Alexander Hamilton statue. Image credit: "Wallstreet-10" by photog63 on Flickr via Creative Commons.

As children, we play “Follow the Leader.” As adults, we occasionally play “Follow the Playboy” because history shows us that imperfect men can lead.

Many pioneers in their field were brilliant men who made big mistakes. Alexander Hamilton—America’s founding father and first Secretary of the Treasury—had an affair with a married woman while he was married to the amiable mother of his eight children. King David—a biblical leader who received a special covenant from God—committed adultery with Bathsheba before he repented and passed his throne to Solomon. Tiger Woods—the Masters’ youngest winner and a 14-time major champion who inspired countless athletes for over three decades—lost Elin Nordegren through his adultery.

We view these three men (and many others) as leaders because of their contributions to society, distinct from their moral flaws. Despite weaknesses, each man used his unique talents to lead in his field. These men didn’t publicly flaunt their playboy lifestyles à la Hugh Hefner and their mistakes are therefore instructional rather than influential.

Everyone has his or her own vicious tendency such as anger, covetousness or sloth. And, everyone has distinctive talents. We all have the ability to control our impulses and lead in a particular sphere (such as public policy, religion, education, science or athletics) that channels our unique talents.

Let’s say someone has a bad habit of spouting off like a South Park character but he also possesses qualities like patience, high energy and creativity requisite for teaching young children. He can become an excellent role model for children if he focuses on exercising his talents and controlling his language in the classroom.

On a political level, if a presidential candidate has a reputation (real or perceived) for being a distracted playboy, we shouldn’t automatically assume that he wouldn’t control himself if he becomes president.

When asked about his past personal life, which is tainted with repeat infidelity, Newt Gingrich told Fox News: “I have reconciled and asked for forgiveness from God.” In the case of Gingrich, voters need to decide whether he means what he says. In the case of Herman Cain, voters need to weigh his alleged past behavior towards women against his overall and current record of behavior towards women.

Always take the mainstream media’s opinion with a grain of salt. In just twelve days, Politico published 157 negative articles about Cain’s alleged sexual improprieties. That’s over 13 slanderous stories a day based on hearsay and anonymous rumors. Rags like Politico often get the “playboy scoop” from sources with questionable motives and backgrounds such as: Little Miss Anonymous, Sharon Bialek and Karen Kraushaar.

When socialist journalists can’t refute a candidate’s political positions by using reason, they often cast him as a playboy because they know that Americans have a history of electing a president who at least appears to have a clean marital record. (Ronald Reagan is still the only divorced man to become president.)

Don’t get me wrong. I’m not suggesting that Cain or Gingrich are playboys. I’m saying that we shouldn’t automatically dismiss candidates who may have acted like playboys in the past. Especially right now. Americans want a job-creator. Americans are dissatisfied with the status quo and so fiscal leaders—playboy or not—are “electable.” For example, a recent RealClearPolitics survey reveals that Congressman Ron Paul has the ability to beat President Obama.

Not every playboy has leadership potential. If a presidential candidate doesn’t overcome his bad habits before he enters the White House, he could distract and embarrass the country by behaving like a school boy—lying under oath and redefining “sexual relations” so as not to include staining blue dresses or teaching interns how to use cigar tubes as sex toys.

The Constitution gives the president the power of the sword (i.e. the power to enforce the laws) and a man without integrity can’t be trusted with a sword. Have you ever known a police officer to succeed in enforcing the law by making out with station house interns in his squad car?

Ultimately, a man with salacious tendencies can be a strong leader if he controls himself and channels his talents in a rational and responsible manner. We can confidently elect an alleged playboy to lead America’s boardroom if his leadership ability transcends his yen to yo-yo in the bedroom.

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: "Red White and Blue" by Today is a good day on Flickr via Creative Commons.

Let’s all agree to take a month off from using the word “unelectable.” I promise it won’t be nearly as hard as refraining from using your iPhone for a day.

I recurrently hear people suggest that a seasoned physician-turned-congressman (Ron Paul), a tax attorney-turned congresswoman (Michele Bachmann) and a businessman who took Burger King and Godfather’s Pizza from deficiency to profitability (Herman Cain) are unelectable.

They aren’t unelectable. They simply challenge ageist, sexist, racist and elitist criteria for “electable.”

When someone calls a presidential candidate “unelectable,” it’s wise to consider the source. For example, former Utah governor and presidential candidate Jon Huntsman, Jr. is receiving significant press for calling Bachmann an “extreme” and “unelectable” fringe candidate. Uh, hello? Huntsman is competing against Bachmann and therefore his criticism is neither credible nor worthy of press coverage.

