Family duck hunt. Image credit: photoman_sc on Flickr via Creative Commons.

American comedians are making a pile of cash with clean humor centered on guns, God and family.

As scandals from Benghazigate to the IRS-targeting of conservative groups shake our country, I think it’s important for us to periodically re-focus on the beauty of America; the beauty of humanity and the beauty of life. I know. It sounds so cliché; so Hallmark card-ish. But it’s true.

It is easy to become cynical and to think that everyone in the world has an agenda. It is easy to get down when we hear stories about our leaders lying and cheating. But not everyone in America is like President Obama. Not everyone in America is like Eric Holder. Not everyone in America is like Janet Napolitano. Most people have good hearts.

When you look at the sort of comedy that is succeeding in America today and the new reality-TV stars that are rising to fame, you should have hope in humanity. I will give you two examples: comedian Jim Gaffigan and A&E’s reality-TV show Duck Dynasty.

Jim Gaffigan, “The King of Clean Comedy”

The Wall Street Journal hails Gaffigan the “King of Clean Comedy.” He is funny, and he does it the hard way—without relying on heavy swearing or raunchiness. Here’s the best part: College students love him. Metropolitan night clubs love him. Midwesterners love him. Everyone loves his bit about Hot Pockets.

He starts out: “I’ve never eaten a Hot Pocket and then afterwards been like, I’m glad I ate that! It was like, I’m gonna die! …I paid for that??” Gaffigan’s Hot Pockets bit has been viewed almost 2 million times on the Internet; when he performs live, audiences don’t want him to leave the stage without doing it.

Gaffigan is not Brad Pitt. He probably does not have time to hit the gym as often as he should. He enjoys eating. So, he uses self-depreciating humor and food in his shows. The Journal described his recent live show in Montclair, N.J., ‘He apologizes for being sort of fat, but explains: “I’m preparing for a role. A cinnamon roll.”’

Gaffigan is laughing all the way to the bank. He wrote a book (out this month). He was nominated for a Grammy on his last album, “Mr. Universe.” And he launched a 16-city tour this year. Last year, Pollstar rated him among America’s top 10 touring comedians. Yes, he’s kind of a big deal.

Gaffigan is married and has five young children who travel with him on his tour bus. He apparently has a lot on his plate—both metaphorically and literally—but he turns his hectic family life into comedic material. (His book is titled “Dad is Fat.”)

Gaffigan tells the Journal: “…I felt like I wasn’t done writing the joke if I was relying on a curse word. It’s like, we’re all adults here, and some of my favorite comedians are really filthy. But I’m an eccentric observation guy. If you’re talking about minimuffins, is it really necessary to say f—?”

The Robertson Family: A&E’s Duck Dynasty

Willie Robertson is the CEO of Duck Commander, a duck call business founded by his father Phil Robertson. Willie and his three brothers, Alan, Jase and Jep as well as Phil’s brother Si all work for Duck Commander. They also own Buck Commander, a deer-hunting business. The Robertsons are born-again-Christians who drew the attention of A&E and now they have their own family-centered reality show (starring them plus their wives and children) called Duck Dynasty.

In its third season, which wrapped up in April, Duck Dynasty became the second most popular program on cable.

Willie was on Fox’s The O’Reilly Factor on April 13. Host Bill O’Reilly asked him why the show is doing so well. Roberton responded: “I really think it’s the family values, it’s something positive, kids can sit and watch, grandparents [can watch], there’s not a lot of filth on it, and it’s funny you know, it’s hard to be funny!”

O’Reilly said of their newfound success: “You are rich, but you don’t act rich and I think that might be the secret to your success.” Willie said: “We’re not all about money, we’re about family. … We try to stick to our roots. We grew up not rich at all; very poor. And so for us we can remember what it was like and so we try to stay humble, and Lord willing you know we’re doing it and we’ve been successful; God has blessed us.”

O’Reilly added: “And you do incorporate God in the show?” Willie said: “Oh yeah, we have a family prayer right at the end [of every show].”

I think the Robertsons are a testimony to the fact that growing up around hunting and guns does not turn children into mass-murderers. A loving family—not the absence of guns in the home—is the key to helping children grow up with values.

TIME Magazine recently interviewed Phil Robertson: ‘He believes that any attempt to limit weapons limits basic freedoms and that “it’s the hearts of human beings that are the problem [not guns].”’

So have faith. America is still a place where, as my cousin always tells me: “good things happen to good people.” Guns. Family. God. Amen.

To bring Katie Kieffer to speak at your professional event or college campus, please follow this link to inquire about booking a speech.

Image credit: ”A Mighty Bulldog” by SingleDadLaughing on Flickr via Creative Commons.

What happened to the bulldogs in the media? When it came to covering the Benghazi terrorist attack, the media sounded like a pack of Chihuahuas. The media is the last guardian of free speech in America. If the media becomes a megaphone for politicians, then there is no point to the media at all.

We can’t expect politicians to behave themselves if reporters don’t hold politicians accountable. If the Benghazi coverage taught us anything, it’s that journalists need to be more aggressive, more inquisitive and more driven to get to the facts in stories.

A February 2013 Rasmussen poll shows that 54 percent of Americans distrust the news media and just six percent of all Americans think the news media is “very trustworthy.”

After the September 11, 2012 terrorist attack on the U.S. consulate and CIA annex in Benghazi, Libya that killed four Americans including U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens, very few American journalists have been willing to be bullish on Benghazi and get to the truth of the story. As I have pointed out before, there is ample evidence pointing to a massive Benghazigate cover up orchestrated by President Obama as well as potential perjury by former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

Last week, Esquire Magazine published a long piece ridiculing one of the few journalists who has prioritized truth over politics while covering the Benghazi story, namely CBS investigative journalist Sharyl Attkisson. Shame on Esquire. Attkisson is one of the last-standing heroes in media; she is driven by the truth and nothing else.

