Furious: In 2012,Obama exerted executive privilege to shield his cabinet member Attorney General Eric Holder—despite previously claiming that the White House had no involvement in Fast and Furious. The Obama administration again exerted the privilege in 2014 to protect Holder’s wife and mother. To protect its shady secrets, the Obama administration has used executive privilege to classify practically anything and anyone as protected under internal White House deliberations. This is like saying: “my dog ate my homework.” C’mon! Benghazi: In March of this year, Obama told CBS that he heard about Hillary Clinton’s private email server at “the same time everybody else learned it—through news reports.” By October, when the State Department uncovered emails exchanged between Clinton and Obama, he had changed his story. The New York Times reported that the administration “will try to block” emails between Obama and the former Secretary of State. So, Obama threatened to use executive privilege to protect the same electronic communication that he denied existing a few months earlier on CBS.

Leaping Through Loopholes

Obama, like Bill Clinton before him, is also inclined to invoke executive privilege informally to help keep his “official” count down. The Wall Street Journal describes Clinton’s approach to invoking executive privilege: “Because he didn’t issue written directives asserting privilege, he didn’t make it completely clear when he was asserting the privilege.” Though Congress may attempt to override an executive order, the President has veto power, making the Supreme Court the ultimate decision-maker. We need only look to the Court to see how abusive Obama’s use of executive power has become. On at least 12 occasions, the Supreme Court has “unanimously ruled against the Obama administration on the issue of executive power,” according to The Daily Signal. One of Obama’s most notorious uses of executive privilege is the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) policy. By establishing the DACA program, Obama effectively re-wrote federal immigration law. The program gives a two-year deportation deferral to undocumented young people under the age of 30 who arrived in the U.S. before the age of 16. U.S. District Judge Arthur Schwab made headlines declaring DACA to be unconstitutional. Even if someone were to think that DACA is constitutional—they’ll have to agree that its effects are very unethical. For example, the New York Times reported earlier this year how DACA has encouraged colleges to give undocumented citizens priority over American citizens for college aid. Obama’s DACA order incentivizes colleges to make life even harder for American college students who already graduate with $33,000 in debt on average. This is unethical and unjust. Nearly one in four Millennials still lives at home with their parents. Rather than enjoying Michelle Obama’s self-described “huge recovery,” young Americans have faced 15% unemployment. Politicians are out to buy votes and they don’t care about the humanitarian needs of undocumented young people. The fact is, before we can truly help others we must help our own young people survive. It’s not fair to Americans or non-Americans to pretend otherwise. Most young people will never hear these facts in their high schools or colleges. The onus is on those of us who are fortunate enough to be informed to educate Millennials. The youth vote determined the past two presidential elections. Young people in particular will be burned by Obama’s wrongful use of executive orders and Hillary Clinton will be Barack Obama 2.0. This is why I wrote “Let Me Be Clear,” as an educational tool for parents and their Millennials so that we can win in 2016. You and I have a powerful voice when we speak in unison. Let’s get this message out: Check your privilege, Obama. And don’t even think about following in his footsteps, Hillary Clinton.


How Hillary’s Embarrassing Emails Raise Your Taxes

By Katie Kieffer
Hillary Clinton

Image credit: “Hillary Clinton and David Miliband” by Downing Street on Flickr via Creative Commons.

You need to know how Hillary’s email scandal is taxing your bank account and your family’s security. On the surface, Hillary appears to have a political black eye. In reality, it’s we who are bearing her costs at the FBI; the State Department and in Congress. Let me explain… “When voters were asked, ‘What is the first word that comes to mind when you think of Hillary Clinton?’ words like ‘liar,’ ‘dishonest,’ and ‘untrustworthy,’ were at the top of the list,” ABC’s David Muir chided Clinton last week. Besides losing her media allies, Clinton’s poll numbers are tanking. Yet it’s hard to feel “even a smidgen” (to use President Obama’s metric system) of sympathy for Clinton when you and I are faring far worse than she. Over 1 in 4 Millennials are living at home according to a 2015 Pew Report—a phenomenon I call the “New Shacking Up.” The fact that Millennials are the first generation of Americans to fare worse than their parents is also hurting their parents, the Baby Boomers, who have been compelled to support their children well into adulthood. While Hillary enjoys spending her $14 million book advance, the rest of us are actually making hard choices. Because of Hillary’s email scandal, we have been taxed monetarily and in terms of lowered national security:

Allocating FBI “A-Team” to Hillary’s e-mails instead of ISIS:

Last Friday, as I watched a 9/11 memorial video showing planes fly into New York’s Twin Towers, I thought: How could Hillary see this and take our national security so lightly? 14 years after 9/11, ISIS recruiters are successfully trolling the Internet, preying upon American teenagers. Recruiters exploit Twitter and Skype to strike up anonymous relationships and convince our boys and girls to leave their friends and family. The New York Times reported how recruiters nearly-convinced a 23-year-old American girl to marry a balding 45-year-old terrorist and move to Syria. This trend commands enormous FBI attention. However, due to Clinton’s emails, our FBI has been reduced to cleaning bathrooms. Hillary contracted with an obscure company called Platte River Networks in Denver, Colorado to safeguard her private server, and they stored it in their bathroom. Platte River Networks is low on proven competence and high on alleged ties to Joe Biden and Colorado’s Democratic Governor, John Hickenlooper. Prompted by the discovery that Hillary’s staffers shared classified information on our military intelligence and the Benghazi terror attack through emails stored on her private server, the FBI’s “A-Team” has been assigned to probe whether she violated 18 US Code 793 of the Espionage Act. The last thing the FBI needs is for its limited resources to be drained by Hillary’s dirty bathroom!

