Morgan has made headlines for many months as he loudly trumpeted the cause of gun control, even to the detriment of his shows ratings.

Since the Sandy Hook massacre last year – in which Adam Lanza shot and killed 20 students and six adults at an elementary school in Newtown, Conn. – Morgan has made advocating for gun-control legislation a frequent topic of his program, clashing with former House Speaker Newt Gingrich or rocker and National Rifle Association board member Ted Nugent, for example, and calling Gun Owners of America’s Larry Pratt “an unbelievably stupid man” for disagreeing with him.

Following reports of his vitriolic attacks, a petition was started on the White House “We the People” website demanding Morgan be deported back to England – and it now has more than 109,000 signatures.

As WND reported, despite his avid criticism of guns, Morgan protects his own personal property with signs warning that it is guarded by “Armed Response Security Systems,” according to a recent investigation by self-described “guerrilla journalist” James O’Keefe.

And on March 11, Morgan insisted that, “people need the nanny state occasionally.”

Now – after learning of the Obama administration’s involvement in the IRS’ targeting of conservative groups and its secret seizure of Associated Press phone records – the CNN host admitted to guest Penn Jillette that perhaps gun advocates were right about creeping tyranny after all:

“I’ve had some of the pro-gun lobbyists on here, saying to me, ‘Well, the reason we need to be armed is because of tyranny from our own government,’ and I’ve always laughed at them,” Morgan said. “I said, ‘Don’t be ridiculous! Your government won’t turn itself on you. …

“But, actually, this is vaguely tyrannical behavior by the American government.”

He continued, “I think what the IRS did is bordering on tyrannical behavior. I think what the Department of Justice has done to the AP is bordering on tyrannical behavior.”

Jillette agreed with Morgan, stating, “There’s no doubt about that. Once you use the word ‘bordering,’ that’s true.

“I also think that it shows you that how much we can trust the government and just sit back– which is not very much at all. We have to be ever vigilant.”

The AP said the Justice Department secretly seized two months of reporters’ and editors’ telephone records without explanation in April and May 2012. In the AP’s report on the scandal, President and CEO Gary Pruitt called the Justice Department’s move “a massive and unprecedented intrusion” into how news organizations gather the news.

Pruitt wrote a letter to Attorney General Eric Holder demanding the records and all copies be returned. According to the AP, “News organizations normally are notified ahead of time that the government wants phone records and enter into negotiations over the requested information. In this case, however, the government, in its letter to the AP, cited an exemption to those rules that holds that prior notification can be waived if such notice, in the exemption’s wording, might ‘pose a substantial threat to the integrity of the investigation.’”

More than 100 journalists who report on government and other matters work in offices the administration targeted. While Justice Department rules call for subpoenas of news records to be approved by Holder, it’s unclear whether he ordered the action.

“There can be no possible justification for such an overbroad collection of the telephone communications of The Associated Press and its reporters,” Pruitt told Holder. “These records potentially reveal communications with confidential sources across all of the newsgathering activities undertaken by the AP during a two-month period, provide a road map to AP’s newsgathering operations and disclose information about AP’s activities and operations that the government has no conceivable right to know.”

According to reports, the Obama administration still hasn’t provided a reason for the seizure or revealed whether a judge or a grand jury signed off on the subpoenas.

“Officials have previously said in public testimony that the U.S. attorney in Washington is conducting a criminal investigation into who may have provided information contained in a May 7, 2012, AP story about a foiled terror plot,” the AP reported. “The story disclosed details of a CIA operation in Yemen that stopped an al-Qaida plot in the spring of 2012 to detonate a bomb on an airplane bound for the United States.

“In testimony in February, CIA Director John Brennan noted that the FBI had questioned him about whether he was AP’s source, which he denied. He called the release of the information to the media about the terror plot an ‘unauthorized and dangerous disclosure of classified information.’”

The AP said the 2012 terror plot  was “significant both because of its seriousness and also because the White House previously had told the public it had ‘no credible information that terrorist organizations, including al-Qaida, are plotting attacks in the U.S. to coincide with the (May 2) anniversary of bin Laden’s death.’”

According to the news organization, the story was written by reporters Matt Apuzzo and Adam Goldman with contributions from reporters Kimberly Dozier, Eileen Sullivan and Alan Fram. Those reporters, along with editor Ted Bridis, had their phone records seized.

It is believed the government obtained the records from phone companies, and it’s still unclear whether the actual phone calls were monitored.

The AP noted, “The Obama administration has aggressively investigated disclosures of classified information to the media and has brought six cases against people suspected of providing classified information, more than under all previous presidents combined.”

Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., chairman of the investigative House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, told CNN, “They had an obligation to look for every other way to get it before they intruded on the freedom of the press.”

The House Ways and Means Committee said it will hold a hearing on the IRS matter Friday.

News of the phone records seizure comes amid reports of numerous scandals plaguing the Obama administration, including an investigation into its response to the Benghazi terror attack and the Internal Revenue Service’s Friday admission that it had targeted conservative groups with descriptions including “tea party” and “patriots”  with increased scrutiny when they applied for tax-exempt status.

“I’ve got no patience with it. I will not tolerate it,” Obama said Monday, referring to the IRS’ actions while he made a White House appearance with British Prime Minister David Cameron. “And we will make sure that we find out exactly what happened on this.”

Obama said he first learned about the issue Friday. The Treasury Department’s inspector general for tax administration is expected to issue an audit report this week.

According to NBC News, Lois Lerner, head of the IRS division on tax-exempt organizations, claimed the IRS’ actions were “inappropriate” but “absolutely not” influenced by the White House.

The News Tribune reported that acting IRS Commissioner Steven T. Miller – who had been informed of the issue on May 3, 2012 – “repeatedly failed to tell Congress that tea-party groups were being inappropriately targeted, even after he had been briefed on the matter.”

In June 2011, members of Congress sent letters to former IRS Commissioner Douglas Shulman inquiring about its targeting of conservatives. NBC News noted, “The IRS responded at least six times but made no mention of targeting conservatives.”

Meanwhile, the simultaneous investigations have put Obama on the defensive.

In his Friday appearance on “The Rusty Humphries Show,” Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., suggested Obama’s role in the Benghazi cover-up could lead to the president’s impeachment.

Inhofe said, “People may be starting to use the I-word before too long.”

Veterans arrive for 2010 Rancho Remembers event

It’s a living history lesson: Hundreds of America’s war heroes – who have served in World War II, Korea, Vietnam,  Iraq and Afghanistan – will share their service experiences and memories with California high-school students in a celebration of those who fought valiantly for America’s freedoms.

More than 300 men and women from all military branches will mentor juniors May 1 at 8 a.m. in the 6th annual Rancho Cucamonga High School Remembers event.