Truth is not political. Sharyl Attkisson is not “betraying liberals” by joining FOX News in devoting extensive coverage to the Benghazi story. She is simply speaking the truth and helping others see the truth. She is honoring the four Americans who died in a terrorist attack that our President irresponsibly blamed on a YouTube video.

During last Wednesday’s explosive Congressional hearing with three Benghazi whistleblowers—and for the past several months leading up to the hearing—Attkisson has been blowing her own whistle on Benghazi. On her Twitter feed (@SharylAttkisson), she has continually updated the public with facts about Benghazi.

For example, after House Republicans released an interim report on Benghazi on April 23, Attkisson boldly tweeted the report’s findings. She told Americans that while Clinton knew of requests for aid from Americans in Libya prior to the attack, the report indicated that she: “ordered the withdrawal of elements to proceed as planned.”

While other reporters were keeping mum, Attkisson was telling Americans that the report indicates that both Obama’s White House and State Department literally changed their talking points in order to cover for Clinton. She tweeted that the Obama administration scrubbed their Benghazi talking points: “…. to remove references to likely participation of Islamic extremists in attacks, references to threat of extremists linked to al Qaeda…,” according to the report.

Last Wednesday, Attkisson also boldly live-tweeted during the testimony from the three whistleblowers who testified before the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. The whistleblowers, Eric Nordstrom, Greg Hicks and Mark Thompson, were senior government officials who simply shared their first-hand accounts of what occurred on the ground in Libya during the attack.

Attkisson covered the hearing in a fair manner because she understands what should be obvious to all journalists: These men did not put their careers on the line and testify under oath because they were Republican cheerleaders. They testified because they witnessed and lived through the attack and because they deeply care about the truth.

Nordstrom introduced his comments by saying: “As the regional security officer [in Tripoli, Libya]…I served as principle security officer…to Stevens.” Then, he audibly choked up, adding: “It matters to the American public, and most importantly, it matters to the [family of the victims] who were murdered on September 11, 2012.”

In the Sunday, May 5 edition of the New York Times, I read story after story about Syria and Afghanistan but virtually nothing about Benghazi. Everyone knew that three eyewitnesses would be testifying on Wednesday, May 10, 2013. So, it would seem appropriate to dedicate substantial space in the Sunday edition to Benghazi and the whistleblowers.

Other than FOX News and C-SPAN, CBS did a good job of covering the Benghazi hearing in a fair manner in advance of the trial. CBS News Host Bob Schieffer held a fantastic interview on Sunday, May 5 with Rep. Darrel Issa (R-CA) and Rep. Dutch Ruppersberger (D-MD) where Issa had a chance to voice many of the facts surrounding the Benghazi terrorist attack and apparent cover up by the Obama administration.

The only reason Obama is strolling through the Rose Garden, golfing with Tiger Woods and cracking jokes about Jay-Z is because the media is not holding him accountable. Obama and Clinton were behind a gun-running program that backfired and likely armed the Libyan rebels who stormed the consulate and CIA annex in Benghazi. Meanwhile, the maker of the You Tube film “Innocence of Muslims” that Obama initially blamed for the Benghazi attacks (even though everyone knew it was terror) is serving prison time for a parole violation. Unless American journalists decide to hold Obama accountable and act more like bulldogs and less like Chihuahuas, free speech will go to hell in a hand basket.

To bring Katie Kieffer to speak at your professional event or college campus, please follow this link to inquire about booking a speech.

Image credit: “San Diego Shooter” on Flickr via Creative Commons.

Teach gun safety in classrooms and leave sex education to parents. Plan B won’t save young people from incurable STDs, but guns will protect women and children from being raped or murdered. The more young people know about guns, the safer our society will be.

Rush Limbaugh said on his talk radio show on May 1: “We know kids are gonna get guns anyway, why not teach them how to use them?” The king of talk was right. Instead of pushing morning-after pills on 15-year-old girls, we should be showing young people how to responsibly use the preeminent tool they have to defend themselves in the event of a violent attack—a gun.

Over the past decade, overall violent crime in the United States has steadily decreased according to FBI reports. Meanwhile, gun ownership is at an all time high. The FBI’s National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) is one of the best ways to gauge the number of new gun purchases. In 2011, there was an all-time record high of 16.5 million checks. In 2012, Americans set a new record for gun ownership: 19.5 million background checks.

Americans use guns to hold off assault far more than they use guns to commit murder or violent crime. Indeed, Florida State University criminologist Gary Kleck has shown that Americans use guns to defensively prevent crime about 2 million times a year—often by merely brandishing a weapon in front of a would-be-assailant. “…most violent crimes end if the victim simply exposes a firearm. Most criminals want to leave the scene with the same number of holes they started with,” writes Michael Martin in his book, Concealed Carry and Home Defense Fundamentals.

On top of all this, the only gun legislation that has consistently been shown to reduce violent crime is concealed carry permit legislation.

All of the data on guns and crime brings us to one conclusion: More guns in the hands of honest Americans equates to less violent crime.

Three “Solutions” To Mass Shootings That Will NOT Work:

1.) Background Checks

Even Democrats admit that background checks don’t work. When they have a slip of the tongue and speak their mind, they say things like this: “…let’s be honest, criminals aren’t going to buy a gun and go through a background check.” (That is exactly what Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, D-NY recently said.)

Dr. John Lott writes for Fox News: “There is no real scientific evidence among criminologists and economists that background checks actually reduce crime.”

2.) Gun Free Zones

You can’t stop a criminal with a sign. But you can welcome a criminal with a sign that says: “Gun Free Zone,” which a criminal interprets as: “Walk Right In… And Bring Your Guns!”

