Townhall's Rachel Alexander: Obama Likely Won Re-Election Through Election Fraud

- Image Credit: Obama Voter Fraud -

Obama Likely Won Re-Election Through Election Fraud

Excerpt Via Rachel Alexander @ Townhall

According to the Columbus Dispatch, one out of every five registered voters in Ohio is ineligible to vote. In at least two counties in Ohio, the number of registered voters exceeded the number of eligible adults who are of voting age. In northwestern Ohio's Wood County, there are 109 registered voters for every 100 people eligible to vote. An additional 31 of Ohio's 88 counties have voter registration rates over 90%, which most voting experts regard as suspicious. Obama miraculously won 100% of the vote in 21 districts in Cleveland, and received over 99% of the vote where GOP inspectors were illegally removed.

The inflated numbers can't just reflect voters who have moved, because the average voting registration level nationwide is only 70%. The vast majority of voters over the 70% level are not voting because they want to, they are voting because someone is getting them to cast a vote, one way or another. Those 31 counties are most likely the largest counties in Ohio, representing a majority of Ohio voters. This means the number of votes cast above the 70% typical voter registration level easily tops 100,000, the margin Obama won Ohio by.

CONTINUED HERE: http://townhall.com/columnists/rachelalexander/2012/11

In 59 Philly Wards, Romney Did Not Get Single Vote

By Miriam Hill, Andrew Seidman, and John Duchneskie, Inquirer Staff Writers

It's one thing for a Democratic presidential candidate to dominate a Democratic city like Philadelphia, but check out this head-spinning figure: In 59 voting divisions in the city, Mitt Romney received not one vote. Zero. Zilch.

These are the kind of numbers that send Republicans into paroxysms of voter-fraud angst, but such results may not be so startling after all.

"We have always had these dense urban corridors that are extremely Democratic," said Jonathan Rodden, a political science professor at Stanford University. "It's kind of an urban fact, and you are looking at the extreme end of it in Philadelphia."

Read more: http://nation.foxnews.com/2012-election/2012/11/12/59-philly-wards-romney-did-not-get-single-vote?cmpid=NL_FiredUpFoxNation#ixzz2CE4eKDia

Citizens In Over 40 States File Petitions For Secession from U.S.

States highlighted in red mark where petitions for secession from the U.S. have been filed/ GossipOnThis.com

Following last week’s re-election of President Barack Obama, residents in more than forty U.S. states have filed petitions to secede from the country via the government’s “We the People” program on the White House’s official website.

The states include: Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Nevada, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, West Virginia, Wisconsin and Wyoming.

------------------------------------------------

Tim Brown

As I reported over the weekend, Texas and Louisiana citizens began petitions to the White House to peacefully withdraw from the United States and then yesterday that number had grown to nearly forty states. As this happened, the Texas petition topped it’s goal of 20,000 signatures.

As of the writing of this article, the Texas petition has 70,278 signatures, nearly three times the amount required to be reviewed by the White House.
According to the White House petition site, once the petition reaches 25,000 signatures within 30 days “White House staff will review it, ensure it’s sent to the appropriate policy experts, and issue an official response.”
Below is a video that explains how the process is supposed to work:

I admit, I am wary of petitioning the federal government over any of this. However, I think the number of petitions and the people signing is only an indication that the “union” is no longer united. This, along with the recent election, demonstrate that we are a nation divided.

It was at another period in our history where states sought to peacefully withdraw from the Union, only to be invaded by that very Union. With stakes as high as they are now, I am not very optimistic that the current state of things in America will lead to a peaceful agreement between the federal government and the states.

Let me be clear, these petitions are not put forth by the states officially, but they are put forth by residents of those states. After all, the people are the ones who select their representatives and if the people voice their disapproval of what is taking place at the federal level enough in their own state, this may gain traction. I suggest not only signing the petition for your state, but letting your state legislature know and possibly garnering signatures to provide your state legislature and governor with.