The tradition is coordinated by U.S. history teachers Aaron Bishop and Robert Sanchez.

“I had six uncles in World War II,” Bishop told WND. “All of them had passed on before I began teaching, so I never had a chance to bring them in and talk to my classes. I did have the experience of listening to their stories, but I didn’t value them then as much as I do now.”

World War II veterans and survivors of the attack on Pearl Harbor arrive at the 2010 Rancho Remembers event

With the encouragement of his wife, Bishop said he visited Veterans of Foreign Wars posts, retirement homes and local neighborhoods looking for World War II veterans to speak to his students.

“Our first year, six years ago, we had about 40 vets,” Bishop recalled. “The first year was fabulous, and we had guys from World War II and Vietnam. It was awesome. It’s grown ever since then. The second year, we had 100 guys and had to move to the gym. The next year it was 150. Then we had 278. This year we’re expecting about 310 vets.”

In his recent WND column, action star Chuck Norris wrote, “As an Air Force veteran myself, I salute Bishop, Sanchez and Rancho Cucamonga High School in California for annually and actively not forgetting about those who serve and the power of their oral history.”

Bishop said the program encourages war veterans to participate. At the event, boy students wear ties and girls wear dresses. The students sit at tables with service members and interview them about their experiences. The students are required to write a one-page essay about their veteran and a detailed thank-you note for their service. Many of the students remain in contact with the veterans throughout the year.

He explained, “I tell the kids, ‘Look past the gray hair. Look past the glasses and slow speech. Look past that, because everything you hear is going to be from the eyes of an 18, 19, 20-year-old kid. Everything you hear. They might forget their wife’s name, but they will not forget the experiences you are about to hear.”

Aaron Bishop (far left) and Robert Sanchez (far right) with Vietnam veterans at the 2010 Rancho Remembers event

When Bishop invited him, one Vietnam veteran was reluctant to be interviewed at a previous event but agreed to watch the students interact with his fellow war heroes. After the first session, the veteran decided to lead his own interview table.

“He sat down to talk,” Bishop said. “I looked over, and he was just completely emotional. The kids were completely emotional.

“Afterward, he came to me and said, ‘I just want to thank you. I’ve waited 42 years for a ‘Welcome home,’ and your kids have finally given it to me.’”

A second Vietnam veteran had been a high-school quarterback with a new Camaro as he graduated from high school. But all of that would soon change.

Bishop said the man was soon drafted to serve in Vietnam. At the Rancho Remembers event, he told the high school students, ‘There’s no way in the world I would have ever thought I’d be lying in the jungle six months after I graduated, in complete darkness, and having a Viet Cong three feet away from me – and I couldn’t do anything because I couldn’t give up my position.’”

Enthralled students surround veteran as he shares personal war stories at the 2010 Rancho Remembers event

The students see the human side of sacrifice and service to their nation, Bishop explained, adding that Vietnam veterans participate most often because of the way they were treated by their own countrymen when they returned from war.

“These kids are hearing stories from vets getting to the airport, taking off their uniforms, putting them in the trash and putting on regular clothes so they wouldn’t be bugged,” he said.

“One guy said he got home, and his parents weren’t even there to welcome him home. There was a pair of pants, a new shirt, a tie and a note that said, ‘You have a job interview tomorrow at 9 a.m.’ That was it. The parents even wanted to hide it. It’s terrible what those guys went through.”

One year, Bishop noticed a woman in tears, so he asked her what was wrong.

“She told me, ‘I’ve been married to my husband for 40 years. I have not heard one story that he’s told these kids,’” he said.

“Kids need to know what people fought for, why they fought for and who they were. They went to fight to protect what we have. And if you ask any one of those guys, they would all say, ‘I would do it again.’”

Students interview veterans about their war experiences

Bishop said a man named Bob Pate entered World War II at age 17 and fought in the invasion of Iwo Jima. His job was to run high-octane hoses into Japanese foxholes and ignite them.

“So the kids were talking totally intense,” he said. “Then a kid asked, ‘What did you miss the most?’

“Here’s a total kid question. This stuff isn’t in textbooks. He said he missed his mom.”

When the student asked about the quality of the food, Pate said, “I just wanted a hamburger and a milkshake.”

Bishop explained, “Here he is in World War II with just complete chaos going on, and he’s a kid! The kids love just seeing the human side of everything, because the textbooks give us the causes, effects, the politics, some strategy. But you never get the human story like that. They love seeing that men were willing to fight for this country, and they were just like us.”

Since the program’s inception, 29 of its veterans have passed away. Every time a volunteer dies, Bishop said the coordinators add their name to a list of honor.

“We know these guys aren’t going to be around forever. The statistic is like 1,000 a day that the World War II guys are leaving us,” he said. “I encourage these kids to bring their cameras to take a picture with these guys, because in 10 years they won’t be here, so we have to cherish them. I reiterate to these guys all the time: It’s not about you; it’s about the vets.”

Bishop asked, “How many times does a 90-year-old man get a chance to talk to teenagers who are going to listen? How many times do teenagers nowadays get a chance to talk to a 90-year-old man with so much respect in their eyes?”

Veteran shows students photos of his time at war

Inspired by the veterans’ service and sacrifice, Bishop said, many students have considered serving their country as well.

“They want to join,” he said. “It brings a new awareness about what these guys are fighting for. Education can be so liberal. It’s our fault they bombed us at Pearl Harbor. It’s our fault in Vietnam. It’s our fault, our fault. When they see the human side, they know it wasn’t those guys’ ‘fault.’”

As for mainstream media coverage of the event, Bishop said only a few local outlets have covered it.

“I am so discouraged with the media because I have told them, ‘Look what we’re doing! There’s something good going on with education. There’s something patriotic going on here. Kids are responding,’” he said. “It’s not, ‘Hate the system!’ It’s not politics. It’s not that.

“I’ve emailed all the TV stations, including NBC and ABC and all the others. Nothing.

Bishop said when he finally reached a reporter, the news organization refused to cover the event, arguing, “It’s nothing.”

“I said, ‘What are you talking about? So what if I told you there’s going to be a huge race riot in our gym next Wednesday at 9 a.m.?’

Rancho Cucamonga High School

“He said, ‘You’d have everybody there!’”

Undeterred by the lack of media support, Bishop said the program relies on student volunteers and sponsorships to keep the annual event going.

“The district doesn’t give us any money,” he said. “The county doesn’t give us money. The school doesn’t give us money. Nobody gives us any money. So all these kids chip in $5, and we get some local donors and sponsorships. It’s all self-funded.

“We have the interviews, and then we have a fried chicken lunch. All the vets like that, and the kids get to share that with them at the end of the program. It’s all set up by the students. It’s all kids who want to do it for the vets.”