Paying “Email Czar” salary to Hillary’s gal pal:

Besides frittering away FBI resources, Hillary’s scandal squanders State Department resources. Secretary of State John Kerry allocated State funds (i.e. taxpayer dollars) to create a new job for …drumroll… a current Clinton-donor named Janice Jacobs. JJ’s job title is Transparency Coordinator. One question: why is our money—meant for official State business—employing a Clinton donor to “investigate” a politician that she publicly supports? Rather than hiring State Department transparency employees, Kerry should stick to riding his bike, which he does only slightly better.


Our elected officials like Rep. Trey Gowdy have had to waste months investigating Clinton’s incompetence in Benghazi. Now, they must devote time to scrutinizing her email scandal, particularly since at least one of the classified emails housed on her server contained top secret information on the Benghazi terror attack. Their and their staff’s time would be better spent elsewhere, revealing another way in which Hillary’s email scandal taxes the taxpayer.

She promised:

Clinton stood before Vice President Biden and took an oath on Feb. 2, 2009: “I, Hillary Clinton, do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic.” Fast forward to last week: “What I had done was allowed, it was above board. But in retrospect… I should have used two accounts. That was a mistake. I’m sorry about that,” Clinton told ABC. However, Platte River Networks appears to have been unauthorized to process or hold classified information. Further, at least one of the confidential Benghazi-related emails stored on Hillary’s server was dated April 10, 2011. That means it took over four years for Hillary’s emails to leave Platte River’s bathroom and become “above board.” Taxpayers should not be paying for one of Hillary’s fan girls to be an email “Transparency Coordinator.” We shouldn’t be required to devote FBI and congressional resources to investigate a woman who vowed to protect our national security. After her apology, Hillary may look like she has a black eye—but it’s we who are paying the price.


17 Grades for 17 Candidates: Anchor Babies

By Katie Kieffer
17 GOP Presidential Candidates

17 GOP Presidential Candidates. Image credits: Alamy, Corbis, Filmmagic, Getty Images, Reuters, Rex

Only five GOP presidential candidates understand our Constitution and are serious about reforming our immigration system in a fair and equitable manner: Donald Trump; Sen. Ted Cruz; Sen. Rand Paul; Gov. Bobby Jindal and Rick Santorum. Last month it was the Confederate flag. This month, all the cool kids who never had a problem with the term “anchor baby” are feigning shock and disgust. Why? Because they worship at the shrine Hillarathena, goddess of political correctness. Today, I’ll walk you through all 17 GOP presidential candidates and prove why only Trump, Cruz, Paul, Jindal and Santorum deserve an A-rating for their constitutional approach to immigration. As a special bonus, I’ll show you why Cruz and Jindal are not themselves anchor babies.

14th Amendment 101:

Before we get to the candidates, here’s a mini constitutional crash course. The 14th Amendment was passed for the sole purpose of clarifying that freed slaves were indeed American citizens. It was NOT passed to grant citizenship to an undocumented immigrant’s child. We know this because, nearly 60 years after the 14th Amendment was ratified, American Indians were still not considered to be American citizens. And if anyone had a right to call themselves a citizen solely based on their birth on American soil, it would be the original inhabitants of the soil. You also can’t claim that Supreme Court precedent supports birthright citizenship because the 1898 Supreme Court Case of U.S. v Wong Kim Ark does not deal with the children of undocumented immigrants—it deals with the children of legal immigrants. The specific mention of citizenship in the Constitution is in Article One, granting Congress the right to elucidate citizenship. No amendment—14th or otherwise—condones anchor babies (children born to undocumented immigrants who receive citizenship and “anchor” their parents and family, regardless of whether they are already in the United States, helping their entire family reside in the U.S. without fear of deportation.)

Grading the 17 GOP Candidates on Anchor Babies

Below, I rate each presidential candidate on the constitutionality of their plan for birthright citizenship. Only five of 17 get As.

A   Donald Trump

Besides his fabulous hair, entrepreneur Donald Trump receives an “A” for seriousness; lack of political correctness and adherence to the Constitution. “No one is above the law,” Trump writes in his 17-point action plan (please read it before you critique it). Equality is a major theme in his proposal. Trump pushes you to ask yourself: why should an adult non-citizen criminal inmate be freed from jail if he or she “simply claims eligibility” for the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA)? Also, if we truly care about women, why should American women be treated as inferiors to non-American women? Trump is open to humane deportation: “We’re going to keep the families together, but they have to go,” he said of his plans to repeal Obama’s unconstitutional executive orders and deport those here illegally. Trump developed his plan with help from immigration expert Sen. Jeff Sessions—a man brave enough to stand up to President Obama for his recent efforts to put the United States under the jurisdiction of an international legislative body.

A   Sen. Ted Cruz

“Absolutely,” he told talk show host Michael Medved: “We should end granting automatic birthright citizenship to the children of those who are here illegally.” Also, he’s not an anchor baby because his mother was already a U.S. citizen when she had him in Canada.

