Image credit: "Cannabis sativa L."by Lollyman on Flickr via Creative Commons.

I believe that states have the constitutional right to legalize drugs. For, the Constitution is silent on the federal government’s ability to regulate or ban substances that adults choose to digest at their own peril—or medical relief.

The Constitution is so silent on this matter of individual liberty (choosing to digest or use drugs) that in order to ban the sale of alcohol during the Prohibition era, we passed the 18^th Amendment. When we wised up and realized that banning alcohol doesn’t work, we repealed the 18^th Amendment via the 21^st Amendment. I contest that federal drug laws are unconstitutional because they do not stem from a constitutional amendment.

Since the Constitution defines our freedoms negatively, states and individuals retain all rights that are not explicitly delegated to the federal government. The 10^th Amendment states: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” In other words, because the Constitution is silent on drugs, states alone have the constitutional power to regulate drugs.

Voters in states like California have exercised their constitutional right to legalize drugs, specifically medicinal marijuana to help cancer patients and those suffering from chronic pain due to autoimmune diseases like multiple sclerosis.

Californians aren’t flower power hippies. These voters realize that if it’s constitutional for individual Americans to binge on four-to-five alcoholic drinks in one sitting—drinks that incidentally do nothing to relieve chronic pain—it makes sense to legalize a far less lethal substance like marijuana with verified pain-relief benefits.

A prestigious medical study published by The Lancet in November 2010 reveals that alcohol is more lethal than heroin and crack cocaine and drastically more harmful than marijuana, ecstasy and LSD. On Jan. 6, 2012, The Lancet reaffirmed these findings with a global study revealing that: “marijuana was the world’s most widely consumed illicit drug … [and] the least likely of all illicit drugs to cause death,” as The New York Times relays.

We have not amended the Constitution to outlaw drugs. Nor did the war on drugs germinate in Congress. Instead, successive court rulings and executive orders have unconstitutionally banned drug use at the federal level—even to the point of overriding the sovereignty of states that explicitly legalize drugs.

Medicinal marijuana supporter. Image credit: NoHoDamon on Flickr via Creative Commons.

‘And when the court decides to apply the Bill of Rights to state law, it winds up trampling … on the most important safeguard of our liberties: the division of power between the federal and state governments. … By the middle of the twentieth century the “due process” clause within the Fourteenth Amendment had come to be seen as the catchall phrase for federal intervention,’ writes author Jason Lewis in “Power Divided is Power Checked.”

Today, the Federal government, via the Department of Justice, has violated the separation of powers that the Founding Fathers wrote into the Constitution. Federal agents allege that medical marijuana dispensaries and growers violate “federal law”—ripping out medicinal cannabis plants and destroying legitimate livelihoods overnight.

The New York Times reports: “Federal law classifies the possession and sale of marijuana as a serious crime and does not grant exceptions for medical use, so the programs adopted here, in 15 other states and in the District of Columbia exist in an odd legal limbo. … federal prosecutors have raided or threatened to seize the property of scores of growers and dispensaries in California that, in some cases, are regarded by local officials as law-abiding models. At the same time, the Internal Revenue Service has levied large, disputed tax charges against the state’s largest dispensary, threatening its ability to continue.”

The war on drugs began when President Richard Nixon bypassed Congress and declared a war on drugs on July 17, 1971. He said that drug abuse was a “national emergency” and America’s “public enemy number one.” He signed the “war” into law on January 28, 1972. By unconstitutional executive order, Nixon created the first drug czar and also created an extra-congressional agency to regulate drugs called the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA). Successive Presidents have sustained this war.

Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution gives Congress (not the president) the “Power … To declare war.” Federalist and framer Alexander Hamilton further explains the Constitution’s checks on executive reach in The Federalist No. 78. He says the president publicly declares and enforces the laws Congress makes and the decisions or appointments Congress approves: “The Executive not only dispenses the honors, but holds the sword of the community.”

Some might object that America’s forty-year-long and over $2.5-trillion fight against drug abuse isn’t technically a “war.” But that’s a hard position to defend when scores of innocent Americans and Mexicans have died throughout our combat with brutal Mexican drug cartels. Since 2006 alone, when President Felipe Calderón declared his own war against drugs, between 40,000 and 50,000 people (depending on your source) have died in this conflict.

Moreover, the right to own your entire person is a fundamental human right and it is foundational to the Constitution. Unless you use wrongful force against another person or their property, you retain full ownership over your body. As John Locke points out, reason tells you that you fully own your body. No one else owns your body—not your neighbors, your family or the government.

Presidential candidate and physician Rep. Ron Paul explains: “All of our freedoms – the freedom of religion and assembly, the freedom of speech, the right to bear arms, the right to be free from unnecessary government searches and seizures – stem from the precept that you own yourself and are responsible for your own choices. Prohibition laws negate self-ownership and are an absolute affront to the principles of freedom. I disagree vehemently with the recreational use of drugs, but at the same time, if people are only free to make good decisions, they are not truly free. In any case, states should decide for themselves how to handle these issues and the federal government should respect their choices.”