Texas Governor Rick Perry says he will not give credibility to the online movement. His spokesperson Catherine Frazier said that while Perry “shares the frustrations many Americans have with our federal government,” the governor “believes in the greatness of our Union and nothing should be done to change it.”

I’m guessing the governor has not heard directly from the 70,000 plus people who have signed the petition. Perhaps phone calls and such might just let him know how serious the people of his state actually are.

I leave you with the words of the Founders in the Declaration of Independence:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.—That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,—That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Clearly they believed in the right of peaceful secession of the states from the Union.

UPDATE: Louisiana has also met their goal.

UPDATE 2: Two petitions have been filed at the White House Petitions site against those petitioning for withdraw. “Deport Everyone That Signed A Petition To Withdraw Their State From The United States Of America” and “Strip the Citizenship from Everyone who Signed a Petition to Secede and Exile Them.”

Sorry to say, there may be a Union, but there is definitely not unity.

UPDATE: Florida has also met their petition goal.

Read more: http://freedomoutpost.com/2012/11/texas-secession-petition-tops-goal-requires-review-by-white-house/#ixzz2CBHv4zWL

Did Obama really win?

WND/ Joseph Farah

The question must be asked. I wish I didn’t have to be the one to ask it. But, since no one else will, it falls to me.

Did Barack Obama actually, legitimately, fairly and legally win the election?

My answer is an unequivocal no.

It was not a free and fair election. In fact, if we as a nation don’t acknowledge the reality of what I am saying, we may never have a free and fair election again in the future of this once-great nation.

Here are some facts to consider:

• The Obama campaign accepted at least some foreign campaign cash – willingly and knowingly. The campaign website could have prohibited it. It did not. In other words, it deliberately left open the door for illegal foreign contributions in its “by any means necessary” quest for re-election. WND has proven that by actually contributing under the name Osama bin Laden from a Pakistani IP address, with a phony physical address and other neon-lit red flags in hopes of catching attention. Obama accepted illegal foreign contributions in 2008 without penalty, so why would anyone expect him not to repeat his crime in 2012? No one can know the extent of the fraud, because Obama has refused to release the identity of donors of $200 or less – yet he boasts that most of the money he collected was in small amounts.
• James O’Keefe and Project Veritas spent months heroically proving the absolute willingness and eagerness of Democratic operatives to commit voter fraud – especially by having people cast multiple votes.
• Military ballots were systematically denied active-duty servicemen and women around the world. This would be a scandal if it happened once. But it has become the norm when Democrats are in charge of the Defense Department. It would be a scandal if it were due to incompetence. But it appears to be a deliberate effort to suppress the military vote. It would be a scandal if it were not a close election. But it was.
• Prior to the election, Democrats fought for open voting requiring no identification – particularly photo ID. Coincidentally, Obama won every state that didn’t fully require photo ID to vote. Democrats contended that voter ID laws suppress the vote. But they do not. They only suppress the illegal vote.
• Across Philadelphia, GOP poll inspectors were forcibly (and illegally) removed from polling locations. Coincidentally (or not), Obama received “astronomical” numbers in those very same regions, including locations where he received “over 99 percent” of the vote. Ward 4, which also had a poll watcher dressed in Obama attire, went massively for Obama. Obama received 99.5 percent of the vote, defeating Romney 9,955 to 55.
• Obama also won 99.8 percent of the vote in 44 Cleveland districts. In another Ohio county, Obama won with 108 percent of the voters registered.
• Obama received 10 million fewer votes than he did in 2008. Romney received 3 million fewer votes than McCain. Obama won in the four critical swing states by a grand total of 500,000 votes.
• Some 5 million independents changed their votes from Obama to Romney in 2012. So Romney started the day 2.5 million votes ahead of where McCain was in 2008, as Jack Wheeler points out. This means that 5.5 million Republican voters are not accounted for. Either they didn’t show up at the polls or their votes were not counted. Does anyone believe there was less enthusiasm by Republicans about this election than for the one in 2008?

