Category Archives: Mitt Romney

Bible belt real Christians real Americans voted for Romney, Paul Harvey If I Were the Devil nails Obama and Democrats, 3 millions RINOs did not vote

Bible belt real Christians real Americans voted for Romney, Paul Harvey If I Were the Devil nails Obama and Democrats, 3 millions RINOs did not vote

“If I had my choice I would kill every reporter in the world but I am sure we would be getting reports from hell before breakfast.”… William Tecumseh Sherman

“For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.”…Ephesians 6:12

“Barack Obama is the poster child for the me me me folks. A very non Christian attitude”…Citizen Wells

As Rush Limbaugh stated, 3 million Republicans, RINOs, did not vote. That probably made the difference.

The real difference was a lack of moral compass, selfish concerns and a lack of real American values.

The Bible Belt voted for Romney.

The center of the country, except for Colorado and New Mexico voted for Romney.

The good folks of Indiana voted for Romney.

The Northeast, North, Rust Belt and left coast went for Obama.

View how the nation voted here.

http://www.politico.com/2012-election/map/#/President/2012/

From One News Now.

“Various faith-based voting blocs across America — white evangelicals, black Protestants, Hispanic Catholics, Jewish-Americans — all played critical roles Tuesday in the outcomes.

Ethnic divisions sharp among Christian voters”

“The Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life says exit polls show black Protestants and Hispanic Catholics diverged from what was otherwise broad religious support for Republican Mitt Romney.

Pew senior researcher Greg Smith says that while Catholics overall were about evenly divided, about 60 percent of white Catholics voted for Romney while three-fourths of Hispanic Catholics cast their ballots for Barack Obama.

The racial difference was even more pronounced among Protestants, with nearly 80 percent of born-again evangelicals voting for Romney while 95 percent of black Protestants supported Obama.

The president also received support from about 70 percent of religiously unaffiliated and Jewish voters, while most who said they attend religious services every week supported Mitt Romney.”

http://onenewsnow.com//ap/religion/how-did-faith-groups-respond-on-election-day

Calling yourself a Christian does not make you one.

Obama is a great example of that.

Paul Harvey, in commentary over the years, has nailed Obama and the Democrats.

When you make a deal with the devil you are going to get burned.

Thanks to commenter SueK.

NC voting machine errors update November 6, 2012, 2010 federal judge ruling, SBOE memo, Precincts following rules?, Explicit warning signs and procedures

NC voting machine errors update November 6, 2012, 2010 federal judge ruling, SBOE memo, Precincts following rules?, Explicit warning signs and procedures

“if you see something at the polls that just doesn’t seem right…Record it” “Call the True the Vote National Election Integrity Hotline 855-444-6100.”…True the vote

“That Gary Bartlett, Chairman Leake, and John Wallace colluded in an attempt to derail, distract, and obstruct the investigation by SBOE into the financial irregularities and illegalities of the Perdue for Gov. Campaign”….NC GOP June 25, 2010 report on SBOE

I spoke with a NC GOP official a short while ago. I asked if the federal judge ruling in NC from 2010 is still applicable. He stated that it was. He had the understanding that the local elections board was aware of the ruling. I told him of my experience that the precinct workers were unaware of the federal judge ruling. I do not recall seeing the proper sign & no poll worker brought the issue to my attention, even after I asked.

My concern elevated when I discovered that the problems are still occurring in 2012 after happening in 2008 and 2010.

Here is one of the better reports on the ruling.

From the Brad Blog October 30, 2010.
“Federal Judge Rules in Favor of NC GOP in Touch-Screen Vote Flipping Complaint
Orders ‘voter alert’ posted at polls, programming materials, records retained…”

“North Carolina counties which use touch-screen voting systems will now have to post a “Voter Alert” at precincts warning voters about potential problems with the machines following a complaint [PDF] filed in federal court by the state’s Republican Party on Friday. The lawsuit, heard today on an expedited basis, was filed after voters in several counties hadreported to party officials that their attempts to vote for straight-ticket Republican ballots were flipping on the screen to straight-ticket Democratic ballots.

Those reports of vote-flipping led to the NC GOP issuing a threat late this week to sue the State Board of Elections (BoE) if their demands were not met to order certain precautions be taken at polling places which used the 100% unverifiable Direct Recording Electronic (DRE, usually touch-screen) voting systems. After the Executive Director for the BoE sent a letter in response to the GOP’s demands, downplaying the reported incidents as “isolated” and “no different than ones that must be addressed in every election,” the Republican complaint was filed in federal court on Friday afternoon. (The sharp letters back and forth between the state GOP and BoE can be read in our previous report on the NC situation.)

Judge Malcolm Howard tonight also ordered that pollworkers must tell voters to read the printed alert, and that memory cards and other programming materials, records and audit logs from the oft-failed ES&S iVotronic touch-screen DREs must be preserved for examination after the election. Late today, the BoE Executive Director Gary O. Bartlett sent a notice [PDF] to the County Boards of Elections detailing the changes ordered by the federal judge.

The “Voter Alert” to be posted in all precincts using the touch-screen voting systems must read as follows…

See News 14’s coverage here and coverage from local NBC affiliate WITN here for more details.

The remedies sought, and gained, by the Republicans, however, fail to address the fact that no matter how “carefully” a voter reviews their on-screen ballot to ensure their “vote is accurately cast”, there is still no way to know that the voting system will record those votes as intended. Moreover, there is no way to know after the election whether the results actually reflect the will of the electorate, as we recently discussed in this article at Slate detailing some of the closest and most-watched races in the nation which will likely be determined on identical or similar 100% unverifiable DRE systems next Tuesday.

Removing systems from service once they are reported to be failing would be the safest way to deal with such problems, but long time North Carolina Election Integrity advocate Joyce McCloy, Director of NC Coalition for Verified Voting and editor of Voting News, explained to The BRAD BLOG tonight that many of the state’s counties wouldn’t have enough machines or back-up paper ballots to handle the election if failing machines were removed from service.

In past elections, most notably in both 2006 and 2008, it has been largely Democratic voters who have complained that their attempted touch-screen votes were seen flipping to Republican (or other party’s) candidates. Little action was taken on their behalf by either elections officials or the Democratic Party. Many of those who complained were tarred as being being “conspiracy theorists” or “sore losers” by Republicans, and both elections officials and voting machine company representatives generally marginalized the complaints as either non-existent or “human error” on the part of the voter.

According to the NC GOP’s attorney Tom Farr, similar arguments were made by the BoE in this morning’s proceedings. “What I heard in the argument today was, the problem with the touchscreen voting machines are the fault of the voters, not the State Board and we have to preserve the integrity of the State Board and its reputation. And that’s more important than making sure that voters had their ballots counted accurately, and that’s what I thought was outrageous,” Farr told the media after the court hearing.

Another report of votes flipping from Republican to the Green Party on a straight-ticket ballot, as caught on cellphone video, occurred last week in Texas (along with a report of another voter who saw his vote flip from Democratic to Republican in a different TX county.) In Nevada a Republican voter claimed her touch-screen vote was pre-selected on screen for Sen. Harry Reid in his tight race against Republican Sharron Angle. In both instances, local election officials downplayed the incidents by blaming the voters.

Such occurrences have marred virtually every election since the proliferation of unverifiable touch-screen voting was enabled by the federal Help America Vote Act (HAVA) of 2002. While many jurisdictions have decertified the systems in favor of paper ballot-based optical-scan systems, some 20 to 30% of the nation’s voters still use DREs at the polling place.

