Espinosa Chepe vota por Obama

el ejercicio democratico que tiene entre sus momentos cruciales la eleccion de la persona que encabezara la gestion de un pais durante el periodo prescripto por la ley, permite constatar las visiones politicas de las personas en la seleccion de sus preferencias.
oscar manuel espinosa chepe [nov 29, 1940] es un decidido partidario de barack hussein obama segun expone en sus razones en Cuba Encuentro >>. cierto es que a chepe quien actua como un lobo solitario lo acompana una buena representacion de nuestra disidencia kubiche. 

espinosa chepe escribe en su resena autobiografia[1] que fue asesor economico de fidel castro [1965-1968] y mas tarde labora durante 14 anos [1970-1984] en el servicio exterior en las embajadas cubanas en checoslovaquia, yugoslavia y hungria como encargo de negocios. cumplidas sus misiones trabaja en las oficinas centrales del banco nacional de cuba [1985-1996] como director de comercio interior y turismo  hasta 1992 donde es "demovido" a especialista por los "comentarios" realizados a sus companeros de trabajo. en 1996 es separado definitivamente del banco. 
poco despues su esposa miriam leiva[2] una poliglota que habia ocupado altas responsabilidades en el ministerio de relaciones exteriores es tambien separada de su trabajo. leiva viamonte quien fuera una de las fundadoras del movimiento de las damas de blanco en el 2003, lo abandona publicamente en marzo del 2008.

  Miriam Leiva from Tracey Eaton on Vimeo.

espinosa chepe es arrestado el 19 de marzo del 2003 durante la razzia contra el movimiento disidente y opositor conocida como la primavera negra. es sentenciado a 20 anos de privacion de libertad en abril del propio ano.  luego de 19 meses encarcelado, es uno de los primeros prisioneros de conciencia liberados con licencia extrapenal por razones de salud  justo el dia que cumplia 64 anos. espinosa quien fuera diagnosticado con cirrosis hepatica por su sobrina la dra. ileana prieto espinosa en una breve visita a la carcel, rechazo los examenes medicos propuestos por los medicos aduciendo razones de insalubridad.

----------------------------------
[1]  Case Information: Oscar Manual Espinosa Chepe
[2]  SINTESIS BIOGRAFICA MIRIAM LEIVA

Representante Mario Diaz Balart sobre las elecciones

Maria Elvira Salazar

Rev. Al Sharpton plans 'poll-watching brigades'

WND/ (CNSNews.com) – The Rev. Al Sharpton said his National Action Network would be involved in “poll watching brigades” in Tennessee to prevent any voter suppression or intimidation.

“One of the things that we announced today is that we are starting brigades here in Tennessee, voting poll watching brigades,” Sharpton said Friday.In a very close presidential race, questions have been raised about voting integrity.

Republicans, who have supported voter ID laws, fear that ineligible voters will cast ballots, pointing out that dead voters are listed on the rolls, while some living voters’ addresses are not updated to reflect the precinct they currently live. Democrats counter that such laws could suppress voter turnout.

Read the full story >>

It's possible to pospone election, but not likely

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Obama accepts 'Osama bin Laden' donations

WND/ Aaron Klein

WASHINGTON – Using a Pakistani Internet Protocol and proxy server, a disposable credit card and a fake address, “Osama bin Laden” has successfully donated twice to Barack Obama’s presidential re-election campaign.

The “Bin Laden” donations, actually made by WND staff, included a listed occupation of “deceased terror chief” and a stated employer of “al-Qaida.”

“Bin Laden” is currently set up on the official campaign website to contribute more to Obama’s campaign. The name is also registered as a volunteer.

Since the “foreign” contribution was sent, “Bin Laden’s” email address has received several solicitations from Obama’s campaign asking for more donations.

The apparently foreign-based contributions were conducted as a test after a flurry of media reports described the ability of foreigners to donate to the Obama campaign but not to Mitt Romney’s site, which has placed safeguards against such efforts.

The acceptance of foreign contributions is strictly illegal under U.S. campaign finance law.

One $15 donation was made at BarackObama.com using a confirmed Pakistani IP address and proxy server. In other words, as far as the campaign website was concerned, the donation was openly identified electronically as coming from Pakistan.

Upon clicking the “donate” button, WND staff selected the $15 amount and were taken to a page on the campaign website asking for a first and last name, city, state, zip code, email address and phone number.

The information submitted was: “Osama bin Laden, 911 Jihad Way, Abbottabad, CA 91101.”

While the website only has options for U.S. states and zip codes, there is no mechanism in place on Obama’s website to verify the individual is actually located in that state or zip code, or even in the U.S.

The Obama campaign refuses to release the identification of donors who give less than $200

In the case of this donation, the 91101 zip code is real but corresponds to Pasadena, Calif., and not Abbottabad, the Pakistani city in which bin Laden was found holed up in a compound.

For a requested phone number, WND inputted the White House information line of (202) 456-2121.

The email address used to set up the donation account was osama4obama2012@gmail.com.

After clicking “next,” the website asked for an employer, occupation and a password to set up future donations. WND staff entered the occupation as “deceased terror chief” and the employer as “al-Qaida.”

The transaction was made last Friday with the use of a disposable credit card. The website did not require the card’s security code.

Would Obama Incite Civil Unrest to Win?

By Daren Jonescu 

Is President Obama willing to incite civil unrest to win re-election?  As we have all been encouraged to wear our dog-whistle decoders these days, one can hardly be blamed for wondering.  Worse yet, we know the answer.  He is already doing it.

Please bear with me, as this topic requires considerable delicacy.

According to Rolling Stone, Barack Obama has now called Mitt Romney “a bull*******,” on the record.  His anger at the challenger was palpable — that is, carefully staged — during each of the last two presidential debates.  And he has made a central theme of his campaign the warning that a Romney presidency would erase all of the “equality” victories of the 1960s and ’70s.

Consider these typical words from his October 25 rally in Las Vegas:

You can choose to turn the clock back 50 years for women and immigrants and gays.  Or in this election you can stand up for the principle that America includes everybody. We’re all created equal — black, white, Hispanic, Asian, Native American, gay, straight, abled, disabled — no matter who you are, no matter what you look like, no matter where you come from or who you love, in America you can make it if you try.

