Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) on Saturday won a GOP presidential straw poll in New Hampshire at the Northeast Republican Leadership Conference. 

Paul brought in 15 percent of the vote at the conference in the first-in-the-nation primary state even though he did not attend, the conference announced in a tweet. 

The Kentucky Republican typically does well in straw polls with a strong base of supporters, similar to his father. A week ago, Paul won the straw poll at the Conservative Political Action Conference for the second year in a row.

Paul garnered 31 percent of the vote last week in the CPAC poll, while Sen. Ted Cruz (Texas) trailed by more than 20 points in second place. 



Read more: http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/200922-paul-wins-another-presid... 

Views: 420

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

AGAIN...Donald Meinshausen and others:  Whereas Rand Paul is a viable candidate, one worthy of our vote, I also heartily warn you that he IS a Libertarian at heart and, as such, is against support of any outside influences.  That is, he does not support Israel.  If you understand the end-times, you KNOW that is, at best, a precarious position.  Most importantly, and most assuredly, God says that he will bless those who bless Israel.  Maybe you have not been paying close attention, but this country cold use a healthy dose of "Blessing!"  God continues saying that He will also curse those who curse Israel.  Well, I would not call non-support a curse as we will leave that to Iran, et al, but non-support leans toward cursing and I do not want God to lean towards a curse on us.  Now, perhaps you do not believe in God, or, you believe that what I write is just pure poppycock; well, you have nothing to lose either way.  "I wish you either hot or cold, but instead you react in a lukewarm way.  So, I will punish you unless you turn away from indifference and rejoice in the birth of my Son and the marvelous things He's done."  "...you react in a lukewarm way, I  will spew you out of my mouth."  As for me, if Rand Paul wins the candidacy, I WILL vote for him, but then, I would vote for Christie over a Dem.   I would rather have Trey Gowdy: Republican, conservative, Tea Party candidate, Christian, backbone overtly in evidence.  Did I hear an "Amen!?"   Let's Roll!

Thank you for reminding me of that little fact that does make a  difference a Trey Gowdy Conservative

sounds better

Look, ......I'm not going to nit-pick a single nuance regarding Rand Paul. I'm certain we could, but I won't. After all of us witnessing the mess that has been created to America and made sick by a FRAUD regime, that hates our country -not to mention, who is absolutely scared sh!t-less whenever a world leader addresses him, - it's TIME for a BIG DAMN CHANGE! Yeah, a long sentence, but it is what it is. Period!

I don't envy the person who will succeed the current corrupt regime. He will inherit a complete nightmare. I'm sure that we'd love to tailor a super candidate that meets and/or exceeds all of our much needed requirements. However, I'll say this, .....if Rand Paul is nominated, I will definitely VOTE for him.

 I've got my disagreements with the Paul family/faction too, but if R party is gonna be worth a dime it must embrace many more of their focal points. I too would happily vote for Rand over the typical next-in-line predetermined clone that habitually is nominated.

Yes, whomever it is (presuming it is a Republican), the office holder will have much work to do immediately.  No time to say Hello.or giving that Nicety or that Smile.   Only enough time to roll up the sleeves and get busy assessing the major problems in each department and each agency, developing a plan of reform or deletion, assigning jobs for each item for each department and agency, addressing how report are to be accomplished, and reporting to We The People.  Much organization and paying attention to details will be required.  No time for "At a boys" or "Good jobs."  On to the next item on the "To Do" list.  Onward and upward  sight only.  The more conservative the office holder, the more there will be to do.  By the way, the AG will have to list among his department/agency reforms/deletions/To Do list the task of going after all those that lied and broke the law: Eric Holder; Lois Lerner; Hilary Spillary; BO, JB, etc., etc., etc.  to teach a lesson never to be forgotten.  Let's Roll!

Agreed! - 100% :-)

RSS

LIGHTER SIDE

ALERT ALERT

Clinton Donor And Tax Cheat Tied To Russia

“Do as we say, not as we do.”

That seems to be the slogan for Hillary Clinton and her political allies, and it’s especially apt in light of new information about one of Clinton’s largest campaign donors.

While the left is still trying to attack President Trump and his family over unproven business dealings and largely debunked connections to Russia, a new report indicates that it was Hillary Clinton’s team who were doing those exact things.

“Fox News has learned that one of the top donors to the ‘Hillary Victory Fund’ (HVF) in 2016 was a Los Angeles-based attorney who is alleged to have misused company funds to create his own $22 million real estate portfolio,” that outlet reported on Thursday.

“He has also been considered by California to be one of the state’s biggest tax cheats, and allegedly has ties to the (Russian) Kremlin,” Fox continued.

The man’s name is Edgar Sargsyan. His deep pockets greatly benefited Clinton’s campaign, with contributions of at least $250,000 to the Hillary Victory Fund in 2016.

