Simply Put, Now is A Time for Choosing

There is so much hoopla when it comes to political elections, that it can be hard to know which candidate will actually serve us best. Most people look for minute differences between candidates in order to make their decision. And sometimes, you can't be sure what you're going to get from your candidate of choice once they reach office. But not this year. This year, the candidates are dramatically different, mostly because their ideologies are drastically different. Honestly, this election is not between two men. It isn't between Republican and Democrat. It isn't between Mitt Romney and Barack Obama. It's between ideas...two very different and dramatic ideas.

Simply put, this election is between capitalism and communism.

Capitalism is what America has been founded on, and what it's prospered on. Communism is what has driven millions into a life of despair and darkness. All you need to do is to look at past and present socialist nations to see that. The USSR, Cuba, Venezuela, and even parts of Europe today, with it's softer socialism, are lands filled with hopelessness, despair, anger, and frustration. Socialism has never worked to bring about a peaceful, successful communism. It never has in all of human history. It never will. It can only cause strife, division, poverty, totalitarianism, and depression. Patrick Henry said that one can only judge the future by the past. The past tells us that communism/Marxism/ socialism...statism in whatever form only serves to bring people into bondage. This is the choice before America in this election. And while the path towards socialism will not be reversed with this one election, it can at least be halted. Tomorrow we can prevent America from being driven over that ideological cliff in the next few years by voting Barack Obama out of office and electing Mitt Romney. Then, and only then, can we begin to pull ourselves back up and out of the grasp of big government, big taxes, and big control over our lives. Then we can begin to elect officials on every level who will help to secure our liberties instead of erode them. We must be strong, and we must be vigilant, for the spectre of big government will always seek to overwhelm us. But tomorrow, we can stem the tide and we can stop the bleeding. And we can secure the American Dream, at least for a few years more.

Now is a time for choosing.

"Voter fraud doesn't happen here!"

Or so the left-wing media wants you to believe. Yet, already in the past few weeks we've had more stories that stir up the debate than I can shake a stick at. And you know I can shake a lot of sticks!

The first story that caught my attention was about fraudulent letters sent to Florida Republicans in 18 different counties. The letters "inform" the recipients that there is a problem with their voting registration and they are therefore ineligible to vote. The letters appear to come from the office of the Florida elections supervisor, but were actually sent from Washington state. The absence of a return address was a red flag to some recipients who alerted the authorities. The FBI is now investigating.
While this is not linked to any official group, it is a clear attempt to deceive people...Republicans...into not voting.

The second story was about voting machines recording votes for Barack Obama when the voter actually chose Mitt Romney's name. In North Carolina, at the Bur-Mil Park polling location in Guilford County, Sher Coromalis was just one voter who encountered this problem. She chose Romney; it entered a vote for Obama. She tried again; again it entered a vote for Obama. Finally on the third try, it correctly entered the vote for Romney. For those counting at home: that's two votes for Obama, one for Romney. Guilford County Board of Elections Director George Gilbert told MyFox8 that such problems arise every election and can be resolved after machines are re-calibrated. "It’s not a conspiracy, it’s just a machine that needs to be corrected,” Gilbert said. While I do believe bugs like this will happen from time to time with voting machines, it's pretty interesting all the "errors" work in the Democrat's favor. Similar stories are coming out of Nevada and Ohio as well.

Also in North Carolina, Democrats have been caught violating state laws in order to get more votes for Obama. Two vans of students who worked at the North Carolina Job Corps were transported to the Swain County voting location in order to cast their votes. The problem was that the vans were Swain County Transit Vehicles, which are funded by the federal government. The Hatch Act states that federal employees "may not engage in political activity while using a government vehicle." Not a major violation, but breaking a law nonetheless. Not to mention the numerous reports about possible illegals being bused to polling stations across the country...

