It is hard for people who have spent the last year saying, “If Mitt Romney wins the nomination, Obama will be reelected,” to say that the former governor now seems to have a legitimate chance at winning the presidency.  That is what this blogger said on more than one occasion.  It is one thing to be wrong in the past, but it is another to be wrong about the same thing twice.

It is not as people who thought Romney could not possibly beat Obama should now feel that they no longer have a right to speak about the election, without compunction, they should continue trying to give honest assessments.  The ineluctable feeling many have at  Romney being the Republican standard-bearer is an inescapable side effect of a long, drawn-out, hard fought primary.

With Democrats preparing to prevaricate rather than address their role in the country’s economic conditions, and Republicans starting to amalgamate around Romney as the nominee, the polls have begun to shift towards showing a competitive race.

Erick Erickson put it this way:

“In fact, it is a concerted effort on the part of the Democrats to hide the economy from people’s attention.  Like the Great Oz, the Democrats prefer no one pay attention to the economic disaster behind the curtains.  I have run a great many campaigns.  Each has a real narrative focus. The goal of the campaign is to try to stay on that narrative focus and not get distracted by the team worried about losing.  The Democrats’ antics reveal they are deeply worried about losing.  They cannot fight on the issue that is singularly at play in this election — Barack Obama’s bungling of the economy, so they must try to force Mitt Romney to play elsewhere.

This is a correct assessment of the state of the race as it sits now.

Reuters recently summed up the race like this:

“The 2012 presidential election is more than six months away, but here is what we know so far: It is going to be close, it is going to be nasty, and the outcome could turn on a series of unpredictable events.

However, Bill Kristol over at the Weekly Standard has a different view of what is going to happen this cycle:

“If I had to put money down now, I’d bet that Mitt Romney will win an easy victory after a relatively predictable, issue-focused, and not-too-nasty campaign.  Indeed, I’d bet Romney will win precisely if he runs such a campaign.  But if he allows the race to degenerate into name-calling and gotcha gimmicks, he could lose.  Democrats are better than Republicans at the small and nasty stuff.”

On Race, or country has come a long way, but some are acting as the Dixie Democrats are still in power. There is racism in this country, and it comes from all races, not just one.

I often wonder how people come to the collusion the girl in the above video has.  In what society does she live in?  Who is teaching her “male black bodies are an immediate threat to her and society has a whole?”  Wonderful, by the grace of God, education, and wonderful parenting, she overcame what she was taught to learn the truth.  What truth is the real question here?

What she calls societal norms really means institutional racism.  The same institution that just elected its first black president now is out teaching people to fear blacks, to see them as sub-human, and to hate blacks: that is if you are to believe the girl in this video.

I say this girl has it all wrong; she is identifying the wrong institution that is to blame.

Race is not the reason people tend to profile when they see people of another skin color.  Other things do cause people to profile.  Do you suspect that a person who looks at a young black man walking down the street wearing baggie pants, a Bulls jersey, and tattoos may cause someone to profile him? (For the record, I wear all these things, and I am often profiled)  Now say that same young man walks down the street. This time instead of wearing the items, I stated above, he has on a Full Business Suit, and in his hand is a briefcase.  I suspect that this same man would not be profiled.

Now to be fair, I am not saying that racism does not exist, because it does, and in all races. However, is there something to be said of the situation I just brought up?  Is it surprising after listening to some of the hip hop music there is out there (bitch this, hoe that), that some woman may look at a black man dressed up as what some would call (gangster) and start to get worried.

Trayvon was not dressed as a gangster, not in the sense of bandanas and a certain color.  His hoody does not make him guilty of any crime.  Nor does Zimmerman ever say in his 911 call that Trayvon skin color is the reason he thought he was doing something.  In fact, he did not bring up race until prompted.  What he did say was that he was watching a “man walking around and looking about.”

Zimmerman was then asked “and this guy is he white, black, or Hispanic?” by the dispatcher, at which point he offered up what he thought the race of the person was, saying, “He looks black.”  The dispatcher went on to ask again what he was wearing, at which point Zimmerman then offered up that Trayvon was wearing a hoodie.  The dispatcher then asks him “ok, he was just walking around the area” to which Zimmerman, responded “looking at all the houses.”

It was not until Zimmerman had told the dispatcher “not he’s coming towards me”, the dispatcher said “OK” and then Zimmerman said, “He’s got his hand in his waistband.  And he’s a black male.”

You can read the full transcript here.