I could go on and on, but you get the point. In such a close election, these anomalies are unacceptable. In an election in which all the voter fraud appears to be perpetrated by one side, it could more than make the difference in the race. Worse yet, will an unscrupulous party that would resort to such crimes to win ever permit another free and fair election in the future – especially if the crimes are not exposed and punished severely?

I believe going into the election that at least 5 percent of the Democratic vote would be fraudulent. That would mean Republicans would have to out-perform Democrats by 6 percent to win. I suspect now I was too conservative in my projections of about the expected level of criminality perpetrated by Obama’s Democrats.

Remember from where Obama arose. He was a community organizer and attorney for ACORN, which is nothing but an organized crime front with a focus on throwing elections.

Do I think Obama won fair and square? No. I think he won only because of systematic fraud, corruption and abuse in the 2012 election.

Very likely, it would not have even been a close election had Obama not made cheating – in every conceivable way – the central component of his campaign effort.

Is there anything we can do about it now?

Not likely.

But if we want to ensure that America has free and fair elections in the future, we better get to work. America’s political system is becoming a thugocracy.

I’m fighting back.

And you can help me in this fight.

I’m challenging the Obama campaign on the acceptance of those illegal donations. I’ve filed a Federal Elections Commission complaint at considerable cost. I have no illusions that it will be easy to challenge a sitting president within his own bureaucracy. But I’m doing it. Meanwhile, some in the press would prefer that I be charged with voter fraud for efforts to expose the system. I wouldn’t be a bit surprised if the Democratic machine tries something like that.

That’s why we need your help.

We’re fighting to preserve America’s freedom here – nothing less.

We’re fighting to preserve the concept of representative government – elections that actually mean something.

We’re fighting to expose what no other news agency in the world apparently has an interest in exposing – the dark underbelly of corruption, fraud and abuse in our political system.

Can you help?

Voting Machine Backdoor Guarantees Puppet of Choice Victory

TheAlexJonesChannel Alex welcomes back Bev Harris of Black Box Voting who breaks down cases of vote fraud during the 2012 election.

Why Obama Won

Supporters of President Obama watch results at an election night viewing party in Chicago. Exit poll data showed that he won by drawing on a growing base of minority voters. (Scott Strazzante, Chicago Tribune / November 8, 2012)

American Thinker

Gary Aminoff 

On election night, as the camera panned the audience waiting to hear Barack Obama give his victory speech, what struck me was that the audience was primarily young people and minorities.  My thought was, "These are the very people who will suffer the most under a second Obama administration.  Don't they know they are voting against their own best interest?"

And then I thought about it and came to the conclusion: "No.  They don't."  They don't because they are, by and large, uneducated.  Oh, some of them may have college degrees or even graduate degrees, but they are still substantially uneducated.  I would bet that very few of them know the difference between Keynesian economics and Austrian School economics.  I am sure that most of them have never heard of the Laffer Curve.  I would guess that most of them aren't familiar with the first principles behind the origin of our country.  I doubt that many of them know what evil lies in Socialism or Communism, or unbridled leftism.  Or are even aware that Barack Obama is a man of the left, and what that means.  They, for the most part, have no idea what the concept of individual liberty is, nor how a big, powerful central government reduces that liberty.  I also am pretty sure that they feel that Barack Obama is someone who cares about the poor, women, minorities, and the "middle class," and that Republicans don't.  I would stake my substance on the fact that they don't know what is meant by a limited government, or what the Tenth Amendment says.  I am certain that most of them don't know anything about Benghazi.  Substantially uneducated!

How is it that we have raised one or two generations of uneducated Americans?  The answer, my friend, is not blowing in the wind.  The answer lies in the curricula of our schools.