A   Sen. Rand Paul

He’s been at the forefront of this issue since 2011, when he partnered with Sen. David Vitter to advance a resolution that: “a person born in the United States to illegal [immigrants] does not automatically gain citizenship.”

A   Gov. Bobby Jindal

“We need to end birthright citizenship for illegal immigrants,” Jindal tweeted last week. He also boldly said that he’s “happy to use” the term “anchor babies” and he hit back further at the Princess of Political Correctness: “What I find offensive is Hillary Clinton — the left. When you look at those Planned Parenthood videos, they refuse to call them ‘babies,’ they call them ‘fetal tissue,’ they call them ‘specimens’… What’s really offensive is the left refuses to say ‘babies.’ Instead they say ‘fetal tissue,’ ‘specimens,’ they are a bunch of science deniers.” Jindal is not an anchor baby because his mother was recruited to the U.S. by LSU on a nuclear physics scholarship. His mother was the kind of high-talent immigrant that our founders were hoping to attract to the United States. She even initially told LSU that she could not accept the scholarship because she was pregnant, showing that her intent was not to have a baby in the United States. LSU wanted her so badly that they accommodated her, helping her handle the pregnancy and her rigorous course load.

A   Rick Santorum

Santorum wrote an op-ed for Breitbart on May 6 stating: “Other enticements to illegal immigration, such as birthright citizenship, should be ended,” and  “Only children born on American soil where at least one parent is a citizen or resident aliens is automatically a U.S. citizen.”

B+   Dr. Ben Carson

He’s on the right track, but indecisive. He says: “it doesn’t make any sense to me that people could come in here, have a baby and that baby becomes an American citizen.” We have yet to hear whether he’s definitively willing to end this practice.

B-   Gov. Scott Walker

Walker will soon be known as “Walker the Waffler” if he doesn’t take a firm stand on immigration. He told MSNBC’s Kasie Hunt last week that “yeah” he would be open to ending birthright citizenship. In his next breath, he hedged: I didn’t say that [we should deport children].” Trump is open to deporting families, but keeping them together, as noted earlier. However, Walker recently went on Fox & Friends and claimed that his immigration proposal is much like Trump’s. Funny how nobody heard about this until now. If Walker’s stance on immigration were truly as clear as Trump’s, we would have heard about it before now.

B-   Sen. Marco Rubio

Sen. Rubio demonstrated at last week’s Iowa State Fair that he neither has a clear understanding of the U.S. Constitution nor a clear plan for immigration reform. He said: “I don’t agree with that [Trump's proposal]. I’m open to doing things that prevent people who deliberately come to the U.S. for purposes of taking advantage of the 14th Amendment, but I’m not in favor of repealing it.” Rubio is a bit confused. We don’t need to change a word of the 14th Amendment to reform our immigration system.

C    Gov. Chris Christie

Sounding much like his cuddle buddy President Obama who once said he was “evolving” on gay “marriage,” Christie says he is open to a “re-examination” of birthright citizenship, but he won’t give us a hard answer as to what that entails.

C    Sen. Lindsey Graham

Graham says: “I think it’s a bad practice to give citizenship based on birth,” but in the next breath he said that changing the law is “not going to happen until we fix a broken immigration system.” Graham doesn’t seem to get that ending birthright citizenship is the first step to fixing our broken immigration system.

C-   Carly Fiorina

Fiorina’s excuse for refusing to address birthright citizenship is even worse than Graham’s: pure laziness. At the Iowa State Fair, she said: “It would take passing a constitutional amendment.” (Actually it would not since it’s not in a constitutional amendment. Congress simply needs to address this loophole in our federal immigration law.) She added that birthright citizenship is not where she’s willing to expend “energies.”

C-   Gov. Rick Perry

His opposition to ending birthright citizenship stems from essentially the same reasoning as Graham and Fiorina, so I won’t bore you with redundancy.

D    Mike Huckabee

“No,” was the Huckster’s one-word answer to whether he would repeal the 14th Amendment to end birthright citizenship during a 2010 interview with NPR. The 14th Amendment does not address “anchor babies,” so repealing it would not do any good. But Huckabee is not a constitutional scholar and he appeared to hear the question as whether he would end birthright citizenship. He said “no.”

F    Jeb Bush

He claims being an “anchor baby” is a “constitutional right” and he doesn’t want to “take away constitutional rights.” Earth to Bush: undocumented immigrants have no constitutional rights per se (although they do, obviously, have human rights).

F    Jim Gilmore

Like Jeb Bush, he thinks undocumented immigrants have a constitutional right per the 14th amendment to anchor baby benefits. Both men need to re-read the Constitution and take a crash course on U.S. history.

F    Gov. John Kasich

Flip-flopping from his earlier position against birthright citizenship, Kasich now tells CNN: “I think we need to get over that. I’m not for it anymore. Let these people who are born here be citizens and that’s the end of it. I don’t want to dwell there anymore.”

F    George Pataki

“I don’t support amending the Constitution to kick out kids who were born here,” he told MSNBC last week. Now know where your candidates stand on anchor babies as of today; beware of candidates who switch to meld with public opinion. Share this immigration report card with your friends and family members who would like a helpful cheat sheet to understand the facts behind the “anchor baby” debate.


You Can Trust Planned Parenthood

Cartoon copyright Amie Kieffer 2015. All rights reserved.

