Send to your Congressional Reps

P U B L I C N O T I C E O F D E M A N D
TO: ELECTED SERVANTS OF THE 112TH CONGRESS

We the people of these United States present the following information which constitutes reasonable doubt as to identification and therefore the subsequent eligibility of one Barack Hussein Obama to act as president of the United States of America.

Tentative Conclusion: Probable cause exists that crimes have been committed. Forgery, Fraud, Usurpation, Misrepresentation with intent to secure public office, Suspicion of Treason

We the people DO HEREBY MAKE THE FOLLOWING DEMANDS:

1. The 112th Congress initiate an immediate Congressional Investigation to determine:
The true identity of one Barack Hussein Obama and
To provide conclusive evidence that Barack Hussein Obama is eligible to lawfully occupy the office of president of the United States of America.

2. Due to the extreme emergency this situation place’s the National Security of these United States. It is our demand that one Barrack Hussein Obama, be removed from the office of the presidency, until the conclusion and determinations of eligibility are confirmed.

3. In addition we demand that a Special Prosecutor be installed by the House Judiciary Committee. To do a separate independent investigation with out interference from the Congress or the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

4. We also call for a complete, and open to the citizenry, investigation be implemented by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and run concurrent with the Congressional Investigation.

The American people, with full sovereign authority make these demands as the final arbiters of the Constitution and the only rightful authority by which this government has been commissioned. We further demand to have our concerns addressed openly and with complete and total transparency.

We the People of these United States So Demand this action to be taken immediately for cause.
Signed:__________________A sovereign Citizen of these United States of America.

Voter ID prevents identity theft

Here is something to think about with the Voter ID laws.  Many on the left have made the claim that this disenfranchises minorities and the poor.  But lets look at it a little deeper.

In order to vote, the person must be registered.  Whether you choose to preregister with the municipality of your residence or at the nearest polling location, you must perform this step before they will hand you a ballot.

Should you choose to preregister, you must provide ID and proof of residence to the city/county clerk. If you choose to register at the polling place, you must provide ID and proof of residence to the registration clerk. So in order for anyone to vote at any time, they must already provide ID and proof of residence. There is no way around this requirement. You MUST have ID to register to vote.

What the liberals are fighting is the requirement to show your ID when you appear at the polling place to cast your ballot.  Now why would they be so adamant that this is inconveniencing the poor and minorities? It makes no sense that the poor and/or minorities will be disenfranchised because in order to register they have already had to provide ID. Everyone whose name appears on the voter registration rolls has had to prove their identity.

The reason they don't want to have to show ID at the polling place is quite obvious. They are not voting as themselves, they are committing voter fraud, and identity theft.  If someone can provide me with a better explanation I would be willing to entertain it. But I see their annoyance at the laws as usurpation of the Constitutional guarantee of one man/one vote.

Voter ID laws are meant to provide obstacles to voter fraud. No matter what the liberals claim, they do not now and have never disenfranchised voters, as the Supreme Court of the US has previously found in Crawford v. Marion County Election Board and Indiana Democratic Party v. Rokita. As long as each voter needs to show ID to register, showing ID to vote is constitutional. No matter what the liberals may claim.

How much are you worth?

Why does anyone have a job? It is not complicated. You and everyone has a job for one reason, and only one reason.  Someone has a great idea for something, say they want to produce food, people need food and want a variety of it. So this one person (lets call him Stan) figures out a way to produce his food product, and lots of people like it. But now he has a problem, more people like his product than he can produce by himself, so here is where your job comes in. He needs to have someone help him produce his product, so he finds you to help him (we'll call you Joe). In exchange for helping him produce, you agree to take X amount of dollars as compensation for your labor. So we now have an exchange of something (usually a wage) for something of value to him (your labor). TA DA! the first job is created.

This is the only reason you or anyone else has a job, there is too much work for one person to do for himself, so he finds other people to handle the excess labor. In our small world everything is working great. Stan now can produce enough, and Joe has negotiated a price for his labor that he thinks is "fair". Until..... the day that Joe sees another person (Phil) doing a similar job and making X+1 dollars. So you now feels slighted because you are not making the same wage as Phil. So you ask Stan for an increase in your compensation (a raise), Stan says okay, because he has more customers and can pay more for your labor. Yippee! you are now compensated more for your labor.

