Obama Campaign Calls GOP Candidates “Despicable” For Trying To Make Trayvon Martin Case a “Divisive Issue”…
Of course Obama playing the race card by saying “his son would look like Trayvon Martin” before all the facts are out isn’t despicable. Either is the Congressional Black Caucus holding House hearings/PR stunt to capitalize on the killing.
Via National Journal:
The Obama campaign responded on Wednesday to criticism from two GOP candidates regarding his remarks on the Trayvon Martin killing, condemning their remarks with strong words of their own.
“I think it’s abysmal, despicable that people like Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum are trying to make this a divisive issue,” said Stephanie Cutter, Obama’s deputy campaign manager, on CNN’s Starting Point, adding that “they should watch their own words.”
Gingrich called Obama’s remarks on the shooting of the unarmed 17-year-old in Florida “disgraceful,” while Rick Santorum said that the president was trying to “drive a wedge” between people.
WHERE are Obama, Eric Holder and DHS Janet Nap0litano in regards to the New Black Panther Party issuing a reward to anyone bringing THEM Zimmerman?
Wouldn’t this act by the NBPP warrant charges of domestic terrorism against a person and soliciting kidnapping?
The Florida “Stand Your Ground Law” is now under scrutiny too.
A side thought here………
Would it surprise you that the “Stand Your Ground” Law in Florida has NOTHING to do specifically about guns?
Read at link below:
Video Surfaces of Eric Holder in 1995: We Must “Brainwash” People Against Guns. Progressivism in Action Against 2nd Amendment?
The Florida law is not a gun law. Period.
It contains zero references to guns or shooting, unless you feel propagandistically compelled to count one of those ubiquitous legislative “Whereases” that references the Florida Constitution’s “right of the people to bear arms…”
The Florida law is a self-defense, self-protection law. It has four key components:
- It establishes that law-abiding residents and visitors may legally presume the threat of bodily harm or death from anyone who breaks into a residence or occupied vehicle and may use defensive force, including deadly force, against the intruder.
- In any other place where a person “has a right to be,” that person has “no duty to retreat” if attacked and may “meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.”
- In either case, a person using any force permitted by the law is immune from criminal prosecution or civil action and cannot be arrested unless a law enforcement agency determines there is probable cause that the force used was unlawful.
- If a civil action is brought and the court finds the defendant to be immune based on the parameters of the law, the defendant will be awarded all costs of defense.
The key section of the law states:
A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.”