More propaganda from the racist neo-Nazi Ron Paul political machine. To support Ron Paul or his son is to support fascism.

Ron Paul’s Victory at CPAC Thrusts him Further into the Mainstream

America 20xy

2/20/10

By Andrew Steele

Ron Paul has won the 2010 CPAC straw poll.

A night after delivering a powerful speech in which he reminded the attendees of the conference what real conservatism is, stressing the principles of fiscal responsibility,.. non-..interventionism.., and civil liberties, the years long efforts of him and his supporters have resulted in increased popularity for his message and for him.

Though the election is three years away and the CPAC straw poll is in no way a sure indicator of who will win the next the Republican Primary, it does send a message– the neocon takeover of the Republican Party and of the Tea Party Movement is not absolute. There is a new awakening happening within the American public…a coming together of people on the right and on the left who abhor the direction their government has taken and who still believe in the ideals they were once taught America stood for. This spirit has shined in the actions of various activists who now reject the false leaders that have been shoved down their throats for years by the two major parties and by the media.

Ron Paul’s win will no doubt energize the efforts of his supporters who continue to assume the mantle as individual champions of liberty and peace…heroes standing in the way of growing federal power and the slow dissolution of the Constitution. To anyone who thinks their energy will fizzle out over the next three years, take note– it’s been nearly two years since the last presidential election and their energy has only grown.

Ron Paul beat out such media backed Republican personalities as Sarah Palin and Mitt Romney. The momentum of his win, much like his amazing campaign, will force the major news networks to spotlight him further in their political coverage or risk becoming completely irrelevant to a public that’s just starting to slowly wake up.

The results are listed below:

Texas Rep. Ron Paul – 31 percent
Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney — 22 percent
Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin — 7 percent
Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty – 6 percent
Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich – 4 percent
Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee — 4 percent
Indiana Rep. Mike Pence – 5 percent
South Dakota Sen. John Thune — 2 percent
Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels — 2 percent
Former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum — 2 percent
Mississippi Gov. Hailey Barbour – 1 percent
Other – 5 percent
Undecided – 6 percent

Ron Paul's Talk at CPAC 2010

http://www.ustream.tv/recorded/4850701

FOX News talking about Ron Paul's win
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tCjhfYIy7KA

Collectivism = Communism?

Off Topic

Debra:

Good idea. You can see for yourself why I gave you the warning.

thanks for your reply Debra..

I can understand where you are might be coming from..

i personally don't judge a candidate by how many media spots one has on TV or the radio or how much money they spend... I never buy anything based on what i see on TV or hear on the radio..... they might spark my interest but i go out to find more info on anything that has become more interesting..

I look at candidates record and i search info out both negative and positive(though other here would say otherwise).. I look to voting records(Meg doesn't have much in fact didn't vote much of her life) how well they honor their Oath of Office and how well they obey the pack of the State and Federal Constitutions..

I am a very strong Constitutionalists with strong libertarian leanings, I've lived somewhat an alternative lifestyle for much of my life I believe in individual rights of each and every human and i don't believe that people get their rights because they are part of some group, in what is known as collectivism.. I believe that we get rights rights as humans in general and the purpose of government is to protect those rights..

I believe in Equal rights for all, special privileges for none...

once again thanks for your reply..

wadada

Jared

Why is Meg Whitman is trying to buy my vote? By using her money to dominate the media. Right now it looks like she is the only candidate running. Level the playing field so that everyone has a fair chance to be heard. We should not have to vote for a candidate just because they have the most ads or the most money to spend.

Tristan

Thanks for the warning, but I learned the hard way not to go to links on public message boards or from people I don't know.

If Jared (or anyone) posts a link that is of interest it can easily be copied and checked to verify authenticity before clicking directly from this page. And I have NEVER had a problem looking further into information provided by Jared. My computer has not been infected as a result of clicking onto a link provided by Jared...

-m

And when i say Income tax i'm talking about personal income tax, not Corporate income taxes...

wadada

Off Topic:

Ron Paul, the New York Post once wrote, is a politician who "cannot be bought by special interests."

Lobbyist leave him alone because they know he can't be bought..

Which also hold true for the groups which T has talked about..

Jerry Brown has taken lobbyist money and has done their bidding..

Robert C.

As far a flat tax.. I support a flat tax of "0".

If you reduce the size of Government, Stop spending over a trillion dollars a year maintaining the US's empire around the world bring ALL of our troops home, Close all US military bases on foreign lands..

By doing such the trillion we spend a year, we could take $500 billion to reduce the federal deficit, use the other $500 Billion to prop up Social Security which has been looted by Congress..

