Wednesday, October 31, 2012

Obama, Biden, and Panetta Meeting During Benghazi Attack

The noose is continuing to tighten around Obama's neck, and yet the American Pravda refuses to address the scandal in Benghazi. It's shameful how they cover for the president, and beyond unprofessional.

Read from Atlas Shrugs:

OBAMA MET WITH PANETTA AND BIDEN AT WH AS BENGHAZI TERROR ATTACK UNFOLDED, REFUSED HELP AS PEOPLE WERE MURDERED

Every day brings a new blockbuster. Obama has lost the military, the State Department and the Intelligence community. It's one leak after another. He has made enemies of all of them. He betrayed them all.

We will find out every detail of Obama's abandonment of the American people and treasonous cover-up of this act of war.

"Obama Met With Panetta and Biden at WH As Benghazi Terror Attack Unfolded" CNS,October 30, 2012

(CNSNews.com) - President Barack Obama met with Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and Vice President Joe Biden at the White House on Sept. 11, 2012 at 5:00 PM—just 55 minutes after the State Department notified the White House and the Pentagon that the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi was under attack.

The meeting between Obama, Panetta and Biden had been scheduled before the attack took place, and the Department of Defense is not commenting now on whether the three men were aware when they met that day of the ongoing attack or whether Obama used that meeting to discuss with his defense secretary what should be done to defend the U.S. personnel who at that very moment were fighting for their lives in Benghazi.

“Secretary Panetta met with President Obama, as the White House-provided scheduled indicates,” Lt. Col. Todd Breasseale, a Defense Department spokesman, told CNSNews.com on Tuesday. “However, neither the content nor the subject of discussions between the President and his advisors are appropriate for disclosure.”

The fact that the president had been scheduled to meet with Vice President Biden and Defense Secretary Panetta at 5:00 p.m. on Sept. 11 had been publicized in the Washington Daybook--a planning service to which news organizations subscribe--and included on the official White House schedule posted online by the White House itself.

The State Department email notifying the White House and Pentagon of the Sept. 11 Benghazi attack was obtained by CBS News and reported by Sharyl Attkisson on Oct. 23, almost six weeks after the attack.

The terrorist attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi began at about 9:40 p.m. Benghazi time—or about 3:40 p.m. Washington, D.C. time. “The attack began at approximately 9:40 p.m. local time,” Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Charlene Lamb told the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee in written testimony submitted Oct. 10.

About 25 minutes after the attack started—at 4:05 p.m. Washington, D.C. time—the State Department sent an email that went to multiple recipients, including two at the White House and one at the Pentagon.

The subject line on this email said: “U.S. Diplomatic Mission in Benghazi Under Attack.” The text of the email said: “The Regional Security Officer reports the diplomatic mission is under attack. Embassy Tripoli reports approximately 20 armed people fired shots; explosions have been heard as well. Ambassador Stevens, who is currently in Benghazi, and our COM personnel are in the compound safe haven.” It went on to say: “The Operations Center will provide updates as available.”

In her testimony to the Oversight Committee, Charlene Lamb indicated that soon after the attack started, she was able to monitor it from Washington, D.C., in “almost real time.”

“When the attack began, a Diplomatic Security agent working in the Tactical Operations Center immediately activated the Imminent Danger Notification System and made an emergency announcement over the PA,” Lamb testified. “Based on our security protocols, he also alerted the annex U.S. quick reaction security team stationed nearby, the Libyan 17th February Brigade, Embassy Tripoli, and the Diplomatic Security Command Center in Washington. From that point on, I could follow what was happening in almost real-time.”

According to Lamb, three U.S. agents used an armored car to approach the safe haven at the U.S. consulate to rescue a U.S. security agent on the roof of the facility and also to try to retrieve Amb. Chris Stevens and Sean Smith, an Air Force veteran and State Department communications specialist.

“Despite thick smoke, the agents entered the building multiple times trying to locate the Ambassador and Mr. Smith,” Lamb testified. “After numerous attempts, they found Sean Smith and, with the assistance of members of the U.S. quick reaction team, removed him from the building. Unfortunately, he was already deceased. They still could not find the Ambassador.”

It was not until 11:00 p.m. Benghazi time—or just as Obama’s 5:00 p.m. meeting with Panetta and Biden was starting in Washington, D.C.—that the U.S. agents in Benghazi decided to abandon the main consulate facility there.