Freedom is the power to choose between good and bad options for our own private property and body; freedom is the power to opt for healthy behaviors like prayer, aerobic exercise and strength training over unhealthy behaviors like self-mutilation, chain smoking, binge drinking and inhaling paint thinner. I think the federal government needs to respect individual freedom by deferring to the states in matters like drug use where the Constitution is silent.

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

Ron Paul delivers the key note address at the Republican Liberty Caucus of California held at the JW Marriott in Los Angeles. Image credit: Michael Villarmia on Flickr via Creative Commons.

May I have your attention please? Will the real Ron Paul please stand up? I repeat, will the real Ron Paul please stand up?

I keep hearing the same three rumors about Paul: He blames America for 9/11, he’s anti-Israel and he’s pro-Iran. So, who is the real Ron Paul?

Does he blame America for 9/11?

No, he’s very patriotic. Bob Schieffer recently interviewed Paul on CBS Face the Nation: “I wanna ask you some questions … and I wanna start with foreign policy because your statements over the years … suggest that you believe that 9/11 happened because of actions that the United States took. Is that correct?”

Paul answered: “Well, I think there is an influence. And that’s exactly what, you know, the 9/11 Commission said, that’s what the DOD has said and that’s also what the CIA has said and that’s what a lot of researchers have said. … America is you and I and we didn’t cause it, the average American didn’t cause it. … I’m saying [American foreign] policies have an affect but that’s a far cry from blaming America.”

Chalmers Johnson, CIA consultant from 1967–1973, concurs with Paul: ‘The suicidal assassins of September 11, 2001, did not “attack America,” as our political leaders and the news media like to maintain; they attacked American foreign policy.’

Johnson says the CIA coined the term “blowback” as “a metaphor for the unintended consequences of the US government’s international activities that have been kept secret from the American people.”

You might ask: Blowback? For what? Isn’t America “a beacon for freedom” as President George W. Bush said immediately after the 9/11 attacks? Certainly our Constitution is a beacon for freedom. Paul simply maintains that the unintended consequences of our current foreign policy are that we provoke violent retaliation while we accrue substantial debt and lose precious American lives.

The final 9/11 Commission Report validates Paul’s concern about blowback: ‘Defense Secretary William Cohen told us Bin Ladin’s training camps were primitive, built with “rope ladders”; General Shelton called them “jungle gym” camps. Neither thought them worthwhile targets for very expensive missiles. President Clinton and Berger also worried about the Economist’s point—that attacks that missed Bin Ladin could enhance his stature and win him new recruits. After the United States launched air attacks against Iraq at the end of 1998 and against Serbia in 1999, in each case provoking worldwide criticism, Deputy National Security Advisor James Steinberg added the argument that attacks in Afghanistan offered “little benefit, lots of blowback against [a] bomb-happy U.S.”’

Moreover, if Paul’s foreign policy is anti-America, why has he outpaced McCain, Romney and Gingrich in individual active military contributions? Timothy Egan writes in The New York Times: “Not even a full 1 percent of Americans are active-duty military. … Yet, these soldiers, sailors, air men and women, and assorted boots on the ground know the cost … of going to war far more than the 99 percent not currently serving. Where they put their money in a campaign … says a great deal.”

Image credit: "Ron Paul" by Ryan Lµdwig on Flickr via Creative Commons.

Is he anti-Israel?

Hardly. Paul wants to improve America’s foreign policy to suit Israel’s best interest.

Cato Institute research fellow Leon Hadar advised Paul on foreign policy during his 2008 campaign. He recently wrote in Israel’s news source Haaretz that Paul: “has a profound knowledge of Jewish history, admires Israel and follows its political and economic developments with great interest.”

Paul told NewsMax: ‘Stop and consider America’s policy: We give $3 billion a year to Israel in loans; and we give $12 billion or more in assistance to Israel’s self-declared enemies. Some of these are countries that say they will drive Israel into the sea. … Foreign aid does not help Israel. It is a net disadvantage. I say to them that “the borrower is servant to the lender” and America should never be the master of Israel and its fate. We should be her friend.’

He added: “In October, 1981, most of the world and most of the Congress voiced outrage over Israel’s attack on Iraq and their nuclear development. I was one of the few who defended her right to make her own decisions on foreign policy and to act in her own self-interest.”

Says Michael Scheuer, the former CIA chief who led the unit tracking Osama bin Laden: “until we accept that our support of the Saudi police state, our military presence in Afghanistan and Iraq and Yemen, our support for the Israelis – until we understand that those policies are the main recruitment tools for the enemy, we will never get a grip on the size, the durability and the potential of that enemy.”