Since our military would be back in the USA their military pay would stay in the USA and spent in the USA instead of in foreign countries as it is now, which would improve the economy of the USA for the money would be spent here in the USA instead of the other countries...

If there was NO income tax at all, families and people here in the USA would have more money in their pockets to spend into our economy or to save or to invest in business or start their own... Reduce the heavy regulations on small businesses thus allowing them to grow as opposed to stifling them.. ( i know of these being a small business owner.)

Cut ALL government programs which are not authorized by either the Federal Constitution or State Constitutions.. Reduce the power of the Federal Government by the federal government honoring the restriction and limitation on the federal government of the Ninth & Tenth Amendments to the US Constitution..

Stop ALL Foreign Aid until we fix the USA first..

Raise the tariffs on all items manufactured in foreign countries, cut ALL tax breaks on US Corporations who take their manufacturing outside of the USA...

These are just some of the things we as a nation could do which would keep jobs in the USA, improve the economy and the living standard of the American people..

wadada

Off Topic

Robert C.

You stated that Jerry Brown accepts money from unions and would be beholding to them. What do you think of an elected official who accepts money from extremist groups like neo-Nazi's and the KKK? This is a fact. Do you think this person would be beholding to those groups? Especially if they share a common ideology?

We may be on opposite sides of the political fence, buy I would guess you love this country as much as I do. But I don't support those who are in political bed with neo-Nazi's and other hate groups.

Off Topic

Robert C.

Jerry Brown did run for the office of president twice. 1976, the time I worked on his behalf and 1992. And he did run on a flat tax platform at a fixed rate of 13% in 1992. You don't have to believe me or do I expect you to. You can do your own research on Jerry Brown. He does have an official website where you can read what he's about yourself.

Jared, I did click on your links and I appreciate the information you shared. I may have to rethink my vote if Meg Whitman is against the Citizen Power Campaign and pro Van Jones (the marxist). Is she a progressive republican? Makes me wonder...I'll have to do some further research especially when Poizner's campaign submitted the article to Flashreport. In any case, I heard it said on the Glenn Beck show that Jerry Brown ran for president on a flat tax platform in 1992, what's your opinion on that? Again, thanks for the information.

Off Topic

Obsessive, you bet. I keep everything that has to do with your and your buddy's attacks on me.

Off Topic

Jim didn't click on the link did he? I'm sure he saw what it was to, but he still didn't trust it. Seems like proof enough for me that he didn't trust the link.

off Topic:

hmmm.... a bit obsessive keeping an archive of blogs post that even KTLA doesn't even archive itself..

wadada

Off Topic:
"Seems that Jim heeded my warning and most likly save himself a lot of problems."

Yeah wikipedia.org the free online Encyclopedia is a site that would have given Jim a lot of problems..

So i guess a link to wikipedia.org the free online Encyclopedia to Jim is one of those "unsubstantiated claims" you have made of it being a problem site with bad nasty code..

Even you use the Wikipedia site in quoting from it yourself so your claim that someone would get something nasty from it is truly an "unsubstantiated claim"...

:)

wadada

Off Topic

As for someone posting under my name. Someone has, and I wonder who?

From blog subject: Villaraigosa's vacations cost taxpayers

Good for you Paul! Keep up the good work!

Posted by: Tristan | November 22, 2009 at 10:49 AM

Since you and your buddy are the only ones here who has said I'm Paul, that makes it a 50/50 chance it's you. May I remind you:

Gloria = Dan B.

Tristan = Jim = Paul

Posted by: jared | February 13, 2010 at 07:08 PM

Off Topic

Posted by Jim on February 12, 2010 at 03:58 PM

"Jared,
I'm not clicking on any links first of all."

Seems that Jim heeded my warning and most likly save himself a lot of problems. I would hope Debra would do the same.

Off Topic

Who else on this thread is posting links you are warning of I'm the only one who has posted outside links on this thread?

Who was it that posted this, on this same thread i guess someone else is posting in your name...

Off Topic

To Jim:

Watch out for those strange links he posts. You may in up with something really nasty in your computer.

Posted by: Tristan | February 12, 2010 at 03:46 PM

And just because you didn't say "he" like you did in your post to Jim, we all know who you are referring to and the links you are talking about...

:)

wadada

Off Topic

Warning someone to be careful of clicking on strange links is not a TOS violation, it's sound advice. You got a problem with it take it up with Jeremy, the KTLA.COM Administrator.

Off TOpic:

Debra

Don't worry about any link that i post..

From the Terms of Service

• uploads or transmits viruses or other harmful, disruptive or destructive files, material or code.