McCloy told The BRAD BLOG this evening that the state had been set to ban DRE systems all together some time ago, until the legislation was scotched after apparent lobbying by election officials in counties who use, and very much like, the systems. Afterwords, the legislation was reportedly modified to allow the touch-screen systems to stay in place.

ES&S voting systems have a storied history of failure. In 2006, the iVotronics were found to have inexplicably failed to record some 18,000 votes in a special election for the U.S. House in Florida (in which the Republican candidate was declared the “winner” by just 369 votes). That incident led to the state getting rid of virtually all of their touch-screen systems. ES&S iVotronics were also used at the polling place for South Carolina’s primary where Alvin Greene, the unemployed South Carolina veteran who failed to campaign or even have a campaign web site, inexplicably defeated four-term state Senator and former Circuit Court Judge Vic Rawl for the Democratic U.S. Senate nomination.”

Read more:

http://www.bradblog.com/?p=8162

After the federal judge ruling in 2010, Gary O. Bartlett, Executive Director of the SBOE, State Board of Elections, issued the following memo on October 30, 2010.

http://content.news14.com/pdf/memo%202010-11.pdf

I do not recall seeing either of those signs.

From the voting machine errors in Guilford County NC. Notice the signs at minute 2:54. They do not match the ones from the memo.

The attitude of boards of elections in NC seem to best be summed up by the following quote:

“What I heard in the argument today was, the problem with the touchscreen voting machines are the fault of the voters, not the State Board and we have to preserve the integrity of the State Board and its reputation. And that’s more important than making sure that voters had their ballots counted accurately, and that’s what I thought was outrageous,” said Tom Farr NC GOP attorney.

http://triangle.news14.com/content/top_stories/632096/judge-rules-in-favor-of-gop-over-touchscreen-voting

More on Gary Bartlett and NC State corruption from Citizen Wells June 29, 2010.

https://citizenwells.wordpress.com/2010/06/29/november-2010-elections-not-the-end-end-of-beginning-winston-churchill-change-congress-clean-up-justice-dept-courts-state-government/

 

 

Benghazi blunder Obama unworthy commander in chief, Obama administration did nothing for seven hours that night, Ignoring calls to dispatch help from our bases in Italy, Las Vegas Review Journal

Benghazi blunder Obama unworthy commander in chief, Obama administration did nothing for seven hours that night, Ignoring calls to dispatch help from our bases in Italy, Las Vegas Review Journal

“The question that I had in my mind, was why did we not do something to protect our forces?”…Charles Woods, father of slain Navy Seal

“I will stand with the Muslims should the political winds shift in an ugly direction.”…Barack Obama

“we leave nobody behind”…Barack Obama

From the Las Vegas Review Journal November 1, 2012.

“Benghazi blunder: Obama unworthy commander-in-chief”

“U.S. Ambassador to Libya Chris Stevens and three other Americans died in a well-planned military assault on their diplomatic mission in Benghazi seven weeks ago, the anniversary of the 9/11 terrorist attacks. So why are details surfacing, piecemeal, only now?

The Obama administration sat by doing nothing for seven hours that night, ignoring calls to dispatch help from our bases in Italy, less than two hours away. It has spent the past seven weeks stretching the story out, engaging in misdirection and deception involving supposed indigenous outrage over an obscure anti-Muslim video, confident that with the aid of a docile press corps this infamous climax to four years of misguided foreign policy can be swept under the rug, at least until after Tuesday’s election.

Charles Woods, father of former Navy SEAL and Henderson resident Tyrone Woods, 41, says his son died slumped over his machine gun after he and fellow ex-SEAL Glen Doherty – not the two locals who were the only bodyguards Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and the Obama administration would authorize – held off the enemy for seven hours.

The Obama administration was warned. They received an embassy cable June 25 expressing concern over rising Islamic extremism in Benghazi, noting the black flag of al-Qaida “has been spotted several times flying over government buildings and training facilities.” The Obama administration removed a well-armed, 16-member security detail from Libya in August, The Wall Street Journal reported last month, replacing it with a couple of locals. Mr. Stevens sent a cable Aug. 2 requesting 11 additional body guards, noting “Host nation security support is lacking and cannot be depended on,” reports Peter Ferrara at Forbes.com. But these requests were denied, officials testified before the House Oversight Committee earlier this month.

Based on documents released by the committee, on the day of the attack the Pentagon dispatched a drone with a video camera so everyone in Washington could see what was happening in real time. The drone documented no crowds protesting any video. But around 4 p.m. Washington received an email from the Benghazi mission saying it was under a military-style attack. The White House, the Pentagon, the State Department and the CIA were able to watch the live video feed. An email sent later that day reported “Ansar al-Sharia claims responsibility for Benghazi attack.”

Not only did the White House do nothing, there are now reports that a counterterrorism team ready to launch a rescue mission was ordered to stand down.

The official explanation for the inadequate security? This administration didn’t want to “offend the sensibilities” of the new radical Islamic regime which American and British arms had so recently helped install in Libya.

The official explanation for why Obama administration officials watched the attack unfold for seven hours, refusing repeated requests to send the air support and relief forces that sat less than two hours away in Italy? Silence.

An open discussion of these issues, of course, would lead to difficult questions about the wisdom of underwriting and celebrating the so-called Arab Spring revolts in the first place. While the removal of tyrants can be laudable, the results show a disturbing pattern of merely installing new tyrannies – theocracies of medieval mullahs who immediately start savaging the rights of women (including the basic right to education) and who are openly hostile to American interests.

When Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney promptly criticized the security failures in Benghazi, the White House and its lapdog media jumped all over him for another “gaffe,” for speaking out too promptly and too strongly. Prompt and strong action from the White House on Sept. 11 might have saved American lives, as well as America’s reputation as a nation not to be messed with. Weakness and dithering and flying to Las Vegas the next day for celebrity fund-raising parties are somehow better?

This administration is an embarrassment on foreign policy and incompetent at best on the economy – though a more careful analysis shows what can only be a perverse and willful attempt to destroy our prosperity. Back in January 2008, Barack Obama told the editorial board of the San Francisco Chronicle that under his cap-and-trade plan, “If somebody wants to build a coal-fired power plant, they can. It’s just that it will bankrupt them.” He added, “Under my plan … electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket.” It was also in 2008 that Mr. Obama’s future Energy Secretary, Steven Chu, famously said it would be necessary to “figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels in Europe” – $9 a gallon.

Yet the president now claims he’s in favor of oil development and pipelines, taking credit for increased oil production on private lands where he’s powerless to block it, after he halted the Keystone XL Pipeline and oversaw a 50 percent reduction in oil leases on public lands.

These behaviors go far beyond “spin.” They amount to a pack of lies. To return to office a narcissistic amateur who seeks to ride this nation’s economy and international esteem to oblivion, like Slim Pickens riding the nuclear bomb to its target at the end of the movie “Dr. Strangelove,” would be disastrous.

Candidate Obama said if he couldn’t fix the economy in four years, his would be a one-term presidency.

Mitt Romney is moral, capable and responsible man. Just this once, it’s time to hold Barack Obama to his word. Maybe we can all do something about that, come Tuesday.”

http://www.lvrj.com/opinion/benghazi-blunder-obama-unworthy-commander-in-chief-176736441.html

Obama exposed in NC in print, October 25, 2012, Rhino Times, Obama lies on Benghazi, Romney debate performance, US economy, Israel, Liberal mainstream media having hissy fit

Obama exposed in NC in print, October 25, 2012, Rhino Times, Obama lies on Benghazi, Romney debate performance, US economy, Israel, Liberal mainstream media having hissy fit

“We tried our plan—and it worked. That’s the difference. That’s the choice in this election. That’s why I’m running for a second term.”…Barack Obama

“The function of the press is very high. It is almost Holy.
It ought to serve as a forum for the people, through which
the people may know freely what is going on. To misstate or
suppress the news is a breach of trust.”…. Louis D. Brandeis

“And if all others accepted the lie which the Party imposed
–if all records told the same tale–then the lie passed into
history and became truth. “Who controls the past,” ran the
Party slogan, “controls the future: who controls the present
controls the past.”…George Orwell, “1984″

From John Hammer of the Rhino Times, in print in NC, October 25, 2012.

