George Zimmerman's Spin

     George Zimmerman just won't stop talking.  He's fervently trying to wrap himself in the protection of Florida's  'Stand Your Ground' law.  The second component of the law is where Zimmerman is trying to hide. It says:

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.”

 While GZ is trying to align his version to meet these parameters, it seems that this fits Trayvon Martin even more.  Trayvon Martin was walking home from the store; he had a right to be there.  He was followed by an armed male who thought he was 'getting away' and decided to follow him.  GZ was told to remain in his vehicle and not follow the teenager.  He thought Trayvon Martin was suspicious and took it upon himself to follow him on foot.  Trayvon Martin had 'no duty to retreat' and upon being stalked by an unknown armed male, may have felt trapped and endangered.

But all of that is beside the point.  The important factor of this is 'forcible felony'.    

The term "forcible felony" is important in Florida because the only time you can use a gun or other deadly weapon in self-defense is when you use it to stop or prevent a "forcible felony".
Florida forcible felonies are:
- Kidnapping
- Murder
- Manslaughter
- Sexual Battery (Rape)
- Arson
- Treason
- Robbery
- Burglary
- Carjacking
- Home Invasion
- Aggravated Battery
- Aggravated Assault
- Aggravated Stalking
-Any other felony that involves the use or threat of violence against any person

 Ok, so there is nothing that says you can shoot a guy for wearing a hoodie, or concealing snacks. Seeing someone who you 'think' is suspicious, or even if you think he is on drugs is not reason enough to take a life.  He had the nerve to say he wished that there was something, anything that he could have done that wouldn't have put him in a position where he had to take his life.

Um, staying in your car and waiting for the police as he had been advised by the police dispatcher.  This man is a liar.  He is a murderer.  The truth will come out.

President Obama vs. the Pope

    So, is the federal government impeding religious freedom by forcing religious employers to offer contraception as a part of their health care packages.  This guarantees that women who may work for religious, especially catholic, organizations will have the freedom to make their own choices.  This is not about religious freedom.

    Women should be able to decide what they do with their own bodies.  This is a medical issue.  Everyone should be able to decide how, if, or when they reproduce.  It's a woman's decision to be made with her doctor.

    The funny thing is that the first thing people say if a mother needs help is why would she have babies she couldn't afford to take care of.  The first thing that happens is that the mother is blamed.  Yet on the other hand, if she works for a catholic hospital, for example, she has to pay out of pocket or not have birth control.

   Has anyone else noticed that there aren't many of those families with lots of kids anymore?  The truth is, in America most catholics use birth control. MOST AMERICAN CATHOLICS USE BIRTH CONTROL.  So, are these republicans saying that they are not having sex with their wives if she's post-menopausal? Are Catholics adhering to all of the tenets of their faith?

This is about the control of a woman's body being in her hands.  Not her boss's, not her husband's, not her priest's, just hers.  The truth is that is all it is about.

The Best the Republicans Have To Offer

I just want to interrupt with nominees of this weeks "WOW Is Your Foot in Your Mouth!"

Newt Gingrich:

"And so I'm prepared if the NAACP invites me, I'll go to their convention and talk about why the African American community should demand paychecks and not be satisfied with food stamps," said Gingrich in Plymouth, N.H.

Rick Santorum (sounding very Reaganesque regarding the "Welfare Queens":

"I don't want to make black people's lives better by giving them somebody else's money. I want to give them the opportunity to go out and earn the money; And provide for themselves and their family." 

And while this is not current, it still speaks volumes for  Ron Paul (from ronpaul.com):

         

On July 3, 2004, Ron Paul was the only Congressman to vote against a bill hailing the 40th anniversary of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. In this speech to Congress, Ron Paul courageously spoke out on the often controversial issues of race relations and affirmative action. He explained why the Civil Right Act had failed to achieve its stated goals of promoting racial harmony and a color-blind society.

Ron Paul: Mr. Speaker, I rise to explain my objection to H.Res. 676. I certainly join my colleagues in urging Americans to celebrate the progress this country has made in race relations. However, contrary to the claims of the supporters of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the sponsors of H.Res. 676, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 did not improve race relations or enhance freedom. Instead, the forced integration dictated by the Civil Rights Act of 1964 increased racial tensions while diminishing individual liberty.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 gave the federal government unprecedented power over the hiring, employee relations, and customer service practices of every business in the country. The result was a massive violation of the rights of private property and contract, which are the bedrocks of free society. The federal government has no legitimate authority to infringe on the rights of private property owners to use their property as they please and to form (or not form) contracts with terms mutually agreeable to all parties. The rights of all private property owners, even those whose actions decent people find abhorrent, must be respected if we are to maintain a free society.

This expansion of federal power was based on an erroneous interpretation of the congressional power to regulate interstate commerce. The framers of the Constitution intended the interstate commerce clause to create a free trade zone among the states, not to give the federal government regulatory power over every business that has any connection with interstate commerce.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 not only violated the Constitution and reduced individual liberty; it also failed to achieve its stated goals of promoting racial harmony and a color-blind society. Federal bureaucrats and judges cannot read minds to see if actions are motivated by racism. Therefore, the only way the federal government could ensure an employer was not violating the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was to ensure that the racial composition of a business’s workforce matched the racial composition of a bureaucrat or judge’s defined body of potential employees. Thus, bureaucrats began forcing employers to hire by racial quota. Racial quotas have not contributed to racial harmony or advanced the goal of a color-blind society. Instead, these quotas encouraged racial balkanization, and fostered racial strife.

Of course, America has made great strides in race relations over the past forty years. However, this progress is due to changes in public attitudes and private efforts. Relations between the races have improved despite, not because of, the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, while I join the sponsors of H.Res. 676 in promoting racial harmony and individual liberty, the fact is the Civil Rights Act of 1964 did not accomplish these goals. Instead, this law unconstitutionally expanded federal power, thus reducing liberty. Furthermore, by prompting raced-based quotas, this law undermined efforts to achieve a color-blind society and increased racial strife. Therefore, I must oppose H.Res. 676.