PoliticsView from the Center and Left

Previous 10 Next 10 
From: Dale Baker3/31/2012 3:48:25 PM
of 374539
Mitt Romney’s ‘veepstakes’ begin
By Philip Rucker, Published: March 30

APPLETON, Wis. — Mitt Romney’s advisers and top supporters have begun informally discussing potential vice presidential candidates and believe that the sooner he can put away the Republican nomination, the more flexibility he will have in picking his running mate.

And although they are careful to note that the campaign is far from putting together a short list, key supporters and strategists said Friday that they are beginning to see the outlines of the kind of person Romney will choose — and the kind he will avoid.

In short, the habitually cautious candidate is less likely to try to make a splash by picking a game-changing candidate and more likely to choose someone safe, whom he sees as competent and ready to be president.

The conventional thinking has been that after a long and divisive primary campaign, the challenge of uniting the GOP would force Romney to pick a running mate with strong appeal to tea party activists and evangelicals. But Romney’s team thinks he may be liberated from that pressure if he can finish off remaining rivals Rick Santorum, Newt Gingrich and Ron Paul in the next few weeks.

Romney has not tapped anyone to oversee a vice-presidential search process. The strategy talk, one adviser said, is limited to “four guys on the campaign over a beer at night on the North End who might toss names around.”

Romney’s high command in Boston has not taken its eye off the primaries he still needs to win. And cognizant that he would be leading a divided party, they are seeking ways to win over reluctant conservatives. Still, it is unclear whether several months from now, when Romney chooses a running partner, he would be under pressure to pick someone who is demonstrably more conservative than he is.

His advisers said they do not believe geography will play all that important a role, and that he seems unlikely to choose someone to court a single state or constituency. He does not, so far, appear to have discussed the need to pick a minority or a woman, for example, to appeal to certain kinds of voters.

“The days when you could pick a vice presidential nominee and they could deliver a state are long over,” said Charlie Black, a veteran GOP presidential strategist and informal Romney adviser.

At the same time, early indications are that Romney will not repeat the error of 2008, when John McCain sought a dramatic choice but failed to run a thorough vetting process in picking Sarah Palin.

“I think the mistakes made in 2008 will have a big effect, as they should in 2012,” said strategist Steve Schmidt, who oversaw McCain’s selection of Palin. “The 2008 process was evaluated almost entirely through a political prism.”

This time, one Romney adviser said, “politics will matter less than you’d imagine.”

“Knowing Mitt as I do, I think he’s going to be very much of the school that we need a vice president who can become president,” said the adviser, who like others interviewed demanded anonymity because of the sensitivity of the vice presidential search process.

The “veepstakes,” as they are known, is a favorite parlor game of operatives and journalists. But forgotten in all the chatter is that Romney is likely to make the decision alone, in consultation with only a few close confidantes. Making this choice is considered the first presidential decision a nominee makes.

Now, as Republicans continue coalescing around Romney — Sen. Marco Rubio (Fla.) and House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (Wis.) endorsed him this week — some are wondering whether his new backers might be appear on the ticket.

The widespread speculation has been that Rubio is the leading contender. He’s popular with the tea party and his Cuban American roots — Romney has said he embodies “the American dream” — could help capture Hispanic voters.

“Romney’s greatest challenge in the party is with the right wing of the party, which is what that ‘Anybody But Mitt’ movement has been,” one major Romney fundraiser said. “That would suggest that you go toward the conservative wing, quite possibly as well that you go South. Where does that conversation quickly take everybody? It takes you to Marco.”

But the 40-year-old first-term senator is untested on a national stage, something one Romney supporter said “absolutely” gives the Romney team pause.

Other rising stars would check certain boxes for Romney. New Mexico Gov. Susana Martinez is from a swing state and is Hispanic. South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley could help soothe tensions with Romney across the traditional South. But like Rubio, they are relatively inexperienced.

Another factor is whether contenders have been helpful to Romney. New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie and Virginia Gov. Robert F. McDonnell endorsed him at critical moments and campaigned for him.

But some Romney supporters noted that McDonnell could hurt Romney with women voters considering his graduate thesis critical of working women and unwed mothers and a bill this spring requiring women to undergo ultrasound procedures before having abortions.

Similarly, a prominent Romney fundraiser said Christie would be “risky because his bombasticness might not travel as well as you’d hope.”

One candidate who could conform to what Romney may want is Sen. Rob Portman (Ohio). A Cabinet member in George W. Bush’s administration, Portman could be an experienced governing partner. So could Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels, although he has signaled, as has former Florida governor Jeb Bush, that he is not be interested in the job.

Even as they begin weighing the pros and cons of contenders, Romney’s advisers and supporters stressed that the candidate has given it little thought yet. When Jay Leno asked him to handicap his short list on “The Tonight Show” this week, Romney said, “I haven’t actually put a list together at this stage.”

