The pundits are ablaze in rating the performances of both Romney and Obama in order to determine “who won the debate” last night. This is not a comprehensive evaluation or analysis. It is just a gut feeling that I have as a Christian Conservative female voter.
Obama’s “look” and stares at Romney were…well…just creepy.
While listening to the pundits, one quipped that she “had never seen that look on Obama before.” A young, black woman (sorry…forget her name) who said she was an undecided voter was interviewed on Fox News this morning by Jenna Lee. She stated that she didn’t like the snark of Obama and she is now leaning towards voting for Romney! The economy is that voter’s biggest concern.
Perhaps this gives us an indication that Romney’s more uplifting, positive,solution oriented and future-leaning debating style will appeal to more women voters and take him over the top in the swing states. We shall see.
When more of the “fact checking” truth comes out and is revealed, I think that such revelations will prove to be another negative against Obama’s so-called “win” in this debate. Hopefully, it will mean that he may have been perceived as “winning,” but will lose the election because he turned off so many women voters.
Charles Krauthammer pointed out that He assessed that Romney had to show the American people that he was someone they can trust as commander in chief. During the debate, he said, “Romney went large. Obama went very, very small – shockingly small. The highest point for Romney, Krauthammer identified as the point when he “devastatingly leveled the charge of Obama going around the world on an apology tour.”
Obama’s faux “hope and change” turned into “creepy and snark” last night. Women, in particular, notice such things. Our intuition is such that seeing a person change his demeanor – like a chameleon changes colors to suit it’s surroundings – is a huge turn-off.
Women have ongoing problems with arrogant men. We have had to deal with them throughout our entire lives. Seeing Obama’s demeanor so starkly different from the more presidential demeanor of Romney speaks VOLUMES!
Romney had a good answer that covered all of Obama’s snarky attacks. Romney: “Attacking me is not an agenda.”
We have seen Obama’s demeanor change in each of the three debates. In the first debate, he appeared lethargic, weak, and unprepared. Some democrats (Al Gore) gave the excuse that it must have been the high altitude in Colorado. I recall wondering if Obama was actually high on drugs! In the second debate, Obama was rude, arrogant and in attack mode. As Paul Ryan stated (paraphrased here) ‘Obama had nothing to run on so he resorted to attack and blame.’
Obama probably thought that he scored some political points in that debate (with the help of Candy Crowley cutting off Governor Romney’s responses and LYING for Obama about the Benghazi massacre). But again, I think that women voters (who aren’t raging ObamaBorg Bot leftists) were turned off by it all.
In this third debate, Obama’s creepy stares at Romney and snarky comments (bayonets???) showed a third side of his revolving chameleon-like persona.
Which one is the real Obama??
Those of us who have been paying any attention over the past four plus years, know a lot about Obama’s past. The documentary 2016: Obama’s America puts it all together quite well, too! Another four years of Obama would be extremely detrimental to the United States of America and to the entire world!
~ Christine
Hat Tip: Fox News Insider.com
Talk Wisdom 
I just saw 2016 (pay per view), and a few days ago I saw Dreams from my Real Father (Netflix). It is difficult to say which is true as to his real father’s identity, but the parallel universes shared by both movies agree with each other as for events and time frames.
But what I wanted to tell you is that you need to see these two movies, but for certain 2016. Unlike Dreams From My Real Father, 2016 provides an explanation, a model, a background that perfectly describes what is motivating Obama. And the predictions from the author at the end of his book as to what Obama would do thus far have come to pass.
Prediction 1: Do nothing to stop Iran from getting the bomb.
Prediction 2: Spend like there is no deficit.
Prediction 3: If he has to tackle the deficit, he will cut military and raise taxes.
The prediction of 2016 if Obama gets a second term include:
Prediction A: Reduce America’s nuclear weapons from 1500 to 300. It should be pointed out that Russia is said to have 1500, but they may have more. Otherwise, we are talking 300 for France and less for China or Britain or for any other nation. This is to allow Iran or other countries (Muslim in particular) to have a more level playing field in the military arena. Most importantly, Obama has stated that no single nation should be allowed to choose who should have nuclear weapons, and to achieve this no nation will have nuclear weapons. The problem is that we can’t make them give up their nukes, but he can take ours away – if the Pentagon lets him.Prediction B: Continue spending until the global economy collapses, making the level playing field for all nations, both colonial and colonized. As the author puts it, debt of mass destruction. Thus the colonized nations who have had their wealth stolen by the colonial nations will be at par in a new brave world of competition.
Obama subscribes to Obama Sr’s view that to deal with great wealth centralized at the top of political power, you need the power of state to manage it (Obamacare), and you need to use taxes. Okay, but what is important to understand is that 100% tax of income is not an unreasonable picture to Obama Sr or Obama, so long as the people receive fair compensation from the government in return.
What you need to understand is that when Obama talks about taking the wealth from the top 1% and sharing it with the 99% below them, from his perspective, America as a whole is that 1%. In comparison to most countries in the world, America’s poor are very rich.
Charles Bolden was made head of NASA with the charge to transform NASA from America’s technical greatness into a vehicle by which we could help Islamic nations feel good about Muslim contributions to science.
Obama wants to return the Falklands to Argentina, returning the possessions stolen from the colonized by the colonizer. He subsides South American oil exploration while denying American off shore drilling and the key stone pipeline – enriching the colonized at the expense of the colonizers.
This pattern, transferring wealth from the colonizers to the colonized, is the core of EVERYTHING we see Obama doing on the world politic. It is foreign to American culture or thought. It is anti-American. If anyone believes that Obama wants to try harder to help America, they need to watch 2016.
His brother, George Obama, doesn’t hold his views, doesn’t worship at the altar of the grave of Obama Sr. George says that Kenya has hurt since the colonizers left during their revolution for independence. President Obama, therefore, doesn’t want anything to do with him and has no interest to help him.
Obama supports Muslims through out the world, because he sees them as colonial freedom fighters. He sees Israel as a small colonial power of the ME [Middle East], so you can see why he doesn’t appreciate our alliance with Israel. He supports the occupied people pushing out the occupiers- does that sound familiar? Occupy Wall Street is the young generation pushing out the older generation that stole all the wealth.
Everything we have seen Obama do in his four years of office make complete sense when you consider the dream from his father, to take from the colonizers and redistribute to the colonized. And the only time he uses the word “colonizers” is in reference to the western world colonizing the Muslim world.
The author of 2016 made it clear that he (being Indian) cannot vote. The entire world will be affected by how America votes in a few weeks. What we decide will impact him and everyone else and there is not a thing he can do other than to warn us.
*******