For the past several months, in my capacity in the Republican Party, I have been speaking at middle schools and high schools around Los Angeles.  It has been very enlightening.
I love engaging with children.  Most of them are very bright and ask brilliant questions.  The questions give me insights into what they are most concerned about.  It also makes clear what they are taught -- by either their parents or their teachers, or both.

To summarize -- children, for the most part, believe the following:

a) Republicans care about only the rich -- the top 1% -- and don't care about anyone else.

b) Republicans hate people of color and especially Latinos.

c) Republicans hate gays.

d) Republicans are racist.

e) It is the government that provides jobs.  (I have asked that question many times in classrooms or assemblies.  "Who is it that creates jobs in America?"  The answer is invariably, without hesitation, "the government.")

f) Corporations are bad, and profits are very bad.  Business shouldn't make profits; they should give any excess money they make to their employees.

g) Taxes are good; they provide the money for the government to take care of people.

h) Government should expand and take care of everyone in the country.

i) America, rather than being a force for good in the world, has been a force for evil.

j) Government has an unlimited source of funds.  (When I ask, "Where is the government going to get the money to do all these things you want it to do?," the answer is "taxes.")

These children will soon be voters.  How is it, in America, that we are raising children to believe that bigger government is better, that government is the engine that provides jobs, that profits are bad, that Republicans care about only the rich, that we are racist, and that we hate minorities and gays.

This is not something to be ignored.  Our country is being changed forever by children who have had this type of indoctrination.  We must figure out how to stop it.  We need to create a love of country in our children as we once did.  We need to have our children say the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag every morning, as we once did.  We need to teach our children that America has been a force for good in the world.  We need to teach them that it is not the role of government to "take care" of people.  We need to teach civics once again, and the Constitution.

Until this problem is dealt with, and it needs to be soon, we will be raising generations of children who believe in an ever-larger government and who will permanently change America into Greece.  There will be no Republican Party or conservative candidates who will win elections as more and more of the population is indoctrinated with leftist thinking.  Goodbye to the Home of the Brave and the Land of the Free if we don't act on this issue.

-----------------------------

Gary Aminoff is the vice chairman of the Republican Party of Los Angeles County.  He can be reached at gaminoff@gmail.com.

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/11/why_obama_won.html#ixzz2BjtNWsWO

Obama did not win a single state that fully requires photo IDs to vote

WND/ Aaron Klein

el-hispano.com

Did the suppression or lack of voter ID laws aid President Obama’s victory over Mitt Romney?

Obama did not win a single state that fully requires photo IDs to vote, although he was victorious in four states that accept non-photo identification – Washington, Colorado, Ohio and Virginia. Those states accept as legitimate identification current utility bills, bank statements and paychecks.

Obama won New Hampshire, which just enacted a new Voter ID law that eventually will require photo identification. That law is not being fully implemented until September 2013.

In Tuesday’s election, New Hampshire voters who did not have photo identification were still allowed to vote after executing what the state calls a challenged voter affidavit, meaning the voter fills out a form and receives a letter requesting confirmation of voting. If there is no response within a month, the state may investigate to determine if vote fraud occurred.

Obama also won in Michigan. By law, every Michigan voter must either present picture identification at the polls or sign an affidavit attesting that he or she is not in possession of picture identification.

In other words, in both New Hampshire and Michigan, voters do not need to present photo identification to cast a ballot.

Obama won several closely contested states that do not require any voter identification, including Minnesota, New Mexico, Pennsylvania, Iowa, Wisconsin and Nevada.

The states that Obama lost that do require photo identification do not traditionally vote Republican. Tennessee, for example, voted Democrat in the 1972, 1992 and 1996 presidential elections. Georgia, which also requires photo ID, voted Democrat in the 1976, 1980 and 1992 presidential elections.

What will Barack Obama do now that he has another four years in office? Find out in Aaron Klein’s “Fool Me Twice,” on sale now at WND’s Superstore

In Colorado, where non-photo identification is accepted, a review by RedState.com showed irregular voting patterns, finding that 10 counties had a total registration ranging between 104 to 140 percent of the respective populations.