“But technology has its downside as well, and President Barack Hussein Obama is learning about the problems with electronic communication. The problem is that people can go back and find the records.

Obama tried to blame the whole Benghazi confusion on the State Department and the intelligence community. It simply was not believable that during and after the attack the State Department and the intelligence community believed that the attack was the result of a spontaneous demonstration. Four people were killed in the attack but everyone else survived, plus there were the surveillance videos.

Obama clearly was doing his best to push this entire controversy past Nov. 6 because after Nov. 6 it won’t matter whether he got an email from Ambassador Chris Stevens the day before the attack demanding more security, or a text message during the attack describing the well-organized planned attack that was taking place.

The truth is that Obama knew that it was an organized planned attack, but it doesn’t fit in with the worldview that he is trying to sell to the American people that the US has defeated al Qaeda and the world is a safer place because of President Obama. The truth didn’t fit in with his message, so he changed the story that he told to the American people and now he has been caught. It may change someone’s vote to know that the president deliberately misled the American people to better his chance of getting reelected.”

“The polls that the public sees just aren’t that good. Proof of that is that they still have North Carolina in the “leaning Romney” category. Barring some last minute surprise that will cause even hardcore Republicans to vote for Obama there is no way that Obama can win North Carolina. So any poll that doesn’t put North Carolina solidly in the Romney camp, and I haven’t seen one that does, is automatically suspect.”

“Judging from the campaigns, not only does Romney think he is ahead, Obama is convinced that Romney has won and is running around the country like a madman attacking Romney, trying to make something happen.

And Obama has to attack Romney; he has no other viable campaign. Obama can’t run on his record and he has a big problem if he presents a great plan to bring the country’s economy back around because then the question is, Why aren’t you doing this now? Why do you have to wait to get reelected?”

“One of the biggest lies of the debate was when Obama talked about Israel being “our greatest ally in the region.” Obama refused to even meet with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu when he was in the US this fall. Obama said it didn’t fit into his schedule, but during the same time he managed to find time for David Letterman and a lot of campaigning, which indicates his priorities.

Also, the White House has refused to say that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel. Obama has been as rude to Netanyahu as one head of state can be to another, and now he is trying to say that he believes Israel is our closest ally. You simply don’t treat your friends the way Obama has treated Israel. As president he has never visited Israel.”

“But in the debate it certainly didn’t appear that Obama knew more about foreign affairs than Romney. In fact, Romney did what presidents often do and mentioned some obscure groups and movements that may be big news in national security briefings but haven’t made the daily newspapers. It made Romney seem like he was more knowledgeable.

Obama’s comment about horses and bayonets was just rude. It was a good idea, but the way he said it was rude and mean. No one doubts that Romney knows all about aircraft carriers and submarines. But Obama is a rude man. He is rude to our allies, rude to the people he should be working with in Congress, rude to his political opponents and rude to foreign heads of state who visit him in the White House.

Romney once again didn’t take the bait.

But Romney’s big advantage in this race is the economy. The question that people are going to be asking when they go into the polls is, “Am I better off than I was four years ago?” And for the vast majority of Americans the answer is no.

Not only did Obama allow Romney to talk about the economy, he got sucked in and started talking about it himself.”

“The liberal mainstream media are having a hissy fit right now. The liberal media have figured out that their candidate is not going to win and they are beside themselves. The attitude seems to be, how can the American people ignore all the horrible things they have written about Romney and vote for him?”

“The New York Times Sunday magazine did a hit job on Republican vice presidential candidate Paul Ryan this week. It is amazing what they manage to weave into an article like it belongs. But the reporter, Mark Leibovich, seemed to dislike Sen. Rob Portman even more than Ryan.

Here’s one phrase about Portman, which is really interesting if you have a few facts: “One mark against the wealthy senator was that he might be perceived as too much of a Grey Poupon Republican …”

Here’s the problem. Portman is certainly wealthy, and he is a senator, but he is not a “wealthy senator.” He is kind of average by Senate standards. Portman doesn’t even make the list of the 50 wealthiest members of Congress. Portman, according to Roll Call, is worth about $6.72 million.”

“So of the top 10 richest members of Congress, three are Republicans and seven are Democrats. And Portman doesn’t make the top 50, yet The New York Times refers to him as a “wealthy senator.” How many times have you read – wealthy Sen. Dianne Feinstein, wealthy Sen. John Kerry, or wealthy Sen. Frank Lautenberg?”

“The article is an incredible piece of liberal Democrat propaganda, but very smoothly done. It makes it sound like offering someone barbecue sauce is a bad thing. The tone is really incredible.”

Read more:

http://greensboro.rhinotimes.com/Articles-Columns-c-2012-10-24-213602.112113-Under-the-Hammer.html

John Hammer.

Excellent!

Obama default in 2008 NC voting machines, Guilford County Obama default again in 2012, Voting machine calibration?, Is there a party default on NC voting machines?

Obama default in 2008 NC voting machines, Guilford County Obama default again in 2012, Voting machine calibration?, Is there a party default on NC voting machines?

“The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command. His heart sank as he thought of the enormous power arrayed against him, the ease with which any Party intellectual would overthrow him in debate, the subtle arguments which he would not be able to understand, much less answer. And yet he was in the right! They were wrong and he was right. The obvious, the silly, and the true had got to be defended. Truisms are true, hold on to that! The solid world exists, its laws do not change. Stones are hard, water is wet, objects unsupported fall towards the earth’s centre. With the feeling that he was speaking to O’Brien, and also that he was setting forth an important axiom, he wrote:

Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows.”…George Orwell, “1984”

Reports are already coming in of Romney votes being overridden with Obama votes in Guilford County NC.

https://citizenwells.wordpress.com/2012/10/24/greensboro-guilford-county-votes-default-to-obama-romney-vote-override-voting-machine-calibration-problem-board-of-elections-director-george-gilbert-recurring-problem/

This also happened in 2008.

Is there a party default for voting machines in NC?

From Black Box Voting October October 25, 2008.

“Is there a “party default” on touch screen machines? NC votes flip to Obama”

“GUILFORD COUNTY – “Laurie Edwards of Thomasville heard a strange voting story from her mother this week.

Turns out it’s a fairly widespread problem with touch-screen voting machines.

Edwards said her mother, Liz Odom of Greensboro, had problems getting a voting machine in Jamestown to accept her presidential vote on Friday. She cancelled the vote until the machine accepted it.

“I have had several complaints of this happening, with the machines giving the Democratic vote when the Republican was selected,” Bill Wright, chairman of the Guilford County Republican Party, told elections officials Friday. “These machines should be calibrated every day so this does not happen.”

Election officials agreed to check the iVotronic machines more carefully and urged voters to study the review screens to make sure all their selections are correct before casting the electronic ballot.

“We know not everyone is pushing that review screen button,” Wright said.

West Virginia voters have reported similar problems with touch-screen machines manufactured by Election Systems & Software, which is North Carolina’s only machine vendor. Experts acknowledge that the machines can scramble vote selections if they are uncalibrated, causing a touch in the wrong place and an incorrect vote selection.