Paul’s foreign policy positions and his call for neutrality toward Israel stem from his awareness of analyses from America’s most experienced terrorism-fighters like Scheuer. Ultimately, I believe Paul sees neutrality as the best route to prioritize America’s economic and security interests, prevent global “blowback” and respect Israel’s sovereignty.

Is he pro-Iran?

No. He is concerned that current U.S. foreign policies may aggravate Iran toward asymmetric vengeance, yielding blowback rather than security for America.

Paul’s preference for leveraging amicable neutrality and aggressive diplomacy tactics toward Iran is often construed as supporting Iran. He simply questions how realistic a nuclear bomb threat is from Iran. He told CBS, “Iran doesn’t have a bomb; there’s no proof, there’s no new information regardless of this recent [U.N.] report.”

Indeed, the U.N.’s report only relayed vague suspicions regarding Iran’s nuclear projects and an unclassified “Report on Military Power of Iran” from our own Department of Defense dated April 2010 conveys that Iran’s nuclear goals are defensive rather than aggressive in nature: “Iran’s principles of military strategy include deterrence, asymmetrical retaliation and attrition warfare. Iran’s nuclear program and its willingness to keep open the possibility of developing nuclear weapons is a central part of its deterrent strategy.”

Paul also believes that “sanctions are the initial step to war” and we risk blowback by levying heavy sanctions on Iran based on our fear of their nuclear projects. Indeed, no sooner had the Obama administration prepared harsh economic sanctions than Iran retaliated by vowing to close the gateway for nearly one fifth of the world’s oil supply—the Strait of Hormuz.

Misconstruing Paul’s foreign policy views and leveling him with ad-hominem attacks is intellectually intolerant and nonstrategic if we want to defeat Obama’s socialist policies in 2012. For, the GOP nominee (whoever they are) will need the support of the independent voters who embrace Paul’s philosophy. Let’s follow Reagan’s example by setting rumors aside, focusing on our goal, and ceasing groundless attacks on one of our own. Now, will the real Ron Paul please stand up?

A supporter shows off her Ron Paul yard sign. Image credit: Michael Villarmia on Flickr via Creative Commons.

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: RXAphotos on flickr via Creative Commons

When all else fails, sex sells. The only way to sell the American public on socialism is to use sex appeal because socialism does not appeal to reason or justice. And watching handsome high rollers head to prison is no doubt an Occupy Wall Streeter’s notion of ultimate bondage sex appeal.

The Department of Justice is not in the sales industry. Yet the DOJ appears hell-bent on prosecuting provocative cases that deflect responsibility for the financial crisis away from the government and onto the private sector.

A recent Gallup poll reveals that most Americans blame the government, not Wall Street, for the economic downturn. Americans are fed up with disgraces like Fast & Furious, Solyndra and high unemployment. Now, it appears that President Obama may be relying on the DOJ to help him regain public approval for his collectivist policies.

Preet Bharara is the man President Obama nominated as U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York, headquartered in lower Manhattan.

With impeccable timing, Bharara is delivering the Occupy Wall Street progressives (potential Obama 2012 campaigners) exactly what they are clamoring for by prosecuting sexy, high profile cases that send an anti-wealth, anti-capitalism and anti-Wall Street message. Here is a timeline:

• September 17: Occupy Wall Street protest begins.
• September 21: Bharara announces that former Galleon Group LLC trader Zvi Goffer will serve 10 years in prison, the longest prison term on record for insider trading.
• October 7: Bharara announces that Emanuel Goffer will serve three years for acting on “inside information” that he received from his brother Zvi.
• October 12: Bharara announces that former attorney Michael Kimelman will serve 30 months for his involvement with the Goffer brothers (despite a very close jury and no clear evidence that Kimelman knew the he was acting on illegal information).
• October 13: After utilizing admittedly “aggressive prosecutorial methods and unprecedented tactics,” Bharara announces that billionaire and Galleon Group LLC hedge fund manager Raj Rajaratnam will serve 11 years in prison, setting a new record for insider trading prison terms.

FBI press releases state that these cases were “brought in coordination with President Barack Obama’s Financial Fraud Enforcement Task Force, on which U.S. Attorney Bharara serves as a co-chair of the Securities and Commodities Fraud Working Group.” Government records indicate that President Obama created this tax force to “hold accountable those who helped bring about the last financial crisis.”

The obvious problem with this task force is that shady Clinton-era government housing policiesinitiated the financial crisis, not Wall Street. So, how can a government task force hold the government accountable?

Image credit: Wall Street Charging Bull by puzzlemepuzzle on Flickr via Creative Commons.

The government’s Wall Street “watchdogs” are particularly tainted. The DOJ has notoriously blown taxpayer funds on extravagant conferences featuring $16 muffins, and, last spring, 33 Congressional probes uncovered high-level SEC employees using taxpayer time and equipment to indulge their addiction to porn.