But now Phil finds out that you are getting the same as he is getting, only he is actually doing more labor, so now he feels that he is making less than he is worth, so he goes to his boss to get a raise. Competition has now been entered into the whole labor market. And it works, Stan is happy, Joe is happy, and Phil is happy.  The system works. It is called Capitalism.

Now we add the labor union leader (Norma) into the picture. Norma thinks that Joe is being wronged, and should be making the same  as Phil, it doesn't matter that Joe is happy, all that matters is that Norma thinks he is not being treated "fairly". So Norma convinces Joe to have her represent him in labor negotiations where she will guarantee better wages and better working conditions. She believes that Joe should be making X+3, but Stan cannot afford to pay Joe X+3. This, of course, doesn't stop Norma from demanding x+3, in fact she will make it impossible for Stan to make any money because she will have Joe not do any work (a strike) for a time to force Stan to pay Joe x+3.

Before Norma came in our little system was happy. Nobody felt slighted that they were not being paid less than they were worth. But Norma now introduces class envy into the labor exchange process. "Stan is making his money off the back of Joe's labor, and isn't sharing sufficiently," Norma whispers in Joe's ear. Stan negotiates with Norma and is forced to pay Joe X+3, but it puts him at a great disadvantage in the market in which he is competing. Eventually Stan cannot afford to pay Joe anymore and lays him off. Now Joe isn't even making X, much less the X+3 Norma negotiated for him. So who get the fingers pointed at them? Stan the "greedy, selfish Capitalist". But who is really to blame in this scenario? I think its Norma, who thought that she could demand more for Joe than Stan could pay.

So that leaves us with today's dilemma, labor unions have been demanding higher wages and more benefits from the taxpayers for years. They have told workers that they are worth X+10 ( it doesn't matter that the society cannot continue to pay them X+10 any longer), they are worth it and feel slighted if they do not get it, because of their "intrinsic value to society".  Who is to say that a teacher, or a firefighter or cop has more "intrinsic value" to society than a farmer, or a truck driver? We cannot continue to demand that one portion of society (non-union labor) continue to sacrifice more each year for another, smaller, portion of society (unionized labor).

Just because the labor union says you are worth X+10 dollars, doesn't mean that the society can pay you X+10 dollars. So what happens when society says, "Enough, we can only pay you X+8 dollars"? Well look at the Capital Square in Madison, WI to see what happens. We the people are not saying you are not worthy of our compensation, what we are saying is we don't have the resources that you believe, and we cannot continue to give you more of those resources than we ourselves need.

This is not a fight over a pile of excess money laying around (as the labor unions would like their members to believe), this is about an ever decreasing pool of money, that we all need access to.  Just because you are a member of a labor union doesn't mean you get more access to it than I do. If you think Phil will willingly chip into Joe's wages when he is now getting less compensation than Joe, you are not thinking clearly. Phil is tapped out, and now he is outraged as well.

We cannot continue to listen to Norma and have Joe get mad at Phil. Both Joe and Phil are laborers, even Stan is not evil and corrupt because he wants to keep the fruits of his labor as well. Nope! Our problem is Norma's class envy, and meddling into a system that has worked for a very long time.  The enemy is not Capitalism, it is class envy! Have we sold our souls for a bowl of cheap oatmeal?

13 Politically Incorrect Gun Rules for Conservatives

13 Politically Incorrect Gun Rules for Conservatives

April 18, 2012

1. Guns have only two enemies: rust and politicians.
2. It’s always better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6.
3. Cops carry guns to protect themselves, not you.
4. Never let someone or something that threatens you get inside arms length.

5. Never say, “I’ve got a gun.” If you need to use deadly force, the first sound they hear should be the safety clicking off.
6. The average response time of a 911 call is 23 minutes; the response time of a .357 is 1400 feet per second.
7. The most important rule in a gunfight is: Always win – cheat if necessary.
8. Make your attacker advance through a wall of bullets . . . You may get killed with your own gun, but he’ll have to beat you to death with it, because it’ll be empty.
9. If you’re in a gunfight:

• If you’re not shooting, you should be loading.
• If you’re not loading, you should be moving.
• If you’re not moving, you’re dead.