“At 11 p.m. members of the Libyan 17th February Brigade advised they could no longer hold the area around the main building and insisted on evacuating the site,” Lamb testified. “The agents made a final search for the Ambassador before leaving in an armed vehicle."

But the battle was far from over.

“Upon arriving at the annex around midnight, they took up defensive positions, including on the roof,” Lamb testified. “Shortly after their arrival, the annex itself began taking intermittent fire for a period of time.”

The battle continued, with the attackers now using mortars, and it was only in the “early morning” that two more Americans were killed and two more were wounded.

“In the early morning, an additional security team arrived from Tripoli and proceeded to the annex,” Lamb testified. “Shortly after they arrived, the annex started taking mortar fire, with as many as three direct hits on the compound. It was during this mortar attack that Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty were killed and a Diplomatic Security agent and an annex quick reaction security team member were critically wounded.”

Doherty and Woods were both former Navy Seals who served in both the Iraq and Afghan wars. They were working as U.S. security personnel in Libya.

When exactly did Obama learn that the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi was under attack and whom did he order to do something about it? The White House is not saying.

“I can tell you, as I've said over the last couple of months since this happened, the minute I found out what was happening, I gave three very clear directives,” Obama told KUSA TV in Denver on Friday. “Number one, make sure that we are securing our personnel and doing whatever we need to.”

Fred Lucas of CNSNews.com asked the White House on both Monday and Tuesday to reveal exactly whenObama learned the U.S. mission in Benghazi was under attack and who exactly Obama directed to "make sure that we are securing our personnel" there. The White House did not respond.

At an Oct. 25 Pentagon press briefing, a reporter noted that “there was, in fact, a drone over the CIA annex [in Benghazi] and there were intelligence officials fighting inside the annex.” He then asked Panetta: “Why there wasn't a clear intelligence picture that would have given you what you needed to make some moves, for instance, flying, you know, F-16s over the area to disperse fighters or dropping more special forces in?”

Read the rest.

White House Audio Tapes of Seals Begging for Help

During the 2008 presidential campaign, the Los Angeles Times came up short on objectivity by failing to release a video of Barack Obama toasting a radical anti-Semite. It looks like a similar scenario may be in the works for 2012. Only this time, the culprits are major networks, and it involves the failure to release emails revealing Obama's unwillingness to provide assistance to the four Americans in Benghazi.

From Gateway Pundit:

Gingrich: Major Networks Are Holding Emails From White House Canceling Plans to Assist Benghazi Heroes on 9-11 (Video)

Newt Gingrich told Greta Van Susteren last night that there are rumors that the major news networks have emails proving the Barack Obama White House canceled plans to assist US personnel on the ground in Benghazi on 9-11.

The Daily Caller reported:

On Tuesday night’s “On the Record with Greta Van Susteren” on the Fox NewsChannel, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich said that major news networks might have secret emails proving that the White House canceled plans to assist the besieged U.S. Embassy in Benghazi.

Gingrich said that the bombshell emails could be revealed within the next two days.

“There is a rumor — I want to be clear, it’s a rumor — that at least two networks have emails from the National Security Adviser’s office telling a counterterrorism group to stand down,” Gingrich said. “But they were a group in real-time trying to mobilize marines and C-130s and the fighter aircraft, and they were told explicitly by the White House stand down and do nothing. This is not a terrorist action. If that is true, and I’ve been told this by a fairly reliable U.S. senator, if that is true and comes out, I think it raises enormous questions about the president’s role, and Tom Donilon, the National Security Adviser’s role, the Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta, who has taken it on his own shoulders, that he said don’t go. And that is, I think, very dubious, given that the president said he had instructions they are supposed to do everything they could to secure American personnel.”

Then we have this from Weasel Zippers:

Hannity On White House Audio Tapes: “I’ve Heard They Are Damning” … Includes Audio Of SEALs Begging For Air Support…

Via Red Flag News

Six More Days Until We Kick Him to the Curb

What will November 7th bring? If you think there will be a smooth transition from an Obama presidency to a Romney presidency (hey, I like the sound of that), you haven't been paying much attention the last four years. The Obamas are the height of an "entitlement couple". How dare we throw them out of this lifestyle of fancy vacations and royal treatment at taxpayer expense! We must be a bunch of racists pigs to not recognize their worth.

