Obama camp ‘going for broke’ during final hours of campaign

By: Jeffrey Klein
Political Buzz Examiner

Team Obama and their ‘clandestine operatives’ around the country are telegraphing what can only be characterized as ‘shear terror,’ a word clearly ‘banned’ in the Obama lexicon, as the last hours close in around them before election day.

Barack Obama kicked it off by passing the moral ‘point of no return,’ while off-script during a campaign rally in Springfield, Ohio Friday afternoon, wherein before the gathered faithful, who booed when Romney’s name was uttered–he barked (see attached video):

Don’t boo; vote. Voting is the best revenge!

This left all but the young, ignorant and hopelessly Liberal, perplexed and scratching their heads, wondering … ‘revenge for what?’

Well, there are two edges to that sword Mr. President, and I believe that those who are against your reelection have a distinct advantage and a sharper blade…epic long-term unemployment, net worth cut by two-thirds, income down by 10 percent, gas prices have doubled, and no less than 586,000 small businesses have disappeared–putting over 3.5 million people out of work.

Video: Obama for ‘revenge,’ while Romney is for ‘love of country.’

Nice job sir.

And, it only cost the 53 percent of the population who actually pay income taxes about $7 trillion in new debt, to feed the trillion-plus dollar annual deficits over the past four years that you and your Democrat cohorts have manufactured–which mostly catered to supplying public union jobs, blue-state budget shortfalls created by overly rich health and pension benefit concessions to unions, along with a continuing stream of failed ‘green job’ companies–stemming from your ‘venture socialism’ campaign.

Also on Friday afternoon, three NAACP members decided they were above the law by advocating for President Barack Obama, both outside–then coming inside–an early 139th precinct polling place located at 6719 W. Montgomery Road in Houston, as witnessed by Eve Rockford and two other volunteer poll watchers, who were trained by voter integrity group True the Vote and filed an ‘Incident Report,’ according to Katie Pavlich’s November 3, 2012 Townhall.com article.

While wearing NAACP labeled clothing and handing out bottled water, they began to ‘stir the crowd, and talking to voters about flying to Ohio to promote President Barack Obama.

This is probably because only 200 students showed up at Stevie Wonder’s ‘Get Out the Early Vote’ rally for Barack Obama Friday, on the campus of Cleveland State University, according to Erica Ritz’ article in The Blaze last Saturday--quoting Brandon Blackwell’s reporting in the Cleveland Plain Dealer.

But now, back to our ‘voter intimidation’ situation in Houston.

Next, the ‘brash’ NAACP members began ‘handpicking’ people from the long voting line–inside the polling place–and then ‘escorted’ them to the front of the line.

After she watched this illegal nonsense unfold–in front of everybody–Rockford approached Polling Supervisor, Rose Cochran, to report the numerous and continuous election law violations–to no avail.

She ignored me. I repeated my statement. She told me that she would handle it. She did nothing. I then went to the assistant supervisor and he stood up, walked over to another table and then sat down. I then walked into the waiting room and they were reloading another dolly with more cases of water.

Rockford’s report indicates that she received a phone call from downtown telling her to “stand down.”

All of a sudden one of the clerks, Dayan Cohen, said that someone wanted to speak to me on the phone. It was someone from downtown. I got on the phone and she said she was from downtown and that I needed to stand down and that it was okay for the NAACP to be within 100 ft. and they could hand out water. I told her that the NAACP was inside the building, wearing the NAACP clothing and caps and were handing out water and moving people from the back of the lines to the front of the lines.

She continues saying that NAACP members were instructed to turn their clothing inside out, which they refused to do and said they weren’t going to stop their actions inside the polling place. Their behavior and actions to move people to the front of the line continued for the rest of the evening.

It was reported that Texas State Representative Sylvester Turner, a former Texas NAACP leader, was also seen outside the building talking with voters.

Sadly, Rockford concluded the report stating that … “The NAACP basically ran this poll location and the judges did nothing about it.”