10. In a life and death situation, do something . . . It may be wrong, but do something!
11. If you carry a gun, people call you paranoid. Nonsense! If you have a gun, what do you have to be paranoid about?
12. You can say ‘stop’ or ‘alto’ or any other word, but a large bore muzzle pointed at someone’s head is pretty much a universal language.
13. You cannot save the planet, but you may be able to save yourself and your family.
http://www.ijreview.com/2012/04/3741-13-politically-incorrect-gun-rules/

The Little Engine that could NOT!

We have heard a lot lately about how the economy needs an overhaul (OWS is basing their whole movement on the fact that capitalism doesn't work), and the progressives (Obama and company) are just the ones to initiate us the change we need to make our economy run more efficiently.

Let's look at the economy as an engine that drives our nation, with sufficient fuel it is an efficient mechanism to get our nation moving. For the last 2 hundred years we have run our engine on capitalism (gasoline), and it has been doing a pretty good job of running the nation. We have had good times and bad times, and fuel shortages and booms, but through it all, the gasoline that we have been running our nation on has done its job. The American economy has purred along pretty self sufficiently for a couple of centuries.

But for about the last 100 years or so the progressives decided that gasoline (the fuel we use to operate our economy) is inefficient, that it is not the best fuel to run our engine on. They make all kind of crazy claims, like the supply of gasoline will run out soon, so we need to find alternative fuel. A progressive never met an alternative fuel source that he didn't like. Solar, wind, Geo-thermal, electric, bio-fuel, ethanol (Socialism, communism, fascism, sustainable development, whatever title they are using now), just to name a few with the progressive stamp of approval.

Unfortunately, none of these alternatives can produce the same result as the gasoline we currently use. But the progressives still claim that gasoline is inefficient so we cannot use our supply at all, instead we need to find something else to run our country on. Capitalism, they say is the bane of society, it rewards some and punishes others, so we cannot use it any longer to fuel the economy because it is "unfair".

And their way of encouraging use of "alternative fuels" is to raise the taxes on gasoline (tax the rich) so the price gets so high that no one can live their lives. This is the progressive way of enforcing its agenda on the population, make whatever they don't want so expensive that the citizens cannot afford to run their own lives on the substance. But what is the alternative fuel that the progressives have championed? What they are proposing is run our nation on water (figuratively of course).

They have not come up with a new engine design, they have not come up with a way of converting our current engine to other fuels, instead they INSIST that we simply stop using what has worked (inefficient as it is) for the last couple of centuries. Most OWS occupiers don't have any idea for a replacement economic system, they only insist that capitalism doesn't work and needs to be destroyed.

Slowly they have been introducing their new "fuel" into the engine, they took over the education system, and the engine ran fine. So they took over the environment, and the engine began to sputter, they took over the entertainment industry and the media, and the engine started huffing and sputtering. Now they are trying to take over the courts, the government, and change the "fuel" by proxy, and what is the result? Our engine has pretty much stopped working.

And their response is to blame the gasoline. After all, gasoline is inefficient, it doesn't produce equal results across all passengers, some engines got better gas mileage than others, so....... because it isn't equally distributed, we have to do away with gasoline. Gasoline is BAD! And we need to run our engine on water from now on, because water is more "fair."

But have they come up with a different, more efficient, engine? They only have theories of how an engine can run on water. Have they proven that our current engine can run on water? Every time it has been tried in real life, it has failed miserably. We know that gasoline will run the engine, but they think that by demonizing the gasoline, they will cause the engine to run more efficiently? HUH!

Motto of the story: NO you can't!!!!

Make them buy cigarettes!

I know this will come as no surprise to anyone, but children's health care is being funded by smokers.