While there are several goals of the program, Bishop said there’s one major lesson he hopes the students learn: “If someone is wearing the [war veteran] hat, go up and just say, ‘Thank you.’ They don’t need a conversation. Half the time, they don’t want one. But just say, ‘Thank you.’”

As a U.S. history teacher, Bishop is confident that the program is breathing new life into his students’ understanding of America’s past.

“We can’t miss out on the opportunity to let these teenagers talk to people who walked and lived and breathed history,” he said. “It’s the most rewarding thing, educationally, that I do.”

Individuals interested in participating or donating to the Rancho Cucamonga High School Remembers war hero program may contact coordinator Aaron Bishop.

Outraged parents say a New York middle school instructed young female students to ask one another for a lesbian kiss – and boys learned how to spot young sluts – in an anti-bullying presentation on gender identity and sexual orientation, according to Fox News’ Todd Starnes.

According to Starnes’ report, the children attended a special April 11 health class taught by college students at Linden Avenue Middle School in Red Hook, N.Y. Parents say they were not notified of the presentation.

The students were introduced to terms such as “pansexual” and “genderqueer.”

Some of the young female students said they were told it was common for 14-year-old girls to have sex and their parents couldn’t stop them.

Mandy Coon, a mother of an eighth-grade student said, “I am furious. I am her parent. Where does anyone get the right to tell her that it’s OK for her to have sex?”

According to Fox News, Coon said her daughter was distressed by the presentation and wondered why she’d been required to ask another girl to kiss her.

“She told me, ‘Mom, we all get teased and picked on enough – now I’m going to be called a lesbian because I had to ask another girl if I could kiss her,’” Coon said.

According to the mother, the school said the lesson was meant to “teach girls boundaries and how to say no.”

“They also picked two girls to stand in front of the class and pretend they were lesbians on a date,” Coons said.

The Poughkeepsie Journal reported that Red Hook Central School District Superintendent Paul Finch said the class focused on “improving culture, relationships, communication and self-perceptions.”

Finch said it is mandatory that the middle school teach those issues in accordance with the state’s Dignity for All Students Act.

Parent Tara Burns told Fox News, “The school is overstepping its bounds in not notifying parents first and giving us the choice. I thought it was very inappropriate. That kind of instruction is best left up to the parents.”

Parents of middle-school boys were outraged by the school’s lessons on condom usage and determining whether a girl is a slut.

“I was absolutely furious – really furious,” said one parent of a 13-year-old boy. “They were teaching the boys how to decipher if a girl is a slut.”

According to the parent, who wished to remain anonymous, boys were told to determine whether girls are promiscuous by the way they dress or the number of boys they date.

“We don’t judge people like that in our family,” she said. “We don’t call women names because of what they wear or who they date.”

The Journal reported that Principal Katie Zahedi wrote in a Facebook forum for parents that the exercise was “not to pretend to be gay” but to practice saying “no” to unwanted advances: “In planning the discussion, we made it clear that absolutely no discussion of any sexual acts is appropriate to middle school, and they used the examples of a kiss. It was a separate activity for boys and girls and ultimately about respect and safety.”

According to Fox News, the anonymous parent also said boys were instructed to always carry condoms in their wallets.

“These are just kids,” she said. “I’m dumbfounded that they found this class was appropriate.”

Concerned individuals may contact Red Hook Central Schools at (845)758-2241 or email Superintendent Paul Finch.

WND columnist Erik Rush

WND columnist and nationally known conservative pundit Erik Rush has come under fire and is facing an onslaught of death threats for suggesting Islamic extremists were likely behind the Boston Marathon bombings and tweeting a sarcastic comment about killing “evil” Muslims.

After the bombing Monday, Rush tweeted, “Everybody do the National Security Ankle Grabs! Let’s bring Saudis in without screening them! C’mon!”

Rush’s comment was in response to early reports from United Press International that a 20-year-old Saudi Arabian national had been a potential suspect in the double bombings. The Boston police later said the man wasn’t a suspect.

Rush told WND he received some hostile tweets following his initial speculation about the identity of the bomber.

“This was speculation, which everyone is doing,” Rush said. “That’s when the tweets started: ‘You’re blaming Muslims already? You scumbag!’

“After several of those, that’s when I was like, ‘Yeah, that’s right, they’re evil. Kill ‘em all.’

“And that’s all they needed.”

Read Erik Rush’s “Negrophilia: From Slave Block to Pedestal – America’s Racial Obsession,” which addresses headon the “undue and inordinate affinity for blacks … that has been promoted by activists.”

Rush said RightWingWatch and the Huffington Post ran stories about his comments, suggesting Rush actually wanted to kill Muslims.

“I was being sarcastic,” he said. “It was promoted, or covered, by RightWingWatch and Huffington Post as if I had said it and meant it – which is what they do. Then all hell broke loose.

“I was getting emails, and I went from 7,500 Twitter followers to over 50,000 in 12 hours. They were sending emails and tweets: ‘We’re coming to get you.’ ‘We’re coming to kill you.’ ‘We’re going to cyber-attack you.’ Then they crashed my site.”

But the harassment didn’t stop there.

Rush said he was “swatted” Monday afternoon when someone called the police to convince an unwitting SWAT team to descend upon a house. The person called 9-1-1, pretending to be the columnist and claiming two men were firing AK-47 rifles inside his home.

“The first cop on the scene was a friend of mine, and the situation was very unlike the reports,” he explained. “The local newspaper got a hold of it and said the cops swarmed my house, even though there was only one [police] car. The local newspaper report made it look like I was the victim of this horrible thing.”

Rush said the mainstream media have been embellishing the story.

“Of course they got it wrong,” he said. “The more news outfits that pick it up, the more distorted it gets. The few that have been willing to admit that it was sarcasm act as though that doesn’t really matter.”

Should Americans learn that radical Islamic extremists were behind the Boston bombings, Rush said it won’t change the minds of the people condemning him and threatening his life.

“If it does come out that it was Islamic extremists, it won’t matter to them,” he said. “The people who are doing this kind of thing – some of them are Muslims but some are American dhimmis – when an imam talks about killing Americans or we do get hit by a terrorist attack here or our troops abroad, their attitude is that we deserve it.

“It’s brainwashing that they’ve done to bring people, mainly liberals, on the side of Islamists and to try to frighten us. It’s pretty evident. The people it’s happening to are pretty indoctrinated so they don’t see it.”

Rush said the local CBS affiliate covered the story and suggested he was trying to “defend” his tweet.

“I didn’t try to defend them,” he said. “They asked me, ‘If you had it to do over again, would you?’ And I was like, ‘Yeah, probably.’”

Despite all the media hoopla, Rush said the incident opened his eyes to the real enemy.