After he learned of President Obama’s incredible ‘call’ to his supporters that they ‘vote for revenge,’ Gov. Mitt Romney countered with a request to the 20,000 attendees at his Buck County, Pennsylvania rally to ‘vote for love of country’ (see video attached).

Just these two incidents alone make it crystal clear that another four years of Barack Obama and his regime, would result in the destruction of the America we love, and so many brave souls have fought and died to create and preserve.

Let’s vote, and then continue to pray that we the people serve Barack Obama and his followers with an eviction notice, as soon after midnight tomorrow as possible.


Impeach Obama for Treason – Tancredo on Benghazi, Libya

By: Tom Tancredo
Gulag Bound




The four American deaths in Benghazi are a direct result of decisions and actions by President Obama that undermine the national-security interests of the United States. Those deaths may well be only a foretaste of the catastrophe awaiting the United States if Barack Hussein Obama remains in office four more years.

As we all know, Obama may be removed by a vote of the people Nov. 6. But if not, if the lapdog media succeed in hiding his malfeasance and incompetence well enough for Obama to win a narrow victory at the polls, then Congress may summon the courage to exercise its constitutional duty to impeach and remove him.

Obama’s foreign-policy disasters have not been a major focus of the presidential race, and that is unfortunate. The grave national-security issues raised in the Benghazi fiasco cannot be easily or intelligently addressed in a 30-second television spot, but they are nonetheless critical to our future safety and well-being. Obama’s pro-Islamist policies are more than mere blips on the political radar screen.

In the view of many, Obama had earned impeachment even before the Benghazi tragedy of Sept. 11. His open abuse of power in making recess appointments when the Senate was not in recess, his open defiance of Congress in his administrative amnesty for 2 million illegal aliens, his misuse of “executive privilege” in withholding documents pertaining to the illegal Fast and Furious gunwalking scandal – those actions alone qualify as impeachable offenses under the Constitution.

However, if treason is added to the mix, Congress will find it hard to shirk its duty to impeach him. The many people who think those other offenses do not rise to the constitutional standard of “high crimes and misdemeanors” will not be so charitable with regard to the crime of treason.

But when does a foreign policy “blunder” cross the line into treason? Well, maybe when it is not a blunder at all but the entirely predictable consequence of a deliberate policy that invites attack on our embassies and indeed our homeland.

The word treason means a betraying, treachery, or breach of allegiance. Article III of the U.S. Constitution defines treason against the United States to consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid or comfort. If radical Islam is a self-declared enemy of the United States, as can be easily demonstrated, Obama has certainly given them aid and comfort: Most Americans will think that welcoming the Muslim Brotherhood into the White House and appointing Muslim Brotherhood members to important posts does in fact constitute “aid and comfort.”

If the Muslim Brotherhood is not an avowed enemy of the United States, what else should we call an organization that openly and officially calls for the replacement of the U.S. Constitution by Shariah law? Apparently, an Islamist armed to the teeth must carry an al-Qaida membership card to qualify for Obama’s distrust.

Here is the brute fact of the matter. The attack on the United States consulate in Benghazi was a terrorist act. Obama’s foreign policies and decisions not only left the consulate vulnerable to attack but in fact invited the attack – and then he blamed an unknown American film for the attack and turned a blind eye on the al-Qaida allied terrorists who were responsible.

Despite the establishment media’s best efforts to protect Obama from any fallout from the Benghazi deaths, we now know that Obama and his team lied about those events.

Obama lied when he said the attack on the consulate was a spontaneous act in response to an obscure film no one in Libya had yet seen. He knew differently. He lied when he said the Libyan embassy staff had not requested additional security for its Benghazi consulate. He lied in the weeks leading up to the Benghazi attack when he said al-Qaida had been “knocked back on its heels” and is no longer a threat to the United States.

Obama’s lies about the Benghazi attack and the four American deaths are lies told to cover up not State Department “incompetence” but the predictable consequences of policies of denial, neglect and stupidity toward our nation’s enemy, radical Islam.