“Voters should tell us if they are having any problems,” said Guilford County Elections Director George Gilbert. “If they don’t tell us, then we can’t know. I don’t know how many of these are calibration problems. Some people touch the wrong spot.”

Gilbert said older machines present the most problems. Election workers test voting machines before deploying them to voting sites.

“The new ones do not get out of calibration in two weeks of use,” he said. “We will find the ones that are out of calibration.””

http://blackboxvoting.com/s9/index.php?/archives/323-Is-there-a-party-default-on-touch-screen-machines-NC-votes-flip-to-Obama.html

From Citizen Wells November 2, 2010.

“A Craven County voter says he had a near miss at the polls on Thursday when an electronic voting machine completed his straight-party ticket for the opposite of what he intended.

Sam Laughinghouse of New Bern said he pushed the button to vote Republican in all races, but the voting machine screen displayed a ballot with all Democrats checked. He cleared the screen and tried again with the same result, he said. Then he asked for and received help from election staff.”

https://citizenwells.wordpress.com/2010/11/02/nc-voter-fraud-update-voting-machine-errors-nc-gop-lawsuit-status-voter-registration-issues/

From WITN October 30, 2010.

“Judge Rules On GOP Voting Machine Lawsuit”

“A Federal judge ordered Saturday that the State Board of Elections be required to take steps to ensure voters’ ballots are accurately cast, following a lawsuit filed by the NCGOP after receiving multiple reports of voting inaccuracies in several North Carolina counties.

“We are pleased with today’s outcome,” said NCGOP Chairman Tom Fetzer. “But it is unfortunate that a Federal judge had to intervene. The State Board of Elections should have voluntarily taken these steps to ensure a free and fair election.”

On Saturday evening, after a two-day hearing, a Federal Judge ordered in the NCGOP’s favor, requiring the SBOE to take the following steps on Election Day:

1) Provide written and oral notice to every voter using touch screen machines that problems exist, and to carefully review their ballots before confirming them.

2) Preserve all Personal Electronic programs, ballots, metadata, source codes, and any programs or data that reflects machine calibration.

3) Issue an order that poll workers in all precincts be required to keep a record of all complaints by voters regarding the touch screen voting machines.

The suit was filed against the SBOE by the NCGOP after receiving multiple reports of voting inaccuracies in counties across North Carolina. The complaints followed a similar pattern, in that voters using touch screen voting machines were attempting to cast a straight-ticket Republican vote, while the machine attempted to verify their vote as a straight-ticket Democrat.

Previous Story:

State Board of Elections officials are meeting with GOP officials Saturday in Raleigh to discuss recent problems occurring with electronic voting machines.

Those officials are trying to come up with a resolution after North Carolina’s Republican Party sued the State Board of Elections Friday, alleging that touch-screen machines are thwarting efforts by voters to cast Repubican ballots.

Election officials have said there have only been a few isolated problems with voting machines and that officials were able to quickly fix the problems.

Republican Party officials say they have heard problems in a number of counties. They are demanding that election officials provide notice to all voters about problems, preserve all data and track all complaints.

Two Craven County Election workers were fired after they talked to WITN about these problems.

We will bring you an update on this meeting as soon as it becomes available.”

http://www.witn.com/home/headlines/Meeting_About_Electronic_Voting_Machine_Problems_106378699.html

 

Greensboro Guilford County votes default to Obama, Romney vote override, Voting machine calibration problem?, Board of Elections Director George Gilbert recurring problem

Greensboro Guilford County votes default to Obama, Romney vote override, Voting machine calibration problem?, Board of Elections Director George Gilbert recurring problem

“Isn’t it necessary to eliminate these parties, and isn’t it time to put an end to their useless activity?”…Joseph Goebbels, July 31, 1932 Reichstag elections

“The past is whatever the records and the memories agree upon.
And since the party is in full control of all records, and in
equally full control of the minds of it’s members, it follows
that the past is whatever the party chooses to make it. Six
means eighteen, two plus two equals five, war is peace,
freedom is slavery, ignorance is strength.”…George Orwell, “1984”

From My Fox 8 October 23, 2012.

“Guilford Co. voters say ballot cast for Romney came up Obama on machine”

“GREENSBORO, N.C. –The Presidential election is just around the corner and voting issues have already become a problem in Guilford County.
On Monday, several voters complained that their electronic ballot machine cast the wrong vote. All the complaints were made by people who voted at the Bur-Mil Park polling location.

One of the voters, Sher Coromalis, says she cast her ballot for Governor Mitt Romney, but every time she entered her vote it defaulted to President Obama.
“I was so upset that this could happen,” said Coromalis.

Guilford County Board of Elections Director George Gilbert says the problem arises every election. It can be resolved after the machine is re-calibrated by poll workers.

“It’s not a conspiracy it’s just a machine that needs to be corrected,” Gilbert said.

After the third try, Coromalis says she was able to get her vote counted for Gov. Romney but was still annoyed.
“I should have just mailed it in,” Coromalis said.

Elections officials say the machines have been fixed as of Tuesday, and no problems have been reported since.

Early Voting ends November 3.”

Watch report here.

http://myfox8.com/2012/10/23/guilford-county-voters-say-they-voted-for-the-wrong-candidate/

If this has happened to you or if you have had another problem voting in NC, leave a comment here.

Thanks to commenter Philo-Publius.

Obama Romney third debate, Obama Benghazi lies, Obama takes credit for Osama Bin Laden but worked against efforts, Navy Seals did job Obama delayed

Obama Romney third debate, Obama Benghazi lies, Obama takes credit for Osama Bin Laden but worked against efforts, Navy Seals did job Obama delayed

“With some trying to turn bin Laden’s death into a campaign talking point for Obama’s reelection, it is useful to remember that the trail to bin Laden started in a CIA black site — all of which Obama ordered closed, forever, on the second full day of his administration — and stemmed from information obtained from hardened terrorists who agreed to tell us some (but not all) of what they knew after undergoing harsh but legal interrogation methods. Obama banned those methods on Jan. 22, 2009.”…Jose A. Rodriguez Jr. 31 year CIA veteran 

“But Crowley and Obama had it wrong. the Post’s Glenn Kessler explained:

What did Obama say in the Rose Garden a day after the attack in Libya? ”No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this nation,” he said.
But he did not say “terrorism”—and it took the administration days to concede that that it an “act of terrorism” that appears unrelated to initial reports of anger at a video that defamed the prophet Muhammad.”…Washington Post Oct. 17, 2012

“And if all others accepted the lie which the Party imposed
–if all records told the same tale–then the lie passed into
history and became truth. “Who controls the past,” ran the
Party slogan, “controls the future: who controls the present
controls the past.”…George Orwell, “1984″

The third debate between Barack Obama and Mitt Romney takes place tonight, October 22, 2012 at 9:00 PM. The focus will be foreign policy.

Obama has a problem. The lies he and his administration told about the terrorist attack at Benghazi. He will predictably respond with Orwellian damage control.

There is a consensus that Obama will continue to brag about killing Osama Bin Laden. However, the only thing that Obama can take credit for is not delaying the operation further by giving the order.

Let’s be clear. The Navy Seals risked all and deserve most of the credit.

A new book claims that

“Obama ‘cancelled missions to kill bin Laden THREE TIMES after getting cold feet – until Hillary Clinton stepped in'”

“Barack Obama cancelled three operations to kill Osama bin Laden before finally going ahead with the mission at the insistence of Hillary Clinton, according to a new book.

The explosive allegation is contained in an expose by journalist Rich Miniter, who argues that the White House’s carefully-crafted narrative of Obama as a decisive leader who dispatched the al-Qaeda leader despite the doubts of advisers is a myth.