“This really sort of sheds light on who we’re dealing with, and I don’t just mean the Islamists,” he said. “I mean the people who are really willing to stand up for people who want to kill us versus American people. Of course, the stuff that I’m getting is: ‘We’re coming to kill you!’

“Other than the practical concerns, like for safety, it furthers my resolve as far as who’s the dirt bag and who isn’t.”

Rush, author of “Negrophilia: From Slave Block to Pedestal – America’s Racial Obsession,” was the first to break the story of President (then Senator) Barack Obama’s ties to militant Chicago preacher Rev. Jeremiah Wright on a national level in February of 2007. He has appeared on Fox News, CNN and many radio shows. Late Tuesday, People for the American Way demanded that Fox News distance itself from Rush and keep him off the air.

“Erik Rush is a WorldNetDaily columnist and, frankly, this is the kind of thing one would expect from a prominent voice on that site, which is a festering cesspool of right-wing bigotry and fringe conspiracy theories, it stated. “But Fox News, albeit known for its right-wing bent, is a major news outlet and when it gives a podium to a hatemonger like Rush it legitimizes him and his views.”

Rush said he fully intends to write his WND column about the incident from his point of view Thursday.

As WND reported, milk industry heavyweights, including the International Dairy Foods Association and the National Milk Producers Federation, have asked the federal government for permission to include artificial sweeteners such as aspartame in milk products for schools, without alerting parents and children.

Now the Weston A. Price Foundation, a nonprofit nutrition education organization, and other groups are urging consumers to file comments in protest of the milk industry’s petition to the Food & Drug Administration.

A petition urging the FDA to reject the powerful dairy lobby’s demands had garnered more than 110,000 signatures at the time of this report.

According to the sweeteners’ makers, “Aspartame is one of the most thoroughly studied food ingredients ever, with more than 200 scientific studies supporting its safety.”

However, the Weston A. Price Foundation warns, “Numerous scientific studies point to toxic effects of aspartame, including cancer, digestive issues and memory impairment.”

The foundation also noted, “Researchers and holistic health advocates have warned about the toxicity of artificial sweeteners for many years:

• “Thousands of adverse reactions to aspartame have been reported to the FDA, mostly concerned with abnormal brain function, brain tumors, epilepsy and Parkinson’s.
• “Children’s brains are four times more are more susceptible to damage from excitotoxins like aspartame than those of adults and react with ADD ADHD type symptoms, impaired learning, depression and nausea.
• “People who are sensitive to aspartame can have life-threatening reactions to it.”

The Weston A. Price Foundation cited a 2012 scientific study published in the European Review for Medical and Pharmacological Sciences, titled “Studies on the effects of aspartame on memory and oxidative stress in brain of mice,” which found impaired memory performance and increased brain oxidative stress by repeated aspartame administration.

Also, the group noted that the International Journal of Genomics published a study, “In Vivo Cytogenetic Studies on Aspartame,” where scientists observed significant chromosomal aberrations in the bone marrow cells of mice following exposure to aspartame. Because of the genotoxicity they found, scientists advised caution when using aspartame in food and beverages as a sweetener.

According to another Swiss study with mice and rats, published in the American Journal of Industrial Medicine in December 2010, aspartame exposure was found to be especially harmful for pre-term fetus, rats of both genders and male mice. Scientists found aspartame to be a carcinogenic agent in multiple sites (liver and lung) in mice and rats and that its effects are increased when exposure starts from prenatal life.

Dr. Joseph Mercola, an osteopathic physician who has been heavily criticized by some mainstream medical experts, has plenty to say about aspartame’s purported health effects. Dr. Mehmet Oz, America’s most widely known cardiothoracic surgeon, introduced Mercola on a 2011 “Dr. Oz” show as “the most controversial guest I’ve ever had on my show, a pioneer of holistic treatments and a lightning rod for debate … the man your doctor doesn’t want you to listen to.”

Mercola – who is known for challenging traditional medicine, placing heavy emphasis on healthy eating and exercise rather than relying on what he calls “toxic medications” – called aspartame “by far the most dangerous substance on the market that is added to foods.”

“Aspartame accounts for over 75 percent of the adverse reactions to food additives reported to the FDA,” Mercola’s website states. “Many of these reactions are very serious including seizures and death. A few of the 90 different documented symptoms listed in the report as being caused by aspartame include: Headaches/migraines, dizziness, seizures, nausea, numbness, muscle spasms, weight gain, rashes, depression, fatigue, irritability, tachycardia, insomnia, vision problems, hearing loss, heart palpitations, breathing difficulties, anxiety attacks, slurred speech, loss of taste, tinnitus, vertigo, memory loss, and joint pain.”

Mercola calls the dairy industry’s demands to add artificial sweeteners to milk “a move that could endanger your health for decades to come, and disproportionally harm underprivileged children who rely on school lunches for the bulk of their nutrition.”

He said the proposed change is the industry’s effort at:

• “Fooling your kids into drinking otherwise unpopular fat free or low fat milk, and
• “Allowing the national school breakfast and lunch programs to ‘look good’ by successfully reducing overall calories of the meals while simultaneously helping the dairy industry protect profits”

“How can anyone believe a fat free, hormone-laced pasteurized milk-like product from cows raised on genetically engineered corn, flavored with artificial flavors, colors and chemical sweeteners might actually do a growing body good?” Mercola asked. “The nutritional illiteracy within these agencies is staggering, yet they’re responsible for making decisions that affect over 30 million school children across the U.S. on a daily basis.”

While some critics, including the Weston A. Price Foundation, have reported that artificial sweeteners have been linked to increased cancer rates, “Dr. Oz” guest and medical correspondent for the health care website Healthination.com Dr. Keri Peterson stated, “There is absolutely no evidence that these sweeteners cause cancer in humans.”

She noted that the FDA lifted artificial sweeteners from its list of cancer-causing chemicals in 2000. The National Cancer Institute states, “There is no clear evidence that the artificial sweeteners available commercially in the United States are associated with cancer risk in humans.”

The FDA originally sought to ban the artificial sweetener saccharin in the 1970s because rats ingesting the chemical developed bladder cancer. But the federal agency withdrew the proposal to ban the substance in 1991, claiming no conclusive spike in cancers could be observed in humans. A 2007 study at an Italian cancer research institute found that rats ingesting aspartame suffered from higher rates of leukemia and lymphomas. However, some researchers claim findings have been too weak to pinpoint aspartame as a cause of cancers.

Peterson also claimed the sweeteners do not cause neurological damage. However, she warned, the sweeteners can cause weight gain because they trick the brain into consuming larger quantities of food to satisfy a normal sugar craving.

Critics often point to the questionable process by which aspartame came to be approved by the FDA. A 1980 FDA Board of Inquiry, made up of three independent scientists, warned that the chemical “might induce brain tumors.”

