Dumb DronesPut 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 DronesOur 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.
CheckmateToday 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 RecordFlash 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 LoopholesObama, 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.
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.
Congress: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.
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 BabiesBelow, I rate each presidential candidate on the constitutionality of their plan for birthright citizenship. Only five of 17 get As.
A Donald TrumpBesides 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 PaulHe’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 SantorumSantorum 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 CarsonHe’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 WalkerWalker 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 RubioSen. 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 ChristieSounding 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 GrahamGraham 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 FiorinaFiorina’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 PerryHis 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 BushHe 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 GilmoreLike 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 KasichFlip-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.
1. Millennial women love our servicesDr. 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 profiteerActually, 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.
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 BudsLois 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.
NEW YORK vs. TEXAS: Gals Carrying Concealed on CampusWhile 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 FireFact: 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.