But here is the most damning aspect Obama’s behavior. Obama is unwilling even today to name the enemy that has declared war on the United States and to deal forthrightly with that imminent threat. Our pro-Islamist president will not name Islamism, the Muslim Brotherhood and the government of Iran as enemies of the United States even though they have declared war on us and are engaged in numerous plots to bring death and destruction to the American homeland.

Why are we so reluctant to call this by its right name – treason?

The failure in Benghazi was more than a State Department failure to provide needed security for the embassy personnel in our Libyan outpost. That failure is bad enough, but it is only part of a larger betrayal. Additional security was denied to Benghazi consulate because doing so would have been an admission that eastern Libya was under the effective control of armed militias allied with al-Qaida. Making that admission would have undermined one of the pillars of Obama’s re-election.

When the attack was under way, military assistance that was only two hours away was denied. Today’s revelation by the CIA that it sent a four-person support team from the capital, Tripoli, does not answer the question of why military backup was denied and who denied it. Sending additional CIA support to the post was admirable but was too little and too late. Why was military support at AFRICOM – less than two hours distant – denied when it was available and ready to deploy? Did Secretary of Defense Panetta consult Obama in making that decision?

The many unanswered questions about Benghazi are unanswered for only one reason: Truthful answers would embarrass Obama and jeopardize his re-election. This is election fraud conducted not from Chicago but straight from the West Wing of the White House.

Thanks to a compliant media, the American people will not have those answers in time to make an informed choice on Tuesday. It will fall to the people’s representatives in Congress to find those answers. And when the full truth is known, Congress must consider removing Barack Obama for giving aid and comfort to America’s enemies – and that is treason against the United States.

Tom Tancredo has been a Representative to Congress of the State of Colorado and 2008 candidate for U.S. President. His CongressmanTomTancredo.com regularly features his articles, as does WorldNetDaily.

Congressman Tancredo currently serves as chairman of Rocky Mountain Foundation, co-chairman of the anti-illegal immigration Team America PAC, and honorary chairman of Youth for Western Civilization. He speaks frequently on cable news, talk radio, and on college campuses – where his mere presence has led leftists to riot. His book, In Mortal Danger: The Battle for America’s Border and Security was published in 2006.


True The Vote Announces National Election Integrity Hotline

Logan Churchwell
[email protected]


Citizens encouraged to report illegal activity at the voting polls by phone, email and video

HOUSTON, TX. November 5, 2012True the Vote (TTV), the nonpartisan election integrity organization, today announced the availability of its Election Integrity Hotline, to help document illegal activity inside or outside of America’s polling places.

“If you want to make a difference on November 6th, True the Vote has a job for you,” True the Vote President Catherine Engelbrecht said. “Election integrity captured the American conscience with a rough cell phone video of New Black Panthers intimidating voters in Pennsylvania in 2008. Intimidation and electioneering is illegal inside and outside of polls. You have the power to be America’s eyes and ears.”

Concerned citizens are encouraged to report any incidents outside of polling locations with True the Vote’s official Election Integrity Hotline (http://www.truethevote.org/incident-report/). Citizens may submit incidents over the phone by dialing 855-444-6100. Descriptions and photos should be directed to [email protected]. True the Vote will verify credible reports and submit those appropriate local authorities.

True the Vote produced a brief training video explaining best practices and procedures encouraging citizens to film any wrongdoing, available on YouTube. View the video, here:

Media can contact True the Vote at 832-304-0449 or [email protected] for comments on breaking news or interview requests. Inquiries will be handled on a first-come, first-served basis.

True The Vote (TTV) a nonpartisan, nonprofit grassroots organization focused on preserving election integrity is operated by citizens for citizens, to inspire and equip volunteers for involvement at every stage of our electoral process. TTV empowers organizations and individuals across the nation to actively protect the rights of legitimate voters, regardless of their political party affiliation. For more information, please visit www.truethevote.org.