Adam Lanza specifically went to a ‘gun free zone’ to fatally shoot 20 children and six adults in the Newtown, Connecticut tragedy. He brought guns into an elementary school, not into the Pentagon.

3.) Psychiatric Drugs

More and more, psychiatric drugs are being miss-prescribed or abused and President Obama’s FDA is contributing to this mess. Medications are increasingly being prescribed to young people that could be setting them up for violent behavior. Instead of prescribing talk therapy, we are loading young people up on meds that are known to cause suicidal thoughts and/or incite aggression.

Lanza was mentally unstable. Mentally unstable people do not follow “rules” printed on signs. Mentally unstable people do unpredictable things.

If you look at every mass school shooting over the past 15 years, they almost all have one thing in common, according to Lawrence Hunter of the Social Security Institute: The gunman: “…has been on or in withdrawal from psychiatric drugs…Yet, federal and state governments continue to ignore the connection between psychiatric drugs and murderous violence, preferring instead to exploit these tragedies in an oppressive and unconstitutional power grab to snatch guns away from innocent, law-abiding people.”

Big pharma is peddling drugs to youngsters that have highly questionable side effects and Hunter says: “It is pharmaceutical makers, not law-abiding gun owners or gun manufacturers, who should be held to account for the series of ‘lone-wolf’ mass shootings that have occurred since the widespread use of psychiatric drugs began.”

Expert psychiatrist Dr. Peter Breggin has told Fox News: “One of the things in the past that we’ve known about depression is that it very, very rarely leads to violence. It’s only been since the advent of these new SSRI drugs that we have murderers, sometimes even mass murderers, taking antidepressant drugs.”

When you look at the facts, guns save lives. And the more comfortable and knowledgeable we are regarding guns, the more lives we will save. It’s time for young people to go through gun education before their teachers brainwash them about gun control.

To bring Katie Kieffer to speak at your professional event or college campus, please follow this link to inquire about booking a speech.

President Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton render honors as the national anthem is played during the dignified transfer of the remains of U.S. Ambassador to Libya J. Christopher Stevens, foreign service officer Sean Smith and security officers Tyrone S. Woods and Glen A. Doherty at Joint Base Andrews, Md., Sept. 14, 2012. The four Americans were killed when rebels stormed the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya, Sept. 11, 2012. Image credit: ”U.S. Department of Defense Current Photos” on Flickr via Creative Commons.

By Katie Kieffer

Liberals don’t want honest Americans like you to have guns. Liberals just want to arm foreign rebels in crapshoot attempts to “end global violence.” But liberals feign ignorance when the rebels they arm end up being criminals who kill innocent Americans like the late U.S. Ambassador to Libya, Christopher Stevens.

Why did Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans die in Benghazi, Libya on September 11, 2012? We now know that President Obama, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and then-CIA Director David Petraeus were likely behind a mishandled gun-trafficking program that ended up arming the radical jihadist rebels who stormed the U.S. consulate and CIA annex in Benghazi, Libya on that fateful day.

Our CIA is still playing the role of vetting which Syrian rebel groups will obtain arms including machine guns, ammunition, and rocket-propelled grenades. While Qatar, Saudi Arabia and Turkey are directly purchasing the weaponry, the Obama administration is aiding the Arab governments in shopping for these arms and transferring them from Libya, to Turkey, and finally into Syria.

Unfortunately the CIA has “vetted” shady intermediaries (including Syria’s Muslim Botherhood) and shady recipients of thousands of tons worth of military equipment and millions of rounds of ammo. Consequently, weapons have fallen into the wrong hands. In the case of Benghazi, anti-tank weapons appear to have landed in the hands of terrorists.

Now, Clinton is denying even knowing about the program, although the evidence indicates it was largely her idea. Of course everything happened under Obama’s watch and the buck stops with him. The story of Obama’s gun-running program in Benghazi is long and multifarious, so I will break down the timeline for you:

May 26, 2012: Stevens arrives in Tripoli, the capitol city of Libya and sets up camp at the U.S. embassy.

Last summer, Clinton first proposed a plan to then-CIA Director David Petraeus to partner on a gun-trafficking program to arm the Syrian resistance and “vet the rebel groups, and train fighters who would be supplied with weapons,” according to The New York Times.

June of 2012: The New York Times reports that the CIA is operating a secret arms transfer program that sounds exactly like the plan Clinton developed with Petraeus. Suddenly, there is: “…an influx of weapons and ammunition to the rebels.”

September 5, 2012: A Libyan ship called Al Entisar (“The Victory”) docks in the Turkish port of Iskenderun, carrying 400 tons of cargo including many weapons such as rocket-propelled grenades (RPGs) and shoulder-launched surface-to-air missiles (MANPADS) destined for Syrian rebels 35 miles away from Iskenderun. The ship’s captain told the Times of London that the Muslim Brotherhood and the free Syrian Army broke into a fight over the arms.

September 10, 2012: Stevens arrives in Benghazi, Libya, the location of the U.S. consulate. About a mile away from the consulate, is the CIA annex. Stevens planned to stay at the consulate for five days. His visit was supposed to be secret, but Libya-based extremists somehow learned of his arrival.

September 11, 2012: Stevens has an unusual meeting with Turkish diplomat Consul General Ali Sait Akin. Fox News reported that the meeting was “…to negotiate a weapons transfer, an effort to get SA-7 missiles out of the hands of Libya-based extremists.”

Sen. Lindsey Graham confirmed on Fox News Channel’s Special Report with Bret Baier that Stevens was in Libya to specifically control a situation: “…where the action was regarding the rising Islamic extremists who were trying to get their hands on weapons that were flowing freely in Libya…”

9:40 p.m. (Libya time): Libyan rebels launched and organized an armed attack against the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi.