Even well-meaning conservatives fall prey to regurgitating the mainstream media’s mantra. For instance, a successful entrepreneur told me that he “likes Paul” but thinks he’s unelectable because he’s too “quirky.” I recently met a businessman who said, “You know, I agree with everything Bachmann says, but she’s not electable. There’s no way she can win.” Another conservative told me, “I agree with everything Bachmann says, but there’s something about her. I don’t know what it is, she just seems un-presidential.”

Actress Janeane Garofalo actually uttered the following analysis out-loud on Current TV’s “Countdown” program: ‘…Herman Cain, I feel like, is being paid by somebody to be involved and to run for president so that, so that, you go: “Oh yeah, that can’t be racist. It’s a black guy …”’

If you can’t intelligently articulate why a candidate is unelectable, then you shouldn’t say so. Flippant and unfounded remarks could lead others to blindly subscribe to your way of thinking. Worse yet, you could end up kicking yourself if you realize your favorite “electable” candidate isn’t who you thought he was.

Think about the people who voted for Obama and now have what Rush Limbaugh calls “buyer’s remorse.” For example, Cedar Rapids, IA businessman Doug Nassif recently told the Los Angeles Times: ‘… he voted for Obama in 2008, but plans to support Paul this time. “I’ll vote for anybody who is going to get us the hell out of Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya.”’

Why not allow candidates like Paul, Bachmann and Cain to speak for themselves before classifying them as unelectable? Why not research all the presidential candidates before you impulsively tell your friends, colleagues and neighbors that so-and-so is “unelectable?”

If—deep down—you like and agree with a particular candidate, chances are, many other people will too. Don’t sell yourself short by writing off everyone but the most moderate, politically correct, smooth-talking candidate who looks and acts “presidential.” The election is still 14 months out. At this stage, why root for anyone other than your ultimate choice for president?

Cain is a straight-shooting businessman with a proven track record of turning big-time corporate loss into big-time profit. Now more than ever, Cain’s promise to lower taxes and eliminate anti-business regulations (think Dodd-Frank) will resonate with Americans seeking jobs, small business loans and overall economic recovery. Cain also appeals to African Americans seeking a president who they trust won’t use them to get elected and then ignore them.

Bachmann proactively introduces measures based on what she thinks the American people want. She doesn’t sit around waiting to find out what’s inside a health care bill before she makes a move. Unlike Romney (think RomneyCare) or Perry (who has praised HillaryCare), Bachmann’s stance on national health care is consistent, clear and believable.

Forbes ranks Michele Bachmann as the 22^nd most powerful woman in the world—far above Nancy Pelosi (52^nd). Her authenticity and persistence endear her to a wide range of voters who trust her to listen to them and follow through.

Paul is a socially conservative libertarian who maintains that individual states should determine issues like abortion and gay marriage. He thinks states should also decide whether to legalize drugs, prostitution and gambling. He wants to secure the border, audit the Federal Reserve, cut government spending and protect the dollar from inflation. He wants a strong military and opposes perpetual armed intervention in the Middle East. Paul’s views cast a wide net that can draw in war-weary independents, gays, young people, women, social conservatives and fiscal hawks.

17-year-old Paul volunteer Jesse Coffey told TIME Magazine: “We’ve run into Romney. We ran into McCain. Whenever you talk to them, you feel like everything they say is almost programmed. When you meet Ron Paul, it’s like meeting an old friend you haven’t seen in years.”

Next time you watch a presidential debate, read a news article bashing a particular presidential candidate or discuss politics with friends, stay open-minded. Some candidates are more electable than you might think.

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

The White House in wintertime. Image credit: "A Whiter White House" by thefost on Flickr via Creative Commons.

White bengal tiger cub. Image credit: "Montgomery Zoo" by The Suss-Man (Mike) on Flickr via Creative Commons.

If Britney Spears performs her hit single “I’m a Slave 4 U” alongside exotic animals or dances inside a cage, you assume she craves easy attention but you don’t think that she literally wants to live like a zoo animal. Needless to say, humans do not belong in zoos. Cages do not enable men to grow and prosper.

But what if a man were born in a zoo? Like a baby tiger born in a zoo, he would not see the zoo as a trap. His needs for food, shelter and even procreation would be satisfied. (The zookeepers would figure it out.)

However, he would not learn how to build himself a shelter because he would have a temperature-regulated exhibit area. He would not learn to defend himself because there would be nothing threatening in his artificial environment. He would not learn to hunt and prepare his own meals because zookeepers would bring dishes of food to him. He would never learn to work. He would own nothing and be responsible for nothing. If he had children, the zoo would provide for them also.

He would learn to scratch at the walls and howl when he wanted his zookeepers. He would learn sloth.

When a government unjustly strips its people of their freedom by overstepping its Constitutional authority (think health care reform), by over-regulating business (think the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau), by restraining online free speech (think net neutrality regulations and high-tech bullying) and by attacking free market competition within entire industries (think green technology and commercial real estate), the people begin to live like animals in a zoo.