Leading from Behind: The Reluctant President and the Advisors Who Decide for Him will be published on Tuesday. Excerpts have been viewed by Mail Online.

Miniter, a former ‘Wall Street Journal’, ‘Washington Times’ and ‘Sunday Times’ of London journalist, cites an unnamed source within Joint Special Operations Command as revealing that three ‘kill’ missions were cancelled by Obama in January, February and March 2011.

Bin Laden was eventually killed by US Navy SEALs inside his compound in Abbotobad, Pakistan in May 2011.”

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2191021/EXCLUSIVE-Obama-cancelled-missions-kill-bin-Laden-THREE-TIMES-getting-cold-feet–Hillary-Clinton-stepped-claims-explosive-new-book.html

The search for Bin Laden began years before Obama took office.

“The CIA was able to find him by tracking a courier.  This was a process that took years.  It actually began during the Bush Administration — in 2007.  How did the Intelligence Community find the courier who eventually took them to bin Laden?  They found him through information gained from interrogating terrorist prisoners.

Let’s repeat that point because it needs to be emphasized.  Ultimately, bin Laden was found and killed as a result of information gained from the interrogation of a captured terrorist.  Actually, given all of the ink and pixels that have been spilled over this subject, it bears repeating one more time: bin Laden’s death is a direct result of information gained from the interrogation of detainees, reportedly at the famed Guantanamo Bay prison camp.”

http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/05/bin_ladens_death_and_the_vindi.html

From the Washington Post April 30, 2012.

“The path to bin Laden’s death didn’t start with Obama”

“As we mark the anniversary of Osama bin Laden’s death, President Obama deserves creditfor making the right choice on taking out Public Enemy No. 1.But his administration never would have had the opportunity to do the right thing had it not been for some extraordinary work during the George W. Bush administration. Much of that work has been denigrated by Obama as unproductive and contrary to American principles.

He is wrong on both counts.

Shortly after bin Laden met his maker last spring, courtesy of U.S. Special Forces and intelligence, the administration proudly announced that when Obama took office, getting bin Laden was made a top priority. Many of us who served in senior counterterrorism positions in the Bush administration were left muttering: “Gee, why didn’t we think of that?”The truth is that getting bin Laden was the top counterterrorism objective for U.S. intelligence since well before the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. This administration built on work pain­stakingly pursued for many years before Obama was elected — and without this work, Obama administration officials never would have been in a position to authorize the strike on Abbottabad, Pakistan, that resulted in bin Laden’s overdue death.In 2004, an al-Qaeda terrorist was captured trying to communicate with Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the leader of the terror organization’s operations in Iraq. That captured terrorist was taken to a secret CIA prison — or “black site” — where, initially, he was uncooperative. After being subjected to some “enhanced interrogation techniques” — techniques authorized by officials at the most senior levels of the U.S. government and that the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel confirmed were consistent with U.S. law — the detainee became compliant. He was not one of the three al-Qaeda operatives who underwent waterboarding, the harshest of the hard measures.

Once this terrorist decided that non-cooperation was a non-starter, he told us many things — including that bin Laden had given up communicating via telephone, radio or Internet, and depended solely on a single courier who went by “Abu Ahmed al-Kuwaiti.” At the time, I was chief of the CIA’s Counterterrorism Center. The fact that bin Laden was relying on a lone courier was a revelation that told me bin Laden had given up day-to-day control of his organization. You can’t run an operation as large, complex and ambitious as al-Qaeda by communicating only every few months. It also told me that capturing him would be even harder than we had thought.

Armed with the pseudonym of bin Laden’s courier, we pressed on. We asked other detainees in our custody if they had ever heard of “al-Kuwaiti.” Khalid Sheik Mohammed, the mastermind of 9/11, reacted in horror when he heard the name. He backed into his cell and vigorously denied ever hearing of the man. We later intercepted communications KSM sent to fellow detainees at the black site, in which he instructed them: “Tell them nothing about the courier!”

In 2005 another senior detainee, Abu Faraj al-Libi, told us that this courier had informed him that Libi had been selected to be al-Qaeda’s No. 3 official. Surely that kind of information is delivered only by highly placed individuals.

A couple of years later, after I became head of the National Clandestine Service, the CIA was able to discover the true name of the courier. Armed with that information, the agency worked relentlessly to locate that man. Finding him eventually led to tracking down and killing bin Laden.

With some trying to turn bin Laden’s death into a campaign talking point for Obama’s reelection, it is useful to remember that the trail to bin Laden started in a CIA black site — all of which Obama ordered closed, forever, on the second full day of his administration — and stemmed from information obtained from hardened terrorists who agreed to tell us some (but not all) of what they knew after undergoing harsh but legal interrogation methods. Obama banned those methods on Jan. 22, 2009.”

This past weekend, Sens. Dianne Feinstein and Carl Levin attacked statements made in May 2011 by me, former CIA director Michael Hayden and former attorney general Michael Mukasey regarding what led to bin Laden’s death. They misunderstood and mischaracterized our positions.

No single tactic, technique or approach led to the successful operation against bin Laden. But those who suggest it was all a result of a fresh approach taken after Jan. 20, 2009, are mistaken.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-path-to-osama-bin-ladens-death-didnt-start-with-obama/2012/04/30/gIQAfFmdsT_story.html

Rush Limbaugh declares Romney winner of debate, Facts not lies win presidential debates, Barack Obama and Candy Crowley lies being discussed

Rush Limbaugh declares Romney winner of debate, Facts not lies win presidential debates, Barack Obama and Candy Crowley lies being discussed

“It — it — it — he did in fact, sir. … He did call it an act of terror.”…Candy Crowley

“But Crowley and Obama had it wrong. the Post’s Glenn Kessler explained:

What did Obama say in the Rose Garden a day after the attack in Libya? ”No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this nation,” he said.
But he did not say “terrorism”—and it took the administration days to concede that that it an “act of terrorism” that appears unrelated to initial reports of anger at a video that defamed the prophet Muhammad.”…Washington Post Oct. 17, 2012

“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it”…Joseph Goebbels

From Rush Limbaugh October 17, 2012.

RUSH:  I’m seriously amazed.  I really am, ladies and gentlemen, seriously amazed at the uniformity of thought and opinion across the spectrum on the debate last night.  I must tell you, in all honesty, my view of what happened last night is not even close to what I’m hearing on Fox News, on MSNBC, on CNN, in the New York Times and the Washington Post.  Well, actually, you know, some of the newspaper editorials are closer to the way I saw this last night than some of the people on television.

Let me start out by stating something patently obvious.  Maybe put it to you in the form of a question.  Addressing one of the things that I have detected that people on our side are most concerned about, outside of Candy Crowley, which we’ll deal with here in just a second.  Libya.  Romney had a big opening.  He didn’t close it.  He didn’t secure it.  He could have said, “What are you talking about, terror attack?  You blamed a video for two weeks.”  He didn’t say that.

Are any of you not going to vote for Mitt Romney because he didn’t have something to say at a crucial moment that you wanted him to say?  Is somebody gonna vote for Barack Obama that wasn’t going to because Mitt Romney didn’t say, “You were talking about a video for two weeks.”  No, of course not.  There weren’t any votes lost by Romney last night, and there weren’t any votes gained by Obama.  Seriously.  So the whole notion I’m hearing of scoring this thing on points, this isn’t a college debate where you lose for technique according to some scoring system.  This was an entirely different dynamic, and it’s one that Obama came nowhere near overcoming.  The problem that he had going in is not one that he got anywhere near solving.