Furthermore, economists including the widely recognized founder of the economic analysis of law, Henry Manne, argue that deregulating insider trading would benefit both the economy and society. UCLA School of Law Professor Stephen M. Bainbridge writes: “Insider trading is one of the most controversial aspects of securities regulation, even among the law and economics community. … Deregulatory arguments are typically premised on the claims that insider trading promotes market efficiency or that assigning the property right to inside information to managers is an efficient compensation scheme.”

The New York Times has reported that, “Insider trading does not appear to have any appreciable effect on the markets, at least as measured by the volume of trading that occurs.” The Guardian also reports that many insider prosecutions do little to anything to stop the practice, and, more importantly, the trading itself may not be inherently destructive to the market.

Bharara genuinely seems to think he’s whipping horrific crimes. But what is more scandalous? To threaten America’s food supply by ignoring and even facilitating drug cartel border violence (think Fast & Furious)? Or, to leverage your connections and cut backdoor deals on Wall Street—when there is no evidence that such trades hurt the economy?

Government waste and corruption is a far greater threat to the economy and society than insider trading. But when was the last time you saw a government regulator get perp-walked? I think the President’s task force could send a superior anti-corruption message by securing the border and attacking government waste.

U.S. District Judge Richard J. Sullivan in Manhattan suggested that historically high prison terms like Goffer’s and Rajaratnam’s: “…will be used to send a message to Wall Street.” And Wall Street represents capitalism. So, these men appear to be sexy scapegoats serving drawn-out prison terms to send an anti-capitalism message to the progressive mob.

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

Mexican drug cartels incite border violence. Image credit: Cannabis sativa L. by Lollyman on Flickr via Creative Commons.

Out of sight is out of mind. Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano can give the impression she’s doing her job and keeping Americans safe when Americans are unaware of the dangers lurking next door.

Napolitano can’t stop natural oppressors like tropical storms, hurricanes or earthquakes but she can impede the drug cartel violence on the U.S.-Mexico border. Nevertheless, Napolitano refuses to publicly acknowledge the extent of border violence from drug cartels. She also refrains from pressuring the media to cover the preventable destruction and bloodshed on the border as much as it covers natural disasters.

Between 35,000 and 40,000 people were killed in Mexico since President Felipe Calderón launched his war against drugs in 2006, reports the Associated Press.

I think Americans deserve to know about the drug cartel violence spilling onto our border. It should be printed on the front page of every major newspaper and discussed nightly on prime time television. We’re not talking about violence occurring across the ocean in Libya. We’re talking about brutal gangs operating out of our next-door neighbor, Mexico.

Let’s say you look outside and catch your next-door neighbor decapitating, scalping and removing the skin from the faces of a family that lives across town. Then, you watch him stuff the skin from the faces and scalps into a woman’s purse and showcase the purse as a bloody “trophy” (this happened last month outside a Sam’s Club store in Acapulco).

Assuming you can’t move, what would you do? Close your blinds, grab a beer and turn on the football game? Or, would you build a 21-foot-high wall around your house?

On March 24, Commissioner of the Texas Department of Agriculture Todd Staples wrote a letter to Napolitano asking her to “recognize the threat of Mexican drug cartels as being a clear and present danger to our citizens and to the safe production of the United States food supply.”

Staples asked Napolitano to visit the site ProtectYourTexasBorder.com where Texas farmers and ranchers explain how drug cartels drive them to “abandon their land, leaving it vulnerable to criminal occupation, while retreating from farming and ranching and jeopardizing the food supply upon which we’ve all come to rely.”

Perhaps Napolitano was too busy fine-tuning her “If You See Something, Say Something” Walmart infomercials to bother replying. She delegated the Assistant Secretary for the Office of Intergovernmental Affairs, Betsy Markey, to respond to Staples on her behalf.

Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano. Image credit: US Embassy Madrid on Flickr via Creative Commons.

Markey wrote: “Unfortunately, there is a widespread misperception that the Southwest border is overrun by violence spilling from Mexico’s ongoing drug war. The reality is that some of America’s safest communities are in the Southwest border region…” Markey’s note reveals Napolitano’s brazen refusal to acknowledge the drug-induced violence on the border.

Napolitano’s “boss,” President Obama, seems more concerned with sweet-talking Hispanic voters than acknowledging cartel violence. He told the city of El Paso on May 10 that the 700-mile border fence was “basically complete” when it was really only five percent complete, five years after approval.

Napolitano’s “partner” in fighting the drug war, Attorney General Eric Holder, struggles to oversee the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF). The ATF’s “Fast and Furious” program lost track of over 2,000 major weapons crossing the border. Drug cartels likely acquired hundreds of powerful firearms and a significant leg up thanks to Holder’s mismanagement.

