Cruz Pushes Back Against Race Hustlers
WASHINGTON, D.C. – Trayvon Martin‘s mother, Sybrina Fulton appeared on Capitol Hill today to testify about why states should re-evaluate their “stand your ground” laws. Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) took issue with the senate even bringing the laws up for debate. He believes that people are trying to exploit a tragedy for political reasons.
READ: After being told he was racist, college student rejects further diversity training
“The subject of this hearing, the stand your ground laws… was not a defense that Mr. Zimmerman raised, so this entire hearing, the topic of this hearing is not the issue on which that trial turned,” Cruz said.
WATCH: Black economist debunks racialism and feminism in under five minutes.
Cruz pointed to how state senator Barack Obama co-sponsored an expansion of Illinois law providing civil immunity for those who use justifiable force to those who defend themselves.
He thinks that taunts of racism may be a good political attack, but they don’t have anything to do with this debate.
14 comments
aside from birthing a thug, what does this paragon of black womanhood really bring to the table ? Does she have any special education or work experience (has she ever really worked ?). Has she done some special studies or research that gives her insight that makes her input special and/or relevant ?
So parents who have lost children who want laws changed aren’t allowed to address the law if they don’t have specific certifications that suit you? Gotcha. We live in a free country. Just because you don’t like her (and bordering on slander) does not mean she has to sit down and shut up.
So just because someone loses a child (through the child’s own fault) parents should allow emotion to run over law?
He is right. Though, “Stand your Ground” should only mean if you are being attacked where you are, but following some one then saying they attacked you, so you get to shoot them is flat out absurd.
So….what your saying is…a NON-VIOLENT action of following/observing someone is then a justification for assault? IMHO, Zimmerman certainly made mistakes…perhaps was even negligent in his behavior prior to the shooting…HOWEVER, Martin was not some innocent little child victim shot in cold blood either. BOTH could have drastically changed the outcome of this incident had they BOTH just COMMUNICATED with one another. Once Martin crossed the line and assaulted Zimmerman…sorry…but I feel he had the right to defend himself.
Defend himself from what? He was the aggressor. Zimmerman followed the kid, while he was armed. That is not standing your ground, that in it’s self is an act of aggression.
He didn’t just say he was attacked, he WAS attacked.
See, I’m SO trying to following the logical stream here, the one where in this, the “real world” we can really justifiably equate a kid minding his own
business with a 6 foot tall, fully developed young man, trained in MMA, aggressively assaulting another man, simply because that man was following him.
You all keep making it sound like little Beaver was chasing butterflies through golden fields when some monster crept out of the bushes, said “boo” and shot down the little adorable guy, an infant who was just searching for rainbows and bunny rabbits, and for no reason at all.
Bloody disingenuous nonsense. Your postulate is utterly ridiculous. You’re actually suggesting that we now forgo what we were ALL taught in high school, which is to be wary and vigilant of our surroundings and caretakers of our neighbors.
Sorry, really, but your – all to common (and intellectually dishonest) point is just a propaganda biased response in defense of an indefensible scenario. It’s willful absence of the most basic common sense.
Law or no law, if I feel threatened by someone, or if someone is threatening my family, I’m going to do normal, natural thing and use whatever force I can to end that threat.
Martins’ mother testifying at that hearing is no different from children standing behind Obama while he propagandizes Sandy Hook, and Feinstein using Catholic Priests to espouse the merits of a factually bankrupt and statistically laughable gun control argument.
This is all nothing but Kabuki theater. It’s emotional coercion strictly designed to pull the heart strings of voters towards their “we stand for minorities” camp when the ballots open. It’s more race baiting, and that in-and-of itself is shameless. The left continue to try and co-opt the moral high ground in order to demonize conservatives, as long as it serves their duplicitous and divisive modus operandi.
It’s disgusting to have this woman, one who knows not a single functional detail about Stand Your Ground laws, influencing the discussion at all, a woman who’s involvement in the matters at hand has literally no contextual application – as SYG was not even used in defense of Zimmerman. Asking her to discuss the merits and downfalls of SYG is no different from me to testify as to the merits and downfalls of quantum physics.
These are merely the usual distractions leftists employ, that lead to harm and subvert the application of pragmatic reasoning and objectivity. It’s the opposite of what we need in hearings on laws and policies. So yeah, thanks again to the elitists for clouding the issues with ridiculous smoke and mirrors.
This is shameless and disgusting politicking by wannabe social engineers who continue to impose their influence in this country on the basis of emotions over facts, appeals for Utopia over conditions found in the real world.
What’s sickening about the whole gun control affair – post Sandy Hook – and how they continue to try and erode gun rights with attacks on laws like SYG? It’s how little they care about the safety and security of people on the ground, living day to day in close proximity of a world full of predators. They carry weapons themselves of course, and they are further carried by security personnel.
Hypocrites. We don’t deserve the same rights they do. Perhaps Americans can look for the real reason why they believe we should be disarmed and laws that would save us from prosecution eroded and ended. It has nothing at all to do with safety and security of anything, other than their own continuing socialist agenda moving unimpeded by an angry and armed populace.
The entire party has gone from being admirably and traditionally liberal to being a party of collectivists and socialists practicing skin color liberalism only. They truly should be ashamed of themselves.
Simply outstanding, Mr. Gibson. Hat is off!
Neither race nor stand your ground law – both compelling subjects – were shown to apply in the Zimmerman case.
Stand your ground is in place for a reason. We have the right to protect ourselves, from those who attempt to do harm…It doesn’t matter if you a white, black, brown, yellow, pink or purple.
Black is not in the minority anymore!!! COME ON!!! The man in the White House ( everyone says) is black!!! Get over this RACE issue!!!The Administration is using it against you!!! WAKE-UP before it is too late!!!