My friends, I want you to know something here.  I’m not speaking with preferences guiding my comments, and I’m not speaking with hope or false promises.  I’m shooting you straight as best I can.  I watched this debate last night and I saw another halting, choppy, staccato-speaking Barack Obama, wandering aimlessly, speaking in theory, speaking in faculty lounge lizard theoretical non-reality.  I saw cliche after cliche.  I heard liberal cliche after cliche.

The first question was some college kid who wants to know about a job and Obama talks to him about manufacturing jobs?  This kid isn’t going to college to learn how to weld.  He’s not going to college to find a manufacturing job. And Obama answers his question that way?  Through most of this debate I was thinking, here’s Romney, Mr. Smooth, he is in total command of the facts.  He is once again totally decimating Obama’s economic performance.  Obama, in his closing remarks, was reduced to sounding like me, when everybody knows he doesn’t believe a word of what he said.  He doesn’t believe in rugged individualism.  He doesn’t believe in self-reliance.  He doesn’t believe in any of those things.

Why doesn’t that matter when people start scoring these debates?  They look at these debates and they score some system that’s foreign to me.  Style points or any number of odd things that are irrelevant in a presidential campaign.  But I didn’t see Barack Obama dazzling anybody with a defense of his record.  I didn’t hear Barack Obama talk about his great plans for the future.  I heard Barack Obama even at one point say “when I was president” as though it’s in the past tense.  I saw a nervous, staccato speaking, choppy. In fact, everybody talks about how Romney got a raw deal from Candy Crowley, and he did, but it is what it is.

There was a point in that debate last night — Kathryn and I are sitting there watching it — and I was so stunned by what I saw that I hit the pause on the DVR.  And I said, “Do you realize what we just saw here?”  And what it was was a full-fledged destruction of the Obama record by Mitt Romney.  Every stat you could want.  Household income falling, unemployment up, the number of people out of the workforce, the number of jobs lost since Obama took office, the number of people totally out of work, 23 million.  Every economic statistic that detailed the crumbling aspects of this regime.  And Candy Crowley — on second thought, maybe she did him a favor — did not let Obama respond.  She didn’t make Romney stop prematurely, he finished, and then she went on to the next question.

Now that I think about it now, and now that we know what we know, there’s no question she was trying to save Obama by making sure he didn’t have to deal with that.  But the bottom line is, for everybody who thinks that Romney had a minor screw up here because he didn’t point out that Obama had been saying it’s a video for two weeks, Obama did not have a syllable to say in refutation, in disagreement with Romney’s sterling recitation of his failures.  There wasn’t one retort. There wasn’t one reply to it. There wasn’t one accusation that Romney had said anything that wasn’t true.

In fact, today, the day after, the only people who are accused of saying things that are not true are Barack Obama and Candy Crowley, not Mitt Romney.  I kid you not.  That’s the debate I saw.  I once again saw an Obama who looked uncomfortable and unprepared and full of, “Eh, uh, eh, uh.”  I didn’t see Mr. Smooth. I didn’t see Mr. In Command of Facts. I didn’t see anybody who was eager to defend his performance and his record.  Folks, I’m gonna apologize to you because I simply do not have a recollection or an analysis of what I saw last night that is anywhere close to what I’ve seen — and I haven’t seen it all — to what I saw on television last night. ”

Read more:

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2012/10/17/my_debate_analysis_defies_the_uniformity_of_thought_that_pervades_virtually_all_media

Obama Romney debate moderator Candy Crowley liberal bias, Crowley selects audience questions , Crowley will not follow rules, Biased history

Obama Romney debate moderator Candy Crowley liberal bias, Crowley selects audience questions , Crowley will not follow rules, Biased history

“I recall standing out in very chilly Springfield, Illinois, when Barack Obama announced. And a lot of people I talked to there said, ‘Oh, you’re an Obama supporter?’ I said no, but you know, this might be history. I wanted to bring my kid. Same with Hillary Clinton. I brought my daughter, you know, because I think this might be history.”…CNN’s Candy Crowley on American Morning, February 1, 2008

“Not every item of news should be published: rather must
those who control news policies endeavor to make every item
of news serve a certain purpose.”… Joseph Goebbels

“Let us raise a standard to which the wise and honest can repair; the rest is in the hands of God.”…George Washington

***  Update Oct. 17, 2012, 8:35 AM  ***

Candy Crowley did not disappoint us. She performed as her history and associations predicted. More on this later today.

From Media Research Center October 16, 2012.

“MRC Study: By 2-to-1 Margin, Journalists Favor Liberal Questions at Town Hall Debates”

“Tonight’s town hall-style presidential debate will ostensibly feature questions from undecided voters, but the evening’s agenda will really be decided by the moderator, as CNN’s Candy Crowley will select which of the more than roughly 80 voters in the room will actually get a chance to talk to the candidates.

Reviewing the five previous town hall debates, the journalist-moderators have tended to skew the agenda of these so-called citizen forums to the liberal side of the spectrum, but not always. In 2004, ABC’s Charles Gibson selected a balanced menu of questions, with questions from the left matching those from the right.

But Gibson is the lone exception. The other journalists who have moderated these forums — ABC’s Carole Simpson in 1992, PBS’s Jim Lehrer in 1996 and 2000, and NBC’s Tom Brokaw in 2008 — all favored liberal agenda questions as they chose which of the undecided voters would actually participate in the debate.

The bottom line: if history is a reliable guide, Mitt Romney has twice the chance of facing a hostile liberal question Tuesday night as Barack Obama has of facing a question based on a conservative agenda, as the record shows a 2-to-1 tilt to the left in past town hall debates.

The Media Research Center has examined the agenda of every town hall debate since the format debuted 20 years ago. In the 1992 Bush-Clinton-Perot debate in Richmond, we scored eight audience questions as straightforward requests for information, four liberal questions, and no conservative questions. One participant that year described the election as about choosing a father who would take care of citizens, whom he referred to as “children.”

The focus of my work as a domestic mediator is meeting the needs of the children that I work with, by way of their parents, and not the wants of their parents. And I ask the three of you, how can we, as symbolically the children of the future president, expect the two of you, the three of you to meet our needs, the needs in housing and in crime and you name it, as opposed to the wants of your political spin doctors and your political parties?

Four years later, we tallied ten questions as straightforward, five as conveying a liberal agenda, and three as conservative. That year, one voter asked Bill Clinton whether he had “plans to expand the Family Leave Act,” while another insisted during a discussion of health care that “the private sector is a problem.”

In 2000, moderator Jim Lehrer favored liberal questions by an 8-to-2 margin over conservative questions. Examples from that debate: One voter asked George W. Bush and Al Gore: “Would you be open to the ideal of a national health care plan for everybody?” while another targeted Bush:

We’d like to know why you object to the Brady handgun bill, if you do object to it. Because in a recent TV ad, it showed that the [NRA] says if you are elected that they will be working out of your office…actually, that kind of bothers me.

In 2004, anchor Charles Gibson picked an ideologically balanced set of questions: eight from the left/pro-Kerry, eight from the right/pro-Bush and two ambiguous/neutral. From the left, one voter lectured then-President Bush about the “intensity of aggravation that other countries had with how we handled the Iraq situation,” while another complained about the Patriot Act “which takes away checks on law enforcement and weakens American citizens’ rights and freedoms….Why are my rights being watered down?”

But balancing the night, Gibson also showcased a voter who posed this tough question to John Kerry: “You’ve stated your concern for the rising cost of health care, yet you chose a vice presidential candidate who has made millions of dollars successfully suing medical professionals. How do you reconcile this with the voters?”