This September, PBS launches a new series featuring Calderón. Time Magazine reports: “In an effort to boost Mexico’s weakened tourism industry … (Calderón) will bravely lead camera crews into caverns, up rivers and down sink-holes, often while wearing an Indiana Jones-style hat.”

So Napolitano stands by as the American public subsidizes a PBS show enabling Calderón to lure wealthy American tourists into drug cartel country. Does Napolitano work for the U.S. Department of Homeland Security or Mexico’s Secretaría de Turismo?

Ms. Napolitano and her partners should acknowledge the brutality on the border instead of ignoring or underestimating it. They should show Americans the border by asking their pals in the mainstream media to cover drug cartel border violence 24/7/365 (just like a hurricane) until it ceases.

If Americans fully understood the drug cartels on the border, they would be more open to decriminalizing drugs. A strategic, states’ rights approach to decriminalization is worth trying, but Americans won’t approach the war on drugs differently if Napolitano keeps telling the public: “some of America’s safest communities are in the Southwest border region.”

A November 2010 UK medical study published by The Lancet shows that alcohol is more lethal than heroin and crack cocaine and drastically more harmful than marijuana, ecstasy and LSD. Meanwhile, Forbes reports that drug abuse dropped by 50 percent in Portugal just 10 years after decriminalizing all drugs.

Show us the border, Ms. Napolitano. Acknowledge the national security threat from drug cartels. Modify your approach and protect Americans.

"Memorial to Ranger Kris Eggle: Shot by a member of a Mexican drug cartel while assisting the Border Patrol." Image credit: Lance and Erin on Flickr via Creative Commons.

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.

Demonstration in support of the no-fly zone in Libya - Boston - March, 26, 2011. Image credit: laurenfrohne on Flickr via Creative Commons.

We blow cash money, baby! We act like rappers with king-size egos. We discount our own laws, norms and massive debt load. We imagine we sit on a global throne.

We kiss away about $2 billion a week in Afghanistan. We’ve spent almost $800 billion fighting in Iraq. We’re offering Iraq assistance from U.S. troops beyond 2011 to the tune of $10 billion annually. We gave Mubarak’s Egyptian regime an annual gift of $1.5 billion in military and monetary aid. The Pentagon reports that we’ve spent $896 million intervening in Libya through July 31 alone and we’ve promised an additional $25 million in aid to the Libyan Transitional National Council.

President Obama is increasingly subverting American supremacy to globalism. France fired the initial strikes in Libya and European leaders convinced him to follow suit. He claims “NATO … is the most capable alliance in the world.” So, where will he send brave U.S. troops next?

US Marine in Afghanistan. Image credit WBUR on Flickr via Creative Commons.

Syria? The U.S. has unequivocally called for President Bashar al-Assad to step down. Syria’s hypersensitive regime bludgeons mere cartoonists like Ali Ferzat for anti-government expression.

Iran? Iran backs countless Shiite militants that frequently target U.S. troops in Iraq. She also imprisons two American tourists.

Pakistan? Our “ally” helped us by (likely wittingly) harboring bin Laden in a fortified compound several hundred yards from the Abbottabad military academy. Then, Pakistan brazenly ignored the CIA and let China examine SEAL Team Six’s stealth copter tail technology.

Somalia? In February Somali pirates shot and killed four Americans, including two Seattle missionaries.

Karl Rove told Bill O’Reilly last week that the President “did a courageous thing by actually engaging in (Libya)…” However, given the high American casualties, expenses and the incurrence of greater anti-American sentiment, I’d say perpetually sending U.S. forces, money and weapons into the Middle East is more reckless than courageous.

As of August 23, the Associated Press reports at least 4,474 deaths and 32,175 injuries due to the Iraq war and 1,634 deaths and 13,447 injuries due to the war in Afghanistan. In late 2009 the President authorized a surge of 30,000 troops to Afghanistan and casualties have spiked. Since 2008 the U.S. has sustained nearly two-and-a-half times the number of fatalities in Afghanistan as the six previous years combined.

Whether President Obama acted constitutionally in authorizing military intervention in Libya is debatable. The Heritage Foundation states, “Rather than imposing a fixed, step-by-step method for going to war, the Constitution allows the executive and legislative branches substantial flexibility to shape the decision-making process for engaging in military hostilities.”

Two points are uncontestable: First, the purpose of military intervention is always to show strength, never subservience. By ceding to NATO and Europe rather than Congress in his decision to enter Libya, the President showcased us as weak followers rather than strong leaders.

Second, President Obama prioritizes global interests over American interests. “Obama has said the United Nations should intervene if a government or any group is slaughtering its citizens,” reports the Los Angeles Times. By the President’s philosophy, the U.S. should promptly lead a global police force into China. Good luck with that.

I want the President to show consistent muscle, secure the U.S.-Mexico border and proactively halt terrorism in its tracks—not roam the Arab world picking fights while bowing down to China. Like Reagan, I want a well-built military that declares to the world: “Mess with America and there will be hell to pay.”