However, on Jan. 21, 1981, following President Ronald Reagan’s inauguration, the new FDA commissioner, Arthur Hayes Hull Jr., tasked a five-person commission with reviewing the board’s decision. When it appeared the panel would uphold the aspartame ban until further studies could be performed, Hull appointed a sixth person to the commission, deadlocking the vote.

Then Hull – who would later work for the public relations firm for both Monsanto and GD Searle, the companies that made aspartame – personally broke the deadlock in favor of allowing the chemical on the market.

The following 1996 CBS “60 Minutes” segment from the late-Mike Wallace investigated reports of brain tumors and flaws in the FDA approval process:

If the FDA approves the dairy industry’s current plan, the “milk” label would remain on the front of packages of the chemically altered products – but with no mention of reduced calories or added artificial sweeteners.  (The artificial sweeteners would still be listed in small print on the back of the container.)

Greg Miller of the National Dairy Council insisted the dairy industry is not “trying to be sneaky.” He told NPR, “Kids don’t like the term ‘low-calorie.’ It’s a turnoff.”

The dairy industry’s petition to the FDA also asks for permission to put hidden artificial sweeteners in many other dairy products, including nonfat dried milk (always added to reduced-fat milks), yogurt, cream, half-and-half, sour cream, eggnog and whipping cream.

“The integrity of our food supply is poised for another blow,” said Sally Fallon Morell, president and founder of the Weston A. Price Foundation. “By asking the FDA to alter the definition of ‘milk’ to include chemical sweeteners such as aspartame and sucralose without full disclosure will only lead to further distrust among consumers. This is a bad idea for consumers and not a smart idea for the industry either.”

The FDA is currently accepting public comments on the dairy industry petition. Consumers have until May 21 to submit comments.

Concerned individuals may also sign the consumer petition urging the FDA to reject efforts to infuse milk and other dairy products with artificial sweeteners.

It’s just the latest move in a series of Obama administration actions that have chipped away at the U.S. military’s size, strength and benefits structure – and drastically changed the face of the most powerful fighting force in the world.

The U.S. Army, Air Force and Marine Corps have now halted their tuition assistance programs after across-the-board federal spending cuts went into effect March 1. The suspension applies to all components, including Reserve and National Guard personnel on active-duty orders. The U.S. Navy is also expected to deliver a similar announcement soon. The cuts do not affect G.I. Bill benefits.

According to new reports, any new applications for tuition assistance will be rejected by the Air Force. The branch’s application site states, “Air Force Military Tuition Assistance Currently not Available.”

The Air Force is also limiting its career training at its Non-Commissioned Officer Academy and Squadron Officer School – which means commanders will be forced to limit the number of airmen attending the training.

The program pays up to $4,500 per fiscal year for service members seeking a high-school diploma, certificate or college degree.

“This week, DOD’s comptroller issued guidance indicating that the services should consider significant reductions in funding new tuition assistance applicants, effective immediately and for the duration of the current fiscal situation,” Pentagon spokesman Nathan Christensen told the Marine Corps Times just days ago.

A petition posted on the White House website is urging Obama to restore the tuition assistance program through an executive order. At the time of this report, that petition has garnered more than 90,000 signatures.

As WND reported just days ago, the Obama administration has directed federal agencies to make sequestration cuts as devastating as the administration warned they would be.

The Washington Times obtained a March 5 email sent by Charles Brown, an official with the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service office in Raleigh, N.C. The email asked “if there was any latitude” in spreading the sequester cuts across the region and lessening the impacts on fish inspections.

Officials in Washington replied that whatever he does, he needs to make sure he doesn’t lessen the pain America will feel from sequestration.

The reply explained: “We have gone on record with a notification to Congress and whoever else that ‘APHIS would eliminate assistance to producers in 24 states in managing wildlife damage to the aquaculture industry, unless they provide funding to cover the costs.’ So it is our opinion that however you manage that reduction, you need to make sure you are not contradicting what we said the impact would be.”

Before sequestration went into effect, the administration predicted it would be a catastrophe. As WND reported, the public was warned the $85 billion in spending cuts would include the loss of police officers, firefighters, teachers, soldiers, air control towers and shipyards.

Once it became clear the administration would not get the tax increases it demanded and sequestration would go into effect, Obama began downplaying the effects of the automatic spending cuts, even calling the idea of sequestration just “dumb.” Now, it appears the administration wants to make sure its previous threats are realized.

The tuition assistance freeze comes just a year after the Obama administration began pushing  for U.S. service members – and especially military retirees – to pay as much as 30 percent more for their health care.

Is Obama declaring war on U.S. military?

Obama has made no secret of his plans for deep military cuts that would downsize the Pentagon. In 2010, he cut $487 billion from the defense budget. In 2011, he signed into law a budget process intended to cut an additional $492 billion over 10 years.

The New York Times recently reported:

“On the list are not only base closings but also an additional reduction in deployed nuclear weapons and stockpiles and a restructuring of the military medical insurance program that costs more than America spends on all of its diplomacy and foreign aid around the world. Also being considered is yet another scaling back in next-generation warplanes, starting with the F-35, the most expensive weapons program in United States history.”

According to the report, some senior Pentagon officials have argued that massive cuts could leave room to increase funding for “building drones, developing offensive and defensive cyberweapons and focusing on Special Operations forces.”

But retired Army Lt. Col. Robert Maginnis, a national security and foreign affairs analyst, warned, “These cuts leave America with a military inventory of ancient and broken equipment.  Our tanker aircraft are on average 47 years old and our strategic bombers 34 years old, and besides, their numbers are totally insufficient for America’s global missions.  For example, our air force shrank from 82 fighter squadrons at the end of the Cold War to 39 today and our Navy is in worse shape.  We have a naval fleet of 284 ships and shrinking even though naval planners indicate we need at least 328 ships.”

In 2012, Obama declared that the “tide of war is receding” and called for shrinking the U.S. Army and Marines. The Los Angeles Times reported that Obama vowed to “ensure our security with smaller conventional ground forces,” adding that the armed forces “will be leaner” but “agile, flexible and ready for the full range of contingencies and threats.”

During the presidential campaign, former GOP presidential frontrunner Mitt Romney accused Obama of “cutting the capacity of America to defend itself.”

Obama’s also announced his plan to carry out a new round of nuclear-warhead cuts. The strategy is expected to leave the U.S. with only about 1,000 warheads, a level that experts say would weaken strategic nuclear deterrence capability.

Meanwhile, Obama has expanded the U.S. military role in Latin America and deployed U.S. Special Operations forces to at least 75 countries.

He deployed troops to the West African country of Niger to set up drone bases and approved $50 million to assist France in Mali.

Obama also reportedly agreed to substantially increase America’s military presence in the Philippines.