Image credit: "Monkey in a Cage" by rainbreaw on Flickr via Creative Commons.

Employers facing a 35 percent corporate income tax rate will quit posting job openings and move their businesses overseas. Hundreds of unemployed people will apply for the same open position—even if it’s just to flip burgers at McDonald’s. Some people will try to start their own business and give up when government taxes and regulations choke off their profits.

As capitalism disintegrates and jobs disappear, many hard-working individuals will suddenly and depressingly find themselves with few viable options for survival other than government assistance such as Medicaid, retirement benefits, unemployment benefits or federal assistance for higher education. Good and honest people will feel trapped by the government. They will feel like they moved from a rainforest into a zoo.

Meanwhile, more children will be born into poverty and welfare, which is similar to being born in a zoo. They will know nothing other than dependence. They will grow up thinking that the government will provide them with the “necessities” of life, from food to high-speed Internet access.

A recent Heritage Foundation study shows that poverty in America is not the best life (just as living in a zoo is not the best life) but it certainly is not an uncomfortable one: “…in 2005, the average household defined as poor by the government lived in a house or apartment equipped with air conditioning and cable TV. The family had a car (a third of the poor have two or more cars). For entertainment, the household had two color televisions, a DVD player, and a VCR.”

Given Heritage’s findings, many poor people will likely come to accept their dependent lifestyle as “normal” and “healthy” rather than question it.

Furthermore, children who grow up in a culture of welfare-induced poverty will have a hard time flourishing in society. Why? Because they grow up like baby panda bears in a zoo that only know dependence on zookeepers. Just like you can’t throw a zoo panda into the wild and expect it to instantly know how to survive on its own, children of welfare will need significant guidance in order to acquire responsibility.

Image credit: "Trevor Zoo Red Panda kookie sleep position" by Loves_TaiShan on Flickr via Creative Commons.

Sadly, government corruption has cracked the American free market system.  So, yes, some people (let’s call them “endangered species” for the sake of analogy) will need temporary, not life-long, help from the government if they have been working very hard to survive and stand on their own two feet and yet still face going “extinct.”

We need to decide as a country where we will go from here. Will we shelter our federal benefits? Will we agree to stifle countless Americans by holding their hands even after they can walk by themselves? Or, will we urge our elected officials to phase out these “perks” so that we can stop living like zoo animals?

As a country, let’s choose the path that allows us each to live full and free lives. Let’s persevere through temporary adversity and ask our elected officials to drastically reduce government spending. We need to act quickly if we prefer life in a spacious rainforest to life in a smelly zoo cage.

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

"Soldier Field, Home of the Chicago Bears" by Joshua Mellin on Flickr via Creative Commons.

When arch rivals like the Chicago Bears and the Green Bay Packers go head-to-head, anything is fair game. Except cheating. Winning is the end-goal, but neither team will knowingly jeopardize its NFL standing.

There’s not a lot of love between the Bears and the Packs. This January, when the teams played each other in the NFC championship for the first time since 1941, we witnessed overblown name-calling and pompous chest-pounding.

Football fans live for match-ups that grant them the opportunity to Photoshop a bear eating a cheese wedge or a green-and-gold Pac-Man chasing down a bear to antagonize friends and coworkers rooting for the opposing side. Good-natured teasing and competition make these games fun. Sometimes it seems like anything goes, but, at the end of the day, cheating is off-limits.

What if—unbeknownst to Lovie Smith—one of the Bears’ sports doctors had accepted a bribe from someone deep within the Bears association to give the entire team performance-enhancing drugs (without the players’ knowledge) before the big game?

If this were leaked before the NFC Championship game, the NFL would have jumped in. Probes would have been ordered. Smith would have looked like a cheater at worst and incompetent at best. To make matters worse, what if the Packers took advantage of the Bears’ public relations predicament and went to the press with claims that the Bears won the 1985 Super Bowl by doping up? The Packers would instantly hurt the Bears’ reputation by casting doubt on their ethical standards.

Clearly, this never happened. No Bears sports doctor accepted doping bribes and the Packers didn’t slander the Bears. However, something very similar to my “what-if” scenario is happening right now to one of the most successful entrepreneurs and job-creators in the world, namely Rupert Murdoch.

Rupert Murdoch. Image credit: FoxAllAccess.

Murdoch’s competitors are playing dirty. Instead of upping their game and trying to improve their journalistic standards, they are lowering themselves to the level of slanderous cheaters in a brazen attempt to knock Murdoch and his company News Corp. down.

Murdoch owns media companies all over the world and employs 53,000 people. His now inoperative British tabloid News of the World comprised less than one percent of his company’s holdings.