And wait until their left-wing thug base gets a chance to react to an Obama loss. It ain't gonna be pretty, folks! These are not classy people.

Read from the American Thinker:

It's Not Over

By William L. Gensert

Does anyone believe that when Barack Obama loses on November 6, he will go quietly?

This election is shaping up to be a landslide loss for the president, and by the ever-present look of desperation on his face, he knows it. The nation should be preparing for how he might react when it happens -- there is nothing more dangerous than a cornered god.

In 2008, Americans wholeheartedly bought the Obama dream. It's never easy to let go of a dream, but today, people have let go of Obama the dream -- and on November 6, they will let go of Obama the man.

The debates served two purposes -- namely, showing the world that Mitt Romney was not the evil mastermind Obama and his crew had spent hundreds of millions of dollars portraying him to be while erasing the myth of Obama as invincible and inevitable.

For a man who is supposedly brilliant, it was devastating to see him perform like an uninformed moron in Denver. It can be said that he was unprepared, but whose fault was that? Preparation was too much of a "drag," and he wanted to see the Hoover Dam -- a particular draw for him, since it has always been a dream of Barack the god to build an Obama Dam while Americans forced to live in the economy he has built scream "God damn Obama."

The last two debates showed that the president did not understand what was going on. He thought he needed to be more aggressive, but all America saw was a rude and obnoxious man, with a dismal record of governance and no plan for the future. It used to be said that he is likable, but his condescension and constant belittling of Mitt Romney dispelled that notion.

He spent millions of dollars and much of the past year trying to define Mitt Romney and was outraged when his carefully concocted caricature didn't show up. Most people saw a man who was reasonable and presidential. A nation shell-shocked by four years of failed leadership saw the next president of the United States.

Barack thought he was a guaranteed victor in his re-election campaign. He thought the aura of his presence would so cow Romney into submission that when all was said and done, he would have the governor promising to vote for him as well.

Since his election, however, Obama has always been destined to lose -- America simply does not want what he is selling. But after his performance in the debates, many who had been inclined to perhaps give him a second chance took another look and didn't like what they saw: a nasty, petulant, thin-skinned man, uninformed and without a plan to move forward -- and all this on top of his disastrous record.

Yet he will not go away. In the best-case scenario, on November 7, Obama begins his march toward 2016. His entire life has been an exercise in running for president. Yet, paradoxically, when he attained the exalted position he so coveted, he acted as if it was a burden, and that we Americans did not deserve him -- in the end, only playing at being president while thoroughly enjoying the plane, the parties, and the perks.

He may never have been more than a part-time president, but to expect him to give up the job easily or gracefully is to fall prey to wishful thinking.

His monstrous ego will not allow any other course of action but to fight.

But, after his loss in two weeks, he will be forever destroyed as a viable option, at least electorally -- the cloak of invincibility and transcendent brilliance having succumbed to the reality of the man. He will become a mere mortal -- the veneer of likability stripped away by the truth of his pettiness and anger.

In short, he will never again be able to win the presidency at the ballot box.

And therein lies the danger. If Obama knows he can't win in 2016, he just might claim election fraud and attempt to stay. In a way, this could be what Attorney General Eric Holder's war on voter ID is all about -- establishing an argument for overturning supposedly fraudulent results. If his claim is validated by sycophantic media minions, it could gain traction among the electorate. It certainly will be believed by his small cadre of ardent supporters. After that, there is no telling what he might do -- or what his followers might do.

I would like to believe that Obama will exit gracefully. And I have a hard time accepting that he or his cohorts will foment rioting in the streets -- despite threats tweeted by twits on Twitter -- or that he will impose martial law. But, if I learned anything during decades in business, it is that proper preparation is paramount -- no one can know for sure what the future holds. The prudent prepare for all eventualities.

After all, we don't really know Barack Obama. His history is a chimera. The only information we have on the man is what he has told us in his two biographies and the slightly less than four years we have watched his disastrous reign of incompetence.

Just look at his recent actions. He has no problem ignoring the First Amendment and throwing a YouTube videographer in prison to sustain his pretend version of events surrounding the assassination of our ambassador in Benghazi.