When Media Trackers requested comment on the voter bloat in one area, Gilpin County, the county’s chief deputy Gail Maxwell explained, “This is just a reminder Gilpin is a Gaming Community. The voters come and go!”

RedState notes records show some of the counties in question maintained statistically unusual voting figures. Gilpin County had a 61 percent voter turnout in the 2010 election, and Hinsdale County had an astounding 92 percent voter turnout. Those figures are far above the Colorado average turnout of 48 percent and the national average of 41 percent.

In Pennsylvania, where Obama was victorious, an Oct. 2 ruling by a Pennsylvania judge put a voter ID law on hold, decreeing that election officials can still ask voters for photo identification but cannot require it.

Voter ID laws were entirely struck down in Texas and South Carolina. Romney carried both states.

WND previously reported a radical group that has a history of biased research provided data utilized in both cases that blocked the new voter ID laws.

The Brennan Center for Justice, heavily funded by billionaire activist George Soros, has been at the center of providing data claiming voter ID laws will disenfranchise minorities. Read more on WND.com >>.

Obama’s demographic edge

Gerber baby: Mary Jane Montoya

By NBC's Chuck Todd, Mark Murray, Domenico Montanaro, and Brooke Browerbama’s demographic

*** Obama's demographic edge: Yes, the auto bailout mattered in Ohio. Sure, Hurricane Sandy helped the president. And, yes, the economy was the No. 1 issue. But make no mistake: What happened last night was a demographic time bomb that had been ticking and that blew up in GOP faces. As the Obama campaign had assumed more than a year ago, the white portion of the electorate dropped to 72%, and the president won just 39% of that vote. But he carried a whopping 93% of black voters (representing 13% of the electorate), 71% of Latinos (representing 10%), and also 73% of Asians (3%). What’s more, despite all the predictions that youth turnout would be down, voters 18-29 made up 19% of last night’s voting population -- up from 18% four years ago -- and President Obama took 60% from that group. The trend also played out in the key battleground states: The president won about 70% of the Latino vote in Colorado and Nevada, and he won 60% of it in Florida (a high number given the state’s large GOP-leaning Cuban-American population). On Monday, we wrote that demography could determine destiny. And that’s exactly what happened. While the campaign’s turnout operation deserves all the credit for getting these voters to the polls, the most significant event of this presidential contest might very well have been the 2010 census.

*** And the GOP’s demographic dilemma: Obama’s demographic edge creates this dilemma for the Republican Party: It can no longer rely on white voters to win national elections anymore, especially in presidential cycles. Indeed, according to the exit poll, 89% of all votes Mitt Romney won last night came from whites (compared with 56% for Obama). So the Republicans are maximizing their share with white voters; they just aren’t getting the rest. And come 2016, the white portion of the electorate will probably drop another couple of points to 70%. Politico’s Martin puts it this way: “Battling a wheezing economy and a deeply motivated opposition, Obama still managed to retain much of his 2008 map because of the GOP’s deficiencies with the voters who are changing the political face of once conservative-leaning Virginia, Florida, Colorado and Nevada. Republicans face a crisis: the country is growing less white and their coalition has become more white in recent years. In 2004, George W. Bush won [about 40 percent] of Hispanics. Four years later, John McCain, the author of an immigration reform bill, took 31 percent of Hispanics. And this year, Romney captured only 27 percent of Hispanics.”

NBC's Chuck Todd discusses how Florida may be used as a model for the rest of the country to show how changes in demographics, particularly an influx of Hispanic voters in key counties, affected the outcome of the election.  