"The Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) was created in 1997 to provide affordable health coverage to low-income children in working families who make too much money to be eligible for Medicaid but not enough to afford private coverage. The program currently covers more than 7 million children. In February 2009, after a protracted political fight, Congress enacted, and President Obama signed, legislation that renewed CHIP through the end of 2013 and expanded its scope." http://familiesusa2.org/assets/pdfs/chipra/funding.pdf

This legislation was originally a product of the Clinton administration. "At its creation in 1997, SCHIP was the largest expansion of taxpayer-funded health insurance coverage for children in the U.S. since Medicaid began in the 1960s. The statutory authority for SCHIP is under title XXI of the Social Security Act. It was sponsored by Senator Edward Kennedy in a partnership with Senator Orrin Hatch^[3] with support coming from First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton during the Clinton administration.^[4][5][6]" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_Children%27s_Health_Insurance_Program

The main point is........this is a Democrat product, it was written, sponsored, passed and signed into law by Democrats. Democrats love this program, they take great pride in this program, they have patted themselves on the back for this program. They would also love to expand this program, Hillary envisioned up to 25 million children being served by this program.

"Tragically, in my state (Texas) -- not something I'm proud of -- 850,000 children are eligible for Medicaid and SCHIP, but they are not enrolled,'(U.S. Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas) said Wednesday. 'I think it's important we focus our efforts on getting these children covered. And that's why Kids First provides $400 million for five years for outreach and enrollment." http://www.reporternews.com/news/2009/jan/29/us-senate-debates-chip-funding/

Sounds great, but there is a gremlin in the works. Like all great programs that the government undertakes it must find funding. "The expansion, which would be funded by a tobacco tax increase, affects almost 500,000 Texan children, including 2,254 children in Jones and Taylor counties."

http://www.reporternews.com/news/2009/jan/29/us-senate-debates-chip-funding/

Now we all know how Democrats feel about smoking. Smokers are the worst of the worst, they are a menace to society; their smelly habit affects the health of everyone surrounding them, they are polluters, and are ignorant to their negative affects on the environment. So smokers need to be punished for their lack of respect for the environment around them, by taxing them.

"Not only are the payers of cigarette taxes poorer as a group than the payers of these other taxes, but there are fewer of them. The burden on the lowest-earning 20 percent of households from a cigarette tax is 37 times heavier than if the government raised the money with the federal income tax." http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/24208.html

So.... health care for poor children is being funded by smokers, who tend to be the poor. Sounds like a remedy for disaster, the smokers fund children's health care, but liberals hate smokers and demand they quit smoking, which would of course lower the amount of revenues to be used for ... children's health care. Quite a pickle they have gotten themselves into. So how do we solve this?

That is the easy part, since health care is a right (I am speaking like a liberal, I personally don't believe it is a right), then children's health care must be funded by the government. And since the government has linked the funding to cigarette taxes....the only solution is to mandate that the public buy cigarettes.

Before you jump down my throat, think about how the Affordable Health care Act will be funded. The individual mandate demands that every citizen buy health insurance or pay a fine. So if the public can be mandated to buy health insurance, then they can be mandated to buy any other product as long as the goal is health care, right? So taking the cue from Obamacare and the individual mandate, the only way to fund children's health care is to mandate that every citizen buy cigarettes.

Only by being forced to purchase cigarettes can our poor kids have the kind of health care they have a right to. This is your government in action. This would of course mean that not only would the poor be paying for children's health care, but if everyone were mandated to buy cigarettes, the rich would also be forced (probably kicking and screaming) to pay for it as well. Something they are loathe to do, I am sure.

So in conclusion, if Obama thinks that mandating the purchase of insurance to cover his health care plan is constitutional, he could just as easily mandate that we all buy cigarettes to cover health care for children. It is the same reasoning, just a different product.

So smokers, light up, enjoy your nicotine, you are doing it for the children, you are the real caring citizens.

Who Knows What, When?

This video is a little longer than I am used to posting here, but if you watch it until the end you will not be disappointed.....but you will be angry. I for one am furious. First we are told by all the political experts that Mitt Romney will be the inevitable candidate before even one vote was cast, and then they go about to ensure that it is a self-fulfilling prophecy. I was angry when they assaulted by candidate Herman Cain, and threatened his family, to he felt he needed to drop out of the race, but this is even worse. When they know the results before the votes are cast it means only one thing, FRAUD!!! on an unprecedented scale.