10:04 p.m. CIA base chief at the nearby CIA annex calls for help including 50-caliber machine guns and vehicles from the Libyan intelligence, the 17 February Brigade and other Libyan militias. After 24 minutes of calls and no response, the CIA base chief takes a small team of seven people to the consulate. They were too late to save Stevens, but were able to save some State Department personnel.

11:56 p.m.: CIA officers and the State Department members are seeking safety back at the CIA annex. There, rebels attack them with rocket-propelled grenades. Fighting continues on until 5:26 a.m.

6:00 a.m.: Libyan forces suddenly arrive to “aid” the American team with 50 vehicles.

It is odd that the annex was attacked with same sort of weapons on the Libyan ship and that Stevens was reportedly in Benghazi to manage some sort of arms transfer.

Sen. Rand Paul said on Aaron Klein Radio: “First of all with regard to Benghazi, I think it’s important [to determine more about the apparent gun-running program] because it may have something to do with why the compound was attacked. If we were involved with shipping guns to Turkey, there was a report that a ship left from Libya towards Turkey and that there were arms on it in the week preceding this [attack]; there were reports that our ambassador was meeting with the Turkish attaché, so I think with regards to figuring out what happened at Benghazi, it’s very important to know whether or not the CIA annex had anything to do with facilitating guns being sent to Turkey and ultimately to Syria. With regard to arming the rebels, just this week in the armed services committee, General Dempsey, the [Chairman of the] Joint Chiefs of Staff said that we were no longer able to distinguish who the good guys were from the bad guys and that sounds pretty worrisome if we are actually arming people who in the end may be enemies of America…enemies of Israel… enemies maybe of the Christians who live within Syria…sending arms to a rebel force to that may include Al-Nusra and other radical jihadists.”

Here’s my concern: Obama’s gun-running program failed to properly vet the rebels. Clinton reportedly launched the gun program, expected Stevens to oversee it and then her weapons likely landed in the hands of al-Qaida affiliates who killed Stevens and three other Americans. Benghazi is a tragic failure of foreign policy and diplomacy under Obama’s watch.

To bring Katie Kieffer to speak at your professional event or college campus, please follow this link to inquire about booking a speech.

Image credit: “Rand Paul at Bowling Green Fundraiser” by Rand Paul for U.S. Senate 2010 on Flickr via Creative Commons.

President Obama would make a terrible stand-up comedian. He would need a teleprompter to deliver his jokes. And he would need a traveling caravan of smiling children to serve as live props.

Sen. Rand Paul was right to say that Obama effectively uses children as ‘props’ to promote his anti-2^nd Amendment gun control agenda.

On December 14, 2012 a mentally unstable young man named Adam Lanza took the lives of 20 children and six adults at Sandy Hook Elementary in Newtown, Connecticut.

Last Wednesday, Obama rallied several family members of the 20 children who died in the Newtown tragedy to flank him in the Rose Garden as he gave a speech pouting about the failure of the Manchin-Toomey bill to expand mandatory background checks for gun purchases, including firearms bought online or at gun shows. The bill failed by six votes in the Senate on Wednesday.

Also on Wednesday, Paul pointed out how Obama politicized the failure of the background checks bill, saying: “I am a parent, I have three boys and I hate to see using people, I think, as props and politicizing people’s tragedy. … I know they [family members] are coming voluntarily and they want to come and be part of this debate. It still saddens me just to see them, and I think that in some cases the president has used them as props. That disappoints me.”

Paul further explained on the Glenn Beck Program on Thursday: “…I think one of the things that attracts mad men to schools is the fact that they are gun-free zones. … he [Adam Lanza] didn’t go to the local police station to kill people because he knew that they would shoot back.”

Even beyond Paul’s observations, it is important to point out that not every parent who lost a child in the Newtown, Connecticut tragedy believes that gun control is the answer. Mark Mattioli, the father of 6-year-old Sandy Hook Elementary School victim James Mattioli testified before a gun violence task force:

“I think there’s much more promise for a solution in identifying, researching and creating solutions along the lines of mental health issues. … I believe these issues, especially gun violence are not as complex as you’ve been told, there’s been a lot on TV, a lot of politicians telling you the way it is. … It’s a simple concept, what we need is civility. What we are seeing is a symptoms of a bigger problem. … The problem is not gun laws. The problem is a lack of civility.

Mattioli continued: “Cultivating character. We, as parents, that’s our primary job. … Parenting is where we need to focus our attention. We do not need complex laws. … Chicago has some of the toughest gun laws in the country… I don’t think the gun laws are protecting the people, let alone the 500 who perished last year in that city. … Criminals by definition break the law. What we experienced in Sandy Hook: Did [Adam Lanza] break the law? Of course [he] broke the law. …one more law, I don’t care if you named it ‘James’ Law,’ I don’t want it, I think we have more than enough on the books…”

Mattioli is right. The problems our society faces do not come from guns. Owning a gun, a knife or a baseball bat will not turn you into a mass murderer. But a sick conscience or a mental illness can. Every young man who committed mass murder over the last few years has been mentally ill. More gun control laws will not stop mentally ill people from acting irrationally. By definition, irrational people do not do ‘rational’ things, like follow laws.

Furthermore, mentally ill people do not always use guns to commit violence. They use their own hands (think Erika Menendez who said she pushed a man in front of New York City subway train because “I thought it would be cool”). And they use hammers: many FBI reports show that more criminals have used hammers than rifles to commit murder. And they use razor blades (think the female blackjack dealers who broke into a stabbing fight at the Bellagio).

Dr. John Lott has written that: “There is no real scientific evidence among criminologists and economists that background checks actually reduce crime.” But better parenting and a more loving society that proactively addresses depression could potentially reduce violent crime.

There is absolutely no evidence supporting more gun control laws. So, President Obama is using children as props.

To bring Katie Kieffer to speak at your professional event or college campus, please follow this link to inquire about booking a speech.