Allegedly, at least one employee within News of the World betrayed Murdoch and Murdoch’s key executives, including one employee who allegedly hacked into a missing 13-year-old girl’s cell phone and erased messages, thereby leading her parents to believe she was still alive.

Murdoch apologized profusely to the girl’s family and the public. He shut down News of the World. He refused to allow his other companies, such as Fox News, to downplay the scandal. His top tabloid executives stepped down. He dropped his $12 billion bid for British Sky Broadcasting. He submitted himself to questioning before Britain’s Parliament.

Cover page of the News of the World's final edition. Image credit: NevilleHobson on Flickr via Creative Commons.

For this honorable behavior, his rivals in the media and politics have slandered his good name and chipped away at his job-creating ability.

Most people don’t have time to watch Murdoch and his key executives defend News Corp. in three-hour-long parliamentary committee meetings. Most busy people simply scan headlines and leading paragraphs of stories written by Murdoch’s competitors like the Guardian, the Washington Post, the New York Times, TIME Magazine and the Huffington Post. Sadly, these competitors paint Murdoch as a corporate cheater without sufficient evidence. Here are some key examples:

FBI Probe: U.S. politicians impulsively lent credibility to media allegations that Murdoch’s British outlets hacked phones of 9/11 victims. Their panic sparked an FBI probe. No substantive evidence backs up these horrendous allegations. If legitimate, these claims are oddly a decade late.

Source Inflation: TIME Magazine’s July 25 issue plasters Murdoch’s face on the cover under the headline “SCANDAL!” TIME cites several “anonymous” (and therefore non-credible) “public figures” with juicy examples of News of the World’s allegedly unethical behavior.

Besides anonymous celebrities, TIME cites Hugh Grant for this feature cover story. Yes, that pretty boy who needs a 20^th Century Fox film script (think Nine Months) to sound witty.

TIME reports how Grant secretly records one former News of the World journalist stating that 20 percent of Scotland Yard takes bribes from tabloids. TIME implies that Grant caught an omniscient ex-Murdoch journalist on tape who somehow knows the exact percentage of underhanded dealings between journalists and law enforcement officials (impossible) and that Murdoch controls all British tabloid journalists (false).

Murdoch invests in high-quality journalism. Before acquiring The Wall Street Journal, he stated: “This is the greatest newspaper in America, one of the greatest in the world. It has great journalists which deserve, I think, a much wider audience.”

The evidence shows Murdoch plays to win the ethical way. His competitors in the media should follow the NFL’s lead: Teasing is fine, but slander and defamation are forms of classless cheating.

If you would like to book Katie Kieffer to speak at your professional event or college campus, please follow this link to inquire about booking a speech.

Katie Kieffer speaking at RightOnline 2011. Image copyright Katie Kieffer.

On Friday, June 17th, I spoke at the national RightOnline conference sponsored by Americans for Prosperity. This year, my home-state hosted the conference at the Hilton Minneapolis. I spoke on the challenges to high tech free speech, with a special focus on net neutrality, and offered the audience six action steps to overcome these challenges. I’ll share photo highlights from the event:

Mitch Berg at RightOnline 2011. Image copyright Katie Kieffer.

My friend, blogger and talk radio host Mitch Berg presented on the history of the Fairness Doctrine and historical challenges to high-tech free speech before I spoke on net neutrality. You can tune into Mitch Berg and Ed Morrissey’s show Saturday morning’s on AM 1280 The Patriot.

Katie Kieffer on the Dr. Gina Loudon Show at RightOnline 2011. Image copyright Katie Kieffer.

I went on the Dr. Gina Loudon Radio Show and talked with Dr. Gina about why entrepreneurship can be a fulfilling and profitable alternative to purposelessly racking up college debt.

Katie Kieffer and John Hawkins at RightOnline 2011. Image credit: John Hawkins of RightWingNews.

I caught up with some of my fellow professional bloggers and Townhall columnists like John Hawkins of RightWingNews. You can also find Hawkins’ opinion and humor on Twitter.

The Kieffer Sisters - RightOnline 2011. Image copyright Katie Kieffer.

My dearest cheerleaders will always be my sisters, Maggie (L) and Amie (R). Watch for Amie’s cartoons from time-to-time on this website under “Humor.”

RightOnline 2011 ballroom design by EideCom Media.

RightOnline 2011′s ballroom was designed by my filming partners, Charles Eide and Mike Danielson of EideCom Media.

I’m looking forward to RightOnline 2012!

If you would like to book Katie Kieffer to speak at your professional event or college campus, please follow this link to inquire about booking a speech.

Image credit: "iPad with Dandilion" by JaredEarle on Flickr via Creative Commons.

If Steve Jobs’ name were Lindsay Lohan and he were looking for work starring as the wife of John Gotti Jr. in a mobster film, confrontation with the law would be the best thing that ever happened to Apple.