North Carolina (aside from having a lot of fraud) also has a lot of old people casting their votes. And I mean OLD people. NC voter rolls show that the Tar Heel State has 2,214 voters that are OVER 110 years old. That is A LOT of old people! Shockingly (not), most of these voters are Democrats. The Carolina Transparency project did a review of voter rolls this year and have found that there are 631 registered Democrats that are 112 and older! Some have already voted. Also two people OVER 150 (YES, 150!!!) have already cast their ballots! One in Gaston County is registered as 154 years old while one in Granville County is listed as an astonishing 160 years old! To give an idea of the magnitude of that, the oldest recorded age is 122 and the oldest disputed age is 138! We better get Guinness to North Carolina fast...they've got TWO Democrats who beat that by a long shot!
Officials say that isn't necessarily evidence of fraud, and that it may just be evidence of poor information gathering. Um, ok...if you say so.

The most damning evidence, however, comes out of Virginia from Congressman Jim Moran's son, Patrick. Patrick Moran headed up his father's campaign. Past tense. Not too long ago, Project Veritas (the group that helped bust ACORN by documenting their attempts at fraud) secretly recorded video of Patrick Moran telling the undercover reporter how to get away with casting multiple votes under different names. He told the reporter to fake utility bills and to make sure the people who's names they were planning to vote under were definitely not going to vote by contacting them pretending to be pollsters. The worst part of this is the ease with which Moran offers this advice. There's no reticence, no guilt...it seems like this is just another day at the office for Mr. Moran. That attitude leads me to believe voter fraud is not only going on...but that it's become no big deal for some politicians. And if that's their attitude, then how can you deny this isn't a normal occurrence? Patrick Moran has since resigned from his father's campaign, which released a statement saying Patrick's actions were "an error in judgement." He said he was only joking. Isn't it nice to be a politician (or politician's son in this case)? You can get caught directly trying to orchestrate a felony, and then simply claim it was a joke and an "error in judgement" and get away scot free!

Some of these stories will turn out to be just coincidences...others, not so much. What is true, though, is that we as a nation can (and should) no longer dismiss stories of voter fraud as pure mularky, as Joe Biden would put it. If we, as America, begin to enact the same kind of dubious voting processes as Russia or Venezuela...then our Republic is all but over. And if we fail to protect the integrity of the voting process, that's exactly what's going to happen....if it isn't already. So next time someone tells you that voter fraud doesn't happen here, channel your inner Joe and tell 'em: "That's mularky!"

Is Pennsylvania in play?

For the last few weeks, we in Pennsylvania have excitedly watched the poll numbers of Barack Obama go down...down...down. The closer we get to the election, the more the polls reflect a shift away from Obama and towards Mitt Romney. In Pennsylvania, a state that hasn't gone for a Republican since 1988, this signals a dramatic slide...one that I hope is indicative of the rest of the country.

In light of these numbers, Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan are headed to the great state of PA this upcoming weekend to try and secure the upset. Romney will visit Philadelphia (the bastion of liberalism in PA) Sunday, and Ryan will be in Harrisburg on Saturday. Since Harrisburg isn't all that far from where I live, I'm contemplating going to see him. Of course it's at the airport and you still have to go through airport security, so I'm weighing whether seeing Ryan is worth the physical molestation I'll have to endure from the TSA. But I digress.

Will Pennsylvania go for Romney? Probably not, as the most populous cities of Philadelphia and Pittsburgh control the vote and they vote exclusively Democrat. Insert annoyance about the electoral collage here. But the fact that the poll numbers are so close and people are declaring the state a toss up when it hasn't been tossed to a Republican in 20 years is a good sign that the reign of Obama may be nearing it's end. If PA is considered a toss up, then regular toss ups like Ohio, Florida, and North Carolina should be leaning strongly for Romney. And that means the election should be as well. For America's sake, let's hope that's true.

President Obama pledges military cuts "will not happen"

It's his way or no way.

Last night during the third and last (thank God!) presidential debate, President Obama made a few interesting remarks. The one that stood out to me was about the upcoming sequestration cuts to our military. The cuts, which will shrink our Army to the smallest it's been since before World War 2, our Navy to the smallest it's been since 1916, and our Air Force to the smallest it's ever been, are set to go into effect next year. However, when Mitt Romney brought this up, President Obama responded by saying that those "cuts will not happen."