In his 2013 Inaugural speech, Obama called for the U.S. to maintain a global military presence.

As commander in chief, Obama leads a military of about 1.5 million active duty troops, according to the U.S. Department of Defense. That’s less than half the 3.6 million troops during the Korean War.

As Face the Facts, a nonpartisan think-tank, explains, “This smaller force has been stretched thin by the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Troops faced longer deployments and multiple tours of duty to compensate for fewer personnel.”

According to Defense News, “Obama is sticking by plans to shrink the Army to 490,000 active-duty troops and the Marine Corps to 186,000 … over the next five years.”

During his time in office, Obama has also forced at least four generals to resign from their command.

The Obama administration plans to leave 10,000 U.S. troops in Afghanistan after NATO combat operations end in late 2014. More than 2,000 American soldiers have died since the Afghanistan war began on Oct. 7, 2001. A full 72 percent of those casualties happened during Obama’s first term.

Obama fundamentally changes America’s military

WND reported in August 2012 when former military and CIA officers blasted Obama for leaking national intelligence secrets for political gain – and jeopardizing the U.S. mission.

A 22-minute video, titled “Dishonorable Disclosures,” was released by Special Operations OPSEC Education Fund, an independent watchdog organization designed to stop U.S. leaders from politically capitalizing on national security secrets and to educate the public on the importance of operational security.

The group accused Obama of nearly a dozen breaches of national security, beginning with foolishly announcing the death of Osama bin Laden “to prop up his presidency politically,” rather than keeping a silent cover in order to use the information obtained in the bin Laden raid.

“In a few brief moments of selfish grandstanding and political opportunism,” OPSEC asserted, “our commander in chief lost the single opportunity to exploit intelligence that, had secrecy been preserved, might well have crushed al-Qaida once and for all.”

Also, under Obama administration guidance, the military adopted the president’s goal of homosexuality in the ranks through the 2011 repeal of its long-standing “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy implemented by President Bill Clinton. In February 2013, Obama also issued a directive requiring the military to treat cohabitating homosexuals as married couples, including extending federal benefits to same-sex domestic partners.

Since the policy change, chaplains’ organizations have told WND there is bigotry against those who follow a traditional biblical and military perspective that does not promote homosexuality. In September 2012, officials with the Chaplain Alliance said among the situations that have developed:

• Senior military officials have allowed personnel in favor of repeal to speak to media while those who have concerns have been ordered to be silent.
• Service members engaged in homosexual behavior protested a service school’s open doors policy for all students that prohibited the closing of room doors for sexual purposes. The protesters were upset because they claimed that they had a right to participate in sexual behavior with their same-sex roommates.
• A senior chaplain was stripped of his authority over the chapel under his charge because, in accordance with federal law, he proclaimed the chapel as a “sacred space” where marriage or marriage-like ceremonies would only be between one man and one woman.
• Same-sex ceremonies have been performed at military chapels, including one at Fort Polk, La., a state that constitutionally defines marriage as one man and one woman.
• The Navy has allowed sailors who have openly engaged in homosexual behavior to choose their bunk mates.

More recently, the Obama administration lifted the ban on women serving in direct combat positions, the infantry and special operations, despite concerns from high-profile veterans and leaders that doing so would create a less capable fighting force and open the door for women to be drafted into military service.

Do America’s warriors’ votes even count?

Perhaps most alarmingly, despite their personal sacrifice to protect Americans’ freedoms, the nation’s men and women in uniform are often deprived of the chance to cast a ballot for their own commander in chief.

WND reported in August 2012 when the Obama re-election campaign sued Ohio state officials in an attempt to suppress, in that pivotal swing state, the votes of America’s military men and women – who traditionally lean conservative and vote Republican. (CNN exit polling data from 2008 showed voters favored Republican John McCain over Obama by a 10-point margin, 54 to 44 percent.)

WND also reported in October 2012, during one of the most hotly contested elections in recent U.S. history, the number of military absentee ballot requests was strangely down by staggering numbers compared to the 2008 election. That news came just as a Military Times survey of military forces showed Romney with a 26-percent lead over Obama. The Times survey followed an earlier Rasmussen poll that showed a 59 to 35 percent lead for Romney among military service voters.

The low number of military requests perplexed Republican lawmakers, who in 2009 pushed and passed the Military and Overseas Voter Empowerment Act, which was supposed to make it easier for overseas military personnel to vote. The law required a voter assistance office at every military installation. It also automatically provided military voters with an opportunity to update their voter information during the check-in process at their duty stations.

However, the Defense Department’s Inspector General reported that the Pentagon was not complying with the 2009 law, citing information that only about half of overseas locations had functioning voter assistance offices.

“Tens of thousands of service members’ votes not counted” was the headline of a June 27, 2012, McClatchy newspaper article detailing just how seriously flawed the current system has been for enabling the millions of men and woman in the U.S. military to vote.

The story included the following statistics:

In 2010, of the approximately 2 million military and overseas voters accounted for in data reported by the states to the Election Assistance Commission, only 4.6 percent of those voters were able to cast an absentee ballot that counted, according to the Military Voter Protection Project’s analysis of that data from the federal Election Assistance Commission, which tracks participation in voting. That compared with 5.5 percent in 2006, which was also a midterm election, the organization concluded.

In his Washington Times column, American Majority Action CEO Ned Ryan placed the blame squarely on the president for the “abysmal” military absentee voting in the last two elections:

“So, why aren’t soldiers voting? In many cases they simply can’t, and they have their commander in chief, President Obama, to blame,” Ryan argued. “Hundreds of thousands of our uniformed personnel have been shut out of the process, and we can thank the Obama administration and even the Obama campaign for this tragedy. …

“The explanation? The Obama administration by way of the Pentagon blamed a lack of funds for their failure to comply with the law. That’s right, the same administration that has spent more money in less time than any other in American history is pleading poverty when it comes to ensuring that our military can vote …”

Ryan blasted the Obama administration for sending $2 billion to the Egyptian government and funding Solyndra, Obamacare, “Cash for Clunkers” and other massive federal programs while refusing to “spare change to help ensure that our nation’s heroes can exercise the right to vote.”

It’s a case of soldiers gone wild: An eyewitness tells WND a U.S. Army installation in Hawaii held a Valentine’s Day official “training” event in which male and female soldiers were offered prizes in a race to put condoms on sex toys.

WND confirmed a presentation on sexually transmitted diseases had taken place at the Schofield Barracks in Oahu, Hawaii, on Feb. 14. The source told WND the training event began with a presentation on substance abuse and prevention of sexually transmitted diseases.

“Once the slideshow was complete, the instructors asked for four volunteers,” the source said. ”From those who raised their hands, they selected two male and two female soldiers. The instructors split them into two groups with a male and female in each and had them walk up on stage.