This, to restate, is his message down the stretch: before the revolutionary uprisings of the 1960s, America only "included" white men.  Romney is a white man who wants to return to that time.  So if you are a woman, an immigrant, gay, black, Hispanic, Asian, Native American, or disabled, then you should not merely oppose Romney as a candidate who does not represent your interests; rather, you should fear him, as a man who wishes to eliminate you from the American portrait.

If Romney wins, and you are not an "abled" white male, America will no longer "include" you, according to Obama.  In less than two weeks, you are going to be reduced to second-class citizenship, your fortunes cast back to the bad old days of 1962, before radical feminism, the Nation of Islam, gay rights, the Black Panthers, free love, flag-burning, the "drug culture" -- and of course, before the days of America's first "gay," black, America-hating, drug-damaged, contraceptive-dispensing, progressive feminist Islamic-Christian president.

And now, after scowling at him through two debates, after his vice-president spent ninety minutes calling Paul Ryan a liar, and in the context of all this fear-mongering about the threat of a return to White Male America, Obama has branded his opponent a "bull*****er."

From Lyndon Johnson or Harry Truman, this kind of remark might have been regarded as innocuous, albeit unpresidential.  From Obama, the Harvard genius with the well-creased pant leg, the bestselling author and master of political oration, it is an expression of bitter rage and supreme disdain.  And in an era when representatives of Obama's base are flooding Twitter with threats to assassinate his opponent, such heated rhetoric could be dangerous.

Anyone who wonders whether perhaps Obama just does not want to be president anymore should think again.  He wants to be president.  What he does not want is to have to exert so much effort to retain the presidency.  What he does not want is what Hugo Chávez does not want, what Vladimir Putin does not want, what Mahmoud Ahmadinejad does not want: a fair fight, an unobstructed challenger, an unintimidated electorate. 

It was so easy in the past.  Swept along on a wave of adulation and enthusiasm, protected by leftist media and academia, and helped out when necessary by an Axelrod-arranged scandal or two, Obama has barely had to lift a finger to gain political office and to climb the ladder.  Authoritarians do not understand why one should have to do so.

So he is angry.  And this anger has become central to his campaign strategy.  The fear he is seeking to inculcate among his base has an even uglier flip-side.  The Obama campaign is attempting to cast Romney and his supporters not as people with the wrong ideas, but as The Enemy.  In this circumstance, fear can easily give way to extreme outrage -- and perhaps to violence and intimidation.  This is particularly true when the target audience of this fear-inducing invective is ignorant, emotion-driven, and dominated in its thinking by entitlement greed, rather than by considerations of right and wrong.  Consider Sandra Fluke, Snoop Dogg, Occupy Wall Street, and student leftists (see examples).

When Harry Truman's daughter, a singer, was panned by critic Paul Hume, the sitting president wrote a letter threatening to bust Hume's nose if they ever met.  In 1950, however, none of Truman's supporters would have been inclined to do the dirty work for him, or even to take the whole thing seriously.  Needless to say, Obama's supporters are quite different from Truman's. 

Could Obama really be reduced to attempting to win re-election through mob protests and intimidation -- i.e., through a climate of fear?

More on www.americanthinker.com >>

Obama's frustration evident in recent interviews?

Experts: Hackers CAN [WILL?] crack election systems

WND/ Steve Elwart

The result of an election will be changed by hackers, the only question remaining for an online security expert is which election will it be.

“I’m somewhat surprised it hasn’t happened yet,” said Stephen Cobb, a security evangelist for ESET-North America, an IT security company, in a recent article in Dark Reading.

With the U.S. presidential election turning into a dead heat, every vote is going to count, but if some hackers had their way, your vote won’t matter.

Hacktivist groups like Anonymous and LulzSec are growing more sophisticated every day with their use of new collaborative hacking techniques, such as “crowdsourcing.” Meanwhile, voter databases are increasingly being put online on state and local computer systems that are often insecure and administered by part-time IT personnel.

“If big, Internet-based companies like Yahoo, LinkedIn, or Sony can fall to hackers, then, yeah, big government databases and local authorities who actually administer the election process can be hacked,” said Cobb.

While the voter databases carry mostly innocuous information, such as name and address, a hacktivist group could create havoc in an election if they were to make changes to that database.

A hacker could, for example, switch the addresses of people on a voting roll, putting them in a different precinct than where they actually live. An error like this could be done close to the election and could very well not be noticed until the day of the election. By then it would be too late. That person would be ineligible to vote that day.

Combining a voting database with other database information, such as those collected by supermarkets, coupon offers, and consumer polling data, hackers could target an area for disenfranchisement by simply looking at the demographic breakdown of a voting precinct.

In a close race, as this presidential contest is shaping up to be, shifting the election turnout in a few precincts in a swing state (i.e. Ohio) could change the outcome of an entire election. One only needs to look at the 2000 election results in Florida to see how the voting results in one or two precincts would have given the country President Gore.

In the 2008 senatorial race in Minnesota, Al Franken won by 312 votes, the equivalent of one precinct. Tampering with just one machine could have changed the outcome of the election.

Such a scenario is not fanciful. States like Washington and Maryland putting voter registration data online make the threat all too real.

“Any system that is networked, especially to the Internet, is inherently vulnerable to attacks on its availability, and the confidentiality and integrity of its data,” says Steve Santorelli, director of global outreach for the security research group Team Cymru.

According to Dr. Hugh Thompson, program committee chairman for RSA Conference, one of the biggest dangers of voting-related cybercrime is its undermining of voter confidence.

“Interestingly, the wrong person winning is not the worst thing that can happen,” he says. “The real worst case is a hacker proving that the vote was compromised and ultimately undermining the entire voting process.”

Many political observers are already saying that this election could be even more contentious than the 2000 contest without the added complexity of electronic voter fraud. The new reality is that a candidate may not have to just win an election, but to win it convincingly enough to avoid a challenge in court.

If a hacktivist group were to prove that their activities changed the outcome of the presidential election, it could throw the legitimacy of the outcome of all levels of election results into question.  More on WND.com. >>

FBI investigates voter fraud in key states

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Veterans React to Being Targeted by Feds if Pre-Election Riots Breakout

TheAlexJonesChannel

Referred to only as "Soldier X" under promise of anonymity, an Army National Guardsman spoke via phone with Infowars Nightly News Producer Rob Dew regarding a recent briefing his unit underwent on actions the military would take in the event that an Obama election loss sparked rioting in America's streets.