Another voter aimed at Kerry’s cynical use of stem cell research to paint Republicans as anti-science. “Senator Kerry, thousands of people have already been cured or treated by the use of adult stem cells or umbilical cord stem cells. However, no one has been cured by using embryonic stem cells. Wouldn’t it be wise to use stem cells obtained without the destruction of an embryo?”

In 2008, NBC’s Tom Brokaw selected a dozen questions from citizens — three from the left, none from the right, and nine that were neutral/informational. The Obama-McCain town hall debate took place at the height of the financial panic that year, and one voter demanded to know “What’s the fastest, most positive solution to bail these people [retirees and workers] out of the economic ruin?”

Another voter wanted to see a flurry of legislation to create “green jobs,” telling John McCain: “We saw that Congress moved pretty fast in the face of an economic crisis. I want to know, what you would do within the first two years to make sure that Congress moves fast as far as environmental issues, like climate change and green jobs?”

As the Gibson example shows, a moderator has it within their power to ensure an ideologically balanced discussion of the issues — to serve all of the potential voters who might be watching. It’s up to Crowley to determine whether the candidates will face equally tough questioning, or whether the liberal Barack Obama will face a friendlier agenda than Mitt Romney.”

http://www.mrc.org/media-reality-check/mrc-study-2-1-margin-journalists-favor-liberal-questions-town-hall-debates

Candy Crowley has stated she will not abide by the rules.

From Politico October 16, 2012.

“In an interview with CNN this afternoon, Candy Crowley reiterated that, like past town-hall debate moderators, she intends to do more than just hold the microphone at tonight’s debate in Hempstead, N.Y. — an intention that has caused concern for both campaigns.

“They will call on ‘Alice,’ and ‘Alice’ will stand up and ask a question. Both candidates will answer. Then there’s time for a follow-up question, facilitating a discussion, whatever you want to call it,” Crowley said. “So if Alice asks oranges, and someone answers apples, there’s the time to go, ‘But Alice asked oranges? What’s the answer to that?” Or, ‘Well, you say this, but what about that?'”

(Also on POLITICO: 5 things to watch at the debate)

Crowley’s vision of her role at tonight’s debate is in keeping with past town hall debates, but it would defy the expectations agreed to by both campaigns in the co-signed memorandum of understanding, obtained and released yesterday by Time’s Mark Halperin. From section 7, part (c), sub-part (iv) (italics mine):

7. Additional Rules Apllicable to the October 16 Debate…

(c) With respect to all questions…

(iv) The moderator will not ask follow-up questions or comment on either the questions asked by the audience or the answers of the candidates during the debate or otherwise intervene in the debate except to acknowledge the questioners from the audience or enforce the time limits, and invite candidate comments during the 2 minute response period.

There is hardly any gray area here. Crowley is expected to do nothing except to acknowledge questioners, enforce the time limits, and invite candidate comments. Many people — especially journalists — would and have objected to that, but that’s the agreement. ”

Read more:

http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2012/10/crowley-promises-to-defy-debate-contract-138596.html

Candy Crowley’s history.

From News Busters August 15, 2012.

“Affirmative-action lovers were thrilled that CNN’s Candy Crowley would be the first female to moderate a presidential debate since Carole Simpson’s sneering turn in 1992. Crowley deserves the opportunity after being in the field of political news for decades, and is the closest thing the current crop of moderators has to a Tim Russert type in being able to question firmly both sides of the aisle.

However, Crowley still fits within the CNN media-elite mold of liberalism, and not just with her unfortunate channeling of “some Republicans” on Saturday who anonymously felt the Paul Ryan pick “looks a little bit like some sort of ticket death wish.” Below are a list of some of Crowley’s more liberal moments on the CNN airwaves:

Story Continues Below Ad ↓
“Usually you kind of give the President a pass on leaking confidential stuff.” – CNN’s Candy Crowley on Obama’s self-promoting national security leaks, June 10, 2012 State of the Union.

“Let me talk to you a little about the swing state of Virginia, and I want to show our viewers your unemployment rate which has basically stayed two to three points below the national unemployment rate. It’s a success story really. Okay? You like this. I understand that. But, but, even as you embrace it as a Republican governor, does it not make it difficult for Mitt Romney, who has the same problem in other swing states, to come in and say, ‘The economy is terrible and, you know, you need to elect a new president?’ Because Virginia is doing very well under President Obama. – CNN’s Candy Crowley to Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell, June 3, 2012 State of the Union.

“Do you have a problem with being inclusive, because most people do look at Republicans going ‘They’re a conservative bunch of white guys who want to protect Big Oil.’ And now you’re even hearing Republicans saying, ‘It’s not big enough. We haven’t opened up the tent door.’” – CNN’s Candy Crowley touting an Arnold Schwarzenegger op-ed to Newt Gingrich, May 6, 2012 State of the Union.

“We have a poll where the majority of Americans said you all need to compromise on this debt ceiling, you all need to raise the debt ceiling, and it out to be — the deal ought to include a combination of tax increases and spending cuts. You are opposed to both raising the debt ceiling and that kind of compromise. So doesn’t that put you outside the mainstream?” – CNN’s Candy Crowley to Rep. Michele Bachmann, August 14, 2011 State of the Union.

“There’s that term, ‘penny wise and pound foolish.’ Would you worry that, by cutting off those services, people…would have sicker babies, or certain people…wouldn’t have HIV testing…and that would just cost us more?” – CNN’s Candy Crowley questioning Rep. Steve King on Planned Parenthood subsidies while guest-hosting The Situation Room on February 18, 2011.

“So let’s get down to the basic question, who’s going to get hurt in this budget?…So you have said in an editorial you wrote that the budget is an expression of our values and aspirations. So if I look at this what we call discretionary spending, things we don’t have to spend on, you want to cut back community development block programs. That creates jobs in communities; it helps them with infrastructure, that kind of thing. Home heating assistance; education, as you just mentioned. You’re also going to do — the Great Lakes Restoration Fund Initiative is getting a pretty healthy cut in what they get from the feds, eight states involved, in trying to keep the Great Lakes economically viable. What does that say about our values and aspirations?: – CNN’s Candy Crowley pressing Obama budget director Jack Lew from the left on State of the Union, February 13, 2011.

“It’s probably less of a phony issue than a passe issue. This might have had some resonance had he done it early on, and he had a whole, you know, springtime to begin to, you know, chip away. The problem is, that the economy just came down on him.” – CNN’s Candy Crowley after the third presidential debate raised the issue of Obama’s friendship with radical Sixties bomber Bill Ayers, October 15, 2008.

“If you raised more than a quarter billion dollars in the primary season, would you limit yourself to $85 million in the fall campaign? Duh!” – CNN’s Candy Crowley’s spin when Obama decided to break his promise to abide by campaign spending limits to accept public financing, June 19, 2008.

“I recall standing out in very chilly Springfield, Illinois, when Barack Obama announced. And a lot of people I talked to there said, ‘Oh, you’re an Obama supporter?’ I said no, but you know, this might be history. I wanted to bring my kid. Same with Hillary Clinton. I brought my daughter, you know, because I think this might be history.” – CNN’s Candy Crowley on American Morning, February 1, 2008.”

Read more:

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tim-graham/2012/08/15/cnns-moderator-candy-crowley-political-news-pro-still-liberal-media-elit

I will be commenting live on Twitter.

http://twitter.com/citizenwells

Obama Romney debate Gallup selects town hall audience, Recent Gallup change helped Obama, Hofstra CNN Crowley Gallup bias?, October 16, 2012 debate

Obama Romney debate Gallup selects town hall audience, Recent Gallup change helped Obama, Hofstra CNN Crowley Gallup bias?, October 16, 2012 debate

“I hope I shall possess firmness and virtue enough to maintain what I consider the most enviable of all titles, the character of an honest man.”…George Washington

“If I had my choice I would kill every reporter in the world but I am sure we would be getting reports from hell before breakfast.”… William Tecumseh Sherman

“The function of the press is very high. It is almost Holy.
It ought to serve as a forum for the people, through which
the people may know freely what is going on. To misstate or
suppress the news is a breach of trust.”…. Louis D. Brandeis

Anyone paying attention for years should be aware of the bias from CNN and Candy Crowley. Yesterday at Citizen Wells, the bias in favor of the LGBT community at Hofstra University was revealed.