“Two small tables covered with blankets had been on the stage throughout the presentation. The soldiers were told to remove the blankets from the tables. They did, exposing erect male penis devices lit-up and sitting on each table.”

The source said many of the hundreds of soldiers and Defense Department civilians and contractors present “immediately appeared uneasy by what was transpiring.” According to the eyewitness, the age group of the audience ranged from late teens to early 70s, with a median age of around 30. Half of the attendees were reportedly women.

The source told WND the highest-ranking officer at the event was a lieutenant colonel.

“What occurred next was 15 minutes of contests to place condoms on male [models of penises],” the source said. ”The two men went first followed by the two women. It was done a second time with goggles on to simulate performing this while intoxicated. Then a third contest was conducted to see who could perform this task the fastest.

“Worse yet, people in the audience were filming this event with cameras and cell phones. At the end as contest prizes were awarded, personnel would intentionally pose with their gifts in front of the display tables with the erect penises prominently displayed. The briefing went on for several more minutes while everything on the tables was left exposed in front of the audience.”

The source provided blurry photos of the penises captured with a cell phone.

Source claims Army used penis models positioned on tables for condom contest

U.S. Army Garrison-Hawaii public affairs spokeswoman Stefanie Gardin told WND, “We regret if anyone was offended by the presentation. This particular presentation was tailored to engage and capture the attention of our younger, enlisted soldiers as their age group has been shown to engage in higher risk behaviors.”

Gardin said the training was optional and counted toward training requirements. She said attendees were informed the training would be “graphic in nature.”

“Instructors explained that attendees were free to leave if they were at all uncomfortable, and that there were other available options to satisfy the yearly ASAP training requirements, such as online courses or other in-person presentations. …

“The demonstration that took place at the end of the training illustrated the correct way to use a condom and the effects that alcohol intake can have on proper use and safer sex practices. Volunteers were chosen from both genders to reinforce the fact that it is important for females, as well as males, to know how to apply a condom, as safer sex practices are a shared responsibility.

“The demonstration was not designed to be a contest for entertainment purposes. Studies have shown that training incorporating active participation engages students and can boost comprehension. Also, activities like demonstrations and practice are acceptable education methods per Centers for Disease Control and Prevention guidelines.”

Adding that this type of training is likely considered sexual harassment under Army regulations, WND also asked Gardin why nobody stepped forward to stop the contest. She never provided an answer to that question.

The Army typically requires new and deploying soldiers to receive training on prevention of sexually transmitted diseases, including photos and basic facts about symptoms. However, sex toys and condom races are not a normal part of that training.

Gardin said there were prizes given out at the end of training, but that they “were not related to the condom demonstration.”

Source photo of table with penis model

When the penises were revealed, the source said many people in the crowd became visibly uneasy: “No one laughed or made any sound. People across the auditorium became uncomfortable, especially the DoD civilian women. They expressed the most disgust for the entire event. Many soldiers and civilians commented that the training presentation was inappropriate, embarrassing and disappointing.”

“When it kept dragging on, soldiers began looking around the auditorium to see if someone would end the training. Many of the young soldiers knew this training event was out of line, but as they looked across the auditorium at their unit leaders and commanders, no one spoke up.”

When questioned, the source said, presenters “defended the sexual demonstration as a standard way to present the STD training and that this was an annual training requirement.”

A second witness told WND, “Nowhere were we told prior to the training that they would be talking about STDs or condoms.  We were deliberately misled in that regard and I, along with many others in the audience, both soldiers and civilians were offended by this lack of truthfulness. …

“[W]e are normally required to stay until the bitter end as ASAP is required training; however, STI/condom training is not mandatory … nor do I recall being told that we could leave during the presentation if we were offended.”

The Department of Defense definition of “sexual harassment” is as follows:

A form of sexual discrimination that involves unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature when: Submission to, or rejection of, such conduct is made either explicitly or implicitly a term or condition of a person’s job, pay, career, or Submission to, or rejection of, such conduct by a person is used as a basis for career or employment decisions affecting that person, or Such conduct has the purpose or effect of unreasonably interfering with an individual’s work performance or creates an intimidating, hostile, or offensive working environment.

Concerned individuals may contact the U.S. Army Pacific Inspector General at (808)438-2811 or the Department of Defense Inspector General at 1-800-424-9098 or by emailing hotline@dodig.mil.

TSA Transportation Security Officer takes a nap at New York's LaGuardia Airport while on duty (photo by Bucky Turco included in Rep. Marsha Blackburn's report)

Some might consider it one of the most important jobs in America after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks: Protecting the nation’s airports, airplanes and citizens from would-be terrorists hell-bent on mass murder.

But the TSA screeners patting you down and combing through your belongings don’t have federal law-enforcement training, may earn about as much as a McDonald’s shift manager and are not required to possess a high-school diploma or GED.

In fact, they might even be criminals.

If recent news reports are any indication, many Americans can’t even trust that TSA’s screeners won’t steal their laptops, money or jewelry.

What does it take to work for the TSA?

In May 2012, Rep. Marsha Blackburn, R-Tenn., released a report titled, “‘Not on My Watch’: 50 Failures of TSA’s Transportation Security Officers.”

“While in the last decade TSA has employed many dedicated public servants who truly have a deep desire to serve our country, they have also hired an alarming number of individuals who in many cases would never have passed a simple background check,” Blackburn’s report stated.

“This problem has only exacerbated itself since 2005 when TSA administratively reclassified airport security screeners as Transportation Security Officers. To make matters worse, TSA upgraded TSOs uniforms to reflect those of federal law enforcement officers, complete with metal officer badges. Despite their new title of officer, TSOs receive zero federal law enforcement training and … many TSOs have displayed little respect for the titles they hold and the uniforms they wear.”

A recent search of job postings revealed the Transportation Security Officer positions come with a salary as low as $29,131 per year and are open to U.S. citizens and U.S. nationals.

TSA lists key requirements for the position of TSO, including:

• a background investigation, including a credit and criminal check
• a drug screening and medical evaluation
• no debt defaults of $7,500 or more (except for some bankruptcies)
• no delinquent federal or state taxes or past-due child support payments
• males must be registered for Selective Service
• must be a U.S. citizen or U.S. national at time of application
• must be at least 18 at the time of application
• must be English proficient
• must have a high-school diploma, a GED –or – “at least one year of full-time work experience in the security industry, aviation screening, or as an X-ray technician.”

TSA made headlines in July 2010 when it was discovered the agency was advertising its open positions in Washington, D.C., area airports on the tops of pizza boxes.

Pizza box with a TSA job ad (photo: WTOP/Federal News Radio)

Its ad slogan? “A career where X-ray vision and federal benefits come standard.”