He has no qualms falsely touting a little-watched video as the reason for Islamic unrest -- even to the point of causing riots at dozens of American embassies worldwide.

Those with open eyes know what this president is capable of.

Is this a man we can trust to accept the verdict of the electorate? I would like to believe yes, but all the evidence points to no.

It never occurred to Obama that he would not win a second term. He saw Mitt Romney as a mere businessman, and we know what Obama thinks of businessmen. He had dealt with many in the past -- they were greedy and easily converted into crony capitalists by government cash and preferential treatment.

Hubris is the most dangerous of emotions -- and Obama views all around him as extensions of himself. When he looks into the eyes of Americans, all he sees is his own reflection. He has surrounded himself with those who tell him only what he wants to hear. He lives in a bubble, but it is a bubble of his own creation, and because of that, he can't see it as a bubble. He sees it as reality.

What happens when the bubble bursts?

When reality ensues on November 7 -- who knows how he will react? Being a god is great as long as people believe, but once they do not, you become a mere mortal. Will Obama accept that?

Once the curtain was pulled back, the Wizard of Oz was forevermore just a man.

For Barack, the yellow brick road leads out of the White House. And, having spent the last half-decade studying the man, I'm not convinced that he will willingly follow that path. I want to believe he will. But I am not so sure.

Barack Obama will lose this election in a landslide, but that will almost certainly not be the end of it.

Voting is more important now than ever for those who wish to preserve the union -- the larger the landslide and the bigger his margin of loss, the harder it will be for Barack Obama to pretend the nation still wants him.

Disturbing Findings from a Poll Given to American Muslims

From this article, it appears that many Muslim Americans want to have their cake and eat it too. They are only too happy to take advantage of our freedom of speech to blast America and spout their support for jihad. However, if anything negative is voiced about their prophet, Muhammad all of a sudden, they want the rules to change. Sorry, but they can't have it both ways. If they don't like our freedoms, they are more than welcome to stay home. We'll do just fine without them.

Read from WND:

GUESS WHO U.S. MUSLIMS ARE VOTING FOR

Poll finds what they really think about Constitution, Shariah

Nearly half of 600 Muslim-American citizens polled who plan to vote in the 2012 presidential election believe parodies of Muhammad should be prosecuted criminally in the U.S., and one in eight say the offense is so serious violators should face the death penalty.

The results came in a groundbreaking scientific poll for WND by the public-opinion research and media consulting company Wenzel Strategies. It was taken Oct. 22-26 and carries a margin of error of plus or minus 3.98 percentage points.

The poll also found 40 percent of Muslims in America believe they should not be judged by U.S. law and the Constitution, but by Shariah standards.

And the big winner among Muslim-Americans in the presidential election is Barack Obama, the poll found. More than 72 percent said they are definitely supporting Obama, and another 8.5 percent are leaning that direction. Only 11 percent are for Romney.

Nearly 55 percent of the American Muslim voters say the U.S. is on the right track, and another 13 percent are uncertain. Virtually all of the respondents (98 percent) are American citizens and 97 percent are registered to vote.

“Almost half of those Muslims surveyed – an astonishing 46 percent – said they believe those Americans who offer criticism or parodies of Islam should face criminal charges,” said pollster Fritz Wenzel in an analysis of the survey’s results.

“Even more shocking: One in eight respondents said they think those Americans who criticize or parody Islam should face the death penalty, while another nine percent said they were unsure on the question,” he said.

Wenzel said even the 9 percent “undecided” on that particular question is alarming.

“Seldom in survey research does a response of ‘not sure’ carry such significance, but the response to this question certainly is a surprise, given the severity of the question, and offers insight into the conflict that some Muslims appear to face in making the ideals under-girding American society fit into their religious lifestyle,” he said.

Wenzel’s poll said 7.2 percent of the respondents said they “strongly agree” with the idea of execution for those who parody Islam, and another 4.3 percent said they somewhat agree.

While 80 percent said that they somewhat or strongly disagree with the idea, when those who said they were not sure are added, one in five Muslims across America cannot say they believe Christians or others who criticize Muhammad should be spared the death penalty.

More Muslim women (10.4 percent) than Muslim men (4.9 percent) said they strongly agree with the idea, while 12.4 percent of the women and 7.1 percent of the men were uncertain about the issue involving Muhammad.