That statement may have just been the most important one of the debate, although it was paid little attention. These cuts, that Obama's own defense officials have said would be "devastating" are set to go into effect because of President Obama. The cuts have already been signed into law by President Obama on August 2, 2011! This means that unless Congress passes a new law before January 2, the cuts WILL go into effect. They cannot be ignored and they cannot simply "not happen." They WILL happen.

The only way to prevent them is if Congress and Obama agree to a new budget. However, President Obama himself has said that he will veto any law that "doesn't replace sequestration with alternative deficit reduction." Simply put, Obama has said that he will veto any budget unless it includes higher taxes on the wealthy. Basically he's saying that unless you do it his way...you won't do it at all.

Reading about sequestration, I've found that the cuts are so severe because they are intended to spur Congress into passing a bill. So sequestration is really, really bad. It's supposed to cost over a million jobs as well as gutting the military. But it was designed to never actually happen. It was designed to be so bad that no one would ever let it happen. And now President Obama has threatened to let it happen unless you do what he wants. I don't know if he truly believes the Republicans in Congress will bow to his will or if was just lying about the cuts "not happening." But I do know that those are the only two options. And neither is good for America. The petulant child-President is forcing Congress to do what he wants, or he'll take all the toys away. Only in this analogy, the "toys" are the United States Military. And without a strong military, what will the U.S. become? President Obama is taking us into a dark place. And he's lying about it the whole way.



Breitbart.com has the full story here.

Did President Obama really say it was "an act of terror" on September 12th?

Last night's presidential debate had one very interesting moment that will surely be discussed a lot in the coming days. Once the terrorist attacks in Libya were brought up (which took far too long and lasted far too short for my liking) President Obama said something that made Mitt Romney do a double-take. He said that the day after the attack, while making a speech in the Rose Garden, that he called the attack "an act of terror." Mitt Romney seized on that and tried to get him to repeat it (which for some unknown reason he would not do) but it was moderator Candy Crowley who spoke up to say that those indeed were his words. (How she managed to get the transcript only a few seconds after he said it is unknown to me.) President Obama seized on the moment and asked Candy to repeat that, which she did...to applause from the pro-Obama portion of the crowd.

This has caused countless people to go back and re-read or re-watch the president's speech from that day. I'll include it here so everyone can watch it for themselves. While no one really remembers the president saying anything about the attack being terrorism, he does indeed say the words "acts of terror." It happens toward the end of his speech. After making some remarks about how September 11th was already a painful day, the president said this:

"As Americans, let us never, ever forget that our freedom is only sustained because there are people who are willing to fight for it, to stand up for it, and in some cases, lay down their lives for it. Our country is only as strong as the character of our people and the service of those both civilian and military who represent us around the globe.

No ACTS OF TERROR will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for. Today we mourn four more Americans who represent the very best of the United States of America. We will not waver in our commitment to see that justice is done for this terrible act. And make no mistake, justice will be done."


Now it is all but impossible to tell from the context of the speech whether the words "acts of terror" were meant about the Beghazi attack directly or whether they were simply meant as some generic message about any terrorist attacks. There will be arguments supporting both. And since there's no actual way of knowing, both arguments will be deemed as "correct."
(In a move of political genius, Obama may have used the term ambiguously on purpose, so that he could later choose to acknowledge it as one way or the other to fit whichever narrative he wanted. I wouldn't put it past him.)

However, whether President Obama meant it one way or the other or both doesn't really matter one bit at this point. The president can spin the story whichever way he wants to now. What he can't do is erase the past month.

He can't ignore that on September 13th...two days after the attack, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said this during a press briefing:

Q. "At Benghazi? What happened at Benghazi --"

MR. CARNEY: "We certainly don't know. We don't know otherwise. We have NO INFORMATION TO SUGGEST THAT IT WAS A PREPLANNED ATTACK. The unrest we’ve seen around the region has been in reaction to a video that Muslims, many Muslims find offensive. And while the violence is reprehensible and unjustified, IT IS NOT A REACTION TO THE 9/11 ANNIVERSARY THAT WE KNOW OF, or to U.S. policy."