“It would be presumptuous,” Romney said, prodding Leno to tease him for not even talking about it with his wife.

If he follows tradition, Romney will seriously consider eight to 10 candidates — a short list that some said could also include Ryan, Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal, Sen. John Thune (S.D.) and former Minnesota governor Tim Pawlenty — and then whittle his list down to four or five who will undergo a rigorous vetting.

In 2008, McCain vetted Romney along with Palin, so Romney knows how expensive and painstaking the vetting process can be for a candidate, who has to procure years of financial and personal records. “I don’t think he’ll put somebody through a formal vetting if there’s not a realistic possibility of their selection,” said one adviser. “There will be a premium placed on not embarrassing people.”

Share KeepReplyMark as Last Read

From: Dale Baker3/31/2012 4:12:37 PM
of 374539
Fear and bloodshed in Florida
By Kathleen Parker, Published: March 30

There are so many appalling aspects to the Trayvon Martin case that it’s hard to find a permanent home for outrage.

Most appalling, obviously, is the fatal shooting of an unarmed 17-year-old, targeted by a 28-year-old volunteer neighborhood watchman. George Zimmerman thought Martin seemed “suspicious” and followed him for a while before Martin allegedly attacked him.

What really happened is anyone’s guess since Martin isn’t here to tell his side of the story and there were no witnesses to the shooting. There’s audio of Zimmerman calling 911 to report his concerns about Martin. There’s grainy video of Zimmerman arriving at the police station looking, by some appraisals, not sufficiently battered to corroborate his tale of being attacked.

Also appalling is the presumed racial motivation. Given that Martin was armed only with iced tea and a bag of Skittles — and given that his suspicious behavior seems to have hinged primarily on the fact that he was wearing a “hoodie” — it’s easy to see why some have concluded that race was a factor, though not only blacks wear hoodies. How many police sketches have we seen of white suspects wearing hoodies? Plenty.

Would Zimmerman have found a fellow Hispanic suspicious under the same circumstances? A white male? We don’t know, but we do know that Zimmerman and his wife mentored two African American children, hardly the actions of hardened racists.

Add to the “appalling” roster the growing congregation of usual suspects crowing about, profiling and politicizing the case. From movie stars to talk show hosts and then to a congressman who wore a hoodieon the House floor — the tragedy of Trayvon Martin has become a cause celebre. A month later, the hoodie has become a symbol of solidarity against institutional racism. We all wear hoodies now.

That we all want justice for Trayvon Martin should be a foregone assumption. But also assumed should be the understanding that we await all the facts before we convict. Without knowing much of anything, we seem to have reached a consensus that this is a case of racially motivated violence. When President Obama commented on the case, saying that if he had a son, he’d look like Trayvon, he set a narrative in motion from which there seems to be no retreat.

Another appalling feature of this horrific event is the apparent attempt by some to paint a less-than-favorable portrait of Martin. It is true that early photos released of him showed a younger, more apple-cheeked version. More recent images reveal a youngster becoming a man — not quite as cuddly but certainly no less attractive than other teens as they morph from child to adult.

We’ve also learned that Martin used the Internet as many his age do. He used rough language and a handle that includes the N-word. He also apparently had been suspended from school for marijuana possession at the time of his death. It happens, but really, so what?

It isn’t wrong to try to learn more about the involved parties in an attempt to imagine how they might have interacted. But I can’t fathom what these details have to do with Martin’s death. A teen who smokes pot and plays tough guy on the Internet isn’t necessarily going to punch a stranger in the nose. Isn’t this something like pointing out that a rape victim was flirty and wore short skirts?

What is likely is that both men scared each other for different reasons, and one tragically overreacted. It is certainly plausible that Martin was terrified and acted accordingly. When he told his girlfriend by phone that someone was following him, she told him to run. Would that he had, but in his mind, Martin might have considered this a risky option.

Apropos of Martin’s less angelic side, parents of boys know that young males say and do dumb things that don’t mean anything. They act cocky out of fear or talk trash to deflect. They wear hoodies or backward baseball caps or low-hanging jeans because these innocuous gestures of grandiosity are often the only weapons available to the unarmed. We all have our ways of telegraphing, “Don’t mess with me (please).”

That someone would interpret one such symbol or gesture as suspicious or threatening, prompting him ultimately to use lethal force, is the most appalling feature in a case in which outrage has too many homes.

Share KeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (2)

To: Dale Baker who wrote (186418)3/31/2012 5:18:40 PM
From: T L Comiskey
of 374539
re..fear and bloodshed...

Its as Merikan..

as a dick cheney quail hunt

Share KeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)

To: T L Comiskey who wrote (186419)3/31/2012 6:50:52 PM
From: epicure
of 374539
you mean a Dick Cheney people hunt.

Maybe the guy he show was a matching blood type. Cheney's got to keep those spare parts coming...

One never knows when the dark lord might need another organ.