Cartoon copyright Amie Kieffer 2015. All rights reserved.

Article by Katie Kieffer; Cartoon by Amie Kieffer I have a list of reasons why you can trust Planned Parenthood. By now, you’ve probably seen the viral video starring Planned Parenthood executive Dr. Deborah Nucatola. In the undercover clip, made by the Center for Medical Progress, Dr. Nucatola gushes about performing abortions in such a way so as to carefully and fatally “crush” fetuses while preserving specific body parts like “fetal livers” which are popular on Planned Parenthood’s secretive “menu” of harvesting options. In my opinion, as a Millennial woman, Planned Parenthood is very forthright. Here are four examples of Planned Parenthood’s reliable claims:

1. Millennial women love our services

Dr. Nucatola claims that Planned Parenthood’s fetal part harvesting “service” was “asked for” by their abortion “patients.” If so, why hasn’t Planned Parenthood gone public with this program? After all, transparency would allow more women to learn about the valuable service Planned Parenthood purports to offer. Here are the facts: only 27 percent of Millennials call themselves “pro-choice only” and the majority (51%) of Millennials say that abortion services should not be covered by health insurance, according to a 2015 study by Public Religion Research Institute.

2. Video was edited to make Planned Parenthood look like a profiteer

Actually, the full-length video is more embarrassing to Planned Parenthood than the 9-minute version. Very few people have the time or motivation to watch a 2-hour-and-43-minute-long video, which is why it was edited—not to make Planned Parenthood look like a profiteer. Only the full-length version of the video shows Dr. Nucatola admitting that the goal of Planned Parenthood’s 67 affiliates who perform harvesting is to: “do a little better than break even, and do so in a way that seems reasonable.” Dr. Nucatola emphasizes that their main concern is not the safety of the mothers undergoing the abortion procedure or the ethics of selling their dead children’s livers, but “it’s really just about if anyone were ever to ask them [the 67 affiliates], well, what do you do for this $60, how can you justify that?” So, Planned Parenthood’s stated and accomplished goal is to do better than break even through harvesting baby parts. For them to say they neither have nor want to profit is like an entrepreneur refusing to admit that he is profiting until he is a billionaire. Even if Planned Parenthood were LOSING money, they are still STEALING my money because I have a First Amendment right to bar ANY of my federal tax dollars from going toward the organization that performs over a fourth of all Abortions in America.

3. “We follow all laws and ethical guidelines”

Richards defended their organ harvesting program, saying they: “follow all laws and ethical guidelines.” See above. They are profiting. And it’s in their best interest to keep profits artificially low so that they do not raise red flags. Even if it were legal, legalizing a practice does not make it ethical: at one point it was “legal” to enslave African Americans and to bar women from voting. Abortion is technically legal in the United States, but it violates natural law. Reason tells us that every human being has a natural right to their own private property—the first of which is their own body. As soon as a baby or fetus has a body, they have a natural right to their body, even if it is growing inside of another body. We all have a duty to help young women enduring the pain and challenge of rape or an unwanted pregnancy, and I’ve offered many ways in which we can do this in a manner that respects both the mother and the baby in previous columns as well as in Let Me Be Clear.

4. Our opponents want to “cut women off” from “other health centers”

Yes, Richards actually made that assertion. Without batting an eye, she told Americans that anyone who disagrees with their shady baby-part harvesting program wants to cut women off from care at pregnancy crisis centers. This is her biggest lie of all. Pro-life organizations do not receive federal funding like Planned Parenthood; they survive through private philanthropy, which shows that their opponents actually work harder to care for women. OK, so Planned Parenthood is not that transparent. Millennial women like me—as well as your young friends, daughters and granddaughters—would be wise to look elsewhere for caring, trustworthy and reliable healthcare. Cartoon by Amie Kieffer. All rights reserved. Contact us to book Katie Kieffer to speak at your next event.


I Know What Lois Lerner Did Last Summer

By Katie Kieffer

Image credit: “Seagull fly on the rising sun over Vieste’s Lighthouse – Italy.” by
castgen on Flickr via Creative Commons.

I know her secret, I know she’s scared, and I know what she did last summer. If you need something lighthearted to pick yourself up and get back into work after a long holiday weekend, I’ll give you a column that would more humorous if it weren’t so close to the truth. It’s the story about what Lois Lerner and her new bestie, Hillary Clinton, did last summer. The 4th of July reminded me of the 1997 horror-thriller, “I Know What You Did Last Summer,” where a girl gets attacked on the 4th of July. Which then reminded me of the chilling probability that I may know what girls gone wild like former IRS Director of Exempt Organizations Lois Lerner did last summer.

Let’s go to the beach!