We all know Lohan can serve jail time and then spend weeks defending herself in court on new charges only to walk away flashing an ankle monitoring bracelet above her five-inch heels and … drum roll … land an acting gig next to John Travolta. For LiLo, fighting the law appears to be a remunerative gold star on her resume. For tech companies like Apple, not so much.

On June 3, 2011 a University of Southern California study revealed that almost 50 percent of Americans who connect to the internet worry that “big business” is spying on them. Only 38 percent worry about the government spying on them.

Anti-business government officials are frightening consumers with ridiculous privacy claims against high-tech companies that specialize in apps, off-site storage and social networking. Time Magazine reports: “FTC chairman Jon Leibowitz has been pleased by how effective he’s been at using the threat of legislation to scare companies into taking action…”

Image credit: "FTC Jon Leibowitz" by icki on Flickr via Creative Commons.

Consequently, American tech firms are spending more time lobbying and fighting legal battles and less time innovating, creating jobs and generating profits for shareholders.

Do you read the morning news on a laptop as you spoon Cap’n Crunch into your mouth? Do you send emails from a BlackBerry, iPhone or Android? Do you run an online business? If so, read my five examples of tech companies scrambling to defend their business models and reputations from government attacks. Then, you can decide for yourself whether big government is more trustworthy than big business.

1.) Google relies primarily on ad revenue to support the plethora of free services it provides consumers. Google reported lower first quarter net income due to designating $500 million to cover legal fees for a settlement it anticipates with the Justice Department over the legality of “certain advertisers” on Google.

2.) You may think Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg is quirky with his “personal challenge” diet to only eat the meat he kills. But, you can’t deny that Zuckerberg is a job creator.

For over a year, Sen. Al Franken, Rep. Chuck Schumer and other liberal politicians have been attacking Facebook’s privacy policies and trying to control Facebook. Facebook spent $230,000 lobbying in Q1 alone and just hired two more lobbyists.

If consumers are smart enough to cultivate their FarmVille plantations multiple times a day, aren’t they capable of managing their Facebook privacy settings? Should the government protect Americans from foreign enemies or hold their hands as they upload photos to Facebook? What is Facebook’s incentive to do business in the U.S. if it spends its resources fighting anti-business micromanagers in Washington instead of innovating and creating profits for shareholders?

3.) Sen. Franken’s privacy subcommittee is pushing Apple and Google to defend, explain and revise their privacy practices. So, instead of innovating, Apple and Google are tied up in Congressional hearings explaining to tech-illiterate politicians that their devices request user permission before sharing location information with third-party applications.

4.) The U.S. Department of Labor is using business to spy on business – launching its own smartphone applications so that employees can “catch” their employers cheating them out of hours.Why is it OK for the government to slander Apple’s technology and then turn around and use Apple’s technology to pit employees against employers – setting the stage for lawsuits and fostering animosity toward business?

5.) In April, the FCC bypassed Congress and introduced “data roaming rules” that will cut into the profit and innovation potential of firms like Verizon and AT&T. Verizon is suing the FCC.

Meanwhile, the FCC is stalling formal publication of the anti-business net neutrality regulations it approved in December of 2010. The FCC knows that delaying posting the rules to the Federal Register pressures federal appeals courts to temporarily dismiss lawsuits from broadband heavyweights like Verizon.

The FCC is pigeonholing businesses, forcing them to either accept rules that will hurt their long-term growth or rack up ridiculous legal fees challenging and re-challenging these rules.

Think twice before you believe the government’s anti-business privacy sermons. Bizo CEO Russell Glass tells Time Magazine: “It’s the monster-under-the-bed syndrome. People are afraid of what they really don’t understand. They don’t understand that companies like us have no idea who they are. And we really don’t give a s — -. I just want a little information that will help me sell you an ad.”

Consider buying that iPad you’ve been admiring. Fearing new technology will ultimately derail your success and happiness. Let Sen. Franken take a time machine back to the Stone Age, but you don’t need to join him.

Image credit: "ipad" by mbeo on Flickr via Creative Commons.

If you enjoyed this post and you would like to book Katie Kieffer to speak in person at your professional event or college campus, please follow this link to inquire about booking a speech.

Expo 2010 Shanghai China. Image credit: "Better City Better Life" by Wolfgang Staudt on Flickr via Creative Commons.

In 1893, Americans hailed competition, individualism and entrepreneurial innovation. Chicago hosted a six-month World’s Fair to show the world “American Exceptionalism.” A Pennsylvania bridge-builder named George Ferris even invented the historic Ferris Wheel to outdo the Eiffel Tower, which Paris debuted at the 1889 Exposition Universelle.