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

*** Hard for the GOP just to turn to the Midwest: Now Republicans might argue, “Look, we can win back the Midwest -- Ohio, Iowa, and Wisconsin.” Yet those account for 34 electoral votes. But the Sun Belt states where Obama campaigned and which have more diverse populations (Florida, North Carolina, and Virginia) have a total of 57 electoral votes. And then there are Arizona, Georgia, and Texas. Do those states come into play in 2016? What about 2020? Come 2016, you could argue that Arizona and Georgia become for Democrats what Michigan, Minnesota, and Pennsylvania are for Republicans -- just slightly out of reach.

*** Last night’s results: The morning after, here are the results (so far) from last night: Obama holds 303 electoral votes and Romney 206. (NBC News has yet to call Florida and its 29 electoral votes, but Obama leads there 50%-49%.) In the popular vote, it’s Obama 50%, Romney 48%. Also, Democrats have held on to their Senate majority and might add to it -- with undecided races in Montana (where Democratic incumbent Jon Tester leads 48%-48% with 77% in) and North Dakota (where Democrat Heidi Heitkamp is ahead by about 3,000 voters with 93% in). But Republicans held on to control of the House, holding 237 seats vs. 197 for the Democrats, plus-minus four seats.

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

*** Does status-quo control = status-quo governing? So in the end, we got a status-quo result -- with Obama holding on to the White House, Democrats keeping control of the Senate, and Republicans maintaining their grip on the House. But here’s the question with the “fiscal cliff” negotiations coming up: Will the governing be status quo, too? Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell released this statement last night: “To the extent [Obama] wants to move to the political center, which is where the work gets done in a divided government, we’ll be there to meet him half way. That begins by proposing a way for both parties to work together in avoiding the ‘fiscal cliff’ without harming a weak and fragile economy, and when that is behind us work with us to reform the tax code and our broken entitlement system.” And House Speaker John Boehner makes a statement on the “fiscal cliff” negotiations at 3:30 pm ET. But who holds the mandate here? The GOP? Or a president who waged a national campaign on raising taxes for the wealthy, and who won? And here’s another question: Do Boehner and McConnell take advantage of the lame duck to compromise? 

*** Obama’s swing-county swagger: Turning back to last night’s presidential contest, Obama beat Romney in almost all of the swing counties (won by Bush in ’04 but by Obama in ’08). Indeed, Obama won three of four swing counties in Florida (Hillsborough, Pinellas, Osceola), four of six in Ohio (Hamilton, Wood, Ottawa, Sandusky), 11 of 14 in Virginia (including Loudon, Prince William, and Henrico), and all six in Colorado (including Jefferson, Arapahoe, and Larimer). And despite losing North Carolina, Obama may have proved that the state is changing, becoming more “Mid-Atlantic” but not quite all there, as Charlie Cook has said. Obama won nine of 13 swing counties in the Tar Heel State (including the large counties of Wake, Forsyth, Cumberland, and Buncombe).

*** And his tactical dominance: But it was more than winning the swing counties for Obama; it was tactical dominance. Romney made inroads all across the country from previous GOP performance. What happened, however, was that the Obama campaign exploited the census and changed the margins. The best example of this was in Florida.

*** Making history: Finally, it was an historic-making election. With Obama’s re-election, we now have the first time since Jefferson, Madison, and Monroe that Americans have elected three two-term presidents in a row… Tammy Baldwin will become the Senate’s first openly gay member… The Senate will have at least 19 female members -- the most ever -- and there’s a chance that number could increase to 20 if Heitkamp wins… Maryland and Maine became the first states to approve of gay marriage at the ballot box… And initiatives to legalize marijuana passed in Colorado and Washington state.

Exit polls: Gender, race, economy were key. Voters back Obama despite economic concerns, exit polls show

NBC's Chuck Todd discusses how Florida may be used as a model for the rest of the country to show how changes in demographics, particular an influx of Hispanic voters in key counties, affected the outcome of the election.

