ACTION

Obama’s election firewall is melting like a house of wax all over America.  States like Florida, Virginia, Iowa, Michigan, and Wisconsin where President Obama’s election machines had once appeared impregnable are now crumbling.  What is even more telling is that Ohio, the battleground of all battleground states is now fast becoming Obama’s possible Waterloo.

According to many recent national polls, including results from Fox News Poll that was released Friday, October 19^th, Obama’s lead over Republican challenger Mitt Romney is narrowing.  The president’s former lead of 49-42 percent from late September has dwindled to 46-43 percent.  What appears even clearer is that the president’s second debate performance, while well scripted at how to be evasive and fact challenged, and has not slowed Romney’s growing momentum.

The growing White House cover up of how U.S. ambassador to Libya J. Christopher Stevens and 3 other Americans were murdered on September 11^th  at the American consulate in Benghazi is taking center stage.  As more and more intelligence documentation, real time videos, and congressional documents are made public a bizarre and tragic web of deceit is being unearthed.

The White House and the president’s campaign have stepped up their visits to Ohio and other battle ground states as well as their attacks on Romney.  Their hope is that voters would ignore the facts that these murders were avoidable and preventable.  But on Monday October 22^nd, the last presidential debate should bring the truth of the Benghazi scandal and the unraveling of the administration’s stonewalling into America’s living rooms.

The presidential election stakes are much, much higher now.  Now the White House narrative and tangled terrorist assault storylines are unraveling, thanks to the recent congressional hearings on Capitol Hill. Its gets even worse.  President Obama and Vice President Joe Biden are now telling competing versions of the Libyan murders’ timeline. 

Timing is everything, and with Foreign Affairs being on the table for the last debate, the White House is on lock down.  It is refusing to honor requests for documents from congress that detail what the president knew, when he knew it and what action did he take. Fear that truth of possible evidence being covered up concerning pre and post attack terrorist activity by the White House could prove an administration cover up is in play.

What evidence could the administration be afraid of providing congress and the American voter before the election?  Could it be proof that Ambassador Stevens desperately sent request after request to the State Department for more security, while terrorists linked to al-Qaeda steadily increased their attacks and assaults as late as August on the consulate?

Could it be evidence that the President decided to ignore in-person daily Security Council briefing.  Will White House meetings records reveal that he either golfed or attended entertainment and Hollywood fundraisers on the lead up to the anniversary of the most horrific terrorist attack in the nation’s history?

What is so important in the timeline which lead up the murders in Benghazi that Obama is afraid that voters will discover?  What the administration possibly fears can be found in the recent Fox News video concerning the timeline that led up to the Benghazi tragedy.   ( Read More )

With the continuing furor erupting concerning the highly partisan nature displayed by Candy Crowley during the second presidential debate, the real question has evaded the American voter.  Who is truly responsible for acts of journalistic misconduct and what should be done when a debate moderator decides to go rogue, as Crowley did in favoring Obama?

The Commission on Presidential Debates is the organization which sponsors the presidential and vice presidential debates and it claims that these debates will be conducted in “a professional and nonpartisan manner.”  What happens when the journalist moderator interjects herself into the debate, in order to blunt a candidate’s momentum, as Crowley did to republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney?

Presidential Debate Commission Rules:

“ (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,”

Crowley deliberately and intentionally broke the agreed upon rules, and decided as Obama has decided during the course of his administration, that rules don’t apply and the ends justify the means.

So, what recourse do the American people have when a journalist is selected who openly ignores the rules in conducting the debate and in comments leading up to the debate?  What happens when the journalist moderator interjects herself into the debate, in order to blunt a candidate’s momentum, as Crowley did to republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney?

The easy answer is to say; simply that Republicans and GOP candidates who are the favorite targets of biased coverage in the mainstream media should just grit their teeth and bare it.  But that is not what the American public needs to see or should have to endure.  If a presidential debate commission purports to field “unbiased reporters” who are going to be fair and balanced moderators, then failing to do so should result in a penalty, and or permanent suspension of the reporter and their affiliated network from future participation in debates.

According to the national Verified Voting Foundation, in 2012 there are approximately 180,802,372 registered voters in America.  Voters are entitled to see a debate that is free from a moderator who appears to purposely steer a debate, to benefit the incumbent president Obama. Crowley’s behavior becomes even more suspect when one considers that Obama was increasingly losing ground to the republican challenger Mitt Romney.

Did CNN senior political reporter Candace Crowley conduct herself in a professional and nonpartisan manner?  Examine her earlier statement, when she announced that she would evade and ignore the professional rules of journalistic conduct, and inject herself into the presidential debate if and when she saw fit. So one has to question, who judges the moderators when moderators declare that they are above the rules as Crowley did?

It’s possible that the American people can supply the answer. ( Read More )

Romney refuses to apologize for American principles and values

Do you remember where you were the day that America’s Dream was assaulted, stripped bare, and left to endure a slow and lingering death?  That day began on June 4th, 2009, when President Obama traveled to Cairo, Egypt and bowed his head to the Muslim World in a speech. He let the Muslim Brotherhood and other Islamic extremists, know that they had a fellow traveler and friend in the White House.

The president was clear, convincing and concise.  The values and principles of the nation which has guided America’s founders, the defenders, and its citizens for over 233 years, by 2009, was laid upon the alter of Islam, like yesterday’s refuse.  The new American dream of apology first, neutrality second and attack from behind third, was the new legal, moral and presidential construct.

Mitt Romney refuses to lead America into Obama's years of apologetic Islamic darkness. He represents a clear choice for America's Dream and America's Future. There is a difference.

So, as Obama planned his trek to Cairo, Egypt, according to published reports from May 28th, 2009, the president insisted that at “least 10 members of the Muslim Brotherhood be allowed to attend the speech.” to be delivered on June 4th. 

His speech ominously called “A New Beginning” foreshadowed the commencement of a renunciation of America’s values, its principles and time honored sovereignty.  Instead in its place was Obama’s re-interpretation of America, its values and its principles. He used friendly couched phrases to be an apologist first, and allow the nation to be a scapegoat for all real or imagined misdeeds that were offensive to the Muslim world.

Obama stressed, “Moreover, the sweeping change brought by modernity and globalization led many Muslims to view the West as hostile to the traditions of Islam.”  Obama used this as a conditional reason to massage the Muslim world’s feelings of America and the West, not being in step or considerate of Islamic teachings.

But Obama proceeded to ignore the history of Islamic actions and its heinous practices against non-Muslims, Christians, women and other non-believers.  Instead the president announces a new fictitious doctrine that …-  read more:   http://shar.es/uh5BS