I’m concerned that we are weakening our country by ever-expanding our military involvement in the Middle East while our national debt races toward $15 trillion, our unemployment rate soars near 10 percent and Standard & Poor’s threatens a second downgrade. I’m also concerned that our President and well-meaning hawks like Rove are guiding us toward globalism—where the International Criminal Court, not the U.S. Constitution, will referee American speech and behavior.

George Washington said in his Farewell Address: “The great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign nations is … to have with them as little political connection as possible. Our detached and distant situation invites and enables us to … take such an attitude as will cause the neutrality we may at any time resolve upon to be scrupulously respected; when belligerent nations, under the impossibility of making acquisitions upon us, will not lightly hazard the giving us provocation…”

"George Washington" by jpellgen on Flickr via Creative Commons.

Are we preventing or antagonizing terrorism? This month al-Qaida of Mesopotamia launched a 100-attack campaign to avenge bin Laden, calling Americans “enemies of God” who must die for bin Laden’s “pure blood.”

We crush one terrorist abroad and scores of new terrorists crop up in vengeance like fertilized weeds. We need to stop blowing cash in the Middle East, quit expanding our military in the Arab world and prevent the loss of precious American lives.

Additional recommended reading:

1. “Power Divided is Power Checked” by Jason Lewis
2. ‘Stop this War in Afghanistan‘ by Katie Kieffer

Image credit: "President Bill Clinton in Killeen, TX" by greekchickie on Flickr via Creative Commons.

Bill Clinton is the one exception to the Constitutional rule that U.S. Presidents may only serve two terms.

When President Obama went to El Paso, Texas last week and pitched his immigration reform plan to Hispanics, I felt like I was watching a movie called “Bubba’s Third Term.” The President did not sound like himself. I detected a faint Arkansas accent as he stood at the podium and outlined amnesty objectives disguised as immigration reform.

In his El Paso speech, President Obama avoided using the word “amnesty” and referred to illegal immigrants as “undocumented immigrants.”  However, he promoted amnesty objectives and minimized the need to increase funding for border security.

Essentially, the President proposed to solve border security issues and the influx of illegal immigrants into the U.S. by providing illegal immigrants with better-looking documents and ignoring hundreds of miles of fenceless border.

Sadly, President Obama is making the same economically devastating mistake that former President Clinton made in the 90’s: Throw Hispanics under the bus in order to win the Hispanic vote.

President Clinton was, and still is, an extremely likable fellow. The problem with people who want to be liked more than they want to be respected is that they often make bad decisions based on politics or emotions. For instance, Clinton let a voluptuous intern in a blue dress obliterate his sense of Presidential norms.

More disappointing, Clinton bowed to intense pressure from America’s first Hispanic HUD Secretary, Henry Cisneros, and loosened home ownership requirements for low-income Americans. Clinton relaxed appraisal rules, eliminated the five-year stable income requirement for first-time homebuyers and lowered the standards of Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac.

Clinton’s policies opened the doors to home ownership to an additional 10 percent of the U.S. population that did not qualify to become homeowners. But, they qualified to vote, and that’s what matters to a politician seeking a second term.

Many Hispanics and African Americans became first-time homeowners who were financially unqualified. Admittedly, many Hispanics were “willing victims.” But, it’s hard to blame them for trusting government policies approved by America’s first Hispanic HUD Secretary.

Clinton’s choice to bow to Cisneros over common sense destroyed the housing market and had a devastating ripple effect on the entire economy. Rather than increasing home ownership among Hispanics and African Americans, foreclosures sprang up and communities were broken. Eventually these policies played a key role in driving down consumer spending, freezing the credit markets and destroying jobs.

Today, President Obama is repeating Clinton’s mistakes by reintroducing subprime mortgages to minorities, and, pushing for new immigration policies that will hurt Hispanics in the long run.

Texas-Mexico border. Image credit: "Border" by ScottRL on Flickr on Creative Commons.

Like Clinton, President Obama is caving to intense political pressure from high-profile Hispanic activists such as Eva Longoria and Hispanic politicians. Longoria may be naïve, but politicians know that most Hispanics favor amnesty over deportation for illegal immigrants. Politicians also know that 68 percent of Hispanics do not vote, according to the Pew Hispanic Center. So, “immigration reform” is an issue that politicians rally behind when they chase the Hispanic vote.

There are approximately 11.2 million illegal immigrants in the U.S. today. The unemployment rate recently increased to 9 percent and applications for unemployment assistance are at an eight month high. How can the U.S. provide a high standard of life for millions of illegal immigrants if she already cannot provide enough jobs for her legal citizens?

Some argue that immigrants fill important jobs that Americans refuse to take. I contend that Americans will gladly clean houses or take fast-food orders if they get the chance: McDonald’s received over a million applications for just 62,000 jobs on its national hiring day last month.