WARNING: A VIOLATION OF THESE POSTING RULES MAY BE REFERRED TO LAW ENFORCEMENT AUTHORITIES.

If i have or had done such then T would have a field day for then there would be grounds to have me arrested..

But since this has never happened with any link that i have posted T violated the Terms of Service by making "false, misleading, fraudulent, inaccurate,... contains gross exaggeration or unsubstantiated claims which are violations of the Terms of Service...

There has not been any contact of Law Enforcement Authoritites with any link that i have posted or to myself for any posting i have made on the KTLA blogs..

It is just the rantings of someone who has many times told the peopleand publically of this blog how much he hates me..

But i still forgive him for his false witness and false claims of who i am personally...

wadada

Off topic:

T with another terms of serve vioation..

wadada

Off Topic

Debra,

Welcome aboard. The upcoming election will be a tough one and most likely a dirty one. California needs all the support it can to keep Meg Whitman from winning the governor's office. As I and others have stated, we support Jerry Brown. He's got the experience and knowledge to get this state back on track.

FYI: Beware of clicking on strange links from people here. You could end up with something really nasty in your computer.

Off Topic:

Debra, I not a big fan of Meg Whitman either but still question as to how she is trying to buy your vote..

Not everyone is happy with Meg Whitman..
And i'll post both side of the coin..

Meg Whitman Working Against Conservatives And Citizen Power Campaign

By Councilwoman Deborah Pauly

FlashReport

February 12, 2010

http://www.flashreport.org/featured-columns-library0b.php?faID=2010021207335259

Meg Whitman let it be known on Wednesday that she continues to oppose conservative activism at the ballot box and that she is snubbing the Citizen Power Campaign - an important effort to curb the influence of liberal special interests in Sacramento.

Why?

Well, first of all, because we all know that Meg Whitman is not a conservative and that she’s not a “huge fan” of our grassroots activism in the same way that she is a “huge fan” of Van Jones.

I’ve spoken with a lot of conservatives lately who believe that Whitman’s entire attitude toward the initiative process is extremely troubling. Despite the fact that conservative activism delivered important reforms like Proposition 13 and Proposition 209 through the initiative process, Meg Whitman thinks the initiative process has “worn out its usefulness.” Unfortunately for Ms. Whitman, most conservatives would argue that it’s indeed very useful to have an option for Californians to protect their wallets against the liberals in Sacramento.

On Wednesday, Whitman again continued to reinforce the anti-conservative trend in her campaign by snubbing the Citizen Power Campaign for her own selfish motives. Put simply - Meg Whitman is snubbing the Citizen Power Campaign because she doesn’t think it helps Meg Whitman.

The latest revelation came in Wednesday’s Sacramento Bee where it was leaked to the paper that:

“..those close to Meg Whitman, the front-running Republican candidate for governor, reportedly are discouraging supporters of the pension and union political money measures from proceeding, fearing that if they make the November ballot, they'll generate a big voter turnout drive by unions.”

That's an interesting argument considering that, to my understanding, the Citizen Power Campaign has always been about fighting the corrupt power of public employee unions in Sacramento. It's not about Meg Whitman.

Don’t get me wrong. Whitman has a right to work against implementing critical conservative reforms, just like she had the right to neglect to vote for most of her adult life; but she does not have the right to pretend to be a Republican while actively working against our conservative goals on such a key issue.

One thing is certainly clear: Meg Whitman believes that she alone is more important than our party, our principles, and our collective goals. So let our response be clear - the conservative movement always puts principle before self interest and will always value conservative reform before Meg Whitman’s brand of "politics as usual."

Learn more about the Citizen Power Campaign http://www.unplugthepoliticalmachine.org/

Jozielee, Dan, Tristan and Jim.

Good to know there are others here who share simerler views on Meg Whitman's run for governor. Thanks and take care.

it is always easier to spend other people's money...

And the money they are spending is our children and grandchildrens money..

In other word that are stealing the money from our children.. Where is the moral high ground that they would spend money from individuals who have no say or vote..

Taxation without Representation comes to mind...

"The principle of spending money to be paid by posterity, under the name of funding, is but swindling futurity on a large scale." --Thomas Jefferson

"We must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt.
We must make our election between economy and liberty
or profusion and servitude.
If we run into such debt, as that we must be taxed in our meat and
in our drink, in our necessaries and our comforts, in our labors and
our amusements, for our calling and our creeds...
[we will] have no time to think,
no means of calling our miss-managers to account
but be glad to obtain subsistence by hiring ourselves
to rivet their chains on the necks of our fellow-sufferers...
And this is the tendency of all human governments.
A departure from principle in one instance
becomes a precedent for [another ]...
till the bulk of society is reduced to be mere automatons of misery...
And the fore-horse of this frightful team is public debt.
Taxation follows that, and in its train wretchedness and oppression."
~ Thomas Jefferson

We've also seen what electing a president with no previous leadership experience can do to a Country in just little over a year's time nonetheless. And at least Whitman is spending her own money, whereas, the Dems in D.C. and Sacramento are spending OUR money.