A few questions later Mr. Carney reiterated this:

MR. CARNEY: "I think there has been news reports on this, Jake, even in the press, which some of it has been speculative. What I’m telling you is this is under investigation. The unrest around the region has been in response to this video. WE DO NOT, AT THIS MOMENT, HAVE INFORMATION TO SUGGEST OR TO TELL YOU THAT WOULD INDICATE THAT ANY OF THIS UNREST WAS PREPLANNED. "

Now while Mr. Carney insists that the event is still under investigation, he leaves no doubt that, as far as the White House is concerned (i.e. President Obama) on September the 13th...that TWO DAYS after the attack there was NO EVIDENCE OR INFORMATION to suggest the attack was pre-planned!
THIS IS IN DIRECT CONTRADICTION TO PRESIDENT OBAMA'S STATEMENT THAT HE UNDERSTOOD IT WAS AN ACT OF TERROR THE DAY BEFORE!

He also cannot ignore that 3 days later, on September 16th, FIVE days after the attack, the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, Susan Rice, went on all 5 of the Sunday morning talk shows where she basically repeated this line:

RICE: "Our current best assessment, BASED ON THE INFORMATION THAT WE HAVE AT PRESENT, is that, in fact, what this began as, IT WAS A SPONTANEOUS — NOT A PREMEDITATED — RESPONSE to what had transpired in Cairo. In Cairo, as you know, a few hours earlier, there was a violent protest that was undertaken in reaction to this very offensive video that was disseminated.

We believe that folks in Benghazi, a small number of people came to the embassy to — or to the consulate, rather, to replicate the sort of challenge that was posed in Cairo. And then as that unfolded, it seems to have been hijacked, let us say, by some individual clusters of extremists who came with heavier weapons, weapons that as you know in — in the wake of the revolution in Libya are — are quite common and accessible. And it then evolved from there.

We’ll wait to see exactly what the investigation finally confirms, but THAT'S THE BEST INFORMATION WE HAVE AT PRESENT."


While Susan Rice also insists that the event is still under investigation, she also makes it clear that the "best information they have at present" indicates that "IT WAS A SPONTANEOUS - NOT A PREMEDITATED - RESPONSE...IN REACTION TO THIS VERY OFFENSIVE VIDEO..."
THIS IS IN DIRECT CONTRADICTION TO PRESIDENT OBAMA'S STATEMENT THAT HE UNDERSTOOD IT WAS AN ACT OF TERROR 4 DAYS EARLIER!

He cannot ignore that 4 days after that, on September 20th, while being interviewed by Univision, PRESIDENT OBAMA HIMSELF said, when asked directly if it was a terrorist attack:

“Well, we’re still doing an investigation, and there are going to be different circumstances in different countries. And so I don’t want to speak to something until we have all the information. What we do know is that the natural protests that arose because of the outrage over the video were used as an excuse by extremists to see if they can also directly harm U.S. interests.”

5 days after that, while asked if it was a terrorist attack on The View, PRESIDENT OBAMA HIMSELF said:

“We are still doing an investigation. There is no doubt that the kind of weapons that were used, the ongoing assault, that it wasn’t just a mob action. Now, we don’t have all the information yet so we are still gathering.”

And on that same day, during a speech to the United Nations, PRESIDENT OBAMA HIMSELF made NO mention of the words "terrorism," "terrorist act," or "act of terror." The closest he came to discussing the attack was this:

"That is what we saw play out the last two weeks, as a crude and disgusting video sparked outrage throughout the Muslim world. I have made it clear that the United States government had nothing to do with this video, and I believe its message must be rejected by all who respect our common humanity. It is an insult not only to Muslims, but to America as well – for as the city outside these walls makes clear, we are a country that has welcomed people of every race and religion. We are home to Muslims who worship across our country. We not only respect the freedom of religion – we have laws that protect individuals from being harmed because of how they look or what they believe. We understand why people take offense to this video because millions of our citizens are among them.