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

By Tom Curry

Updated at 12:26 a.m. ET: President Barack Obama won re-election despite an electorate that sees a nation on the wrong track, with a weak and troubling economy, according to NBC projections and exit polls. Exit poll interviews with voters point to three big reasons for Obama’s victory:

• First, despite a slim majority of voters thinking the country is on the wrong track, 54 percent approve of the way Obama is doing his job, and the electorate was almost exactly split on whether Obama or Romney would be better at handling the economy.
• Among the four voters in 10 who said they think economic conditions in the country are getting better, a huge majority, nearly nine out of ten, said they voted for Obama.
• Finally, a slight majority of voters voiced an unfavorable view of Romney personally, while a slight majority had a favorable view of Obama. On the attribute of whether the president or his GOP rival was “a candidate who cares about people like me” Obama had a massive lead over Romney.

Voters were sharply divided along lines of sex, ethnicity, age, income and religion, exit polls showed.

NBC's Tamron Hall breaks down the results of the NBC News national exit poll, which shows a gender gap that worked in President Obama's favor as well as a boost from the Latino community, from which he received more votes than four years ago. 

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

The gender gap was distinct: Among male voters, 52 percent favored Romney, while 45 percent backed Obama. The data reflected slipping support for Obama, who won 49 percent of male voters four years ago. (Full exit polling data is available here.) 

Among white male voters the disparity was even sharper: Obama was winning just 36 percent of the white male vote Tuesday, compared with the 41 percent he won in 2008, the exit polls showed.

Women voters favored Obama 55 percent to 43 percent – about the same split as four years ago when 56 percent of women voters preferred Obama and 43 percent supported Republican candidate Sen. John McCain.

Within the female vote there was a sharp divide between married and unmarried women: Married women backed Romney, 53 percent to 46 percent, while unmarried women preferred Obama by a better than 2-to-1 ratio, 68 percent to 30 percent.

Among white voters -– who accounted for nearly three quarters of the electorate -- Romney was leading Obama by 58 to 40 percent, making Romney’s performance among white voters three points better than McCain’s in 2008.

Younger voters preferred Obama, but not by as lopsided a margin as in 2008: Among voters age 18 to 29 Tuesday, three out of five said they voted for Obama, compared with about two of three in 2008.

On the other hand, Romney had a substantial advantage among voters 65 and older, who favored the Republican by a margin of 11 points.

Latinos and blacks overwhelmingly voted for Obama, according to the exit polls. Latinos, an important part of Obama’s winning coalition in 2008, were even stronger in their support of Obama than they were four years ago. Latinos, who accounted for about a tenth of the national electorate, favored Obama by about 70-30. Black voters continued to be exceptionally loyal to Obama – he was getting more than nine in 10 of their votes Tuesday night, just as he did four years ago.

Obama showed strength among lower-income voters, winning three out of five voters with family incomes below $50,000. Among middle-income voters Romney led 52 percent to 46 percent, and he did a bit better than that among voters with family incomes of $100,000 over more.

Another dividing line in the electorate, as in 2008, was religion. Three out of five voters who told exit poll interviewers they attended religious services weekly or more often preferred Romney, while 40 percent backed Obama. This represented about a five point improvement among such voters for Romney over McCain’s performance four years ago.

Among those who said they never attend religious services (a much smaller portion of the electorate) Obama won more than three of five.

A slim majority of voters Tuesday told exit poll interviewers that they felt the country was “off on the wrong track,” but the mood of the electorate was markedly more optimistic than it was four years ago when a record three out of four voters said the country was on the wrong track.

An overwhelming 76 percent of voters said the state of the economy is poor, or “not so good,” but voters did not tend to blame Obama, who came into office in the midst of a financial crisis and deep recession. Only 38 percent said Obama was “more to blame for the current economic conditions,” compared with 53 percent who laid the blame more on former President George W. Bush.

Ten Flagrant Examples of Obama Lying During His Presidentcy

TheAlexJonesChannel During a campaign event in New Hampshire, Barack Obama told an audience of his supporters, "you know I tell the truth."

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 >>