He was also in charge of an elite fundraising dinner to benefit Clinton, where donors paid $100,000 per couple just to attend the ritzy event. But in true Clinton fashion, the money apparently went missing.

Sargsyan is now “being sued by his former company for allegedly diverting those funds to start his own real estate company,” according to Fox.

Now, people are asking hard questions about Clinton’s buddy Sargsyan, including whether his contributions were part of a pay-to-play scheme and if he had shady connections to foreign governments.

“Nobody gave to the Hillary Victory Fund out of the goodness of their heart or some generalized desire to help 33 random state parties,” pointed out attorney Dan Backer from the Committee to Defend the President.

“They did so to buy access and curry influence — something the Clintons have been selling for nearly three decades in and out of government,” he continued.

Trying to buy political influence is sadly common, especially when it comes to the Clintons. What is raising more red flags than normal, however, is the evidence that Sargsyan is no run-of-the-mill campaign donor.

“The really scary question is, what did this particular donor with this strange web of connections hope to buy for his quarter-million dollars?” Backer asked Fox News.

That web of connections is strange indeed.

The Committee to Defend the President is now alleging that SBK, a major Sargsyan-linked company “is an investment firm that is affiliated with United Arab Emirates president, Sheikh Khalifa bin Zayed al-Nahyan, and its international affiliate has business interests in Russia,” according to Fox.

“Among its dealings was a bid to finance $850 million for a major bridge project to connect Crimea with Russia,” the group claims.

“He worked for SBK, and SBK appears to have bid on some Crimean/Russian bridge project,” Backer said. “That’s usually an indicator of political favor and connections.”

It raises several chilling questions: Was Sargsyan paying a quarter million dollars to Clinton for political favors, and — more disturbingly — was that money actually from sources in Russia in order to smooth the way for its construction plans?

Nobody knows for sure. What is clear, however, is that there is a pattern of dirty money surrounding the Clintons, with the “Uranium One” and “Clinton Foundation” scandals just two of the most well-known examples.

“It reinforces how fast and loose the Clinton machine was when it came to ‘Hoovering up’ these megadonor checks, not just from questionable Hollywood and Wall Street elites but potentially from foreign influence peddlers using who knows what money,” Backer told Fox News.

“It reinforces the need to take a long hard look at not just the unlawful money laundering process, but the way in which they were solicited as well,” he continued. “The Clintons have never shown a great deal of concern for whomever it was cutting the checks — whether it’s foreign influence peddlers or Hollywood smut peddlers like Harvey Weinstein.”

If those claims are even partially true, then America dodged a bullet in November of 2016 — and it’s worth keeping the pile of foreign-connected Clinton scandals in mind the next time the left tries desperately to tie Donald Trump to Russia. Perhaps they should look in the mirror.

SLAVEHOLDER??

Washington Post Compares
Jeff Sessions To Slaveholder’

The Washington Post compared Attorney General Jeff Sessions to “slaveholders” after he quoted the Bible on Thursday while discussing his department’s policy of prosecuting all illegal immigrants who cross the border.

Sessions made the statement during a speech to law enforcement officers in Fort Wayne, Indiana.

WaPo ran a story entitled “Sessions cites Bible passage used to defend slavery in defense of separating immigrant families” by general assignment editor Keith McMillan and religion reporter Julie Zauzmer on Friday.

Rather than detailing the statistics Sessions cited in the speech that explain the immigration policy, the story quoted John Fea, a history professor at Messiah College in Pennsylvania.

“This is the same argument that Southern slaveholders and the advocates of a Southern way of life made,” Fea said.

Sessions spent much of the speech discussing the numbers behind current immigration policy, including separating families at the Southwest border.

“I would cite you to the Apostle Paul and his clear and wise command in Romans 13, to obey the laws of the government because God has ordained the government for his purposes,” Sessions said.

“Orderly and lawful processes are good in themselves. Consistent and fair application of the law is in itself a good and moral thing, and that protects the weak and protects the lawful.”

“The previous administration wouldn’t prosecute aliens if they came with children,” Sessions said.

“It was de-facto open borders if you came with children. The results were unsurprising. More and more illegal aliens started showing up at the border with children.”

Sessions laid out the numbers in the speech.

“In 2013, fewer than 15,000 family units were apprehended crossing our border illegally between ports of entry in dangerous areas of the country,” he said.

“Five years later, it was more than 75,000, a five-fold increase in five years. It didn’t even have to be their child that was brought, it could be anyone. You can imagine that this created a lot of danger.”

The U.S. has the “opportunity” to fix its broken immigration system now, Sessions said.

“I believe that’s it’s moral, right, just and decent that we have a lawful system of immigration,” he said. “The American people have been asking for it.”

© 2018   Created by Steve - Ning Creator.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service