Today, China is desperately trying to snatch America’s spot as the world leader in economic development and innovation. Last year, China invested $4.3 billion into public improvements to flaunt her progress before a historic 72 million attendees at the six-month Shanghai World Expo.

America just successfully stamped out the most-wanted terrorist in the world, Osama Bin Laden. West Point cadets responded by launching glow sticks in the air and chanting “USA! USA! USA!” New Yorkers cheered and hugged in Times Square. Even The View’s Little Miss Crabby Pants, Joy Behar, wants May 1^st to become a “national holiday.” So, why doesn’t the U.S. ride this new wave of confident patriotism and assert herself as the long-term economic leader of the world?

America can prevent China from taking her spot as the world’s economic leader by taking these five steps:

1.) Lower the U.S. corporate income tax rate.

China has an advantage compared to the U.S. in that it has a corporate income tax rate of 25 percent – ten points below the U.S. rate of 35 percent. In order for the U.S. to stay competitive and stop tech giants like Google, Facebook, Cisco and Microsoft from hemorrhaging jobs and profits overseas, the U.S. needs to lower her corporate income tax rate below that of key competing nations like China.

This step is necessary if we are serious about reducing our deficit, growing jobs and maintaining an edge on innovation and technology.

2.) Let free market to govern energy exploration, drilling and mining.

Let’s face it. While Americans hyperventilate over the theoretical dangers of climate change, the Chinese are steamrolling ahead, gobbling up roughly 97 percent of rare-earth production and naming their prices for the rare-earths America needs to create technology like iPads, solar panels, wind turbines and military equipment.

Now, the U.S. – once the global leader in rare-earth mining – is playing catch-up. The free market is scrambling to re-furbish Molycorp mine and the U.S. government is approving frivolous fantasyland projects like Cape Wind that waste money and destroy the environment while “keeping the boot” on safer and more practical oil production and exploration.

3.) Reform patent regulations.

The U.S. still has an innovational edge over China. But, like a thief in the night, China is making surprising technological advancement. Last August, China declared that its undersea “submersible” craft called the Jiaolong had surpassed the U.S., Japan, Russia, and France to become the world leader in deepwater diving.

The New York Times reported that this dive gave China access to “…trillions of dollars’ worth of mineral nodules as well as many objects of intelligence value…” and “…access to 99.8 percent of the ocean floor.” The feat took the world by surprise since Jiaolong took eight years to develop and defied the world’s understanding of China’s technological capabilities.

More disturbing, China is pirating American innovation. Chinese engineers have been reading the U.S. patent applications that are available online, copying American ingenuity and selling it around the world, reports the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel.

American pioneers have over 1.2 million patent applications awaiting approval at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. We should accelerate the patent approval process and shield patent applications from the eyes of foreign copycats for the sake of jobs and innovation.

4.) Protect free speech.

Another existing American advantage over China is freedom of speech. Companies like Google know firsthand that China radically censors traditional and online free speech.

Image credit: Google China image by Shekhar_Sahu on Flickr via Creative Commons.

However, U.S. government policies like the FCC’s net neutrality regulations threaten to derail this advantage. We need to protect online free speech because the internet is the birthplace of modern entrepreneurship and a free press is the best check against a behemoth government.

5.) Uphold human dignity.

It’s no secret that China laughs in the face of human rights. In fact, The New York Times reported that the Chinese legislature has toyed with passing a law enabling parents to sue their own children for failing to visit them regularly – despite the fact that China’s own policies make it increasingly difficult for young people to frequently see their parents.

Furthermore, China’s sex-selective abortion regulations have created a male-female ratio dilemma where males outnumber females 130 to 100 whereas nature’s ratio is approximately 105 to 100.

America brings humanitarian aid to the entire world while protecting human dignity at home. America should maintain this moral advantage by proudly respecting human life.

In brief, American politicians should stop bowing down to Chinese dignitaries and start holding their chins high because America can outsmart China.

Recommended reading: Erik Larson’s Devil in the White City.

I have listened to The Jason Lewis Show since I was a very little girl. At first, my dad made me listen to Jason’s show at the dinner table. We would sit down to eat and he’d inevitably say, “Katie, you should listen to Jason. You’ll learn something.” Eventually, I became hooked. Now, I listen by choice.

I think Jason’s voice is uniquely appealingly because he gets to the point, backs up his opinion with research and doesn’t waste air time disparaging liberals on a personal level. Jason spends more time discussing ideas than gossiping about people or politicians who disagree with him. Instead of whining, he offers realistic explanations and solutions for America’s dilemmas. He’s refreshing.

Jason has a new book out called “Power Divided is Power Checked.” It’s a fast read that will leave you feeling like you understand the Founding Fathers, the proper separation of powers, limited jurisdiction, states’ rights and the history behind the Constitution.

Francis Bacon was right: “Knowledge is power.” Empower yourself as a citizen and give Jason a shot at educating you.