Image credit: “Forward on Climate protest against Keystone XL Pipeline in Justin Herman Plaza in San Francisco” by Steve Rhodes on Flickr via Creative Commons.

Recycling is fine. Conservation is fine. But sometimes greenies cross the line. They expect you and me to go jobless and hungry so they can save a porcupine.

President Obama has been pampering his radical greenie friends for far too long. Even the President’s State Department has thrice declared Keystone XL to be environmentally safe. Let’s build it already.

Keystone XL is a well-thought-out project that has been in the hopper since 2005 when TransCanada Corp. initially proposed it. Canada’s National Energy Board approved the project on its end in 2007. Five years later, in April of 2013, Canada is still patiently waiting for us to approve this no-brainer, win-win $7 billion jobs and energy infrastructure project.

Here are the facts. Keystone XL would mean:

• A daily surge of between 700,000 and 800,000 barrels of crude oil for America

• Stronger relations with our neighbor and ally, Canada.

• No significant negative impact on the environment.

• Employment for individuals in the construction sector, which has been hard-hit by the recession (the construction unemployment rate is over 16 percent).

The Keystone XL pipeline would initiate in Alberta and then traverse across six states in the contiguous U.S. to its final destination of Texas Gulf Coast refineries. One of these six states is Nebraska, home of Obama’s dear friend Warren Buffet.

Buffett opposes Keystone XL because it means that he will lose some of the profit he’s pulling from his $26 billion 2009 investment in Burlington Northern Sante Fe Railway Company.

Railroads are highly dangerous, inefficient and unreliable as a means of transporting crude oil. The Wall Street Journal recently reported that pipelines transport more crude at less risk of incurring a leak or spill than railroads and that railroad spills are up more than tenfold. Plus, pipelines take routes that are located further from dense population zones, making them safer, even if there is a spill.

Luckily for you, Buffet does not represent Nebraska in the U.S. Senate. Rep. Lee Terry (R-NE) recently authored H.R. 3, which would bypass President Obama’s unconstitutional and unreasonable use of executive authority (known as a “presidential permit” in this case) to block Keystone XL.

This month, Robert E. Hogfoss and Catherine D. Little published a piece in the National Law Journal explaining that: “… permits are a creation of the executive branch alone, with no legislative authorization and limited judicial review to date. Presidential permits are intended to provide executive branch review of trans-border facilities and commercial activities between the United States and either Canada or Mexico. No statute authorizes their creation or use, and few regulations govern their review or issuance.”

In other words, there is no hard constitutional or statutory basis for presidential permits. The President really has no business controlling or blocking free enterprise in America or the development of America’s natural resources. But, U.S. Presidents have become quite savvy at finding legitimate-sounding ways to grant themselves whatever power the Constitution does not give them.

President Roosevelt was the first U.S. President to use his executive authority to claim that Congress would need a so-called “presidential permit” in order to approve trans-border natural gas or electric operations. And the rest is history. President Obama now appears to be contemplating using a “presidential permit” to stall Keystone XL.

I recently asked Canadian writer Alex Snyder to give me his take on Keystone XL:

“Canada relies on America for 97 percent of its energy exports, so to say this deal is important for our country would be accurate. The main environmental concerns from certain groups in America is the fact that there is a risk of an oil spill… First, there’s risk of a spill in any oil transportation method, so the argument is invalid. Second, tar sands are becoming more environmentally friendly due to stricter environmental regulations from the Canadian government. American environmental groups show little understanding of Canadian politics when they question production methods. Additionally, most companies in the oil sands are continually improving extraction methods to limit their environmental impact, and have incentive to do so. No oil company enjoys the negative publicity that arises from environmental carnage. …Canadians realize Keystone XL… should be approved; it’s just embarrassing that it’s being held up by environmental fanatics.”

The bottom line is that we risk jeopardizing our relationship with Canada and losing economic growth opportunity out of false fears of environmental repercussions. Let’s stop pampering the greenies and build Keystone XL.

To bring Katie Kieffer to speak at your professional event or college campus, please follow this link to inquire about booking a speech.

Image credit: Sen. Al Franken by kregarious on Flickr via Creative Commons.

Look out, Sen. Al Franken, talk radio host Jason Lewis will soon replace you in the U.S. Senate.

Conservative-libertarian talk radio host Jason Lewis is seriously entertaining a run against Minnesota Sen. Al Franken in 2014. It will not be a slam-dunk, but Lewis can pull off a win for the following four reasons:

1. Franken never won fair and square

Remember when Franken “beat” former St. Paul Mayor Norm Coleman by a scant 312 votes in 2008 and 1,009 votes were later determined to come from felons? Well, this time around, everyone in the country will be paying close attention to the voting process and the votes that come through for Franken. Felons will not be able to just slip in and potentially determine the contest.

2. Franken is not Klobuchar

Last fall, Kurt Bills made a strong and courageous run against Franken’s pal in the senate, Sen. Amy Klobuchar. But he lost. Big time. Klobuchar beat Bills by over 2 to 1, garnering 60.5 percent of the vote compared to his 31.1 percent.

Klobuchar has a massive following in Minnesota, including many businesspeople who have bowed to her tempting tactic of handing out goodies to their industries. For instance, she did her best to “boost” Minnesota’s auto industry by advancing the federal Cash for Clunkers rebate program (which incidentally did more harm than good to the environment). In January, Public Policy Polling crowned Klobuchar with a 65 percent approval ranking as the “Second Most Popular Senator in the Country.”

Franken simply does not have the luxury of “feeling the love” the way Klobuchar does when she returns from D.C. to the land of 10,000 lakes. He only had a 52 percent approval ranking as of this January. Also, while pollsters say that Franken has a good chance of winning in 2014, this is largely because they have only ranked him against a weak bench of tired GOP candidates. Pollsters have not ranked him against a challenging candidate like Lewis.