So was it the hoodie, the color of his skin, or the actions of Trayvon that night that caused Zimmerman to think there might be something wrong with the situation?  No one but Zimmerman knows for sure, and that is the point.

What the girl above is saying is not supported by what is known so far in this case.  I am not aware of any institutions that teach middle class white people to fear black men.  However, I certainly can understand why a person may look at me and have to wonder if having me in their house is safe.  When I have am wearing formal dress, I certainly get less crooked looks from people.  The police likely do not look at me and think he may be a criminal.

Harvard Prof. Alan Dershowitz contends on MSNBC that the Arrest Affidavit that was filed against George Zimmerman is “Irresponsible and Unethical” because “everything in the affidavit is completely consistent with a defense of self-defense. Everything.”

He went on to make it very clear, that any objective observer should see that (Which excludes the vast majority of the mainstream media), this was political, not a sound common law decision by the  prosecutor Angela Corey , who just so happens to be up for reelection this year.  She kicked off her reelection campaign last December.

The heightened charge filed by Corey, murder two, has many legal analyst saying that no judge is going to let this pass on the evidence presented.

Richard Hornsby, who is a defense attorney in Florida, contends, “There’s a “high likelihood it could be dismissed by the judge even before the jury gets to hear the case,” and Karin Moore, who is one of the assistant professors of law at Florida A&M University, says that the law “puts a tremendous burden on the state to prove that it wasn’t self-defense.”  From the evidence that we have seen in the public, this is going to be next to impossible to do.

Even though Corey started off the news conference by trying to iterate that hey office does not make decisions based on politics or public pressure, if you listen to the speech she gave at the announcement of the charge, it sounded a lot like a campaign speech.  Whether or not she had meant to do this or not, no justice can be served when people are using the Martin family to advance a political agenda.

Prof. Alan Dershowitz commented on this very thing:

 “I think what you have here is an elected public official who made a campaign speech last night for reelection when she gave her presentation and overcharged. This case will not – if the evidence is no stronger than what appears in the probable cause affidavit – this case will result in an acquittal.”

One would hope that the prosecutor would not have charged Zimmerman with the full knowledge that the case would just be denied by the judge. But the media has not given the justice system the room is should have to decide whether charges should have been brought or not.  

Having said that, Prof. Dershowitz is right about including information that would have been favorable to the defendant in the affidavit “It’s irresponsible and unethical in not including material that favors the defendant” and “This affidavit does not even make it to probable cause.”

The whole situation has brought out the worst in some people.  We have members of the media who failed to ratiocinate in a way that would have avoided such a rush to judgment.  We are not yet sure of what other evidence the prosecution has that could possible refute what the evidence already points to, but judging by the constricted nature of the affidavit, one has to wonder if they really have anything but what has been advanced by those with the agenda.

At 4% growth, the nation would see the unemployment rate drop, debt reduced, which can bring opportunity and prosperity for more Americans.Our country is not seeing the recovery that Obama and the Democrats are trying to say it has. Who can really blame them for trying, they cannot run on the actual numbers, so they are going to use deceptive statistics to try to make themselves look better that their records would indicate.

In the above video, you hear how the United States is number one at many things such as the largest economy, the most gold medals, the most educated adults, but we also have the most crime, the largest percentage of our population being obese, and the highest corporate tax rate.

Our corporate tax rate is at 35%, 40% if you add state taxes, which is what the businesses around this country do, they have to pay the tax after all. Ireland pays 12.5% and Poland has a 19% flat tax.While the world average corporate tax rate of other industrialized nations are around 25%, even Canada, Britain, and Japan cut their corporate taxes this year.

While Obama is running on raising taxes on millionaires, other countries are looking to capitalize on our tax systems failure to promote a business friendly environment.Our economy has made small improvements this year, but this is not happening because of President Obama’s policies, it is happening despite of him.

If Mitt Romney can make this argument with steady equanimity, he will have a decent shot at beating President Obama. Over the last few weeks, the president has made some strategic mistakes: attacking the court being the most damning of those mistakes.This week the Supreme Courts numbers have gone up for the first time in a while after the president challenged the courts right to strike down a law passed by congress.

He distorted the facts when he said that the bill was passed by an overwhelming majority in congress, even though it barely was passed. 1 out of 4 people polled say they want the court to uphold Obamacare. He did this all before anyone knows for sure what the Supreme Court will do when they hand down their decision on the constitutionality of Obamacare.

