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

Three cheers+ for Rand Paul.................Patricia Smith

LOL WOW, EVERYONE STEP BACK FOR A MOMENT AND READ ALL THE POSTS SOMETIME, "WE WANT PAUL, NO WE WANT CRUZ, NO WE WANT SOMEONE ELSE" THIS IS EXACTLY THE REASON WE HAVE WHAT WE HAVE TODAY, BECAUSE PEOPLE REFUSED TO VOTE FOR A MORMON!!!! I DON'T KNOW BUT ALL WE CAN HOPE IS THE BEST MAN GETS UP THERE AND WE CAN ALL SUPPORT, AND IF THE RINOS WANT TO KEEP PUTTING UP PEOPLE "WE" DON'T LIKE THEN "WE" GO AROUND THE GOP ESTABLISHMENT'S TRADITION OF TAKING TURNS AS THE CANDIDATE THEY LIKE BEING PUT UP, IE. JOHN MC CAIN, AND ROMNEY, AND WHO EVER IS NEXT IN LINE. WHEN WILL THEY LEARN, EVER? THE WHOLE DAM POLITICAL GAME OF CHESS IS MADDENING BUT YOU KNOW, WE MAY NOT EVEN MAKE IT TO 2016 LET ALONE NOVEMBER FOR MID TERMS THE WAY WE'RE HEADED 

Mitchell- I agree with you as far as it doesn't matter what if any religion a person has. It does matter if the person has a high standard of moral character and intregrity! We talk a lot about history and repeating it. So lets talk about history. More people have been killed in the name of God, a Super Natural being, then for any other reason.

Yes, Robert, let's talk history.  While I agree wholeheartedly with you about the high standard of moral character, I remind you that the high moral character of which you write is based upon those same Judeo-Christian beliefs on which and around which our country was founded and built.  It is most assuredly NOT based upon a man's goodness.  Without laws, we demonstrate our evilness.  If we say it is OUR goodness, then we are denying the God that our founders worshipped.  And, please, do not give me a bunch of gobbledygook about the founders views of God.  I would  not imagine that you would attempt such.  Mark Levin, Dr. James Kennedy, many others, and I could supply you with a bibliography to support that their beliefs were similar to many of the beliefs that were held at that time by the regular Christian churches, most of which still reside with us today....Episcopalian (Anglican), Presbyterian, Baptist, et al.  Why do you think laws were created?  And whose laws do they mimic?  Why, that would Jehovah God's laws, the God of our fathers, the God that gave us liberty to shine from sea to shining sea.  From where did you think that shining city on a hill came originally?  Now, if you check God's word ("word" in this case is another word for "Jesus"...in the beginning was the "word" and the "word" was with Jehovah God and the "word" was Jehovah God), it says that God (Jesus, Holy Spirit, Word) did not come in peace.  Only the devil says that lie.  God came to separate the wheat from the chaff.  We are to do God's work on earth.  That means that we will also separate the wheat from the chaff.  However, some assign what they are doing's to "God's Work," but they are, in fact, doing their own work and the work of the devil and letting Christianity take the punch.  Sounds like the devil is doing his thing there, doesn't it?  Let's talk history.  Do not judge any part of Christendom by the evil works of men.  We are to discern spirits and man's motivation.  The Bible says so.  I discern good moral value and I also discern good Christian doctrine as expressed in one's life.  Please do not misunderstand me; I would vote for Rand in a heart beat if he is our standard bearer.  But before that post is attained by anyone, my vote is with someone who has not even entered the race: Trey Gowdy.  We are not against each other, Robert.  We may hold slightly different views, but we both want liberty, not tyranny.  We want constitutional government, not chaos.  We both want a Republican run government until there is a better option.  DIVIDED WE FALL.  UNITED WE STAND.  I would be pleased to stand next to you, shoulder to shoulder.  Come on elections.  Come on OAS.  Let's Pray.  Let's Roll!

We can see him fighting on a daily basis for our liberty.  I'd definitely vote for him.

Both Rand Paul and Ted Cruz are good ,bright and SMART,and wise young men!  Sarah Palin is in the same class and will say NO when that's the right answer. GOP has plenty young people that will lead this country  forward and upward to  new places where we want to go.------------OKGT

No, Patricia Smith, not Rand Paul.  He does NOT support Israel.  God says: "And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee: and in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed."  I prefer to be blessed by God.  Don't you?  We have had enough of Rev. Wright's wishes.   Give me Trey Gowdy any day.

Ted Cruz, not Rand Paul, for President. How can anyone who wants to straighten out this country's path, support someone who endorses Mitch McConnell as Paul does?

Can you please give us evidence of that. I get his letters all the time and he seems supportive of Israel. I would like to know for sure. Thx.

I agree. PS.

I believe you are confusing him with his father. Here is an article about his views on Israel and US relations:

http://spectator.org/blog/22498/rand-paul-and-israel

I have an apple tree.  It stands tall and healthy. It produces luscious apples.  We collect them and give them away.  Everyone loves them.  It has generated new apple trees and they all produce luscious apples.  I look very similar to my Mom and Dad, as do you.  My sister even looks exactly like my grandmother.  I brought this up to my father and he said, "Apples don't fall far from the tree."  Now, who is it you say raised Rand Paul?  What church does he regularly attend?  Does he speak of his Christianity often? With boldness?  Under pressure, then, will he crack?  I hear what you say!  But I also know what that which has raised you also has taught you.  I see his voiced predominately raised for anti-abortion.  I do not hear an equally loud voice promoting Israel.  I keep waiting and listening, but.............................................nothing.  I do not get confused and speak my mind.  If confused, I check myself, and then, if appropriate, I speak.  He speaks of anti-abortion partially because he believes in it and partially in order to gain Christian votes.  Listen!  Was that Rand's voice just speaking about Israel's right to exist and flourish!  Sh!  Was it?  ......................No. I didn't think so.  Out of his mouth, a man speaketh his heart.  On a paper, man writes anything.  I will take Rand over any Democrat.  I will NOT choose him in the primaries.  I am too wary for that to occur!  You?  Listen.  Sh.  Is that Rand?  What is he SAYING!

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