Video produced by my filming partners Charles Eide and Michael Danielson at EideCom. Video copyright Katie Kieffer.

Wal-Mart store in Amsterdam, NY. Image credit: "Pot At The End Of The Rainbow" by Stacy Lynn Baum on Flickr via Creative Commons.

Sorry boys, Betty Dukes is not a California girl who models daisy dukes. She’s a Californian in her sixties who is leading the charge in Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Betty Dukes, et. al.

Six female plaintiffs, led by Betty Dukes, are current and former Wal-Mart employees with sexual discrimination charges against Wal-Mart. They seek to represent the group of over 1.5 million women who have worked at 3,400 domestic Wal-Mart retail stores since December 26, 1998.

This case has been moving through the court system since 2001. Last spring, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth District ruled in favor of certifying the class. Wal-Mart appealed and the Supreme Court will decide by June 2011 whether this case qualifies as a federal class-action suit.

Female advocates or feminists?

Women like Dukes seeking walking-around-money (WAM) look at the Court’s demographics and realize that now is their best chance to bring “glass ceiling” grievances against males forward. This is the first time in the Court’s history where three female justices sit on the bench: Hons. Ginsburg, Kagan and Sotomayor.

Image credit: "'Supreme shift' - US Supreme Court shifts a bit with two new judges." by His Noodly Appendage on Flickr via Creative Commons.

Throughout the March 29, 2011 oral argument, Justices Sotomayor, Kagan and Ginsburg asked questions that suggested they made their decisions before the argument was even over. Sotomayor blurted out the first question to the respondent’s attorney, Joseph M. Sellers: “What would the injunction look like in this case?” She may as well have said, “How can we help you? You need not waste time arguing the strength of your case.”

At the outset, Ginsburg implied that she was partial to the view that: “…it’s not subjective. …the expert saying that gender bias can creep into a system like that simply because of the natural phenomenon that people tend to feel comfortable with people like themselves.”

The female justices asked numerous procedural questions regarding injunctive and monetary relief and whether defining the class under Class-Action Rule 23 (b) (2) would protect the individual members of the class, including those no longer working for Wal-Mart.

They asked whether class members could pursue their individual “fair share” of back-pay and bring forward individual discrimination claims, even beyond this case, without violating res judicata and collateral estoppel.

Case flounders

Justice Kennedy probed the respondent no less than four times for Wal-Mart’s supposedly “unlawful policy” that caused sexual discrimination. Sellers dodged Kennedy’s questions, claiming Wal-Mart has “a very strong corporate culture” that provides its managers with “unchecked discretion,” and this leads to across-the-board discrimination based on sex.

Image credit: "Walmart @ Cortez, Colorado, USA" by Serge Van Cauwenbergh on Flickr via Creative Commons.

Justice Scalia pointed out a flaw in Sellers’ logic: “If somebody tells you how to exercise discretion, you don’t have discretion.” Sellers conceded to Scalia that Wal-Mart has a written policy against sex discrimination.

Sellers stammered and struggled to answer Scalia’s charge that his reasoning: “…assumes that if there is a disparity between the advancement of women and the advancement of men, it can only be attributed to sex discrimination.” Scalia also questioned how Sellers could fulfill the commonality requirement for class-action certification when his “class” includes women who were both underpaid and women who were not underpaid by Wal-Mart.

Are these women helping others?

This would be America’s largest-ever class-action suit for employment discrimination and would therefore set a powerful precedent. Sexual discrimination lawsuits and complaints are springing up from cocktail waitresses in Atlantic City to students at Yale University. If Betty Dukes et. al. achieves class-action certification, many sexual discrimination suits will gain a crippling new momentum.

Employees who normally would not risk the cost of bringing a weak individual case against their employer will simply pool their story together with others who have remotely similar stories for a class-action suit.

As the petitioner’s attorney Theodore J. Boutrous Jr. argued: “Each of the plaintiffs have very different stories. One of them was promoted into a managerial position. One was terminated for disciplinary violations. One was promoted and then had a disciplinary problem and then was demoted.”

American companies cannot afford to employ women and men if they perpetually fear that a handful of employees with disparate claims can hack billions of dollars in damages from their bottom lines.

Women will hurt in the long-run if we become a society where the courts construe individual manager discretion into a formal corporate policy and maintain that a handful of individuals with different stories can form a class and represent millions of others with equally different stories, potentially barring women from individual recourse.

Madeleine Albright once told TIME Magazine: “…it is important for women to help one another. I have a saying: There is a special place in hell for women who don’t.” Unfortunately, Betty Dukes et. al. seem poised to hurt, not help, other women if the Court rules in their favor. When feminists play the victim card for money, they often fail to understand the repercussions of their actions.