In El Paso, President Obama mocked conservative politicians who push for greater border security: “Maybe they’ll need a moat. Maybe they want alligators in the moat! They’ll never be satisfied, and I understand that. That’s politics.” Meanwhile, armed drug cartels are driving Texas ranchers and farmers off their own land.

Listening to the President tell El Paso that the 700-mile border fence is “basically complete” when it is really only five percent complete five years after approval feels a bit like hearing Clinton dismiss the notorious blue dress and stretch the truth for political gain: “I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky.”

President Obama offers Hispanics a false sense of hope and security by pretending he can provide jobs for countless illegal immigrants, reintroducing subprime mortgages to minorities and ignoring border security. When President Obama stops worrying about getting re-elected, he will stop sounding like Bill Clinton and his speeches will begin to offer authentic solutions.

Image credit: "Barack Obama Rally-9524" by WonderfulTime on Flickr via Creative Commons.

Image credit: "Green" by Christolakis on Flickr via Creative Commons.

Earth to Washington: The free market offers practical solutions for going green. Private entrepreneurs will literally fly to the moon to solve the U.S. technology crisis while government initiatives to support green technology fall flat.

The set of 17 rare elements known as “rare-earths” is integral to normal technology like iPads, fiber–optic cables and military equipment as well as “clean” technology like wind turbines, solar panels and electric batteries.

The U.S. used to lead the world in mining rare-earths through a California mine called Molycorp. However, environmental regulations sent this mine into extinction and the U.S. lost her competitive technology advantage. Today, years later, Molycorp is slowly re-building after meeting stricter U.S. environmental standards.

Since the U.S. stopped mining her own resources, China now calls the shots on rare-earths. The Chinese government and organized crime circles within China run pollution-hissing mines that churn out roughly 97 percent of the global rare-earth supply. High demand for rare-earths within the Chinese marketplace, environmental issues and political leverage are factors leading China to cut back on exports. Consequently, rare-earth prices are skyrocketing.

As hall of fame quarterback and former Minnesota Viking Fran Tarkenton told the St. Paul Pioneer Press on Nov. 24, 2010, “In my life, when I tried to have a quick fix to something, it turned out worse than it was before.” Unfortunately, many U.S. politicians see government intervention in clean tech as the quick fix to energy independence, job creation, and a cleaner environment.

Government clean tech programs for solar panels, wind turbines and electric batteries ironically support China’s dirty rare-earth mining at unsustainable costs. A single “utility-scale” wind turbine requires 661 lb. of the element neodymium, GM’s Chevy Volt needs 7 lb. of magnets made from rare-earths and the price of the iPod-essential rare-earth called dysprosium has jumped from $6.50 to $130 per lb., according to TIME Magazine.

Image credit: "Oil Pan Neodymium Magnet - Partially Wiped Clean" by DandyDanny on Flickr via Creative Commons.

The New York Times reports that mining rare-earths is complicated by the fact that most elements are only produced as byproducts of mining something else, such as copper. Furthermore, extracting rare-earth elements releases significant amounts of low-level radioactive waste into the environment.

The U.S. Energy Information Administration shows that wind and solar energy accounted for less than one percent of total U.S. energy consumption in 2009. Caithness Wind Farm Information Forum reports that wind turbines have killed wildlife, including protected species, and have been responsible for 35 fatalities in the U.S. from 1970 to 2010.

Despite these costs and risks, the Obama Administration wants to push clean tech to produce before its time by throwing out arbitrary and costly goals like “1 million electric vehicles on the road by 2015.” Minnesotans are being asked to be guinea pigs for a proposed tax on mileage. This tax would ask Americans who commute long distances in traditional cars to sacrifice twice by paying for elites to drive roller skates on rare-earth batteries.

With impeccable timing, a day before the one-year anniversary of the Gulf of Mexico oil spill, the Administration announced that it had rushed through approval for the controversial and environmentally-intrusive Cape Wind Project. With 130 wind turbines, I estimate it will take 85,930 lb. of the rare-earth neodymium to supply electricity to just 400,000 homes off Nantucket Sound.

Image credit: "Wind turbine" by hddod on Flickr via Creative Commons.

Good thing China is only charging us an arm and a leg for this clean tech experiment that provides a sliver of the population with electricity while disrupting birds and the aquatic ecosystem.

I think we can solve the technology crisis and conserve the earth by implementing practical, free market ideas. For example, the Empire State Building recently completed a $13 million dollar energy-saving retrofit that will reduce annual energy consumption by 38 percent. The retrofit implemented common sense techniques like recaulking limestone slabs and spraying foam insulation in walls.

Empire State Building project manager Paul Rode told TIME Magazine: “I can’t tell you how many people say, ‘Why not install solar cells or put a little windmill on the roof?’ Because it doesn’t make business sense. It makes much more sense to lower energy use.”