3. It’s an off-year election and Minnesotans want reform

I recently interviewed Lewis to learn more about his campaign plans. He said: “I’m thinking about it. I’m running around the state in a testing mode right now. There is a massive overreach of government from Washington to St. Paul. There is a great silent majority out there that I will speak to and energize. Plus, this will be an off-year election, which is always more favorable to the party out of power. Just a few years ago, we had a Republican house and senate and governor in the state of Minnesota. I think 2014 is going to be a good year for Republicans.”

Jason added: “Franken is extremely vulnerable on things like war because independent voters are tired of Obama’s ‘War Inc.’ First, Franken was for military action, especially in Iraq; then, he was against it for the 2008 election; then in favor of Obama’s escalation in Afghanistan and Libya. He also sided with the president on the Patriot Act renewal and drone killings. Furthermore, he’s vulnerable on medical device taxes (he has flip-flopped multiple times for and against taxes on the medical device industry, which is very strong in Minnesota).”

4. Jason has a high name ID and will raise cash

As an author (Power Divided is Power Checked) and a nationally syndicated talk radio host, Jason Lewis has built a loyal following of conservative, libertarian and moderate voters in Minnesota who are attracted to his rational voice and clear solutions to complex economic and social issues.

Lewis has over 60 affiliate radio stations across the country and in 2011 he was named one of “The Heavy Hundred” most important talk radio show hosts in the nation by Talkers Magazine. Although he would take a break from doing his talk show to run his campaign, Lewis’ fans around the country have already expressed their support for his run, including promises to donate their time and money.

Lewis estimates that he will need to raise between $11 and $12 million to compete with Franken, who he thinks will try to raise around $15 million.

Here is something worth smiling about: When Lewis replaces Franken in the U.S. Senate, ‘Minnesota Nice’ will return to Washington.

To bring Katie Kieffer to speak at your professional event or college campus, please follow this link to inquire about booking a speech.

Image credit: Photo by quantum bunny on Flickr via Creative Commons.

Pause and reflect on this hypocrisy: The Department of Justice prosecutes young hackers who use computers to promote free speech while highly educated adults within the DOJ threaten to use lethal drone force against American citizens without due process. Which is worse?

Certainly, I do not condone hacking. However, you and I need to start talking about the best way to handle cyberattacks while also recognizing that the same government officials we trust to protect us are assaulting our constitutional freedoms.

Last month, cybersecurity firm Madiant released an explosive, 76-page report indicating that the Chinese government is most likely sanctioning and responsible for a bulk of the cyberattacks against the U.S. government and American companies.

This month, the New York Times reported top U.S. intelligence official James Clapper Jr. alerting Congress: “a major cyberattack on the U.S. could cripple the country’s infrastructure and economy … such attacks now pose the most dangerous immediate threat to the U.S., even more pressing than an attack by global terrorist networks, such as al-Qaida.”

Cyberattacks are becoming a menace and we need to find a better way to prevent them.

Steve Jobs Was a Hacker

One thing that you should know about the computer, tablet or smart phone and the internet that you are using to read this column: They would not exist if an intelligent young person had not broken rules in order to advance technology.

Did you know that Apple co-founders Steve Jobs and Steve Wozniak were famous pranksters? Wozniak spent a night in a juvenile detention center for one prank and Jobs was suspended from school more than once.

Jobs and Wozniak were also hackers. In fact, if it were not for a hacking prank they played that allowed them to manipulate AT&T’s infrastructure, iPads would not exist. In 1971, Wozniak and Jobs discovered an article on hackers in Esquire that gave them clues into creating Blue Box technology to override AT&T’s network and make free long-distance calls.

Wozniak and Jobs followed the clues in the Esquire article to a technical journal article on the tones that route phone calls in the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center’s library. Armed with these two articles, rebellion and raw intelligence, Wozniak created the first digital Blue Box.

Jobs told his biographer Walter Isaacson: “If it hadn’t been for the Blue Boxes, there wouldn’t have been an Apple. I’m 100% sure of that. Woz and I learned how to work together and we gained the confidence that we could solve technical problems and actually put something into production. …You cannot believe how much confidence that gave us.”  Isaacson adds: “They had created a device with a little circuit board that could control billions of dollars’ worth of infrastructure.”

Around the same time that Jobs and Woz were up to trouble, a teenager named Bill Joy was up to his own “trouble” in the University of Michigan’s Computer Center. Computers were brand-new, gigantic and insanely expensive to “play on” per hour. Joy and his prodigy friends discovered: “…that if you put in ‘time equals’ and then a letter, like t equals k, they wouldn’t charge you [for programming time]. It was a bug in the software. You could put in t equals k and sit there forever,” Joy tells Malcolm Gladwell in the book, “Outliers.”

Since he was a smart little prankster, Joy was able to accrue thousands of hours of programming time for free and his knowledge ended up benefiting society. Gladwell explains: “…Joy took on the task of rewriting UNIX, which was a software system developed by AT&T for mainframe computers. Joy’s version was very good. It was so good, in fact, that it became—and remains—the operating system on which literally millions of computers around the world run.”

Joy, Jobs and Wozniak were “productive pranksters.” Here is the question I am asking you to consider: Is there a way for us productively leverage the talent of hactivists to combat foreign cyberattacks?

Pentagon Failing to Harness Hacking Talent

The Pentagon is currently partnering with defense contractors to sponsor events that educate young people to become the future defensive hackers of America with contests for students like the CyberLympics.

But if you are a smart prankster like Jobs, Joy or Wozniak, the Pentagon will kick you out. Discovery News reports: “A recent Pentagon report called for tripling the number of workers at the U.S. Cyber Command, but there’s one big hitch. To become a cyber professional working in government, potential employees have to have exceptionally clean records. That means no arrests or expulsions for hacking into school computers or shutting down websites.”