Yet, another FACT that someone chooses to ignore...

Again, I'll keep repeating... we cannot spend what we do not have!!!

-m

Off Topic

Debra, you are right to be concerned about how much money Meg Whitman is spending. It is disgraceful. As Dan pointed out that money could have gone to help so many people here, for so many different causes. But that's the republican way, to spend whatever it takes to get in office and then close the door on the voters and put up the NO sign. We seen what electing someone with no experience at running a state has done. We can't afford to do that again, and with another republican. I'm glad you can see through her ads.

In what way is she buying your vote?

Has she given you money personally? Has she given any of your family members money personally?

A TV commercial is not buying votes, it is buying air time on TV...

Is it better that companies/corporations like Goldman Sachs can get all their employees to give tha max in campaign donations, so that when the bailouts come around they can get the majority of he bailout perks? See: http://www.opensecrets.org

Wall Street gave more money to the Obama campaign then any other candidate and who got the bailouts Wall Street, NOT main street..

wadada

I think it's disgraceful at the money Meg Whitman is spending for her election. There should be laws that limit the amount that you can totally spend on a campaign. I tell you what she can't buy with her money . . . my vote.

Say all you want against the person that I feel will help CA most, but come on now, say something FOR YOUR CHOICE not against the other. What I want is the best for CA and for me, my family and other middle class folks like me and in my opinion, it's Meg.

Also, why are you so concerned about the money Meg is spending on her campaign when most of it is hers? You should be more concerned about our state legislature who are foolishly spending OUR MONEY!

Here Here Mike!!...

We need to look to candidates who will honor the pack of the US Constitution and "We the People" when they honor their Oath of Offices...

I will say the majority of those in office don't even pay the Supremem law any honor to it when they flat out violate it.....

wadada

wadada

Robert C. -

Remember Robert, just want to point out that you are dealing with people here that think Jerry Brown Would be GOOD for California.... Governor "moonbeam?" And he only became the frontrunner for the Democrat party, even if heasn't officialy declared, because Pretty Boy Gavin "it's gonna happen whether you like it or not" Newsom chose to not run....

So yes Whitman may not be the perfect candidate, but look what's out there... And i'm pretty certain our California leadership is controlled by, uh, Democrats. BOTH parties have concerns and out-of-control spending is the biggest problem!

We need to quit looking at the "D" or "R" after names and start looking at credentials and track records. Californians, would be much better served if we steered away from party affiliations and started voting for the BEST candidate...

-m

Jozielee

I'm so with you on that one.

You have to wonder why she is the ONLY candidate trying to put so much money into her commercials. If she truly cares that much for CA, and for bringing it up, then donate that money to the State and help bring it out of debt, don't spend it on commercials.
Put a few thousand students through college for what you're spending on your commercials...that is if you "truly" care.
Show how much you "truly" care for the state. Put that money to healthcare that's draining this State. Put that money into the ADAP program or the Ryan White Fund to buy extremely expensive drugs for those fighting HIV/AIDS.
The money she has spent so far on commercials when no one else has, she could have supplied a lifetime of Atripla or other combination therapy, life saving HIV drugs to those who have no health insurance, no drug coverage and are trying to just get by on a daily basis.

Robert C. you say "she is not beholding to the unions"....every politician that wants to get and is elected is "beholding to the unions"...otherwise they just don't get the votes.

Look, Robert C, you can stand on that soap box all you want, but Meg Whitman's commercials are damn annoying. I won't vote for her because I'm suspect of all the money she's pouring into her campaign. Give us a break. We can think for ourselves and investigate and learn. We don't need to be slammed into a wall, then hit over the head. She really needs to take a chill. Doubt if I'm the only person thinking this way about her ads.

Off Topic

Meg Whitman would be the worst thing to happen to this State since the last earthquake. She only for big business, not the little people. That's why she's a Republican, if she was for the little people she would be a Democrat. We have seen what a Republicna can do to this state with Arnold. I'm with the others here, I support Jerry Brown. He's the only hope we have.

Robert C. I think you would find more support for Meg at the FOX blogs. There seems to be more Republicans there.