As I write, entrepreneurs at the private venture California company MoonEx are developing plans for robotic rovers to uncover a “gold mine” of rare elements and metals on the moon’s surface. My hope for the future is emboldened by free enterprise, not big government. The government got us into this mess by regulating California’s Molycorp mine out of business years ago. Free enterprise and innovation – not government-approved green programs – will dig us out.

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.

Image credit: "Sunrise - Gulf of Mexico" by Vince O'Sullivan on Flickr via Creative Commons.

Listening to morning shows is a good way to wind up in a psychiatrist’s office. I flip between 300 channels and have three basic choices: Bad economic news, high-profile violence or cotton candy interviews with reality stars. I try switching to Twitter and a trending topic is a cobra that escaped from the Bronx Zoo. I almost choke on my Pop-Tart.

I’m tired of negative news and hearing people whine without offering solutions. So, I’m defying the world by being optimistic.

What makes me happy? Oil. Oil makes me think happy thoughts.

If you turn on your TV, you’ll probably find some Debbie Downer “reporting” that BP is essentially an underground mafia and U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder and the DOJ may bring BP executives to justice for manslaughter, regardless of whether they were directly involved in the Gulf of Mexico oil spill and despite the government’s own negligence in overseeing the Deepwater Horizon well.

Even a Hollywood environmentalist like Avatar director James Cameron admits that the U.S. needs oil. He recently told TIME Magazine, “We’re going to need it regardless no matter how fast you move off oil. We’re not there yet—renewables make up maybe 3% of the grid, even if it’s changing fast. … I’m speaking from a U.S. perspective, and you still need oil—you need it for trucks and airplanes. You need it for fuel.”

There you have it. Straight from Hollywood Happyville. America needs oil.

Image credit: "Director James Cameron" by Clare & Dave on Flickr via Creative Commons.

Dale Earnhardt, Jr. recently made similar comments with regard to green technology in cars. When Chevrolet released its electric model called the Volt this year and Consumer Reports did not give it a stellar review, Earnhardt Jr. said: “…the technology isn’t there yet…”

Cameron and Earnhardt, Jr.’s words make sense when you think about them this way: When Tiger Woods was three years old, what if his coach and father, Earl, had told him, “Tiger, you are going to win the Masters this year.” Or what if he had said, “Tiger, in five years, you are going to win the Masters.”

Certainly, at three years old and at eight years old, Tiger had the potential to win not one but four Masters and many other awards. But, it would have been ridiculous and counterproductive if Tiger’s dad had demanded that he win a green jacket when he was still developing as an athlete.

Likewise, it is dangerous for us to pressure alternative energy to replace oil now or in the near future. I’d like to fuel my car with algae, and, right now, it’s not practical. Maybe it will be in the future.

We have vast oil reserves here in America. Think Alaska’s ANWR, Utah’s oil sands, and countless deepwater drilling opportunities. Plus, new Gallup polls indicate Americans support drilling for oil in increasing numbers.

But, political correctness keeps the EPA and this Administration from listening to the majority of Americans while shaping energy policy:

Timeline of Inconsistency

• 2009: Newly elected President Obama lends $2 billion to Petrobras, Brazil’s national oil corporation, via the Export Import Bank of the U.S. (Bush appointees on Ex-Im’s board approved the preliminary commitment).
• March, 2010: President Obama proposes “compromise” to drill offshore for oil and natural gas “along the Atlantic coastline, the eastern Gulf of Mexico and the north coast of Alaska,” reports The New York Times.
• April, 20 2010: Gulf of Mexico oil spill.
• May, 4, 2010: The White House says it will keep the “boot on the throat” of BP.
• May 27, 2010: Department of Interior announces a six-month ban on deepwater drilling, despite lack of scientific support for said moratorium.
• December 1, 2010: President reverses decision to re-open drilling and keeps the moratorium indefinite for most areas.
• January 3, 2011: President reneges and allows 13 companies to return to 16 existing and mostly exploratory deepwater wells.
• March 19, 2011: President visits Brazil with the pledge: “… when you’re ready to start selling (oil), we want to be one of your best customers.”
• March 30, 2011: President announces specific, politically correct green energy goals. He places blame on the petroleum industry while his effective ban on new deepwater drilling persists since drilling permits are being issued at a snail’s pace.

Oil is amazing. It represents opportunities for wealth, freedom, health and security that we are snubbing our noses at so we can be “green” prematurely. Indeed, thriving economies produce clean environments and longer life spans, explains Forbes.

The most positive thing that could happen to America would be economic stability. Drilling for oil would create jobs, lower gas prices, enhance national security and boost consumer spending. Let’s turn off the negative voices and embrace oil for the sake of happiness and prosperity.

Image credit: "US6 oil rig 3926a" by DB's travels on Flickr via Creative Commons.