Citing not only recent widespread threats to riot if Mitt Romney were to become the next U.S. president, but threats to actually assassinate him should he win, Soldier X's superiors dispensed plans of how the National Guard would be responsible for "taking over" and quelling such unrest.

The soldiers were reportedly told "Doomsday preppers will be treated as terrorists."

In addition, guns will be confiscated.

"They have a list compiled of all these doomsday preppers that have gone public and they plan to go after them first," Soldier X said. He claimed those in charge are acting under the belief that preppers will be "the worst part" of any potential civil unrest.

Soldier X was also told that any soldiers in the ranks who are known as preppers will be deemed "defects." He explained the label meant these soldiers would be treated as traitors. "If you don't conform, they will get rid of you," he added.

Unit members also warned not to associate with any fellow soldiers who are preppers.

Not only does the military reportedly plan to target preppers should mass chaos break out, but Soldier X also voiced his concerns regarding civilian gun confiscation.

Soldier X admitted, "Our worry is that Obama's gonna do what he said he's gonna do and he's gonna outlaw all weapons altogether and anybody's name who is on a weapon, they're gonna come to your house and try to take them."

Feds probe letters warning Florida voters they're not eligible to vote

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Read >>

Video snags Dem boss plotting vote fraud

Read >>

Unanswered questions from the debate

Security Clearance

By CNN's National Security Unit/ Morgan Hitzig

The final debate of the presidential election was notable for all the areas of foreign policy on which the two candidates seemed to agree. But in their answers were plenty of unanswered questions about how they would handle key foreign policy issues going forward.

Where do things stand on Iran?

It was hard to see concrete differences between the candidates Monday on when it will be necessary to use military force against Iran's nuclear program - the so-called "red line."

Both President Barack Obama and Mitt Romney sought to portray themselves as tough on Iran and as having Israel's back. Both suggested they would be willing to use military power if necessary to stop Iran from getting a nuclear weapon. But neither was exactly clear about what point at which they would act to prevent that from happening.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has said the red line should be preventing Iran's "breakout capacity," meaning the point at which Iran has enough uranium enrichment for a nuclear weapon and the technology and know-how to fit a nuclear warhead on a delivery system, such as a long-range missile.

During the debate, Obama repeated his campaign pledge merely to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear bomb.

"As long as I'm president of the United States, Iran will not get a nuclear weapon," Obama said Monday night.

Until now, the Obama administration has suggested its red line was a strategic decision by the Iranian regime to build a nuclear weapon and the move to build one. That position has caused tension with Netanyahu, who feels Obama has not sent clear enough warnings to Tehran.

But on Monday, the president injected some new language into his refrain, saying American intelligence cooperation with Israel and other countries would give Washington "a sense of when (Iran) would get breakout capacity."

"Which means we would not be able to intervene in time to stop their nuclear program," Obama said.

So did the president move up the benchmark up during Monday's debate? He never did finish the thought and say either what he meant by breakout or whether he would stop it.

An administration official said Tuesday that the president's red line has not changed.

"We will prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon, the official said. The president's point "is that because of intelligence capabilities and IAEA efforts, we have a sense of their timeline."

Romney's position has been closer to Netanyahu, saying he would stop Iran from having break-out capacity. On Monday, he split the difference, moving closer to Obama's position.

Failing to raise the ambiguous question of the red line, Romney threatened military action if Iran developed "nuclear-weapons capability."

But it's far from clear what Romney means here: Enough uranium to build a weapon - which could take a matter of a few months –or the means to quickly assembly and deploy a nuclear warhead atop a missile? Earlier this year, U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said it would take two to three years for Iran to produce a bomb and have a deliverable weapon on a missile.

The vagueness with which both candidates answered the question of when to take out Iran's nuclear program left more questions than answers.
– By Elise Labott

What's the plan to deal with Syria?

The debate focused for a few minutes on the plan for Syria. But the difference between the two candidates was negligible at best. The real question is does either have a true plan for stopping the violence by the regime of Bashar al-Assad?

Obama laid out his plan, which for the moment involves aiding the opposition but not intervening directly.

"We are going to do everything we can to make sure that we are helping the opposition," the president said. "But we also have to recognize that, you know, for us to get more entangled militarily in Syria is a serious step, and we have to do so making absolutely certain that we know who we are helping; that we're not putting arms in the hands of folks who eventually could turn them against us or allies in the region."

Romney, for his part, seemed to have the same plan.

"The right course for us, is working through our partners and with our own resources, to identify responsible parties within Syria, organize them, bring them together in a - in a form of - if not government, a form of - of - of council that can take the lead in Syria. And then make sure they have the arms necessary to defend themselves," Romney explained. "We do need to make sure that they don't have arms that get into the - the wrong hands."

Romney insisted "I don't want to have our military involved in Syria. I don't think there is a necessity to put our military in Syria at this stage."

Obama was quick to point out the similarities.

"What you just heard Gov. Romney said is he doesn't have different ideas. And that's because we're doing exactly what we should be doing to try to promote a moderate Syrian leadership and a - an effective transition so that we get Assad out. That's the kind of leadership we've shown. That's the kind of leadership we'll continue to show."

For now, the most meaningful difference between the two has been on what arms to give Syrian rebels. Romney has called for supplying arms that could defend against al-Assad tanks and aircraft.

"In Syria, I'll work with our partners to identify and organize those members of the opposition who share our values and then ensure they obtain the arms they need to defeat Assad's tanks helicopters and fighter jets," Romney said in a speech earlier this month.

The Obama administration has been reluctant for even allies in the region to provide such heavy firepower for fear of who would end up with the weapons.
– By Adam Levine

What's their approach to the unraveling of the Arab Spring?

For both candidates, the Arab Spring and the forces it unleashed on the streets of the Middle East and North Africa bear close watching in the days, weeks and months ahead, they said. But for the president especially, questions remain over the administration's initial approach as well as the uncertain future of the movement.