It seems that those of you who oppose Meg Whitman will try to tear her down but never say specifically how your choice will make CA better. Most of you supported Gavin Newsome when it looked like he was going to run, but he knew and so did we that how he ran San Francisco into near bankruptcy will never fly with the voters. Tell us specifically how your man, the professional politician, will be different and what experience does he have that will create jobs and income without increasing our taxes. I don't think you can because all his ideas are the same as the majorities in the state legislature and the federal congress. They are beholding to the unions and they always oppose any ideas that affect their power. When they back Jerry Brown for governor his "nuts" will be in their clinched fists and when they say jump, Jerry Brown won't hesitiate!

Meg Whitman is not beholding to the unions. She has business acumen. If she is a bully, GOOD! She can bully the legislature to balance the budget and she won't back down to the unions. Arnold started right but when he lost the five propositions, he became a "girley-man". Let's get Meg in there to stand up for what is right and balance the budget!

Sorry Meg Whitman is not "new blood in CA Government" - she's actually more of the same that we've had for the last 6 or 7 years of Lying Arnie. She would be so detrimental for CA it's not funny. Jerry Brown has proven himself and would be the only one to bring this state back to what it once was.

Off topic

Jim:

I say let Jerry Brown's record as governor for eight years speak for itself. The state under his leadership was not in the shape it is now. That was the work of others, namely republicans. If anyone can turn this state around it's Jerry Brown. He knows the job and what needs to be done. There will be no learning curve.

Remember Meg Whitman comes from that same corporate mentally and greed that put this country in the skids and force the tax payers to bail them out. California can't afford another republican running the state.

Robert C. I think there's more fear in the people of CA and it most likely could turn out like New York who has always had a Republican in their district and people voted in a Dem.
That would most likely happen here in CA. Arnie saw to that becoming a reality. Arnie proved that a Republican who says "they can turn the state around" won't be able to.
And Meg's Bullying against Poizner is very prominent amongst people. Meg won't be able to breeze by like Palin or Bachmann on her looks.
The majority of people in CA don't want her, and we'll fight to the end to make sure she doesn't succeed in CA.

California's spending is unsustainable and all who read this blog know it. California's problems will not go away until it balances its budget and that means spending less and earning more. Earning more doesn't mean taxing everyone to fill the treasury but attracting businesses that will put more people to work so that they become profitable and pay more taxes in the long run. Meg Whitman has this business sense and knows what business need to be competitive and profitable in California. Whether she spends her own money or bullies her way over Poizner are deflections from the real issue. Meg Whitman has the background that CA needs for governor.

The California Teacher's Union and the California State Employees Association (SEIU) are already gearing up to spend their way to back Jerry Brown. This is worse than Meg Whitman spending her own money for her campaign because she won't be beholding to these unions. Jerry Brown will be - just like President Obama is. These unions have successfully spent their way to have any propositions defeated which may have limited their power and are a big part of why the CA budget is failing. If Jerry Brown is elected will he turn against them? I pretty sure he won't. He'll probably give them a sweetheart deal like President Obama is trying to do for SEIU with healthcare in which they (SEIU and other labor unions) don't have to pay extra on their healthcare and everyone else basically pays for them..and Nebraska..and Louisiana.

There is fear in the air because of what happened in Virginia, New Jersey, and Massachusetts. Most people have common sense and what they see in Washington DC is a reflection of CA. President Obama has steadfastly stated during his campaign and first year as president that those making under $250K will not see their taxes go up and now what is he stating? He is "agnostic'. The President also stated that if you liked your doctor, you can keep him. What is he saying now? Someone slipped a line in the bill that prevented that and he "would have to look into it".

We need new blood in California's government and it is Meg!

Jared,
I'm not clicking on any links first of all. It was a very serious, sincere, question that only requires a YES or NO. Doesn't need a link or explanation.

You either do or you don't. No big deal though if you don't want to answer it. I guess it just shows how much "faith" you put in your belief.

Oh well.

Off Topic

To Jim:

Watch out for those strange links he posts. You may in up with something really nasty in your computer.

And Jim

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rastafari_movement

wadada

i'm just sayin'

No crying here... Just standing my ground...

wadada

Hey Tristan,

Why don't you cut Jared some slack, he sounds like he's about to cry.

Jim, Rastafarianism is about smoking pot and believing in a God named Jah.

Jared says: "Once again My Master Is Jah Rastafari quit lying about me!!!"

So am I to understand you don't believe in God, Jesus or the 10 Commandments?

Dan -

Thanks for your comment... I would like to add that although we may disagree on 1 or 2 major issues (ya think? lol) We actually do agree on more issues than you think... btw I didn't vote for "Ah-nauld" either!

-m

Off Topic

The only lies about you are the ones you have said yourself of which there are many.