American (not Chinese) hacktivists are currently facing 10, 15 or 124-year maximum sentences if convicted. One of the world’s top-ranking hacktivists, Christopher Doyon, faces 15 years for a 30-minute online protest against Santa Cruz county’s website and is now seeking temporary asylum in Canada. Why don’t we figure out a way to leverage this talent in a positive way?

Throwing smart, talented hackers in jail or sending them scurrying to Canada will likely incite more cyberattacks. Perhaps we could offer these young hackers immunity from prosecution in exchange for a position protecting U.S. infrastructure, cellphone networks and utilities from foreign cyberattacks. They might refuse the offer but it seems worth a shot.

Additionally, a proactive measure Washington could take against cyberattacks would be to stop trying to unconstitutionally squash internet freedom (think the PROTECT IP Act or PIPA, the Stop Online Piracy Act or SOPA and net neutrality regulations.)

The federal government has no business, per the Constitution, hyper-regulating our free speech or commerce on the internet. Hacker groups like Anonymous oppose excessive government intrusion and will continue to disrupt sites like the Department of Justice until our government starts reforming its ways.

Certainly, I am not saying that hackers have the right to take down government websites. But our politicians routinely pass unconstitutional laws and executive orders that threaten lethal drone force without due process against American citizens, attack private technology, force employers to pay for contraception coverage and stonewall the internet. Isn’t it a tad hypocritical for hackers go to jail while politicians receive praise for doing much worse?

The Department of Justice should not be shocked if smart young people utilize hacking as a last-ditch effort to get the government’s attention and make the statement that Americans will not quietly hand over their natural rights of free speech and private property.

I also think our government should try to peacefully and productively harness the incredible talent in these young hackers instead of letting it go to waste in a prison cell. I am not saying we should reward hactivists for damaging pranks. Hacking is wrong. However, I am sure most Americans are glad that Steve Jobs, Bill Joy and Steve Wozniak did not waste their youth and talent in prison because they were smart and bold enough to experiment with hacking. Plus, don’t you question the integrity of DOJ officials who propose using drones against American citizens while acting like they are heroes for hunting down teenage programmers?

Referenced for this column: Walter Isaacson’s “Steve Jobs,” pages 23-30 and Malcolm Gladwell’s “Outliers,” pages 35-47.

To bring Katie Kieffer to speak at your professional event or college campus, please follow this link to inquire about booking a speech.

Young professionals. Image copyright Katie Kieffer LLC.

President Obama and Sandra Fluke both call themselves lawyers and “reproductive rights activists” without giving you any indication that they understand the Constitution or basic biology.

I’m not a lawyer, but I understand the Constitution. I’m not a reproductive rights activist, but I aced Biology 101. So I can tell you that Sandra and Barack are wrong when they classify women in combat and contraception as “women’s issues.”

Military combat and contraception coverage are not women’s issues. They are freedom issues and freedom is just as important to men as it is to women.

Liberals love dismissing “freedom issues” as “women’s issues” because then it’s like WNBA games—guys check out.

Women don’t go to war by themselves; women fight alongside men. So the question of whether the government can draft men or women is a “freedom issue,” not a “chromosomal issue.”

When a guy turns 18, he must sign up with the Selective Service. The only purpose of the Selective Service is to prepare for a potential draft.

Currently, women are not required to sign up for the Selective Service, but Congress will likely change that now that the Pentagon lifted its ban on women in combat.

Drafts and the Selective Service violate your First Amendment rights of free speech and freedom of association. They also violate the Thirteenth Amendment, by making young people serfs of the government.

Philosopher Ayn Rand writes in the June 1966 edition of The Objectivist newsletter: “Statism needs war; a free country does not. Statism survives by looting; a free country survives by production. … Just as an individual has the right of self-defense, so has a free country if attacked. But this does not give its government the right to draft men into military service—which is the most blatantly statist violation of a man’s right to his own life. …a volunteer army is the most efficient army, as many military authorities have testified. A free country has never lacked volunteers when attacked by a foreign aggressor.”

Anyone who volunteers for a combat role and meets the qualifications should be able to fight. But we should not violate the freedom of young men or women by forcing them to sign up for the Selective Service. That’s point number one.

Point number two is that forcing employers to cover contraception is also a freedom issue, not a women’s issue. Women don’t impregnate themselves. Plus, Obamacare’s contraception mandate violates both male and female free speech.

Ironically, Obamacare is sexist because it teaches guys to be playboys. Now, if a guy pressures a girl to have sex and she gets pregnant, he’s off the hook because he can say: “Not my problem, you should have been using Obama’s free birth control.”

I think liberals like Fluke are hurting women by pushing a one-sided message of sex that gives young women a false sense of security about jumping into bed with guys who have incurable diseases.

One in four teenage girls has an STD. With so much focus on preventing pregnancy, teenage girls seem to forget about STDs. Birth control doesn’t prevent STDs. Even condoms and HPV vaccines are not 100 percent effective against STDs.

An unwanted pregnancy can end in adoption. But an STD can ruin a woman’s life forever.

Liberals will just say we need more government sex education. But, many types of STDs have increased even as the government has ramped up its prevention efforts. The federal government and politicians like Anthony Weiner have no business in sex education. That’s a role for parents and churches.

My overall point is that, as a conservative, you need to change the dialogue and stop letting the left classify “freedom issues” as “women’s issues.” Because when you allow liberals to define the terms, they win.

The way to promote women is not to compel women to sign up for the Selective Service or force employers to cover birth control. The way to promote women is to defend the Constitution and the freedom that men and women both enjoy.

Additional works referenced for this column: Judge Andrew Napolitano’s book “Theodore and Woodrow,” pages 48, 115-116, 121-122 and “Ron Paul on the Draft” – RonPaul.com – 02.12.2009.