The general election is upon us, and in case you have not noticed, it is upon us.Santorum has made a valiant attempt at becoming the nominee, but for all the hyperbole coming from his camp these days, there is little chance that he stops Romney at this point.

Therefore, it is time to start talking about the general election.Today we will talk about one of the issues that is bound to come up, and sooner rather than later. This issue would be the Latino vote.

Some of the pundits in the media have conjectured that Romney should put Marco Rubio (R-Fla) on the ticket as VP because the GOP needs to reach out to Hispanic voters if it wants a chance at beating President Obama this November.The second half of this statement is surely true.The Latino vote is sure to be an Achilles ’heel for the GOP now and well into the future consider the way population trends are moving these days.

Latino’s accounted for 6.6 million of the votes in the 2010 mid-term elections, which was a record for the mid-term.They were also a larger share of the electorate that ever before coming in at 6.9% of all voters, which is up from 5.8% in 2006.According to the Census Bureau, 50.5 million Hispanics were counted by the 2010 Census, which is up from 35.3 million in 2000. Bottom line is this voting block is growing fast, and to exacerbate this for the GOP is the fact that many of these voters live in important electoral swing states: which includes Nevada, Florida, Colorado, and New Mexico. According to the Pew Hispanic Center, Barack Obama won the Latino vote by 36 points in 2008

Some people believe that this is why having Marco Rubio on the ticket with Mitt Romney would be a good thing.Romney had this to say about Rubio: “Marco Rubio is living proof that the American dream is still very much alive.”

This is very true, and it alone is reason enough to place Rubio on the ticket with Romney. However, it would be spurious to place him on the ticket thinking that alone who garner enough Latino support to win election. One should expect this proud people to see right through this.

Listen to Rubio talk about what it means to be an immigrant:

“To me, the story of immigration…the story of the Hispanic community, is the aspirations for a better life.” He then states “The sacrifices so that your children would have opportunities you didn’t have. I didn’t read about in a magazine article. I’m surrounded by it every single day of my entire life.”

Rubio gets it, but sadly, the GOP and many conservatives do not get it.

The most veracious way that I can put this is to say, that the only way the GOP is can consistently win the Latino vote is to show some empathy when dealing with issues that affect the Latino community. Something Romney has not done well in the last few presidential election cycles.

This is said to have been a situation unprecedented in American politics.  A U.S. sitting President goes after the Supreme Court for a decision they have yet to make.

It is plain as day that the president did not misspeak, and he knows very well what he said was not true. Obamacare was not passed by a “strong majority,” in fact it was barley passed period.  In addition, the president should very well know that the courts have never had to strike down a law such as this because the federal government has never taken such a step as to force citizens to buy a product.  I suspect Obama thinks the law is constitutional, but that is much different than thinking the courts do not have the power to deem the law unconstitutional.

President Obama recently said, “I am confident the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically-elected congress,”

The Department of Justice was required to submit a three-page letter to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals explaining why the Supreme Court has authority to rule acts of Congress unconstitutional. The argument between these two in the video above is interesting and worth watching. Jeff Toobin seems to be raging over what the Fifth Circuit had asked the J.D. to do.

In the video below, Jay Sekulow is on Fox News Discussing the Obama Administration’s response to the Fifth Circuit Court over President Obama’s comment. The Department of Justice submitted a three-page letter to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals explaining why the Supreme Court has authority to rule acts of Congress unconstitutional.The Obama administration seems to have remembered what the role of the Supreme Court is, and they now believe the court has the right. Did the president expect abnegation on the part of the Justices?

Megyn Kelly makes the argument that the left and the right define judicial activism differently.Her definition is spot on.While the right defines, judicial activism as when the court legislates form bench, or writes a law from the bench, the left seems to define it as when the courts strike down a law that was passed by a democratically elected Congress. I see nothing wrong with the way she describes the two sides views on what actually constitutes judicial activism.I am not going to get into constitutional interpretation, statutory construction, and separation of powers, but I think you get the picture here.

ACLJ’s Chief Counsel Jay Sekulow (who is in the above videos) is attempting to ramp up pressure to stop president Obama and his pro-abortion agenda.President Obama has forced taxpayer funding for abortion, an abortion surcharge on health insurance, increased funding to Planned Parenthood, and some other things.

The ACLJ has filed a lawsuit that says every person of faith should be able to opt-out of the HHS’s abortion-pill mandate, and they are working against Obama’s abortion surcharge on health insurance. If you would like to donate to this cause, click this right here Take Action | Contribute.