Four in 10 said Muslims in America should not be judged by U.S. law and the Constitution, but by Islamic Shariah law.

“A much smaller percentage said they think the U.S. should establish an entirely separate court system to adjudicate matters involving Muslims,” Wenzel said.

While the respondents overwhelmingly lean toward the Democratic Party and like the direction Barack Obama, who repeatedly has praised Islam around the world, is leading this nation, they also have a fundamental conflict with American life, expressing objections to the freedom of speech and religion guaranteed in the Constitution.

American Muslims, Wenzel said, “show signs of ambivalence toward the U.S. Constitution generally and the First Amendment specifically.”

“These survey findings show a community in conflict with the foundations of our nation, as many Muslims favor and enjoy the freedoms offered by the U.S. Constitution, including participation in elections here, but at the same time significant percentages want to be treated differently than the average non-Muslim when it comes to legal matters,” he said.

“While 39 percent of Muslims said they believe existing U.S. courts should consult Shariah law when adjudicating cases involving Muslims, a plurality of 45 percent said they do not agree with this idea. Asked if the U.S. should establish separate courts based solely on Shariah law to adjudicate cases involving Muslim, 21 percent said it should. Two-thirds of respondents – 66 percent – said that separate courts are not necessary to adjudicate Muslims.”

While 9 of 10 of the Muslim respondents said they agree with the First Amendment, they are also in conflict with it, Wenzel said, citing evidence in answers to “another question in the survey which found that one-third of Muslims – 32 percent – believe Shariah should be the supreme law of the land in the United States,” Wenzel said.

“Another shocking finding from the survey is how Muslims view the religious freedoms of Christians. Asked whether U.S. citizens who are Christians have the right to evangelize Muslims to consider other faiths, just 30 percent agreed Christians have such a right. Another 42 percent said they do not have such a right, while 28 percent said they were unsure on the question.”

One in five say Muslim men should be allowed to follow their religion in America and have more than one wife, and 58 percent said criticism of their religion or of Muhammad should not be allowed under the Constitution.

While 43 percent said they disagreed with the idea of Christians evangelizing Muslims, another 27 percent said they were undecided. Only 19 percent said they “strongly agree” with the idea that Americans have a right to invite Muslims to consider another faith.

Nearly one in three said Israel either has no right to exist or they were uncertain whether it does.

Robert Spencer, author of “Stealth Jihad” and “Did Muhammad Ever Exist?,” told WND the survey is a “disquieting indication that Muslims in the U.S. support Shariah blasphemy laws and want to bring them to the U.S.”

“This should not surprise anyone,” he said. “There is no reason to believe that Muslims in the U.S. believe in a different form of Islam from that which prevails everywhere else. But it underscores the need for Americans to defend, forthrightly and without apology, the freedom of speech, as it is increasingly embattled today, and to revive and enact anti-Shariah laws nationwide.”

Spencer has authored 12 books on Islam and has led seminars about jihad for the United States Central Command, United States Army Command, the FBI, the Joint Terrorism Task Force and others.

Pamela Geller, author of ”Stop the Islamization of America” and a WND columnist, said: “Restrictions on free speech are part of Shariah. This poll does nothing but show that Muslims in this country adhere to Shariah in large numbers. What is surprising is that the percentage of those who oppose free speech isn’t higher. But probably many of the respondents already know better than to say what they really think to non-Muslim pollsters.”

Walid Shoebat, who “used to be a radicalized Muslim willing to die for the cause of jihad” before he adopted Christianity in 1994, was a member of the PLO and was recruited to plant a bomb in Bethlehem. The author of ”God’s War on Terror” told WND it is not right that Muslims have a “double standard.”

He said to be fair, any Muslim who “says the Bible is corrupt or the Christians corrupted the Bible” should be penalized in the way they want to punish Christians who mock or ridicule Muhammad.

“The world should appreciate the way the West deals with hurt feelings,” he said, citing America’s rejection of a single individual who recently wanted to make an issue of burning a Quran.

“[Muslims] should be demonstrating how great America is,” he said. “They should be saying, ‘Allah bless America.’”

The Pew Research Center estimates America is home to some 2.6 million Muslims.