Refresher: Lois Lerner is a gal with extreme moxie. For example, she remained confident in her ability to oversee tax-related work at the IRS despite her own admission at being so “bad at math” that she could not decide whether 75 is a quarter of 300. In another display of excessive self-assurance, she emailed the IRS Commissioner’s Chief of Staff and said: Hey, is there any way we can chat with the Department of Justice and “piece together false statement cases about 501(c)4 applicants who ‘lied’ on their 1024s”? (Thanks to a Judicial Watch Freedom of Information Act Lawsuit filed against the IRS in 2013, we know Lerner said that.) In the summer of 2013, President Obama’s administration rewarded Lerner’s recklessness with paid administrative leave. This would give her plenty of time to hit the beach and contemplate her cunning hand in a massive IRS scandal whereby the agency targeted and unethically delayed the approval of freedom and faith-oriented non-profits. Non-profits that could have educated Millennial swing voters and thereby deterred them from re-electing Obama. Well, after two summers of chilling at the beach, on May 31 of 2015, the U.S. Attorney’s Office announced that Lois Lerner would not be charged with contempt or face charges. Lois could keep the $129,000 in bonuses that she received while presiding over contended favoritism at the IRS and retire will full pension. In this lack-luster economy, many under-employed grandparents are snatching summer jobs at Starbucks and McDonald’s away from teens—while Lois Lerner is kicking back and enjoying the beach scene knowing she’ll never need to work another day in her life. But, let’s be fair, Lois earned her promotion. It’s hard to adjust your beach umbrella while holding a Mai Tai in one hand and a copy of mommy porn like “Shades of Gray” in the other and Lois executed both tasks with impeccable finesse by practicing her delegation skills on the lifeguard.

Beach Buds

Lois doesn’t go to the beach alone. Oh no, she has a girlfriend. You see, Lois Lerner’s case isn’t closed. Late last month the chief government watchdog for the IRS revealed at a Congressional testimony that Lerner’s hard drive containing emails dated between 2010 and 2012 appear to have been destroyed by “an impact of some sort.” Translation: Lois might pack a hammer in her beach bag. Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration J. Russell George further testified that 422 backup tapes containing up to 24,000 emails sent to and from Lois Lerner had been destroyed by IRS employees. George qualified his revelation by saying that he did not smell foul play in this destruction of evidence. Which makes you question the strength of George’s watchdog sniffer. But, I digress. Hillary wants to become president but she is embroiled in an email server scandal of her own. As secretary of state, she hosted her own secret server in her house; used a personal email address for official state business; and can’t offer a good explanation for why she deleted over 30,000 emails in the wake of Benghazi. So, it would be no surprise if she picked up the phone and whispered: “Lois? I can’t tell you how great it is to hear your voice! Can you meet me tomorrow morning at my private beach? Great. See you then.” Because, a few days before the 4th of July holiday, we learned that the same woman charged with managing Congress’ investigation into Lerner’s emails has also been charged with overseeing Clinton’s email scandal: an attorney named Catherine Duval. If you’re going to bury the truth, make sure it stays buried,” was a movie tagline for I Know What You Did Last Summer. Depending on how well Lois and Hillary buried the truth contained in the thousands of emails that they do not seem eager for you or me to see may determine how many more summers they spend sunbathing—or doing community service. Either way, we know what Lois Lerner did last summer. Katie Kieffer will speak on Thursday, July 9 at the 12:00 noon luncheon in the Santa Monica 2 room at Freedom Fest in Las Vegas! She will sign copies of Let Me Be Clear” on Thursday from 3:15 – 3:45 p.m. in the Exhibit Hall.Katie Kieffer, Freedom Fest


Cuomo Gives “Consent” PowerPoint to Rapists

By Katie Kieffer
Gov. Andrew Cuomo

Image credit: “IMG_158″ by Andy 
on Flickr via Creative Commons.

You need a girl’s consent, New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo tells rapists. If she says “yes,” it’s not rape—it’s “affirmative consent.” “Affirmative consent” is pivotal to Cuomo’s new plan to stop college rape. His plan consists of giving a legislative PowerPoint to rapists that defines rape in crystal clear terms. Cuomo maintains that once rapists understand what rape is—ta da!—they will never rape again. It works like this: Cuomo introduces a law defining “affirmative consent” as a “knowing, voluntary and mutual decision among all participants to engage in sexual activity.” Now, for the first time ever, any man seeking sexual activity with a college woman in New York will know that she must willingly partake in the act or it will be considered rape. Thank you, Andrew Cuomo! Wait a minute. Rape and sexual assault are already defined and banned by laws on the books. Cuomo is not telling would-be rapists anything they don’t already know. In addition to copious man-made laws defining and barring rape, every human being possesses an innate set of laws known as “reason” or the “conscience.” This internal compass tells you that rape is wrong because it is the theft of another person’s body. Cuomo’s cute PowerPoint defining consent is doomed to fail at deterring rape because it is redundant and because it relies on rapists listening to their consciences despite the fact that criminals, by definition, ignore their consciences.

NEW YORK vs. TEXAS: Gals Carrying Concealed on Campus

While Cuomo was advising college women to stop a rapist with a loud shout: “No!”—Texas Gov. Greg Abbott pulled the trigger on meaningful legislation. Last week, Abbott signed a bill recognizing the right of college women (and men) to carry concealed firearms on all public university and community college campuses. Abbott’s law affirms every woman’s natural right to defend her body with the most modern and effective tool of self-defense. Fact: the vast majority of rapes and sexual assaults that occur on college campuses are perpetrated by hardened criminals, specifically serial rapists. The White House Council on Women and Girls recently cited a report showing that only 7 percent of all male college students admitted to attempted rape. However, the majority (63 percent) of those who conceded to attempted rape committed an average of six rapes. Adding layers of redundancy to man-made and natural laws, as Cuomo is doing, is not a meaningful way to stop rape. Late last year, I told you how California Gov. Jerry Brown signed a bill called “Yes Means Yes,” which treats women like dumb-dumb robots who must be pre-programmed with the definitions of “yes” and “no.” Cuomo and Brown’s legislation stems from the fundamental belief that women are stupid and do not deserve the same protection as male politicians like themselves who employ armed body guards. On the other hand, Abbott’s legislation stems from his philosophical belief that women are smart and are equals to men. Maybe Cuomo was born this way. (Maybe he was always this sexist.) After all, he has been busy as a bee co-authoring editorials about affirmative consent with none other than “Born This Way” star Lady Gaga.