I know there are some who ask why we don’t just ban such a video. The answer is enshrined in our laws: our Constitution protects the right to practice free speech. Here in the United States, countless publications provoke offense. Like me, the majority of Americans are Christian, and yet we do not ban blasphemy against our most sacred beliefs. Moreover, as President of our country, and Commander-in-Chief of our military, I accept that people are going to call me awful things every day, and I will always defend their right to do so. Americans have fought and died around the globe to protect the right of all people to express their views – even views that we disagree with.

We do so not because we support hateful speech, but because our Founders understood that without such protections, the capacity of each individual to express their own views, and practice their own faith, may be threatened. We do so because in a diverse society, efforts to restrict speech can become a tool to silence critics, or oppress minorities. We do so because given the power of faith in our lives, and the passion that religious differences can inflame, the strongest weapon against hateful speech is not repression, it is more speech – the voices of tolerance that rally against bigotry and blasphemy, and lift up the values of understanding and mutual respect.

I know that not all countries in this body share this understanding of the protection of free speech. Yet in 2012, at a time when anyone with a cell phone can spread offensive views around the world with the click of a button, the notion that we can control the flow of information is obsolete. The question, then, is how we respond. And on this we must agree: there is no speech that justifies mindless violence.

There are no words that excuse the killing of innocents. There is no video that justifies an attack on an Embassy. There is no slander that provides an excuse for people to burn a restaurant in Lebanon, or destroy a school in Tunis, or cause death and destruction in Pakistan."

President Obama does not directly say that the video was the cause of the attacks...but he also does NOT say they were an "act of terror" either. As a matter of fact, he makes it sound more like the attacks were caused by the video than not, as he goes on a diatribe about free speech and how it must be protected even though it may insult, and in how he declares that "no speech justifies mindless violence...no words excuse the killing of innocents.
ALL OF THESE RESPONSES SEEM TO DIRECTLY CONTRADICT THE STATEMENT THAT HE UNDERSTOOD IT WAS AN ACT OF TERROR ON SEPTEMBER 12TH!

The question that begged to be answered about all of this rhetoric was this: was the death of four Americans and the resulting campaign of misinformation caused by incompetence or was it deliberate deception?

Up until now, the president and his entire administration could play the game of ignorance. They could blame the falsely made statements on the "fog of war" as Hillary Clinton did. They could say that they made statements based on "incomplete information." They could say that the exact details were "unknown" and that the investigation was "ongoing." They could insist that all of the information given to them at that time pointed to an "unplanned" attack. They could get away with simply saying that they made those statements based on the information they had at that time and then the information changed.

But not anymore. Now that President Obama said last night that he called it an "act of terror" on the VERY NEXT DAY, thus implying that he understood it was a terrorist attack as early as September 12th...it takes incompetence right off the table. It takes confusion and "evolving information" right off the table. IF President Obama believed it was an "act of terror" on September the 12th...then WHY did White House Press Secretary Jay Carney say there was no information to support that!? WHY did Ambassador Rice say the same 5 days later!? If the president of the United States believed it was an "act of terror" the day after it happened, then WHY did it take OVER TWO WEEKS for the Administration to finally admit it!? IF the president believed it was an act of terror, then the story about there being NO information or evidence supporting a terrorist act as the cause and focusing all attention on the movie instead was NOT simply confusion due to the "fog of war." IF the president believed it was an act of terror, then removing all rhetoric about terrorism and placing the blame on a "spontaneous protest" was a downright lie! If the White House Press Secretary isn't speaking with and for President Obama, then there is incompetence on a massive level going on in that administration. And if he is...then WHY did he say something that the president himself didn't believe? WHY DID HE LIE? WHY DID THEY ALL LIE??

So which is it, Mr. President? Did you truly believe and understand it to be an act of terror on September 12th as you said last night? Because if so...you've got a lot of explaining to do on who made the decision to lie about it for two weeks, and why that decision was made. You've just painted yourself into a pretty sticky corner, and I'm not sure even you can get out of it.