On Tunisia, where cries for political reform from protesters in the region began, Obama said "my administration stood with them earlier than just about any country."

But did the administration show its full-fledged support for the protesters as early as Obama asserted?

After a fruit vendor set himself on fire to protest the corruption of longtime dictator President Zine al-Abidine Ben Ali in December 2011, it was Secretary of State Hillary Clinton who told Al-Arabiya that "we are not taking sides" in the protests that had been going on for almost a month at that point. Clinton added the United States hoped for a "peaceful resolution," and "I hope the Tunisian government can bring that about."

It was not until a few days later when Ben Ali had fled Tunisia for an exile in Saudi Arabia that Obama issued a statement applauding "the courage and dignity of the Tunisian people."

The abuses and excesses of the Ben Ali family did not go unrecognized by the administration however. In leaked diplomatic cables made public by WikiLeaks, the U.S. ambassador warned of widespread corruption in the North African country.

"By many measures, Tunisia should be a close US ally. But it is not," U.S. Ambassador Robert Godec wrote. "The problem is clear. Tunisia has been ruled by the same president for 22 years."

In a similar vein, Obama said Monday that in Egypt, the United States "stood on the side of democracy" in the uprising that eventually overthrew longtime dictator President Hosni Mubarak.

As the protests began in Cairo's Tahrir Square on January 25, and in the days immediately following, the Obama administration did not immediately call for Mubarak's stepping down from power.

In an interview with CNN on January 30, Clinton said the United States stood on the side of a "democratic Egypt that provides both political and economic rights to its people" but stopped short of calling for Mubarak to leave power.

And in a phone conversation with Mubarak on February 1, Obama spoke about an "orderly transition" in Egypt, according to a White House read out of the call, but did not call for Mubarak to step aside - the mantra of a majority of the protesters in Tahrir Square at that point.

Ten days later, following a televised address in which Mubarak announced he would delegate some of his powers but not step down until later in the year, Obama issued a statement calling on the Egyptian government to "spell out in clear and unambiguous language the step-by-step process that will lead to democracy and the representative government that the Egyptian people seek."

While there was no call for Mubarak to step down in that statement, the longtime Egyptian president did so the next day.

But the path forward for the U.S. role in the region, especially Egypt, remains unclear. Both candidates recognize the U.S. must work with Egypt's new government and help develop an economy. But how to do that, while ensuring the country does not trample the democratic rights of women and minorities, is unclear.

In the debate, Obama cited U.S. efforts to organize entrepreneurship conferences to better assist Egyptians with "rebuilding their economy in a way that's noncorrupt, that's transparent." But just after he said that, Obama said for America to be "successful in this region, there are some things that we're going to have to do here at home as well."

After more than a decade at war, Obama said it was time for the United States to look inward and further develop its own economy. "It's very hard for us to project leadership around the world when we're not doing what we need to do here," he said.

For his part, Romney sounded a similar theme as to the future of U.S. engagement with these young democracies.

"But for us to be able to promote those principles of peace requires us to be strong, and that begins with a strong economy here at home," Romney said. "And unfortunately, the economy is not stronger."
– By Jamie Crawford

What do they say about the fiscal cliff?

Defense spending continues to be a major point of contention between Obama and Romney. But the president left many wondering if he knew something nobody else did when he flatly declared during the debate that further cuts "will not happen."

The cuts, an additional $500 billion over 10 years, will go into effect if a deficit deal cannot be reached. But that's still a matter of negotiation with Congress. Romney has tried to say that sequestration, which is what the further cuts are called, is an Obama plan. The president rightly points out that it is something that Congress agreed to as a way to force them into making difficult decisions.

"First of all, the sequester is not something that I've proposed. It is something that Congress has proposed. It will not happen," Obama said during the debate.

That was surprising in its certainty. Republican's pounced. The chairman of the House Armed Services Committee e-mailed out a statement questioning Obama's involvement in trying to head off sequestration.

"It is a nice line, but for more than a year, the president hasn't lifted a finger to avert the crisis," said the statement from U.S. Rep. Buck McKeon, R-California. "The president and his party in the Senate have failed to offer even a single real solution that could resolve sequestration. If the president is determined that these cuts won't happen, why has he drug it out this long?"

Obama campaign adviser David Axelrod tried to explain it when Jessica Yellin, CNN's chief White House correspondent, interviewed him after the debate.

"Well, he can be sure because when the people vote on November 6 and the president is re-elected, a strong message will be sent - sent that the American people want a balanced approach to solving this problem," Axelrod said. "There are plenty of people on both sides who want to get that done."

White House senior adviser David Plouffe told Politico that the president was merely reflecting the reality that the cuts are something everyone wants to avoid.

"Listen, you talk to Republicans and Democrats on Capitol Hill. No one thinks it should happen. It was designed so what the parties have to do," Plouffe told Politico.
– By Adam Levine

Why was Romney agreeing to agree so often?

Perhaps one of the most surprising aspects of the third and final debate was Romney's willingness to agree with the president on variety of topics, further closing the foreign policy gap between the two candidates and making it more difficult to discern any true difference. Throughout the debate, Romney agreed to agree with Obama.

But Romney did have some more nuanced positions in areas where he appeared to overall agree with the president.

On Iraq, Romney said his desire to maintain a troop presence after the U.S. withdrawal was no different than the president's failed efforts to negotiate an agreement with the Iraq government to leave 3,000 to 5,000 troops in country. However, Romney supported having 10,000 troops stay in Iraq after the withdrawal.

On Egypt, Romney supported the president's decision to stand with the pro-democracy protesters and against then-President Hosni Mubarak. However, Romney said he wished Obama had had a better vision for the region before the Arab Spring ignited.

"I wish that, looking back at the beginning of the president's term and even further back than that, that we'd have recognized that there was a growing energy and passion for freedom in that part of the world," said Romney, "and that we would have worked more aggressively with our friend and with other friends in the region to have them make the transition towards a more representative form government such that it didn't explode in the way that it did."

On Israel, Romney and Obama expressed strong support for the Jewish state. However, Romney took a more strident tone in response to Bob Schieffer's question: Would either of you be willing to declare that an attack on Israel is an attack on the United States?

Whereas Obama replied the U.S. would "stand with Israel," Romney replied, "if Israel is attacked, we have their back, not just diplomatically, not just culturally, but militarily. That's number one."