Liar, Liar Pants on Fire

Fact: Gun grabbers like Cuomo are notorious fibbers. After 21-year-old Dylann Roof shot and killed nine innocent people in a Charleston, South Carolina Church, President Obama gathered a posse of journalists with flashing cameras. Then, he used the tragedy to lie about guns for political gain: “Innocent people were killed in part because someone who wanted to inflict harm had no trouble getting their hand on a gun. …let’s be clear. At some point, we as a country will have to reckon with the fact that this type of mass violence does not happen in other advanced countries.” – President Obama on June 18, 2015 Let me be clear: the man who calls gun owners “bitter clingers” has a poor track record for sharing the facts about the relationship between guns and mass violence. Besides getting the international statistics wrong, he sidestepped the obvious fact that Roof—like all recent mass shooters in the U.S. and unlike the average American gun owner—is a man with mental health issues who chose a gun free zone to commit crime. Sandy Hook shooter Adam Lanza, Santa Barbara shooter Elliot Rodger and Roof all had nitwit parents who supplied them with key tools (such as a gun or a car) that they used to commit violence. Their parents also allowed them to live reclusive and independent lifestyles despite clear signs of mental illness. We have a parenting problem in America, not a problem of “easy” access to guns. Let’s never allow city slicker politicians from New York, Los Angeles or Chicago to tell us otherwise. Goodbye, sexists! Hello, Texas! Katie Kieffer will speak on Thursday, July 9 at the 12:00 noon luncheon in the Santa Monica 2 room at Freedom Fest in Las Vegas! She will sign copies of Let Me Be Clear” on Thursday from 3:15 – 3:45 p.m. in the Exhibit Hall. FFJoinMeKIEFFER


Finding Nemo at SeaWorld

By Katie Kieffer
Katie Kieffer at Discovery Cove Orlando. Photography by Ivan To for Discovery Cove.

Katie Kieffer at Discovery Cove Orlando. Photography by Ivan To for Discovery Cove.

In Finding Nemo, a whale helps a clownfish find his son; at SeaWorld, killer whales helped me dismantle PETA’s lies. Last week, I had the opportunity to tour SeaWorld Orlando behind-the-scenes. I observed how the theme park’s animals are trained and treated. I also learned that SeaWorld has rescued over 25,000 animals. On my first day, I had the pleasure of meeting four-month-old “Tenacious,” a petite Gentoo penguin, who let me pet her silky head. I also met “Jasper,” a four-year-old female penguin who is so friendly that she has a following of super-fans who regularly seek her out at SeaWorld. I can see why. Without prompting, she waddled over to me, tilted her head up and squawked. “She’s greeting you!” her trainer exclaimed. PETA has authored 110 press releases to depict SeaWorld as a place where whales go to die. A Beluga whale named Nanuq did recently die at SeaWorld. He was 32 years old, which is roughly the life expectancy of Belugas in the wild. With the exception of whales that it has rescued, SeaWorld has not removed a whale from the ocean in 35 years. I met 38-year-old “Katina,” a healthy killer whale who is one of the few who were removed from Icelandic waters many years ago. Killer whales were hunted and harvested in Icelandic waters at the time she was removed and that practice has continued to some degree today. Contrary to what PETA may say, removing Katina from the wild arguably lengthened her lifespan. All of her calves have been born at SeaWorld through natural insemination. Six dolphins leaping in tandem was my favorite part of SeaWorld’s dolphin show. I captured the moment on my camera along with a toddler in the front row—reaching his tiny arm toward the dolphins as if to say: “I want to jump too!” Zoos serve educational and therapeutic purposes for humans, and SeaWorld assumes these roles in a free market manner.
Dolphin jumping at Discovery Cove Orlando.

Katie Kieffer at Discovery Cove Orlando.