Anti-Sharia Activist Takes Leeds City Council To Tribunal

By: Aeneas Lavinium



For more information contact: Chris Knowles: Email: brus…@gmail.com Tel: +44(0)7805 185214

Anti-Sharia Activist Takes Leeds City Council To Tribunal

Chris Knowles

5 November 2012, Wakefield, UK: Chris Knowles a human rights activist from the International Civil Liberties Alliance (ICLA) has confirmed that he has initiated Employment Tribunal proceedings against Leeds City Council. Mr Knowles’ case for unfair dismissal is scheduled to be heard by the Employment Tribunal on 13 March 2013. Mr Knowles who is assisted by the United States based The Legal Project, an activity of the Middle East Forum, said:

“The action taken against me by Leeds City Council is an outrageous and unacceptable attack on my fundamental human rights. The right to freedom of expression is an essential part of any democratic society. Leeds City Council conducted itself in the manner of a tyrant engaged in Star Chamber justice. The Council’s action is both vindictive and politically motivated. It is the equivalent of being dismissed for engagement in Trade Union activities.”

Mr Knowles began his work with the Council in February 1996. He worked in the Governor Support Service from 1 September 1997 until his dismissal on 2 August 2012. He was not employed in a politically restricted post and until his dismissal he had no disciplinary charges or findings against him. He was suspended from work in December 2011:

“because the council has received allegations that you may have engaged in political activities, which could be viewed as improper activities for an employee of the council to be engaging in, and contrary to the councils (sic) values and equal opportunities policies.”

Sam Nunberg, Director of The Legal Project, sees Mr. Knowles’ s eight month suspension as faulty. “The Leeds City Council suspended Mr. Knowles based on shoddy journalism and mere innuendo. The Council had no qualms with keeping Mr. Knowles in limbo and unaware of his financial future all because he exercised his universal right of peaceful assembly and association,” said Mr. Nunberg.

After his eight month suspension, Mr. Knowles was summoned to a meeting to hear the results of the Council’s investigation on 2 August 2012. He expected either to be told he could return to work or to be presented with a specific disciplinary charge supported by evidence. Instead he was summarily dismissed without due process – and without the right to appeal. On 3 August he received a letter giving the following explanation for his dismissal:

“the council has concluded that your behaviours and values are so different from the council’s values, that this is a fundamental breach of your employment contract.”

No information was provided to Mr Knowles outlining what exactly he was alleged to have done that was in breach of his contract of employment. On 10th August 2012 a Barrister acting on behalf of Mr Knowles sent an email to Leeds City Council asking the following questions:

  • Precisely what “behaviours” does Leeds City Council allege that Mr Knowles has engaged in that the Council regards as incompatible with employment by the Council? Please specify dates and places
  • Precisely what part(s) of Mr Knowles contract of employment do you allege he has broken?
  • Under what part of the disciplinary code applying to employees of Leeds City Council do you claim to have dismissed Mr Knowles?
  • What, if any, part of the Staff Code of Conduct do you allege Mr Knowles has breached?
  • What are the “values” held by Mr Knowles that Leeds City Council allege are so different to the values of Leeds City Council as to constitute a fundamental breach of his contract of Employment?
  • What are the “values” of Leeds City Council which the Council allege are so different to the values of Mr Knowles as to constitute justification for summary dismissal of Mr Knowles?
  • In what part of Mr Knowles contract of employment, or elsewhere, are the “values” of Leeds City Council set out?
  • Where in Mr Knowles contract of employment does it specify that his “values” as opposed to his actions have to conform to the values of Leeds City Council?

The email was acknowledged but the questions have never been answered. Is this Leeds City Council’s approach to transparent local governance? While Mr Knowles has not been afforded any proper explanation as to why his position was terminated, he looks forward to receiving answers during the Employment Tribunal proceedings.


USA Losing Sovereignty to UN under Obama at Election Time

By: Arlen Williams
Gulag Bound

With the monitoring of some of our polling places by the United Nations, questions come to mind.

Are we still a sovereign nation?

Are we moving closer to a global system controlled by the United Nations, dare we say a “one world government?”