On Pakistan, Romney contended the strained relationship between the United States and Pakistan was a necessary evil when it came to finding Osama bin Laden, but he noted "there was a great deal of anger even before that." Romney said the presence of terrorist groups such as the Haqqani network and the Taliban in Pakistan as well as the stockpile of nuclear weapons there means "we can't just walk away from Pakistan." But he said the more than $1 billion in aid the U.S. gives Pakistan "is going to have to be conditioned upon certain benchmarks being met."

On drones, Romney asserted his support for the president's increased use of armed unmanned aircraft to kill terrorists. However, the governor used the question on drones to continue his attack on the president's strategy in the region, citing tensions with Iran, al Qaeda's resurgent and growing presence and continued unrest in the Middle East and North Africa.

"Let me also note that, as I said earlier, we're going to have to do more than just going after leaders and ... and killing bad guys, important as that is," said Romney. "We're also going to have to have a far more effective and comprehensive strategy to help move the world away from terror and Islamic extremism."

What was with Obama's face during debate?

If you saw last night's final presidential debate or highlights of it, you probably noticed this strange look on Barack Obama's face.

WND/ Joe Kovacs

PALM BEACH, Fla. – Barack Obama is being criticized for sporting a “vicious” Obamastare during last night’s debate with Mitt Romney, making the president lose his aura of likability.

“That was a slam-dunk observation,” radio host Rush Limbaugh said this afternoon. “Just the split screen. Just Obama’s stare.”

“There was a point in this debate where Obama was staring Romney down viciously – you could see it on the split screen – and it did not distract Romney … at all. He was jumping in Obama’s chili at the time and it didn’t stop him, this attempt to intimidate. It didn’t work at all.”

U.S. historian Dr. Tim Stanley agrees about the facial expressions, writing in Britain’s Telegraph, “The president insulted, patronized and mocked his opponent rather than put across a constructive argument. His performance was rude and unpresidential. Obama seemed to have a touch of the Bidens, wriggling about in his chair, waving his hands dismissively and always – always – smirking in Romney’s direction. By contrast, Romney sucked up the abuse and retained a rigid poker face all night. He looked like a commander in chief; Obama looked like a lawyer.”

One of the most talked-about exchanges from the foreign-policy debate at Lynn University in Boca Raton, Fla., was when the Republican Romney lamented the shrinking numbers of ships in the U.S. Navy.

Obama responded, “We also have fewer horses and bayonets.”

“We have these things called aircraft carriers, where planes land on them,” Obama cheekily told Romney. “We have these ships that go underwater, nuclear submarines.”

“I don’t know what you call it when you have a community organizer explaining to Mitt Romney how aircraft carriers work,” Limbaugh noted. “I guarantee you the Drive-By Media was cringing over those things.” 

Mitt Romney and President Barack Obama take part in the final presidential debate of the 2012 campaign at Lynn University in Boca Raton, Fla.

“Remember, you have to judge Obama in context of 2008, not the first debate, not the second debate, not just this campaign,” Limbaugh explained. “You gotta go back to who he was in 2008, and he was Mr. Messiah. He was unlike anything this country had ever seen and it was all positive. He was magic. He was gonna bring everybody together. The old politics was going to be vanishing. Race relations were going to heal. Post-partisan days were ahead. The world was going to love us.

“People made of Obama whatever they wanted, and those that made positive vibes of him created this incredible creature, this caricature of Mr. Perfect. And chief among the things that he always had going for him was that he was likable. In addition to being the first black president, he was a likable first black president. He always had that to fall back on. He always had that to rely on, but last night he wasn’t likable.

“This whole debate season, Barack Obama, without aid of a teleprompter and without – other than one instance of assistance offered by Candy Crowley [in the second debate] – he was without media help. Without his usual safeguards and comfort zones, Obama eroded all of the positives that have built up about him. He did it himself. You take his prompter away, you take his supportive media away, you take a protective cocoon of supporters and strategists away from him and put him out there all on his own, and the real Obama surfaces. And that’s why the media today can’t proclaim him the winner. He wasn’t likable. They can’t sell, not with any credibility, they can’t sell the Obama they saw last night.”

Here’s What to Expect From Obama, Romney During the 2-Week Sprint to Election Day

Billy Hallowell

BOCA RATON, Fla. (TheBlaze/AP) — Their debates now history, President Barack Obama and Republican Mitt Romney on Tuesday open a two-week sprint to Election Day powered by adrenaline, a boatload of campaign cash and a determination to reach Nov. 6 with no would-have, should-have regrets in their neck-and-neck fight to the finish.

From here, the candidates will vastly accelerate their travel, ad spending and grass-roots mobilizing in a race that’s likely to cost upward of $2 billion by the time it all ends.

All the focus now is on locking down support in the nine states whose electoral votes are still considered up for grabs: Colorado, Iowa, Florida, New Hampshire, Nevada, North Carolina, Ohio, Wisconsin and Virginia. No surprise then, that Obama campaigns Tuesday in Florida and Ohio while Romney heads West to Nevada and Colorado.

AFP/Getty Images

Neither candidate scored a knockout punch in their third and last debate Monday. Romney reined in the confrontational sniping that had marked the candidates’ last testy encounter, while Obama remaining somewhat contentious in his tone. And though the stated topic this time was foreign policy, both kept circling back to their plans for strengthening the fragile U.S. economy — Job 1 to American voters.

Closing out their trio of debates, Obama concisely summed up this pivot point in Campaign 2012: “You’ve now heard three debates, months of campaigning and way too many TV commercials. And now you’ve got a choice.”

The president framed it as a choice between his own record of “real progress” and the “wrong and reckless” ideas of Romney.

Romney countered by sketching “two different paths” offered by the candidates, one of decline under Obama and one of brighter promise from himself.

“I know what it takes to get this country back,” he pledged.

With polls showing the race remains incredibly tight, first lady Michelle Obama made a prediction before the candidates left Florida that neither side would dispute: “This election will be closer than the last one — that’s the only guarantee.”

Obama made it look easy in 2008: He won 365 electoral votes to 173 for Republican John McCain. And he got 53 percent of the popular vote, to 46 percent for McCain.

With 270 electoral votes needed for victory, Obama at this point appears on track to win 237 while Romney appears to have 191. The other 110 are in the hotly contested battleground states.

The candidates’ strategies for getting to 270 are implicit in their itineraries for the next two weeks and in their spending on campaign ads.

AFP/Getty Images

Obama and his Democratic allies already have placed $47 million in ad spending across battlegrounds in the campaign’s final weeks, while Romney and the independent groups supporting his candidacy have purchased $53 million, significantly upping their buys in Florida, Ohio and Virginia. And both sides are expected to pad their totals.

After Obama and Vice President Joe Biden campaign together in Ohio on Tuesday, the president splits off on what his campaign is describing as a two-day “around-the-clock” blitz to six more battleground states. He’ll be in constant motion — making voter calls and sleeping aboard Air Force One as he flies overnight Wednesday from Nevada to Tampa, Fla.

The vice president is midway through a three-day tour of uber-battleground Ohio, and Obama’s team contends its best way of ensuring victory is a win there. The campaign says internal polling gives Obama a lead in the Midwestern battleground state, in large part because of the popularity of the president’s bailout of the auto industry.

But even if Obama loses Ohio, his campaign sees another pathway to the presidency by nailing New Hampshire, Iowa, Wisconsin, Nevada and Colorado.

AFP/Getty Images

Romney and running mate Paul Ryan are picking up the pace of their campaigning as well, and their schedule reflects an overarching strategy to drive up GOP vote totals in areas already friendly to the Republican nominee.

The Denver suburbs. Cincinnati. Reno, Nev. They’re places that typically vote Republican, but where McCain fell short of the margins he needed to defeat Obama. To win in all-important Ohio, the GOP nominee must outperform McCain in typically Republican areas.

Romney and Ryan start their two-week dash in Henderson, Nev., then hopscotch to the Denver area for a rally with rocker-rapper Kid Rock and country music’s Rodney Atkins at the Red Rocks Amphitheatre. Then Romney heads back to Nevada, on to Iowa and then east to Ohio for three overnights in a row. By week’s end, he’s likely to be back in Florida.

The following week brings a significant uptick in Romney’s schedule. Aides say he’ll touch down in two or three states a day, or hold that many daily events in big states like Florida.

Both candidates are done holding fundraisers — no doubt a happy thought for the two of them.

But hold on to your wallets: Supporters will still be out there raising money, and there will be plenty of emails asking for cash right up to the finish.

The president began the month with a little less cash available than Romney, but both have impressive sums to blow through in the home stretch: $150 million for Obama and the Democrats, $183 million for Romney and the Republicans.

Getty Images

Immediately after the final debate, Obama pinged his supporters with an email that said simply: “This is in your hands now. Chip in $5 or more, and let’s go win.”

Republicans are dramatically bumping up ad spending in the biggest battlegrounds: In Florida, their spending this week hit $9.2 million after averaging about $5.8 million over the last four weeks. In Ohio, GOP ad spending jumped to $9.6 million this week from an average of $6.9 million over the last four weeks. Virginia saw a bump up to $7.9 million, compared with about $5.2 million over the last four weeks.

Out on the road, Romney has been demonstrating more confidence than ever. He’s started making more impromptu stops at local establishments near campaign rallies, a departure from his typically buttoned-down schedule through the summer. His crowds are bigger and more energized, too. And some voters who’ve attended his recent rallies say his performance helps them to see Romney as a plausible president — not just a candidate.

Obama, for his part, has been projecting a looser, more easygoing demeanor as he campaigns, using humor to undercut Romney.

He riffs about his rival’s “Romnesia” — a lighthearted way to drive home his opponent’s shifting policy positions.

Both sides are working furiously to lock down every possible early vote, and the results are evident in the 4.4 million people who’ve already cast ballots.

Obama will detour to Chicago on Thursday to make a statement about voting early by becoming the first president to cast his own early ballot.

The country is likely to easily exceed the early voting totals from 2008, when 30 percent of all ballots were cast ahead of Election Day, according to Michael McDonald, a George Mason University professor who tracks early voting closely.

In Ohio, McDonald said, numbers are up across the board — in rural, suburban and urban areas. As many as 45 percent of Ohio voters may cast early ballots, compared with less than 30 percent four years ago, he said. The numbers in North Carolina seem to be shifting in the Republicans’ direction, McDonald says, and those in Iowa “seem to confirm polling showing a slight Obama lead” there.

This year’s quartet of debates — three for the presidential candidates and one for the veeps – started on a friendly note, with Romney wishing Obama and wife Michelle a happy 20th anniversary, but goodwill quickly deteriorated. Both men were at times argumentative and the back-and-forth often shed more heat than light.

Romney came on like gangbusters in the first debate and left a listless Obama reeling as GOP momentum surged. Biden poured it on for the Democrats in his faceoff with Ryan, rolling out a full complement of smirks, eye-rolls and headshakes. Obama himself rebounded in the fractious town-hall debate. Both Obama and Romney were better behaved in their final faceoff, with the president playing up his commander-in-chief credentials to full effect and Romney playing it safe to avoid making mistakes.

From it all — more than 65,000 words of debate rhetoric – there was no signature moment that is likely to be remembered much past Election Day.

Only Cuba-Related Mention in Tonight's Debate

Capitol Hill Cubans

At least in concept, by Republican Presidential nominee, Governor Mitt Romney:

ROMNEY: I think from the very beginning, one of the challenges we've had with Iran is that they have looked at this administration, and felt that the administration was not as strong as it needed to be.

I think they saw weakness where they had expected to find American strength. And I say that because from the very beginning, the president in his campaign four years ago, said he would meet with all the world's worst actors in his first year, he'd sit down with Chavez and Kim Jong-il, with Castro and President Ahmadinejad of Iran.

And I think they looked and thought, well, that's an unusual honor to receive from the President of the United States. And then the president began what I have called an apology tour, of going to various nations in the Middle East and criticizing America. I think they looked at that and saw weakness.

Then when there were dissidents in the streets of Tehran, a Green Revolution, holding signs saying, is America with us, the president was silent. I think they noticed that as well.

And I think that when the president said he was going to create daylight between ourselves and Israel, that they noticed that as well.

All of these things suggested, I think, to the Iranian mullahs that, hey, you know, we can keep on pushing along here, we can keep talks going on, we're just going to keep on spinning centrifuges.

Now there are some 10,000 centrifuges spinning uranium, preparing to create a nuclear threat to the United States and to the world. That's unacceptable for us, and it's essential for a president to show strength from the very beginning, to make it very clear what is acceptable and not acceptable.

UN Sends Monitors To Prevent Voter Suppression In U.S. Election

By Alexander Bolton | 10/20/12 | TheHill.com

United Nations-affiliated election monitors from Europe and central Asia will be at polling places around the U.S. looking for voter suppression activities by conservative groups, a concern raised by civil rights groups during a meeting this week. The intervention has drawn criticism from a prominent conservative-leaning group combating election fraud.

The Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), a United Nations partner on democratization and human rights projects, will deploy 44 observers around the county on Election Day to monitor an array of activities, including potential disputes at polling places.

Liberal-leaning civil rights groups met with representatives from the OSCE this week to raise their fears about what they say are systematic efforts to suppress minority voters likely to vote for President Obama.

The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, the NAACP and the ACLU, among other groups, warned this month in a letter to Daan Everts, a senior official with OSCE, of “a coordinated political effort to disenfranchise millions of Americans — particularly traditionally disenfranchised groups like minorities.”

Read more: http://nation.foxnews.com/un-affiliated-monitors-us-polling-stations/2012/10/20/united-nations-affiliated-election-monitors-be-placed-polling-stations-around-us?cmpid=NL_FiredUpFoxNation#ixzz2A9Hlt4CY

U.S. Foreign Policy Debate Agenda: What About Cuba?

Huffington Post (blog)/ Noel Irwin Hentschel

Associated Press announced "5 things to watch for" in the foreign policy presidential debate in Florida but surprisingly ignored Cuba. Yet Fidel Castro continues to make headlines while President Obama and Governor Romney vie for votes in Florida, the outcome of which is historically influenced by the Cuban-American community. It is notable that this last debate will take place in Boca Raton only 100 miles from Cuba. It was the very same night 50 years ago during the Cuban Missile Crisis that President Kennedy gave the most alarming television address of his presidency. Millions of eyes were on the president then and millions of Americans are watching tonight to decide who will lead us through inevitable future crisis in the world. Interesting and relevant to Cuba-USA relations are that this debate also takes place during the exact same time 50 years ago when the 1962 Vatican II Ecumenical Council began in Rome. There is a correlation of events in 1962 and 2012 in Cuba and at the Vatican when we discuss foreign policy that involves Russia (former Soviet Union), China and the USA that affects security, commerce and jobs, key concerns in this election. It would behoove both contenders for the Oval Office to seriously formulate the right foreign policy for how America will conduct relations with our next door neighbor Cuba. There are some 12 million Cuban people anxious for support from Cuban-Americans but who are divided from their families physically and by divergent mentalities.

Is Fidel Castro finally on his deathbed as claimed in the recent media or simply still a thorn in the side of every American president since 1959? When it comes to discussing U.S. Foreign Policy regarding Cuba, our presidential candidates will have to contend not only with the health and succession plan of the Castro Brothers, but the overall history of our relationship with Cuba and the deep-rooted emotions in the Cuban-American community. In Cuba and in Florida the one Spanish word that all concerned parties use to describe the relationship is "complicado." A 90 minute debate is not long enough to understand the complexities, but at least it should be on the debate agenda. I submit, once again, that commerce can change the landscape in foreign policy including with Cuba when tourism and trade become the big stick we carry as we tread softly respecting the mentalities of other cultures while imparting America's values of freedom.

It was recently announced that Cubans will be able to travel more freely overseas including to the U.S. When that happens, that is a good opening step. It is also good for Americans to be able to visit Cuba, currently allowed for purposeful travel. We have learned that we can conduct worthwhile commerce with nations that hold political systems that are different from our democratic principles for governing. China and Vietnam are two good examples of U.S. trade and tourism cooperation that creates more American jobs. We must however always ensure that our foreign policy and commerce is conducted with a strong commitment to not diminish our Constitutional tenets including free enterprise and individual rights. Freedom to travel is a basic right for all people.

Many Americans remember the critical time in history 50 years ago. What I did not realize as a frightened fourth grader was just how dangerously grave the Cuban Missile Crisis was and how close we were to World War III being ignited. I had the opportunity some years later to tape an interview with Pierre Salinger, President Kennedy' Press Secretary. When asked how close the Cuban Missile Crisis was to causing a nuclear holocaust, this otherwise jovial guy looked straight into the camera and sternly said "you have no idea how extremely close it was to ending the world." Salinger gave credit to intense behind the scenes diplomacy and gifts of Cuban cigars. It was not until recently researching the recorded minutes of Vatican II that I discovered in the chapter entitled "The Cuban Missile Crisis and the Papal Peace-Initiative" that the leading "behind the scenes" diplomat was in fact Pope John XXIII. Probably why there is a memorial to this pope now in Old Havana. Earlier this year in March, Pope Benedict XVI visited Cuba on the occasion of the 400th anniversary of the "Virgen de la Caridad", the Patroness of Cuba, beloved by all Cubans the world over. During his meeting with Fidel Castro, the Pope smiled saying, "I'm almost 85 too, but I'm still working hard." Interesting to note that due to the 1998 visit of Pope John Paul II to Cuba, Christmas was re-instated and a seminary was re-opened. During the 2012 papal visit Good Friday was declared a public holiday in Cuba. These papal visits are a big deal to many Cubans. They hope desperately for improved relations soon with the United States. One could say that hope becomes reality when there is some faith and charity in the mix.

Following President Kennedy's somber and scary television address on October 22, 1962, the principal of our school, Sister Marie Elizabeth, gathered all the students the next morning into Maria Regina Church. We knelt and prayed the rosary for hours for a peaceful resolution. That was happening across America and other parts of the world. I know many are skeptical at the notion of prayer but for sure that kind of action cannot hurt and maybe it can help. Lina Ruiz Gonzalez, mother of Fidel and Raul Castro, wrote a prayerful message to the "Virgen de la Caridad" asking that her sons be protected and live long. She left her letter at the Chapel of Miracles in the Basilica of Del Cobre near Santiago de Cuba. It is next to Ernest Hemingway's Nobel Prize for Literature for "Old Man and the Sea." Hemingway left this prize in gratitude to "Our Lady of Charity" for receiving this revered recognition for his work.

The newly elected president, Romney or Obama, when discussing U.S. foreign policy for Cuba will need to consider how to help 12 million Cuban neighbors enjoy a better life and be able to secure the support of the millions of Cuban-Americans who have had that opportunity by living in the United States. Maybe today is a good day to start reflecting on the best future course of action by what we have learned from the past.

Daily tracking poll shows presidential race deadlocked

Washington Post/ Jon Cohen and Scott Clement

President Obama and Mitt Romney head into the final debate still deadlocked among likely voters nationally: 49 percent side with the Democratic president, 48 percent with the Republican challenger, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll.

But Romney now rivals Obama when it comes to dealing with international affairs and terrorism, leveling the playing field heading into Monday’s debate on foreign policy. Romney also runs about evenly with the president as voters’ pick who is the better commander-in-chief.

International affairs generally, and handling terrorism specifically, were once Obama strong points against the former Massachusetts governor, but voters now divide about evenly between the two. At the end of September, Obama held an 11 percentage point lead over Romney as the one voters trusted on terrorism — and killing Osama bin Laden is a mainstay on the Obama campaign trail. But now, 47 percent side with Obama on the issue, 46 percent with Romney.

The new poll also shows far greater parity in a basic test of popularity: the number of voters with favorable impressions of Romney is on par with the number with positive views of Obama (50 to 52 percent). However, the president maintains the edge in “strongly favorable” ratings.

The challenger has improved on several fronts — and potentially evened the score in key swing states — the race for the White House remains nearly deadlocked among voters nationally.

Obama still has strong rejoinders. He has campaign high 11-point edge over Romney when it comes to handling taxes, a 12-point lead on Medicare and a 13-point advantage on “women’s issues.” The president has a seven-point edge when it comes to understanding the economic problems people are having, and a nine-point advantage on honesty. He is still widely viewed as doing more to help the middle class than the wealthy, while voters anticipate Romney would tip the balance the other way.

The poll also shows Obama as the perceived winner of second debate — but by a far slimmer margin than Romney’s thumping in round one. Another tilt toward the president is that — unlike in 2010 — as many voters now say the economy is getting better as say it’s still deteriorating.

The see-sawing battle for voters now has Obama with the edge on the enthusiasm front: 64 percent of Obama’s backers say they are “very enthusiastic” about his candidacy, higher than the 58 percent of Romney’s who are that engaged behind his run. Still, Obama’s popularity trails 2008 levels: At this time four years ago, 63 percent of likely voters held favorable impressions of then-senator Obama; it’s 52 percent now.

A persistent gender gap underlies the topline numbers, and is now as large as it’s been in Post-ABC national polling. Female voters break 56 to 42 percent for the president; men go 54 to 42 percent for Romney. White voters side with Romney by a 15-point margin (56 to 41 percent), while non-whites break heavily for the president, 78 to 19 percent. Among African Americans, the margin is overwhelming: 94 to 2 percent.

In the seven states designated as “toss-ups” by The Washington Post plus Ohio, it’s Romney 52 percent to Obama’s 46. That six-point margin is not a statistically significant edge given the sample size, but a reversal from where things have been, paralleling shifts in state polling over the past few weeks. The overall national horse-race is the same as it was in early September because Obama now hits 60 percent of the vote in solidly or leaning Democratic states. Romney clears 57 percent in solidly or leaning Republican states — about where he has been.

Facial recognition [helps ID winners?] in presidential debates

Purdue professor tracks facial expressions of presidential candidates during debate

FutureTech

Official White House Photo by Pete Souza

Do you think he's checking their facial expressions, too? U.S. President Barack Obama watches the vice presidential debate. One marketing researcher is analyzing this year's debates with facial recognition software.

Marketing researcher Chris Kowal has an unusual way of deciding who wins each U.S. presidential debate this year. He's using facial recognition technology to capture the emotions President Barack Obama, presidential candidate Mitt Romney and their vice president picks show while they debate. Whoever is more open and expressive appeals to voters more, Kowal told WLFI, a Lafayette, Ind. news station.

"The most important part of any type of branding, sales appeal, voter attraction, whatever you want to look at, is going to be that emotional connection," Kowal said. He is a professor at Purdue University in West Lafayette.

Kowal found that Obama won the second presidential debate on Oct. 16, an assessment that agrees with many news outlets' conclusions. Compared to his performance in the first presidential debate on Oct. 3, Obama was more confident, showed a wider range of emotions and connected with the audience better, Kowal told WLFI. The researcher noted the sadness in the president's face when he talked about the shootings in Aurora, Colo.

Romney showed a more limited range of emotions, but nevertheless displayed some strong feelings, especially disgust, Kowal told WLFI. The Republican candidate showed pride when he talked about his governorship of Massachusetts, Kowal said. 

The software Kowal uses analyzes video clips, tracking the movement of 491 points in people's faces to identify universal emotions such as happiness, sadness, disgust, surprise and fear. 

Kowal has put his software to work for all of the debates so far. During the first presidential debate, he found Romney displayed aggressive, powerful emotions "70 percent of the time he was speaking to President Obama," he told WTHR, an Indiana-based NBC affiliate. 

Obama, on the other hand, kept his head down, making it difficult for the software to track his emotions. "He didn't allow himself to be expressive," Kowal said. 

During the vice presidential debate Oct. 11, Kowal identified aggressive emotions in Vice President Joe Biden and surprise in Republican candidate Paul Ryan. Nevertheless, Ryan was likeable throughout the debate, Kowal said. 

Kowal didn't identify a vice presidential debate winner for CNN anchor Brooke Baldwin, who interviewed him. Instead, he said the debate probably encouraged and motivated decided voters on both sides without necessarily swaying undecided citizens.

Kowal will use the data he collects this election season to check his analyses match how voters really feel, WLFI reported. It should also be possible to use facial recognition to check when debaters are lying, Kowal said. 

Sources: WLFI Oct. 5 and Oct. 17, WTHR, CNN