After the show, I went back stage and met Kelly Flaherty-Clark, SeaWorld’s Curator of Animal Training and SeaWorld veterinarian Dr. Chris Dold. I observed as four pilot whales—once stranded on a Florida beach and dying from severe dehydration and illness—now twisted and bobbed in their pool, squealing as they played with each other and their water toys. Flaherty-Clark has spent 28 years with SeaWorld. Her face glows with authentic passion when she tells the story of rescuing the pilot whales when they were washed ashore in two separate strandings in 2011 and 2012. The U.S. government requested SeaWorld Orlando to keep and care for the whales because they were deemed unfit for survival in the ocean. The scientific community knows very little about pilot whales. SeaWorld is one of the only organizations in the world to care for pilot whales in a zoological setting. Along with their non-profit research partner, Hubbs-SeaWorld Research Institute, SeaWorld will utilize their research to help better understand future mass strandings of pilot whales. Americans should applaud SeaWorld—a for-profit organization—for raising funds for animal rescue and research independently. Last year, Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK) created a “Top 5” list of wasteful scientists and he included an $856,000 taxpayer-funded study to train mountain lions to walk on treadmills. Silly as this study may sound, its goal was to develop collars for tracking wild carnivores and deter them from humans. Every ticket purchased at SeaWorld raises money for work that would go undone or be picked up—and in a less efficient manner—by the government. Activists insist that zoo animals would enjoy better lives in the wild. Which makes you wonder how much time PETA’s disciples actually spend in the ocean. You know, that idyllic body of water where plastic refuse strangles turtles; boat motors grind manatees up like hamburger meat; a plethora of pathogens attack killer whales; and mother dolphins are forced to abandon disabled calves. You also wonder if PETA’s followers have a penchant for napping through major world events such as the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami. Because, post-tsunami, humans trained elephants to help clean up the massive wreckage in Banda Aceh, Indonesia. Wild animals are willing partners in improving the world, but they need us to help train and enrich them instead of ignoring them. At SeaWorld, many of the “tricks” that whales and dolphins perform are extensions of actions they perform in the wild—like jumping and spy hopping. Several of the learned techniques, including providing voluntary blood and urine samples, allow trainers to provide the whales and dolphins with a higher level of healthcare than they would find in the wild. Blood samples also allow Dr. Dold’s team to gain incredible insights, such as whether a female whale is sick—or simply pregnant. On my last day, I visited SeaWorld’s resort, Discovery Cove. I swam with a dolphin named Hutch, a strong and gregarious animal who willingly whisked me through the water as if I were as light as cotton candy. Before I left, Hutch’s trainer popped over to ask me if I had enjoyed the day. I had. I asked her how she had become a trainer. It’s “competitive,” she said. “I drove four hours every Saturday to volunteer at Georgia Aquarium [the world’s largest aquarium]. I think that helped SeaWorld see how passionate I was about the animals.”
Katie Kieffer swims with dolphin at Discovery Cove Orlando. Photography by Ivan To for Discovery Cove.

Katie Kieffer swims with dolphin at Discovery Cove Orlando. Photography by Ivan To for Discovery Cove.

Like all of SeaWorld’s trainers, she then underwent a rigorous and structured apprenticeship. You see, before they ever touch the animals, rookies spend several years learning and proving their passion: scrubbing tanks, working the 4:30 a.m. fish bucket shift; and mastering animal signals. When I asked the trainer if she had a response for people who were concerned that the animals’ habitats are too small at SeaWorld she said, “The government has standards for caring for animals and ours are way higher. Everything our dolphins do is voluntary. If the dolphins didn’t enjoy this, I know they wouldn’t willfully come out here [to perform tricks and let people swim with them]. They get as much enrichment out of it as we do. Sometimes, a dolphin will decide [mid-show] that he wants to swim off, and that’s fine. I’ll let him go and call on another dolphin. We only use positive reinforcement. It’s all about the animals.” She smiled as she looked out over the glistening blue waters where the dolphins dipped and dived: “They have a pretty good life here.” When PETA gets you down, “just keep swimming,” as they say in Finding Nemo. Eventually, you’ll end up at SeaWorld: petting penguins; swimming with dolphins; and supporting one of the world’s most successful animal rescue and rehabilitation teams.


True Stories of Soldiers Left Behind

By Katie Kieffer
The late Marine Sgt. Rob Richards and Lt. Clint Lorance.

The late Marine Sgt. Rob Richards and Lt. Clint Lorance.

“No Man Left Behind” is an American adage of chivalry and solidarity that we do not always practice. Young men and women in military service risk their health and careers for the majority of us who never lift a finger in battle—unless it’s to control simulated snipers wielding digitized NA-45s in a computer game like Call of Duty. Go stand before a mirror. Take a look at your hands; your feet; and your head. If you’re like me, you’re fortunate to have all ten digits and a brain that has never been riddled with trauma. Your body is free from shrapnel. We are very fortunate, while some of our brothers and sisters are not—and they need our help. When my grandfathers—a Marine and a sailor—came home from World War II they had battle scars. As a little girl, I would sit at their feet and ask them to tell me about the War. But, like most veterans, they kept their pain to themselves. They had experienced tragedies too painful to share with anyone except another veteran. Yet, my grandfathers were at least treated as heroes. Less than ten—seven to be exact—of all the Americans who fought in the WWII, Korean and Vietnam Wars were ever tried and convicted of a “crime during combat” according to United American Patriots. Alas, for veterans who served in Afghanistan and Iraq, there has been a 2,943% increase in U.S. veterans who have been convicted of war crimes. Are our troops suddenly 3,000% more unethical than those who served in WWII? Of course not. Rather, our media and government have grown more politically correct. As a result, most Americans are unaware of the fact that veterans are being used as pawns in strategy plays to appease foreign governments. In WWII-era America, the public understood that the rules of engagement during a war are different from the rules at a high tea. There’s no time for good manners when you have to make a split second-decision on whether or not to fire at the enemy. You may insist that a teapot be passed clockwise around the table because the direction does not have life or death consequences. But, you would be cruel to ask an American soldier in Afghanistan to do something as silly as fire clockwise, rather than to take out the most threatening enemy first. Our current rules of engagement are as impractical as expecting soldiers to fight terrorists—who practice no rules of decorum—to behave in a minefield in the same way that they would behave while serving tea and crumpets in the parlor. Men who have witnessed their best buddies slaughtered by vicious brutes will sometimes react in the heat of war, as was the case with the late and heroic Marine Sgt. Rob Richards. Likewise, men like Lt. Clint Lorance will make split-second decisions in the face of Taliban motorcyclists suspected of carrying grenades. Lt. Lorance is serving a 19-year sentence at Ft. Leavenworth in large part for the “crime” of ordering his American snipers instead of his trigger-happy Afghan snipers to fire at the motorcyclists. Technically, his order violated of a new rule of engagement at the time called “Afghan in the Lead.” But Clint saved innocent lives by ordering his snipers with more experience to fire. So, why is he sitting in prison for doing the right thing? Could it be a way for our government to appease the Afghan government? You and I have a call of duty to rise to action and support our brothers like Lt. Lorance who are unable to speak for themselves; to unfold our legs from our comfortable meditative pose on our living room floor and log off Call of Duty. Please come to Freedom Plaza on March 14 in Washington, D.C. and rally with your fellow citizens and the United American Patriots to support soldiers and Marines unjustly charged with war crimes. You’ll have a chance to hear more stories of soldiers left behind—and your show of support will help reform our politically correct culture so that, eventually, no veteran is ever left behind. Find the full stories of Sgt. Rob Richards and Lt. Clint Lorance in “Let Me Be Clear.”


