Say hello!!!!!!!

Write us at:

Saturday, March 10, 2012

This and That for Saturday

~~~ Gingrich's Numbers Up in Alabama and Mississippi
By Andra Varin

Fresh off his convincing his Super Tuesday win in Georgia,  Newt Gingrich might be about to score another comeback, with two new polls out Friday showing the Gingrich with slight leads in both Alabama and Mississippi.
A Rasmussen Reports poll of 750 likely Republican primary voters shows Gingrich ahead with 30 percent support, followed closely by Rick Santorum at 29 percent, and Mitt Romney with 28 percent.

Ron Paul got just 7 percent, while 6 percent were undecided.

In Mississippi, a poll by American Research Group Inc. indicates Gingrich is in the lead with 35 percent. Romney is in second place with 31 percent, while Santorum has 20 percent and Paul has 7 percent.

The American Research Group poll of 600 likely voters in the Mississippi Republican primary was conducted March 7-8 and has a margin of error of plus or minus 4 percentage points.

The Rasmussen poll was carried out March 8 and also has a margin of error of plus or minus 4 percentage points.

The bottom line is it ain’t over yet. To win Romney needs 48% of the remaining delegates. It can be done but if the three challengers remain in to the end it seems unlikely to happen.

One more thing, Santorum is sending out public offers to Gingrich. That’s unrealistic. If the GOP nominee selects anyone other than Florida Senator Marco Rubio the race could be over.

I was just thinking there is a Republican effort to get Gingrich out of the race. Why are these same voices not pressuring Ron Paul in the same way? After all Paul has yet to win anywhere. My take is let the games go on and let the voters decide the winner.

~~~ This is being written on Friday evening and we’re watching Fox News.
We just heard a news item which included a sound clip of a woman making an emergency call shortly after an armed robbery. The 911 operator asked the victim if the perpetrator had a firearm and she answered “no”. Almost immediately after her answer she added he had a shotgun. I guess that doesn’t qualify as a firearm to her.

Of course, my wife said I was being insensitive for finding humor in all that and she’s probably correct, as usual. I guess you could say I’m amused by irony.

~~~ Dan Weil in reports, “Mitt Romney is scrounging for more cash, as the huge advantage he built over his rivals in the Republican presidential campaign has proven insufficient. Republican insiders originally thought it would cost Romney $50 million to capture the nomination, but now they say it could take $75 million, Politico reports.
“And even after that spending, victory isn’t guaranteed for the former Massachusetts governor. Romney and the super PAC supporting him, Restore Our Future, have been forced into massive spending to fend off challenges from Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich. Much of the spending has gone toward negative ads against those two rivals.

“Romney is now reaching out to his congressional backers, asking them to put in their own money and bring other contributors to the table as well. Specifically, he has requested that the 80 congressmen who have endorsed him bring in $10,000 each for a fundraiser at the end of the month.

“They are legally allowed to give Romney $2,000 from their re-election committees. The remainder must come from their supporters. Front-runner Romney apparently has found that his current list of donors is tired of giving, so he needs fresh cash from fresh faces.”

Oh, poor Mitt!

~~~ Did the president take the oath of office when he was elected?

The oath is simple and straight to the point. Beginning with the Korean War the Congress has been taken out of the loop. Here is the oath:

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
Fairly clear, a person needs to be qualified as a natural born citizen and promise to defend the constitution “against all enemies foreign or domestic.”

The Constitution divides war powers between the Congress and the President.  This division was intended by the framers to ensure that wars would not be entered into easily: It takes two keys, not one, to start a war.

The Congress shall have the Power:

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water; 

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years; 

To provide and maintain a Navy; 

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces; 

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; 

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress....


The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.


The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States....

He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur....

Add to all the above, Congress has the power of the purse strings as well; no consent, no money for war.
The founders made waging war difficult for some sound reasons. Waging military action should never be taken lightly.

The separation of powers created by the constitution makes it clear getting into a war requires certain steps and has many safeguards to handcuff the executive from arbitrarily placing our troops at risk.

It’s time we hold the executive’s feet to the fire and insist that the Congress must be part of the consent process.

Nothing short of reacting to an immediate threat to our national security our military should not be placed in harm’s way.

~~~ reports, “Riled by state-level voting law changes that it alleges are designed to suppress ‘the political participation of people of color, the poor, the elderly, and the young,’ the NAACP is turning to the U.N. Human Rights Council for support.

Well, well, well, the NAACP is going international because many of our states are requiring identification in order to vote.
Many of us view our vote as sacrosanct and don’t want to allow a select few to manipulate the system by not attempting to make voting impossible for us rather to making sure those casting ballots are doing so lawfully.

Our voting laws are rather simple. You need only to be a citizen, nothing more, nothing less.

Voting is a privilege reserved for our citizens, no one else. It is the responsibility of our states to make certain our elections are held fair and square. We cannot cash a check, buy alcohol, get a driver’s license, etc. without identification.

Certainly voting is an important function of citizenship and we are correct is demanding elections are fair and not compromised by illegal voters.

That’s it for now.

Ciao…….Moe Lauzier

No comments:

About Me

My photo
As of 1-1-2016 our blog is by Helen and me. We will attempt to provide adult oriented issues and topics.

Blog Archive