See the results:

Add Kansas to the List of Rigged Voting Machines

Last week, I posted an article about voting machines which were rigged to cast votes for Obama, even when the voter cast a vote for Romney. This afternoon, I found another article about the same scenario taking place in Ohio. Well, unfortunately, it doesn't stop there.

Please be sure to review your ballot before you leave the voting booth because your Romney/Ryan vote may "magically" become an Obama/Biden vote. What a horrifying thought!

Read from The Blaze:

MORE ELECTRONIC VOTING MACHINES CHANGING ROMNEY VOTES TO OBAMA: WE LOOKED INTO IT AND HERE’S WHAT A VENDOR TOLD US

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.

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.

Early Voting Sees Calibration Issues With Some Touchscreen Voting Machines

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)

“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.”

As when you purchase any electronic, you can sign up for a warranty or added customer support. The same concept applies to voting machine technology. Riggall said he believes the Marion jurisdiction does receive support from Dominion for its machines, meaning it could be called in to check and fix calibration issues. He said there is a calibration test built into the machine’s software and that the machine can also be tested through a sample ballot, which of course would not be cast as an actual vote.

“It is not uncommon to put a unit back into service when [officials] are 100 percent confident it is registering correctly,” Riggall said.

Although Marion may have vendors helping in such situations, Riggall said tech support provided for machines is jurisdiction dependent. It is up to the states or jurisdictions to decide how often machines will be checked for accuracy, and who will perform this check and fix problems when they occur.

I'm not buying any of their excuses because all of these "mistakes" are in Obama's favor. Dems are notorious for voter fraud,

Ohio Voting Machines Casting Romney Votes for Obama

Amazing how all the voting machine mishaps always benefit Obama.

Read from Gateway Pundit:

Unreal… Obama Tells Press: “We Leave Nobody Behind” (Video)

Art Monitor

After leaving our heroes to die in Benghazi, Barack Obama had the gall to say this today at his press conference:

“This is a tough time for a lot of people; millions of folks all across the Eastern Seaboard, but America’s tougher. And we’re tougher because we pull together, we leave nobody behind.“

It’s really just unbelievable.

Obama also did a little electioneering at the press conference, telling his team to “lean forward.”

Facebook Interferes in the Election

Yep, you read that right. Facebook is protecting Obama in this election by removing a message posted by a group of Navy Seals which blasts Obama for refusing to rescue the four Americans in Benghazi, Libya.

Free speech in America? Not if it is harmful to Obama's re-election chances. Certainly, Facebook permits most anti-Obama postings, but apparently not if they are from a group with as much influence as the Navy Seals.

Read from Now the End Begins:

Facebook Censors Navy SEALs To Protect Obama On Benghazi-Gate

Over the weekend, Facebook took down a message by the Special Operations Speaks PAC (SOS) which highlighted the fact that Obama denied backup to the forces being overrun in Benghazi.

Facebook banned the page that originally posted this meme, a page run by Navy SEALs, to protect and shield Obama from being exposed.

The message was contained in a meme which demonstrated how Obama had relied on the SEALS when he was ready to let them get Osama bin Laden, and how he had turned around and denied them when they called for backup on Sept 11.

I spoke with Larry Ward, president of Political Media, Inc — the media company that handles SOS postings and media production. Ward was the one who personally put the Navy SEAL meme up, and the one who received the warning from Facebook and an eventual 24 hour suspension from Facebook because Ward put the meme back up after Facebook told him to take it down.

Here’s what Ward told me:

We created and posted this meme on Saturday after news broke that Obama had known and denied SEALS the backup they requested.

Once the meme was up it garnered 30,000 shares, approx. 24,000 likes, and was read by hundreds of thousands of people — all within 24 hrs. On Sunday, I went into the SOS Facebook page to post something else and found a warning from Facebook that we had violated Facebook’s Statement of Rights and Responsibilities with our meme. So I copied the warning, put it on the meme as as caption, and re-posted the meme to the Facebook page.

Along with the re-posted meme, Ward put a link to the Facebook “feedback comment” inbox so visitors to the SOS page could send a message to Facebook if they were as outraged over the meme being jerked down as he was.

Ward said Facebook pulled the re-posted meme down within 7 or 8 hours and suspended the SOS account for 24 hours.

In other words, Facebook put the Navy SEALS in timeout in order to shield Obama.

How low can you go? source – Breitbart

Exposing Liberal Lies