When Orangutans Get Lawyers

By Katie Kieffer
Female orangutan in zoo.

Image credit: “Orangutan female, Minpi of Tama Zoo” by Toshihiro Gamo on Flickr via Creative Commons.

Monkeys are not people. Trees are not children. And human beings are not causing the earth to melt like the Wicked Witch of the West. “It’s probably the equivalent of watching your family getting shot before a firing squad,” environmental extremist Tom Whitaker described his emotional response to logging for National Geographic in July of 2000. Fast forward to December of 2014: a 29-year-old orangutan named “Sandra” was represented by a lawyer named Andres Gil Dominguez who helped the ape win human rights in an Argentine court of law. Meanwhile, New York Mayor Bill de Blasio is succumbing to animal rights activists by threatening to put 400 horse carriage drivers and stable hands out of business by 2016. By nature, you have more inalienable rights than your dog or houseplant. Certain political groups and crony capitalists are trying to reverse the natural order by forcing humans to be subservient to flora and fauna. They don’t realize that by disrupting the natural pecking order they will harm plants and animals. Certainly, animal abuse and wanton destruction of wildlife is wrong. But it is wrong for lawyers to profit from classifying pets, zoo animals and houseplants as prisoners with human rights. It is also immoral for scientists to pretend that (actual) humans are vermin on a mission to destroy the earth. There is no scientific evidence that humans are responsible for harmful global warming and the National Snow & Ice Data Center (NSIDC) reports that warming is a non-issue: “Sea ice in Antarctica has remained at satellite-era record high daily levels for most of 2014.” Back to Sandra. She did not ask Mr. Dominguez to be her lawyer. Indeed, there are no known cases of any animal or plant asking for a lawyer. Nonetheless, a corrupt judge ruled that Sandra has the natural right to “freedom” and “avoiding suffering from being in captivity” in the same sense as humans. This legal ruling sets a very dangerous global precedent. If the U.S. follows Argentina’s lead, most pets could be classified as abused captives. Anyone with a pet larger than a finger monkey could be incarcerated for denying their pet the autonomy of animals who roam free. Gardeners who keep house plants could be found guilty of “child abuse” for subjecting potted ivy to periodic trimming instead of letting the ivy creep freely across the home’s interior and exterior walls. Panther attacks are at a historic high in West Palm Beach, Florida. In 2014 alone, over 50 pets and livestock animals—ranging from a swan and a Shetland pony to cats and calves—were killed by endangered Florida panthers. The large cats are certainly “free.” Yet, their freedom is to the detriment of other animals. Ask yourself: at what point is an animal “suffering” in captivity? For example, Sandra is being moved from the Buenos Aires zoo to a sanctuary. But who is to say that she shouldn’t be moved into the wild where she can enjoy ultimate freedom? If Sandra is “suffering,” then all zoo animals must be suffering and we should close all zoos. But the truth is that zoos conserve animals from painful deaths caused by starvation, disease and predators—while educating the public. Even if you describe yourself as an “animal person,” you would never call yourself an “animal animal” because you innately know that there’s a crucial difference between animals and people. As the philosopher Aristotle notes, only humans can be held accountable for their decisions—such as murder, rape and theft—because only humans have reason and the ability to act according to intangible principles. Animals act on instinct and can neither be rewarded nor punished (in a court of law) for acting on their instincts to mate, eat, or defend territory. If a bear mauls you to death, the bear will not go to prison. “It’s like saving your child,” whimpered one environmental squatter to National Geographic who advocates “roosting” or living in trees to deter logging. Other activists caress the bark of newly logged trees in makeshift funeral ceremonies. Tree-huggers forget that responsible logging helps prevent forest fires—and the resulting devastation of woodpeckers, toads and saplings. Never sacrifice your natural human rights of free speech and private property to animals and plants. Doing so is harmful to domesticated animals that will be gobbled up by panthers; plants that will be consumed by forest fires; and humans whose livelihoods will be decimated by politicians. Lovable and majestic as a monkey and an evergreen may be—they’re not human—they are a ball of fur and a fir tree.