The blogosphere went wild when TSA reportedly posted a screener position in the Ann Arbor, Mich., edition of Craigslist, encouraging applicants to “Be part of a imperious [sic] security team protecting airports and skies as you proudly establish your future.”

Several bloggers noted that the job description appears accurate, since the dictionary definition of “imperious” is “overbearing, arrogant, domineering.”

TSA’s recruitment video describes screeners as “dedicated to America and Americans.”

“[TSOs] have to be able to concentrate and focus on the job at hand without being distracted, even when the airport is loud and busy,” it states. “And they have to be able to live up to the expectations of travelers, of TSA, and of their teammates.”

One female TSO emphasizes the “customer service” aspect of the job:

“TSA, I believe, expects me to be polite, professional, courteous to passengers, respect the passenger. You want to provide customer service as well as security.”

However, a recent survey conducted by Frequent Business Traveler revealed 90.8 percent of frequent fliers think TSA is doing either a fair or poor job of managing security screenings at the nation’s airports.

Also in the video, a male TSO warns prospective agents not to attempt to arrest airline passengers:

“When you’re a transportation security officer, you’re not a police officer. So it’s very important to keep that distinction. Obviously, as a police officer, you have arrest authority. And as a transportation security officer, you do not have that authority. So you never want to cross the boundaries, and it’s just important that you operate in the confines of the security-officer aspect of the job.”

Another agent shares the touchy-feely aspect of the job:

“Our job requires you to touch people, touch their bags. Sometimes people are uncomfortable. They don’t want you touching anything that belongs to them. We just try to talk to them calmly, politely, explain what we’re going to do before we touch them. That usually makes them feel a lot better … Then we can do things privately if they’re more uncomfortable being out in the open.”

TSA screeners breaking the law & harassing Americans

But Blackburn’s report detailed 50 crimes for which TSA employees had been arrested from 2005-2012. TSA agents had been arrested for:

Concerned individuals may contact TSA.

For 45 minutes, participants interrogated the president about his policies and statements in Tuesday’s State of the Union address.

Blogger Kira Davis asked Obama if he believed handguns should be banned in the U.S., arguing that the “ban on so-called assault rifles” would not fix “the majority of deaths in this country,” since the FBI reports that more fatalities are caused by handguns every year.

“Well, I actually don’t think we should ban handguns,” Obama said. “Keep in mind that what we’re trying to do is come up with a package that protects Second Amendment rights but also makes a meaningful different in reducing violence. We’re not going to eliminate it completely. The package we will put forward will have an impact on handguns by instituting a universal background check system to make sure that people who shouldn’t have any kind of gun aren’t able to purchase them ….”

“When it comes to assault weapons and these high-capacity magazine clips, the concern is, for example, in Aurora, when a young person can go in a theater and shoot off 100 rounds in less than a minute, the potential for large-scale fatalities [is] increased. These are weapons of war.”

“For us to restrict some of those high-capacity magazines and some of those weapons that really belong in the war theater, that probably can save some lives.”

Social media expert Lee Doren reminded Obama that Vice President Joe Biden promised “that people have nothing to worry about in terms of the government coming in to take away their guns.”

“Right,” Obama replied.

However, Doren noted, Obama’s current gun-control proposals would actually confiscate guns legally owned by Americans.

“Well, no. People are going to be able to buy all kinds of guns and use them legally for protection, for sport, for hunting,” Obama answered. “What we’re saying is, there may be a small category of weapons that we think really can drastically increase the incidents of gun violence

“We already have some restrictions. We can’t purchase a grenade launcher from a store, although there may be some folks who want to buy those. The reason is, we think that, on balance, the Second Amendment does not automatically assume that any weapon that’s available you can automatically purchase.”

Obama said he recognizes “there’s a lot of passion” on the issue and “people in rural communities feel differently about these issues than folks in urban communities.”

On the issue of raising the minimum wage, Obama claimed doing so wouldn’t have an impact on employment but would help low-income workers. In his State of the Union address, Obama proposed hiking the federal minimum wage to $9.

However, Davis challenged that assertion that an increase wouldn’t hurt workers.

She told the president, “I’ve been in the situation where the minimum wage was raised and I had to let go of two employees from a nonprofit because we just couldn’t afford the wages anymore.”

“But as a mom, I wonder how that’s going to affect the bottom line when I go to the grocery store, when I go to get that Starbucks in the morning after dropping my kids off at school, or at the gas pump. How will the minimum wage affect what I buy, day to day, as companies are having to raise their prices to accommodate the minimum wage?”

Obama told Davis, “Corporate profits are at record highs” and an increase will simply “have some modest impact on their profits.”

He added, “What we want to do is make sure that, if you work hard in this society, you’ve got a living wage. Nobody’s going to be getting rich on $9 an hour. They’re still going to be struggling.

He then assured Davis, “My suspicion is you’ll still be able to get your Starbucks as a consequence.”

About 35 minutes into the “Fireside Hangout,” Davis and Doren asked the president what his administration can do to honor that increase transparency.

“In 2008, you ran on a platform of really trying to become one of the most transparent administrations in American history,” Davis said. “However, with recent leaked guidelines regarding drone strikes on American citizens and Benghazi and closed-door hearings on the budget and deficit, it feels a lot less transparent than we all hoped it would be.”

Nonetheless, Obama declared, “This is the most transparent administration in history. I can document that that is the case.”

The president also insisted the Benghazi affair is “not a good example” and “was largely driven by campaign stuff.”

“We’ve had more testimony and more paper provided to Congress than ever before, and Congress is sort of running out of things to ask,” he said. “But when it comes to things like how we conduct counterterrorism, there are legitimate questions there, and we should have that debate.”

Doren held Obama’s feet to the fire, telling him, “[A] lot of people are very concerned that your administration now believes it’s legal to have drone strikes on American citizens and whether or not that’s specifically allowed with citizens within the United States.”

He added, “What will you do to create a legal framework to make American citizens within the United States know that drone strikes cannot be used against American citizens?”

Obama shot back, “There has never been a drone strike used on an American citizen on American soil.”

He added, “We respect and have a whole bunch of safeguards in terms of how we conduct counterterrorism operations outside of the United States. The rules outside of the United States are going to be different than the rules inside the United States, in part because our capacity to capture terrorists in the United States [is] very different than in the foothills or mountains of Afghanistan or Pakistan.

“But, what I think is absolutely true is, it’s not sufficient for citizens to just take my word for it that we’re doing the right thing. I am the head of the executive branch, and what we’ve done so far is to try to work with Congress on oversight issues. … I’m not somebody who believes that the president has the authority to do whatever he wants, or whatever she wants, whenever they want, just under the guise of counterterrorism.”

The video of the “Fireside Hangout” event is available here: