Voter Fraud Investigations Cause Media Uproar

veritasvisuals

Campaign director in Texas gets fired, Congressman's field director resigned, Houston OFA office gets shut down. Coverage from FOX News, CNN, local affiliates of CBS, NBC, FOX, and more. Slate.com, Maddow Blog and even Salon.com weigh in on a positive note with these investigations.

Four nightmare scenarios for what could go wrong

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

Read >>

Ohio Voting Machines Running "Experimental" Software Patches

MidweekPolitics

What Obama promised in 2008 and the Current Situation

WND/ Chelsea Schilling

In what could be the most stunning video indictment of President Obama and his administration’s policies this election year, a YouTube video reveals the fallout of the “hope” and “change” Obama promised in 2008.

YouTube user TheVisualEdge explained that he assembled the seven-minute video “to get people excited about the election.” The user notes, “I was not hired or paid to create this.” The video description refers users to a website for Hollywood Director Chris Corrado.

In the video, Obama can be seen promising to “fundamentally transform the United States of America” in the days before his election. It highlights his promises for fiscal responsibility and his pledge to cut the soaring national deficit in half by the end of his first term.

“This must stop,” the ad declares after illustrating the scope of the administration’s spending. “The money will run out. Like it has in Italy. Like it has in Greece. Like it has in Spain. Like it has in France.”

In the video, Obama can be heard making several more pledges to the American people, including:

• “My administration will not rest until every American can find a job.”
• “We will not rest until we are succeeding in generating the jobs that this economy needs.”
• “I will not rest until businesses are investing again and businesses are hiring again.”
• “I’m not gonna rest in our efforts to help people who are looking to find a job.”
• “We will not rest until we build an economy that’s ready for America’s future.”

Meanwhile, the ad flashes numerous shots of Obama enjoying life on the putting green – as he plays more than 100 rounds of golf in at least 10 weeks during his presidency “during the worst economy since the Depression.”

The video warns voters, “And that’s just jobs. Consider his record on energy, foreign policy, national security, health care, transparency, illegal immigration, cover-ups.”

For those citizens who believe the government doesn’t spend, regulate, tax and “take” enough, the video flashes the Obama campaign’s “Forward” slogan and encourages those individuals to move the U.S. “forward” to more debt, more food stamps, more regulation, a weaker dollar, a smaller workforce and a poorer people.

“For the rest of you, conservatism is calling,” the ad declares, quoting “Liberty and Tyranny” author Mark Levin and talk radio host Rush Limbaugh and displaying images of well-known “champions of conservatism” who are “all former liberals.”

Viewers are asked to vote for conservative candidates this election.

“Join us,” the video urges voters. “We have the winning argument.”

Sandy is Obama’s Katrina He’s Shown a Complete Lack of Compassion and Jetted Off to Vegas

Gary P Jackson

People are hungry, freezing, and dying in the aftermath of Hurricane Sandy, but please don't despair, Barack Obama is safe and warm, hanging out in Las Vegas with the Hollywood swells.

Obama is a cold, uncaring, despicable human being. He's proven this over and over for the last four years. Sean Hannity and Bill Cunningham discuss this, at length:

Video courtesy SarahNet.

Barack Obama enjoys spending time with convicted felon [stabbed a man] Jay-Z. Doing his job? Not so much.

Why Romney May Win [and the pollsters]

FrontPageMag.com
Daniel Flynn

Most polls tell us about the opinions of voters. A few tell us about the opinions of pollsters.

The most recent Investor’s Business Daily/TIPP poll, at least as of this writing, shows Barack Obama with a 45-44 lead over Mitt Romney. The internals of the poll show that the pollster favors Democrats, too. A full 38 percent of those included in the survey identified as Democrats, while just 31 percent identified as Republicans. Though the researchers may not have been deliberately aiming for such an overwhelming Democratic advantage, the demographic assumptions they made predetermined which party would enjoy favoritism. This seven-point differential matches the Democrat’s party-identification advantage for 2008, when African Americans turned out in record numbers and young people opted for the Democratic candidate over the Republican by a record margin. Historic elections by definition don’t happen every four years. Counting on maximum-level support, and among the groups traditionally among those least reliable when it comes to voting, seems wishful thinking. But the Investor’s Business Daily/TIPP count, like the Obama campaign itself, supposes another Democrat “perfect storm” in 2012.

The pro-Obama bias runs deeper within the various polls of contested battleground states. In 2008, Democrats constituted 29 percent of the New Hampshire electorate according to exit polls. The latest University of New Hampshire poll, which shows the president comfortably ahead by nine points in the state, assumes a 46 percent turnout among Democrats in the Granite State in 2012. In Florida, the CBS/New York Times/Quinnipiac poll, which claims a one-point advantage for Obama over Romney, assumes that the Democrat party-identification advantage will increase from 2008’s +3 to +7 in 2012. In Colorado, the partisan PPP poll depicts a 51-47 Obama advantage. The survey anticipates that Democratic voters in Colorado will rise from 30 percent of the electorate to 37 percent. These polls seem more geared toward influencing voter opinion than reflecting it.

But even the most slanted polls aren’t totally useless. The percentage of independents that they survey differs. The attitude of the independents they survey remains consistent. In poll after poll, independent voters support Mitt Romney over Barack Obama. The Republican leads Obama 51-39 among independents in both the National Public Radio and CBS/New York Times/Quinnipiac polls. In the Investor’s Business Daily/TIPP poll, Romney’s lead among independents is 46-38. No Democrat has won the presidency during the last half century without also winning independent voters. The irony of the bitter red-blue divide is that the few “purple” voters immune to the polarization increasingly decide elections.

If this race is about, as Obama’s leading campaign surrogate once believed, “the economy, stupid,” then the contest favors Romney. In the NBC/Wall Street Journal/Marist poll, which featured a sampling bias in favor of the Democrats, respondents nevertheless favored Romney on the economy. When asked, “Who do you think is better prepared to create jobs and improve the economy over the next four years?” the polled chose Romney by 45-41. Other polls have also shown a Romney advantage on the question of the economy.

Ironically, the people pollsters have been polling are not the people most likely to show up at polling places. When CBS/New York Times/Quinnipiac most recently queried likely voters about their enthusiasm for their chosen candidate, 68 percent of Romney supporters said they were “very” enthusiastic to just 59 percent for Obama voters. In NPR’s poll, 76 percent of Republicans rated the election a “10” in terms of importance versus just 66 percent of Democrats. While the enthusiasm edge may seem marginal, so is the percentage differential between the candidates in most national polls.

So what catalyzed independents to abandon the president and catalyzed Republicans to so enthusiastically oppose him?

A political obituary, should the president lose on Tuesday, might note that he couldn’t run the country like he could run for president. He mistook the gas for the brake pedal when voters rebuked him first in Massachusetts and then nationwide in 2010. He promised change and delivered more of the same.

A candidate running on change always risks disappointment catching up to him.

A status-quo election?

First Thoughts

Is it possible we see a status-quo election?... Final jobs report before election is mostly good news for Obama: Economy added 171,000 jobs in October and unemployment rate ticks up to 7.9%... How to view Romney’s move into Pennsylvania… Don’t compare this election’s data with 2008; compare it with 2004… Trying to predict the turnout, as well as Sandy’s impact… Obama campaigns in Ohio, while Romney will be in Wisconsin and the Buckeye State… Public poll suggests Mourdock is headed for defeat… And “Meet” has David Plouffe and Eric Cantor. 

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

*** A status-quo election? Despite the billions of dollars spent, the endless campaigning, and the breathless reporting, it is POSSIBLE we could end up with a status-quo result on Election Day -- with President Obama winning re-election, Democrats keeping control of the Senate, and Republicans staying in power in the House. Now we’re not saying these things will happen, but with four days to go, you’d probably rather be Obama than Mitt Romney, Senate Democrats instead of Senate Republicans, and House Republicans rather than House Democrats. But if that’s the result on Tuesday, we’d have a status-quo result after three previous change elections (in 2006, 2008, and 2010). And it would be an ironic outcome, given the majorities who believe the country is headed on the wrong track and given Congress’ very low approval rating. Then the challenge would be to govern – with better results than we saw in 2011 and 2012. Of course, it’s possible we see a fourth-straight change election. But it’s also very possible things stay the same.

La SINA y el pataleo castrista en tiempos de elecciones

Vladimiro Roca y Elizardo Sánchez saliendo de la SINA

como es rutinario en la entelequia robo-ilusionaria del clan biranico en tiempos de elecciones presidenciales en los estados unidos, emiten una Declaración del Ministerio de Relaciones Exteriores donde acusan a la representacion norteamericana en labana de cuartel general de la politica subversiva contra cuba. nadie les presta atencion y muchos menos los candidatos presidenciales que tienen otras urgencias, pero siempre es bueno sentar precedentes para una forzar una crisis que conduzca al levantamiento de las disposiciones del embargo aun vigentes. 

en terminos operativos, esto significara un recrudecimiento del control a las actividades de los funcionarios de la sina y un mayor acoso a los disidentes que acuden a ella, pudiendo extenderse incluso a su intercepcion. 

The Blaze Investigates Electronic Voter Fraud Stories ["The Machine"]

TheBlaze

Editor’s note: TheBlaze TV will be broadcasting “The Machine,” a documentary on voter fraud at 8pm ET tonight as the first of an occasional news magazine series called “For the Record.”

——

Last week, TheBlaze brought you a story from a North Carolina voting precinct using electronic voting machines that was already experiencing issues where votes for GOP candidate Mitt Romney were being changed to Democratic candidate Barack Obama. Now, it’s allegedly happening again, this time in both Kansas and Ohio — and we talked to a vendor supporting the machines about the issue.

An electronic touch screen ballot machine such as this has to be calibrated correctly to allow voters to chose the correct candidate. (Photo: AP/Tom Gannam)

Nancy from Topeka, Kan., who asked that her last name not be used for reasons pertaining to her husband’s work, told TheBlaze she fears if voters aren’t double checking their selections, they’ll be “robbed of their vote.”

Nancy explained that while her husband was casting a vote for Romney, the touchscreen highlighted Obama.

“He played around with the field a little and realized that in order to vote for Romney, his finger had to be exactly on the mark,” Nancy wrote in an email. She said “the invisible Obama field came down about 1/4 [of an inch]” into what should technically have been the Romney area. In a phone interview with TheBlaze, she explained further that her husband said he felt the area on the touchscreen that could be pushed to vote for Obama was larger than that for Romney.

Nancy and her husband called the Kansas Secretary of State to report the problem and were informed that it was most likely a calibration issue.

“My concern is, is this intentional?” Nancy said. Posing this question to the Secretary of State’s office, Nancy told us they said it is unlikely that voter fraud would be occurring in Kansas, as it’s not a highly contested state.

The Marion Star also reported Wednesday that Ohio resident Joan Stevens experienced a similar case. She alerted a board of elections member at the voting location about the problem, who then called in the vendor providing support for the machines to check for calibration issues.

Sophia Rogers, director of the Marion County Board of Elections, told TheBlaze the Marion Star “got it wrong.” She said when techs came out to review the machine, they found everything was calibrated correctly.

The Marion Star reported Rogers saying the machine seemed to have been working fine for her and other voters as well. Still, the local newspaper did note Stevens saying that board of elections member Jackie Smith mentioned to her that the machine had been experiencing issues all day. Smith did not issue a comment to the Marion Star.

Regardless if there was issue or not, the fact remains that direct-recording electronic voting machines can experience calibration issues. It’s something that happens every election, and when voters come across a machine not recording their vote correctly, they should report it. With such seemingly inevitable issues, which to be fair do not occur with every machine, TheBlaze decided to look into who was responsible for making sure the machines was calibrated in the first place; how calibration issues occur; and how the problems are fixed.

In Marion, for example, Rogers told TheBlaze it is standard procedure to call in a technician from the vendor to tend to the machine in question. She referred us to the vendor of their touch-screen machines Dominion Voting.

Spokesman for Dominion Chris Riggall told TheBlaze that many of the machines in the field — which he says are “legacy machines” not manufactured by Dominion but by companies that Dominion now owns — are up to 10 years old.

“They have been in the field many years and through many election cycles,” Riggall said. “It is certainly possible [for them to get] out of calibration.”

Read more on  TheBlaze >>

Estados Unidos y America Latina

PJMedia/ Jaime Daremblum

noticias.terra.com.co

Durante el último debate presidencial de 2012, cuyo foco era la política exterior de los Estados Unidos, la única mención a América Latina fue la que hizo Mitt Romney cuando formuló el conocido llamamiento a expandir el comercio hemisférico. Eso fue todo. Por esa razón, hay que perdonar a los que vieron el debate si suponen que, en las famosas palabras de Richard Nixon, “América Latina no cuenta para nada”.

Excepto que América Latina, sí, cuenta, tanto económica como estratégicamente, y su importancia para los Estados Unidos no hará más que aumentar en los próximos años. Lo cual plantea la siguiente cuestión: ¿Qué significa exactamente que un presidente de los Estados Unidos ejerza un genuino liderazgo con respecto a América Latina?
Bill Clinton ejerció verdadero liderazgo cuando abogó por el Tratado de Libre Comercio de América del Norte (NAFTA, por su sigla en inglés), frente a la fuerte oposición de su propio partido que, por entonces, controlaba las dos cámaras del Congreso. George W. Bush ejerció verdadero liderazgo cuando empujó enérgicamente a los republicanos indecisos de la Cámara de Representantes a que apoyaran el Tratado de Libre Comercio de América Central (CAFTA, por su sigla en inglés). (De acuerdo con Fred Barnes, en un artículo publicado en The Weekly Standard, en julio de 2005, cuatro días antes de que la Cámara de Representantes emitiera su voto, “Bush se reunió con los representantes individualmente y en pequeños grupos. Y el día mismo de la votación, Bush se trasladó a Capitol Hill para pronunciar un discurso ante la Conferencia Republicana de la Cámaro de Representantes, en la que habló con pasión durante 45 minutos sin texto escrito y respondió luego a docenas de preguntas”.) De la misma manera, Bush ejerció verdadero liderazgo, cuando modificó el Plan Colombia de modo que Bogotá pudiera usar la asistencia contra las drogas en su lucha contra las guerrillas de la FARC y del ELN. 

El presidente Obama no ha ejercido aun la misma clase de liderazgo en ninguna cuestión hemisférica de real importancia. Aun Rosa Brooks, una demócrata liberal  que enseña derecho en la universidad de Georgetown y fue funcionaria de los gobiernos de Clinton y de Obama, admitió recientemente que Obama ha “ignorado prácticamente” a América Latina. En efecto, los mayores logros de Obama en la región provienen, en su totalidad, de iniciativas de la época de Bush.

Por ejemplo, el gobierno de Obama ha firmado acuerdos bilaterales con Colombia y con Panamá. Pero esos acuerdos se firmaron originalmente cuando Bush era presidente.
Obama ha tratado de concluir un Acuerdo Estratégico Trans-Pacífico de Asociación Económica (TPP) que incluiría a Chile, México y Perú. Pero las negociaciones con respecto a TPP tuvieron lugar durante la presidencia de Bush.

El gobierno actual aumentó la cooperación con México en materia de seguridad mediante la Iniciativa de Mérida. Pero esa iniciativa se creó durante la presidencia de Bush.

El gobierno actual ha expandido la Iniciativa Regional de Seguridad para América Latina (CARSI, por su sigla en inglés). Pero CARSI comenzó como parte de Mérida, durane la presidencia de Bush.

El historial de Obama en América Latina va, por cierto, más allá de finalizar o expandir iniciativas de la época de Bush. Desafortunadamente, ese historial está lleno de reveses, tropiezos y fracasos diplomáticos.

Cuando el gobierno de Obama intentó (prudentemente) aumentar la cooperación militar con Bogotá mediante un nuevo acuerdo sobre bases militares, la suprema corte de Colombia declaró que, sin la aprobación del congreso nacional, el acuerdo era inconstitucional. (El presidente colombiano Juan Manuel Santos decidió no tratar de conseguir la aprobación del congreso.)

Cuando el gobierno de Obama exigió (con imprudencia) que restituyeran en la presidencia de Honduras a Manuel Zelaya, el acólito de Chávez, a pesar de sus ataques contra el orden constitucional, el gobierno provisional de Honduras, encabezado por Roberto Micheletti, dijo que no, iniciando así un largo período de tensiones sin resolver. Finalmente, Washington renunció a reinstalar a Zelaya y Micheletti continuó en la presidencia hasta que asumió el cargo Porfirio Lobo, que triunfó en las elecciones celebradas en Honduras después de la caída de Zelaya.

Cuando el gobierno del presidente Obama le extendió un ramo de olivo a Cuba, disminuyendo el rigor de las sanciones y proponiendo un “nuevo comienzo” en las relaciones bilaterales, el régimen de Castro encarceló al contratista de USAID Alan Gross y reprimió enérgicamente a los activistas por la democracia en toda la isla.

Cuando intentó mejorar las relaciones con el presidente ecuatoriano Rafael Correa, que es otro cuasi autoritario discípulo de Chávez, el gobierno de Obama sufrió una nueva decepción. En junio de 2010, la secretaria de Estado Hillary Clinton viajó a Quito, le dio un abrazo a Correa y declaró que “las metas que el Ecuador y su gobierno se proponían eran metas con las que concordaban los Estados Unidos”. Menos de un año después, el gobierno ecuatoriano expulsó a la embajadora norteamericana Heather Hodges a causa de los comentarios críticos que había hecho en cables filtrados por WikiLeaks. Y ya que hablamos de WikiLeaks, Correa le otorgó asilo a Julian Assange en agosto de este año, pocos meses después de haber boicoteado la Cumbre de las Américas.

Continuar leyendo   Aqui >>

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."