It will be a very interesting next few days and weeks as the election approaches, and as President Obama tries to answer the questions he himself raised by stating that claim last night. It will be interesting to see if he sticks with it now or if he tries to change the story again. The questions remain either way...but I think he just made it a lot harder on himself. Yes, should be interesting indeed.

Hugo Chavez "wins" re-election, White House congratulates him for being a good dictator

Tanks fill the streets of Venezuela as news of Chavez fraud spreads.

Despite exit polls showing that Venezuelan dictator/president Hugo Chavez lost the presidential election Sunday, the Venezuelan electoral council declared Chavez the victor. The announcement has many in Venezuela declaring election fraud. The numbers seem to back them up, as all the exit polls showed Chavez lost to challenger Henriques Capriles by a slim margin. And Chavez himself seemed to show his hand when he sent tanks and troops armed with AK-47's into the streets before the final results were announced. Now why would troops and tanks be needed if Chavez lost?? They wouldn't. They would only be needed if the president knew that he would be declared the winner no matter what the polls said, and that protests to an illegal election would take place. It was clearly a pre-emptive move designed to squash any thought of protests BEFORE the illegal results were declared. This looks like a pretty clear case of election fraud and a dictatorial leader staying in power illegally.

And what did the Obama Administration do about this clear case of fraud and tyranny? They congratulated Chavez and the Venezuelan people "on the high level of participation, as well as on what was a relatively peaceful election process." That quote came from White House spokesman Jay Carney. (An apt name since the Obama Administration looks more like a two-bit carnival freak show than a competent band of leaders at times)

I remember watching a special on Vladimir Putin shortly before he "won" his re-election bid. At one point it mentioned what happened in the country of Georgia in 2003. There were apparent fraudulent results in the parliamentary elections that year (helped by Putin) and the resulting protests led to the ouster of their president at the time, since he was complicit in the fraud. The United States strongly condemned the illegal election fraud, made strong statements urging new elections, and even sent Secretary of State James Baker there to push those free elections. The result was an ouster of a corrupt president, a new election un-tainted by fraud, and a freer Georgia hailed as a better place by it's citizens.

Today, when a corrupt dictator "wins" a clearly fraudulent election, keeping his own people down with tanks and soldiers in the street, the president of the United States congratulates him and moves on like nothing happened. Great foreign policy, Barack.

But of course Barack Hussein Obama doesn't think Hugo Chavez is such a bad dude. Remember this quote he made in July: "But overall my sense is that what Mr. Chávez has done over the last several years has not had a serious national security impact on us. We have to be vigilant. My main concern when it comes to Venezuela is having the Venezuelan people have a voice in their affairs, and that you end up ultimately having fair and free elections, which we don't always see."

Wait. What was that? What's your main concern? That the Venezuelan people have a voice and ultimately have fair and free elections? Um...should we chalk that up as another lie or would you like to take that back? Perhaps the altitude screwed up your thought process again. Maybe you should've said your main concern was getting yourself re-elected, because that's all it seems like you really care about.

Mitt Romney, on the other hand, had this to say about the president's comments and Hugo Chavez: “This is a stunning and shocking comment by the President. It is disturbing to see him downplaying the threat posed to U.S. interests by a regime that openly wishes us ill. Hugo Chavez has provided safe haven to drug kingpins, encouraged regional terrorist organizations that threaten our allies like Colombia, has strengthened military ties with Iran and helped it evade sanctions, and has allowed a Hezbollah presence within his country's borders. And he is seeking to lead – together with the Castros – a destabilizing, anti-democratic, and anti-American ‘Bolivarian Revolution’ across Latin America. President Obama's remarks continue a pattern of weakness in his foreign policy, one that has emboldened adversaries and diminished U.S. influence in every region of the world. As president, I will speak clearly and resolutely on the challenges we face so that both our allies and our adversaries will know where we stand.”

Looks like Romney is gonna crush Obama on the foreign policy debate just as easily as he did on the economic debate.