“A cursory examination of the Hofstra University website reveals what can only be described as an inordinate emphasis on gay issues.

For example. On the first page of the scholarship opportunities we find:

“LGBT Activism Scholarship

In 2002, Hofstra University established an unprecedented scholarship program for students engaged in service to the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) community. The program is designed to demonstrate Hofstra’s commitment to equality and support for LGBT individuals. The program also includes the Hofstra Law School Fellowships for Advocacy for the Equality of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender People, as well as the Mildred Elizabeth McGinnis Endowed scholarship for students in the humanities.”

“School of Law Scholarships”

“LGBT Rights Fellowship – The Law School supports a Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Rights Fellowship for students interested in pursuing advocacy work on behalf of these communities.”

LGBT Studies.

“LGBT Studies focus on lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people, their history and culture, considering sexualities and genders as identities, social statuses, categories of knowledge, and as lenses that help us to frame how we understand our world. A central core of courses is complemented by interdisciplinary courses taught across campus or by specialized syllabi for students taking a course that could lend itself to LGBT studies. Currently, a minor in LGBT Studies is available as part of the Hofstra College of Liberal Arts and Sciences.”

http://www.hofstra.edu/Academics/HCLAS/LGBT/index_LGBT.cfm

And last but not least.

“LGBT STUDIES PROGRAM, HOFSTRA UNIVERSITY

and

HOFSTRA CULTURAL CENTER
present
a conference

Queer Rhetoric
The 6th Annual LGBT Studies Conference

Friday and Saturday, March 16-17, 2012
Queer Rhetoric is a relatively new field situated at the intersection of LGBT Studies, Queer Theory, Rhetoric and Cultural Studies. In short, Queer Rhetoric seeks to uncover the symbolic and performative strategies whereby queer identities have been and continue to be constructed in different times and places. Scholars working in this field locate the heteronormative occlusion of queer voices within a given cultural and social context and describe how queer voices develop a battery of technologies that offer a means of resistant expression. This conference will be the first ever devoted entirely to the subject of Queer Rhetoric. For more information click here.

Keynote Addresses will be given by:
Erik Gunderson
University of Toronto, Canada
Joseph G. Astman Distinguished Symposium Scholar
The Reluctant Queerness of Ancient Rhetoric

and

Chuck E. Morris III
Boston College
Joseph G. Astman Distinguished Conference Scholar
My Old Kentucky Homo: Abraham LIncoln is Here,
Queer, and Wants to Recruit You”

https://citizenwells.wordpress.com/2012/10/15/obama-romney-debate-october-16-2012-hofstra-university-hempstead-ny-town-meeting-format-moderator-candy-crowley-cnn-hofstra-not-neutral-site/

Gallup is selecting the town hall meeting audience from undecided voters. Most of you are aware of the controversies surrounding polling methodologies and in many cases the skewing of results with an unrealistic representation of Democrats in the numbers. Recently Gallup changed it’s methodology midstream in the election cycle to the benefit of Obama.

From The Hill October 11, 2012.

“Obama approval rating gets a boost after Gallup tweaks its polling methodology”
“President Obama’s job approval rating spiked this month, according to Gallup’s daily tracking survey, but the jump may be the result of a shift in the polling outlet’s survey methodology.

Since late 2011, President Obama has held steady at just under 50 percent saying they approved of the job he was doing and just under 50 percent saying they disapproved.

Earlier this month, the trend line moved in favor of the president, and on Thursday it sat at 53 percent positive and 42 negative — a greater job approval rating than Obama enjoyed after the assassination of Osama bin Laden.

However, this movement may have been provoked by a change in the pollster’s methodology, without which the president may have seen no change in job approval.

“As we began this election tracking program on Oct.1, our methodologists also recommended modifying and updating several procedures,” Gallup CEO Frank Newport wrote on Wednesday.

Gallup increased the proportion of cellphones in its tracking survey from 40 percent, and now splits its calls to cellphones and land lines evenly. Newport defended the switch, saying it was an attempt to “stay consistent with changes in the communication behavior and habits of those we are interviewing.”

“Gallup switched primarily to telephone interviewing a few decades ago based on the increased penetration of phones in American households and the increased costs of going into Americans’ homes for in-person interviewing,” Newport wrote. “Now we know, based on government statistics (and what we observe around us), that Americans are shifting rapidly from reliance on landline phones to mobile devices.”

Still, the timing of the change — one month out from the presidential election — has some on the right exasperated.

“What I can say is that it’s problematic to alter one’s methodological approach to polling elections just five weeks before the biggest election in a generation,”writes Jay Cost, polling analyst for the conservative Weekly Standard. “In fact, I think this is a highly inopportune time to make such a change; do it in the summer of 2012 or the winter of 2013, but for goodness sake not the fall of 2012!”

The controversy will likely be fuel for those conservatives who claimed polls from earlier in the cycle were skewed in favor of Democrats.

The Romney campaign and other Republicans said polls showing Obama with a significant lead over their candidate were inaccurate.”

Read more:

http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/261485-obama-gets-a-boost-after-gallup-tweaks-polling-methodology

It appears to me on the surface that using a higher percentage of cell phones could include more young people.

From Gallup.

“How does Gallup polling work?

Gallup polls aim to represent the opinions of a sample of people representing the same opinions that would be obtained if it were possible to interview everyone in a given country.

The majority of Gallup surveys in the U.S. are based on interviews conducted by landline and cellular telephones. Generally, Gallup refers to the target audience as “national adults,” representing all adults, aged 18 and older, living in United States.

The findings from Gallup’s U.S. surveys are based on the organization’s standard national telephone samples, consisting of directory-assisted random-digit-dial (RDD) telephone samples using a proportionate, stratified sampling design. A computer randomly generates the phone numbers Gallup calls from all working phone exchanges (the first three numbers of your local phone number) and not-listed phone numbers; thus, Gallup is as likely to call unlisted phone numbers as listed phone numbers.

Within each contacted household reached via landline, an interview is sought with an adult 18 years of age or older living in the household who has had the most recent birthday. (This is a method pollsters commonly use to make a random selection within households without having to ask the respondent to provide a complete roster of adults living in the household.) Gallup does not use the same respondent selection procedure when making calls to cell phones because they are typically associated with one individual rather than shared among several members of a household.

When respondents to be interviewed are selected at random, every adult has an equal probability of falling into the sample. The typical sample size for a Gallup poll, either a traditional stand-alone poll or one night’s interviewing from Gallup’s Daily tracking, is 1,000 national adults with a margin of error of ±4 percentage points. Gallup’s Daily tracking process now allows Gallup analysts to aggregate larger groups of interviews for more detailed subgroup analysis. But the accuracy of the estimates derived only marginally improves with larger sample sizes.

After Gallup collects and processes survey data, each respondent is assigned a weight so that the demographic characteristics of the total weighted sample of respondents match the latest estimates of the demographic characteristics of the adult population available from the U.S. Census Bureau. Gallup weights data to census estimates for gender, race, age, educational attainment, and region.”

http://www.gallup.com/poll/101872/how-does-gallup-polling-work.aspx