To bring Katie Kieffer to speak at your professional event or college campus, please follow this link to inquire about booking a speech.

Niger Innis, Dr. Ben Carson and Harry Alford

Three brilliant black leaders are tuning out Obama. And the black community needs to tune into these leaders.

I’m surfing between the major news networks on a recent evening and I catch FOX News Channel’s Sean Hannity in the middle of an amazing interview with a guest named Harry Alford, the CEO and co-founder of the Black Chamber of Commerce.

My jaw drops as Alford essentially calls Obama an anti-business tyrant who is hurting the African American community; he says he voted for Obama in 2008 but now has buyer’s remorse.

I get to thinking: Given the choice between Alford and Obama, why do many blacks still choose Obama? Why does Obama have an 88 percent approval rating among African Americans while his overall approval sits at 47 percent? After all, what has Obama done to help African Americans?

I am concerned and puzzled because the black community seems to be ignoring the wisdom of successful black leaders in business, medicine and journalism. Let me introduce you to three black leaders who are challenging the president’s policies:

1.) Niger Innis – Challenging Gun Control

Obama’s Attorney General Eric Holder recently told Congress he wants to help “young black men” improve their lives with gun control legislation. But black journalists like Niger Innis are not buying it.

Innis is the National Spokesperson for the Congress of Racial Equality (CORE), an MSNBC commentator and a political consultant. According to Innis, the vast majority of gun-control legislation is a way for the federal government to control—not protect—the weakest members of society, such as minority groups. He made the following remarks on The Jason Lewis Show on March 4:

“The Second Amendment…very much like the first ten amendments of the Constitution which are the Bill of Rights… are an insurance policy for the individual and the individual sovereign states against [a] potentially too centralized, too powerful, potentially tyrannical federal government.”

Innis explained how most murders (with guns) happen in cities like New York, Chicago, Boston and Los Angeles “…[which] incidentally have the strictest gun control laws. …If you are an inner city resident… then, you are doubly victimized; you are victimized by the criminals who do not pay attention to the gun control laws and by [the government] effectively disarming you by making it virtually impossible for decent, law-abiding citizens to acquire guns legally.”

I think the black community should listen to Innis, who says Obama and Holder are effectively protecting criminals, not young black men, with their silly gun control plans.

2.) Dr. Ben Carson – Challenging ObamaCare

Dr. Ben Carson is the Director of Pediatric Neurosurgery at Johns Hopkins Hospital. Carson was the first surgeon to successfully separate conjoined twins. He led a 70-member surgical team for 22 hours to operate on twins bonded at the back of the head.

At the 2013 Presidential Prayer Breakfast, Carson offered a simple solution to give you control over your own healthcare—and provide quality healthcare for all members of society, including the poor. Whereas the President needed over 900 pages to write a death sentence for private healthcare, Carson articulated a solution to reform healthcare in 43 seconds (I encourage you to watch his full speech). Carson said:

“We need to have good healthcare for everybody… We spend a lot of money on healthcare. Twice as much per capita as anybody else in the in the world. And yet not very efficient. What can we do?

Here’s my solution: When a person is born, give them a birth certificate, an electronic medical record and a health savings account, to which money can be contributed pre-tax from the time you are born ‘til the time you die. When you die, you pass it along to your family members so that when you’re 85 years old and you’ve got six diseases you’re not trying to spend up everything; you’re happy to pass it on and there’s nobody talking about death panels. That’s number one.

And also, for the people who are indigent, who don’t have any money, we can make contributions to their HSA each month because we already have this huge pot of money; instead of sending it to some bureaucracy, let’s put it in their HSAs. Now they have some control over their own healthcare.”

Carson’s plan gives you and your provider control over your healthcare instead of ceding control to the government. Talk radio host Rush Limbaugh explains: “…what Dr. Carson’s plan says is just take that money that’s already in the health care system that’s coming out of your pocket in the form of taxes—Medicare tax, Medicaid tax, income tax, all that—and you keep it instead of sending it to Washington.”

And despite what pessimists may say, it is still possible to convince a future Congress to overturn Obamacare. For example, Chicago entrepreneur Michael Kalthoff worked with healthcare professionals to develop a bill that you can mail to your elected officials asking them to privatize healthcare in his new book, “Saving Private Healthcare.”

3.) Harry Alford – Challenging Socialism

The best way for African Americans (and all Americans) to achieve prosperity is through capitalism. As a successful businessman, Alford understands this. Hence, he founded the Black Chamber of Commerce to help blacks achieve success “through entrepreneurship and capitalistic activity.”

Last month, the U.S. Census Bureau released a report indicating that 26 percent of African Americans live in poverty. This is far above both the national poverty rate (just over 14 percent) and the poverty rate for whites and Asians (under 12 percent).

Alford told The Daily Caller that Obama’s philosophy and policies are hurting African American business owners: “An executive order cannot trump the Constitution… He doesn’t have a clue. He’s never had a business. He’s never had a real job. He doesn’t understand how it all works. …I don’t really support him too well and he knows it and that’s a badge of honor. …He’s bad. And I supported him, I voted for him [the] first time around. I had hopes because he was black, shame on me. …And then when he started doing all [these] executive orders, banning the ‘right to work’ and other things—hurting my members, my constituents, I had to back off, I had to represent my people! …If you read the Communist Manifesto, that’s [redistribution of wealth] that philosophy. He is not Adam Smith. He does not believe in capitalism the way America, our Founding Fathers, did. He is very social and it’s getting borderline communist.”

President Obama may have had “dreams from his father.” But he certainly is not helping his fellow African Americans achieve the American dream. I hope the black community starts listening to brilliant black leaders who can and will help them succeed such as Innis, Carson and Alford.

To bring Katie Kieffer to speak at your professional event or college campus, please follow this link to inquire about booking a speech.