Image credit: "Supreme Court" by wukong 悟空 (Xuemin Guan) on Flickr via Creative Commons.

Image credit: "High Tech" by {link url="http://www.flickr.com/photos/mystery_topaz/4469724658/"}Emma Brabrook{link} on Flickr via Creative Commons.

Your game-day challenge is preserving your high-tech freedom. Today, I will explain your online freedom’s biggest threat and then employ NFL pep talks that will inspire you to prevail.

On Dec. 21, 2010, the FCC essentially declared that the Internet and telephone communications are the same. You know, like how water and beer are both beverages so they clearly are the same?

The FCC took regulatory control over the Internet by passing net neutrality regulations through its “ancillary” authority (authority not directly granted by Congress, but a presumed extension of a different task Congress had assigned to it). Net neutrality allows the FCC to “reclassify” broadband as a “telecommunications service” rather than as an “information service” so that it can more easily regulate it.

The supposedly “independent agency” ushered in nothing more than a power-grab for the Obama Administration when the three Democrat FCC Commissioners outvoted the two Republican Commissioners.

Republican Commissioner Meredith Attwell Baker told the Practicing Law Institute that the FCC’s vote was “against the will of the courts, which have told us that we lack authority to act. And Congress, which has asked us bluntly not to act…” CNN reports that Commissioner Robert McDowell concurred: “The FCC is not Congress. We cannot make laws.”

Internet works great free, why control it?

Who ranks “Internet access and security” as their top concern? According to Gallup, pretty much no one. Well, no one besides politicians and agency bureaucrats. After all, the Internet is the hottest vehicle to attract people (voters) and money (campaign funds).

Image credit: "INTERNET" by lecasio on Flickr via Creative Commons.

The President maintains that government control over the Internet prevents broadband providers from creating a super-fast service with selective content and pricing low-income people out of premium Internet.

A November 2010 Commerce Department survey revealed that the percentage of households with access to broadband has increased “across nearly all demographics.” The poor do have free Internet access at libraries, but, apparently, the president believes in a Constitutional “right” to the best Internet on one’s own computer.

Last week, the Newspaper Association of America said print advertising hit a 25-year low in 2010 and ad revenue is shifting to the Internet. Meanwhile, the financial success of Facebook and Groupon is sending investors online. J.P. Morgan Chase is creating a fund for Internet stocks. Solo investors are putting hundreds of thousands of dollars into high-tech accelerators.

Impact on businesses and consumers

My sense that big-hitters like Verizon, Comcast and AT&T feel intense pressure from the FCC to accept its terms, or go out of business. Verizon is taking the most aggressive response, filing a lawsuit challenging net neutrality regulations. Comcast and AT&T seem afraid to rock the boat too hard lest harsher regulations be issued.

A Comcast spokeswoman told me that Comcast is bound by net neutrality regulations for the next seven years, regardless if a court overturns them. Comcast agreed to these FCC terms in order to complete its January takeover of NBCUniversal.

Comcast will grow even larger if NBCUniversal accepts Blackstone’s recent offer to sell its 50 percent share of Universal Orlando. Anticipate a new Harry Potter attraction featuring “net neutrality” classes at Hogwarts.

Imagee credit: "Facebook, Foursquare & Twitter" by Scott Beale / Laughing Squid on Flickr via Creative Commons. Clicking on image routes to artist's site.

AT&T’s recent Congressional testimony exposed its assessment that the FCC has out-stepped its legal bounds: “Since this debate began back in 2005, AT&T has consistently opposed any FCC regulation of Internet services or facilities. This is still our strong preference today. We feel the antitrust laws, the Federal Trade Act, and the discipline of highly competitive markets are more than adequate to police any potential abuses.”

Verizon CEO Ivan Seidenberg has said, “Proponents (of net neutrality) have a worldview that network providers and application providers, like Google, occupy different parts of the Internet: dumb pipes versus smart apps. This is a mistake pure and simple. It’s an analog idea for a digital world. … You can’t create a smart economy by dumbing down the critical infrastructure.” He also said that economic growth and development (think telemedicine) would struggle under the regulations.

Consumer costs will spike if corporations cannot act competitively and if they have to subsidize services to low-income users and rural areas. Quality will simultaneously go down if the free market no longer incentivizes corporations.

Give the government a yard now with net neutrality and it will throw for a touchdown. In January, Commerce Secretary Gary Locke released plans to create a government-run “identity ecosystem” or “national ID card for the Internet,” reports The Washington Times.

Net neutrality regulations are effective as early as midsummer, unless Congress or the courts intervene.

Stand up for free enterprise and innovation. Educate your friends. Voice your concerns to the FCC. Contact your elected officials.

Although the NFL is struggling to get its house in order, there’s no one quite as motivating as a passionate football coach. ‘Own this moment. Prevail.’