Liar-in-Chief

I just saw an Obama television ad that claims that Mitt Romney is a liar...that he won the debate solely because he lied about everything. Entitled "Dishonest," it continues to push the notion that Romney is lying when he says he won't raise taxes. This seems to be the popular line at the moment, as multiple news outlets and people related to the Obama campaign are all saying the same. David Axelrod, Obama's top campaign adviser, said yesterday on Meet The Press that Romney's statements were "not rooted in facts."

The Obama campaign is intent on pushing the idea that Mitt Romney will cut taxes on the rich and raise them on the poor...a claim that has already been disproven by multiple outlets. As a matter of fact, the Obama campaign actually uses some truth to push that claim; Romney's plan WOULD cut taxes on the rich. As it would for everyone. However most Obama campaign advertisements focus on the first part, then imply the second. So who are the ones actually being dishonest?

For the Obama campaign to call someone else a liar...well that's just funny. They really are trying to prey on people's stupidity. They expect people to believe everything they say and forget all that they've done. If we're going to elect a candidate based on who lies more...well then Obama is in trouble. Some even believe he's a clinical compulsive liar, that he just can't help it. For Obama to call someone else a liar is just ridiculously hilarious.

I guess he forgot about this:

And this is just in two minutes. Imagine the amount of lies he's told in the past four years! The number has to be more than I can imagine...and I can imagine quite a bit!

Who's your daddy, Barack?

Well the first presidential debate is in the books, and it's being hailed as a unanimous victory for Mitt Romney. No, seriously. Even people like Bill Maher and Michael Moore are saying so. Now that's an impression.

All night Barack Obama looked like a scolded 12 year old being caught in a lie by his father. Mitt Romney was tough, clear, and impassioned. Although, I guess it's easy to be so when all the facts are on your side. Barack Obama, on the other hand, looked timid and weak. He looked down most of the night, refusing to make eye contact with Romney while Romney was scolding him. He seemed to address the moderator instead of Romney, and at times, rambled about things completely off topic. At one point, he even told the moderator that he might want to move on to another topic instead of responding to his tax plan, a move Rudy Giuliani said that he'd never seen in all his life. But I guess it's hard when none of the facts are on your side.

As Bill Maher pointed out via Twitter, it looked like President Obama DOES need a teleprompter! Without one, the president stood no match to Romney's factual assault. The highlight of the debate for me was when Romney basically said the president likes to just repeat lies over and over again in hopes that they will be believed. This came after President Obama brought up Romney's "tax plan" to cut $5 trillion worth of taxes to the rich for the THIRD time. Basically it was the same old garbage the Obama campaign has been spewing for the last nine months; that Romney will cut taxes for the rich and raise them on the poor. I've actually read two different "fact checking" articles today that dismissed that claim as a falsehood, saying that the numbers just don't add up. (Yet Obama last night said it was about math. Maybe he needs a new calculator?) Well after President Obama brought it up the first time, Mitt Romney dismissed it as a faslehood. Then President Obama said it again. Again Romney said it wasn't true. And when President Obama brought it up for the third time, Mitt Romney busted out this gem: "Look, I've got five boys, I'm used to people saying things that aren't always true, but just keep on repeating it ultimately hoping I'll believe it." Zing!

With that one statement, Romney smacked down the Obama campaigns' mantra and established himself as the father figure who can't be duped by the petulant child. Without being able to run on ambiguous slogans like "Hope and Change" and having to defend an actual record, Obama looks unsure and out of his element. When facts are presented, he shirks. When statistics are brought up, he deflects. When the sorry state of America is mentioned, he blames. And in one night, Mitt Romney proved that those tactics won't work with him. He will not be flustered by rambling accusations; he will not be confused by unfounded statements, and he will not let the almost childish politics of Barack Obama dictate his stance. In one night he established himself as a cogent and cognizant father-like figure who will not be swayed by the poor politics of President Obama.
And in doing so, this silent declaration was made: "Who's your daddy!?"


Read the full transcript here.