Let us start by looking at this from the perspective of the organizations that are calling for the UN to monitor our polling places. We need to realize that this is a different America then the America that most of us remember growing up in. We are being slowly conditioned to accept this new system. If you look at the other side of the coin there are many who truly believe the America they have known is flawed, as that is what they have been taught. In turn they believe it needs to be fundamentally changed. So they look toward the UN and other organizations that support this view. In their view it is a human rights issue.

Below is an excerpt of a letter from The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, the NAACP, and six other civil rights organizations to the OSCE (Organization of Security and Cooperation in Europe) just for an idea of this mindset.

According to a report by the Brennan Center for Justice,[1] photo ID requirements, shortened early voting periods, limits on poll worker assistance, proof of citizenship requirements, restrictions on same day and community-based registration, and disenfranchisement of former felons, may result in the disenfranchisement of more than five million Americans in this election. These efforts are nothing less than an all-out assault on the progress of the last century—indeed, on the very legacy of the civil and human rights movement. They are part of a coordinated political effort to disenfranchise millions of Americans—particularly traditionally disenfranchised groups like minorities, low-income people, women, young people, persons with disabilities, and the elderly.

The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights

Now, in the America I remember this would have been questioned. After all, we have our own sovereign laws and a nationally sealed legal system in this country.

The above makes no sense unless it is seen through the prism of assumed violation of a humans rights, in the eyes of the organizations filing the complaint. This explains the disconnect with, perhaps, some older and some younger people, more indoctrinated by globalists. They see an utopian world, achievable in their eyes. We see something much much different.

Let us now look at “The Universal Declaration of Human Rights” from the UN. Then, maybe things will become clearer (emphasis added).

Article 2.

Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.

The Universial Declaration of Human Rights

It needs to be understood that when the UN comes in to monitor our polls, it is based on international law not our law. Below are a two more examples of how influential the UN is, in the current administration.

Ambassador Chris Stevens pulled out of the Consulate in Benghazi

On March 2011, we went into Libya via the direction of the UN.

Mr. Obama sent a letter on Monday notifying Congress he had acted in Libya, in conjunction with the War Powers Act’s 48 hours requirement. He said he authorized the action as part of a response authorized under the U.N. security council demanding that Libyan leader Moammar Qaddafi change course or face consequences; the goal, he said, is “to prevent a humanitarian catastrophe and address the threat posed to international peace and security by the crisis in Libya.”

“I have directed these actions, which are in the national security and foreign policy interests of the United States, pursuant to my constitutional authority to conduct U.S. foreign relations and as Commander in Chief and Chief Executive,” he wrote.


It must be noted through the aforementioned link (U.N. security council) this comes directly from the Charter of the United Nations. Also, it is important to make note of Samantha Power, member of this administration’s National Security Council and wife of Cass Sunstein, former administrator of the office of information and regulatory affairs. Ms. Power was instrumental in the decision to go into Libya.

U.N. Human Rights Council logo

The White House has also issued a report to the UN Human Rights Council over the immigration law, S.B. 1070, issued by Jan Brewer in Arizona.

Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer demanded Friday that a reference to the state’s controversial immigration law be removed from a State Department report to the United Nations’ human rights commissioner.

The U.S. included its legal challenge to the law on a list of ways the federal government is protecting human rights.

In a letter to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Brewer says it is “downright offensive” that a state law would be included in the report, which was drafted as part of a UN review of human rights in all member nations every four years.

“The idea of our own American government submitting the duly enacted laws of a state of the United States to ‘review’ by the United Nations is internationalism run amok and unconstitutional,” Brewer wrote.


In sales training, a common closing technique is “the presumptive close.” In it, the transaction is casually prepared in front of the customer as if he is assumed to have made a decision. In increments, transnational progressives are closing the deal to destroy the sovereignty of the United States of America, effectively nullifying our own charter, the Declaration of Independence. And by our Declaration and Constitution, this is fraud.

Contributor: Arlen Williams