Share KeepReplyMark as Last Read

To: Dale Baker who wrote (186418)3/31/2012 9:49:00 PM
From: Win Smith
of 374539
'Stand your ground' law protects those who go far beyond that point

[ From a somewhat local rag wrt to this story, we have this scary little bit of background. Totally aside from the obscure circumstances of this particular case, there is this nasty political backstory with the usual suspects hard at work. In this case, the NRA and Koch Bro front ALEC, not satisfied with the Supreme Court having done to gun regulation what they did to campaign finance, have moved on to the next stage. The Florida legislators behind the particular law in question are running around claiming their special little legislative masterpiece doesn't apply here, but that's not what the judges, prosecutors, and criminal defense lawyers say. I imagine the NRA will lay low for a month or so on this one, but I'm sure they'll be back pushing the same crap around the country when the news dies down. ]

By Ben Montgomery, Times Staff Writer

Published Saturday, March 31, 2012

The men responsible for Florida's controversial "stand your ground'' law are certain about one thing: Because of his actions before he pulled the trigger and killed 17-year-old Trayvon Martin, George Zimmerman is not protected from criminal prosecution.

Because Zimmerman exited his vehicle, because he followed Martin, because his actions put him a situation where he felt it necessary to shoot a boy dead, he should be booked, jailed and forced to face a jury of his peers.

Said Durell Peaden, the former Republican senator from Crestview who sponsored the bill: "The guy lost his defense right then. When he said, 'I'm following him,' he lost his defense."

Said Jeb Bush, the governor who signed the bill into law: "Stand your ground means stand your ground. It doesn't mean chase after somebody who's turned their back."

But the lawmakers are wrong.

Since its passage in 2005, the "stand your ground'' law has protected people who have pursued another, initiated a confrontation and then used deadly force to defend themselves. Citing the law, judges have granted immunity to killers who put themselves in danger, so long as their pursuit was not criminal, so long as the person using force had a right to be there, and so long as he could convince the judge he was in fear of great danger or death.

The Tampa Bay Times has identified 140 cases across the state in which "stand your ground'' has been invoked, and many involve defendants whose lives were clearly in jeopardy. But at least a dozen share similarities with what we know about the Trayvon Martin case, and they show the law has not always worked as its sponsors say they intended.

Early morning, Jan. 25, 2011. Greyston Garcia was in his apartment in Miami when a roommate told him someone was stealing the radio from his truck.

Garcia grabbed a kitchen knife and ran outside. The burglar saw him coming, grabbed his bag of stolen radios and fled.

Rather than calling the police, Garcia chased the thief down the street and caught up to him a block away. The confrontation lasted less than a minute and was captured on surveillance video. The thief swung the bag of radios at Garcia, who blocked the bag with his left hand and stabbed the thief in the chest with his right.

Pedro Roteta, 26, died in the street.

Those are the facts. You be the judge.

Florida statute 776.013(3) says: (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.

The old law required a person to use every reasonable means available to retreat before using deadly force, except when the person was in his or her home or place of work. "Stand your ground'' expands that to any other place where he or she has a right to be.

Should that be enough to protect Greyston Garcia from prosecution?

Does it help to know that a medical examiner testified that a blow from a 4- to 6-pound bag of metal to the head would cause great bodily harm, possibly even death? Does it change your mind to learn that police found a folding knife in the dead man's back pocket?

Does it matter that Garcia didn't call the police? That he went home and fell asleep? That he later sold the other stolen car stereos and hid the knife and denied killing anyone when police finally caught him?

The judge considered all those facts. In the end, she ruled that Garcia's use of force was justified. It didn't matter that he had chased the thief for a block with a knife in his hand.

All that mattered was what happened in those few seconds when the two men stood face to face.

“Mr. Zimmerman's unnecessary pursuit and confrontation of Trayvon Martin elevated the prospect of a violent episode and does not seem to be an act of self-defense as defined by the castle doctrine" wrote state Rep. Dennis Baxley, the Ocala Republican who co-authored the law, in a column March 21 for "There is no protection in the 'stand your ground' law for anyone who pursues and confronts people."

Lawyers say the bill's supporters are either uninformed or politically motivated.

"That's not what the law says," said Steven Romine, a Tampa Bay lawyer who has invoked "stand your ground'' successfully. "They might think that in their own heads, but it's just not true.

"If you're doing something legal, no matter what the act is, and you're attacked, it's in that moment that you have a right to stand your ground."

Prosecutors, who are generally critical of the law, agree.

"The real issue is what happens around the 60 seconds prior to the shooting," said Ed Griffith, a spokesman for the Miami-Dade State Attorney's Office, which brought the charges against Greyston Garcia. "Everything else has emotional content, but from a legal perspective, it all comes down to the 60 seconds before the incident."

One of Romine's cases is a prime example. In 2008, his client, Charles Podany, noticed a truck speeding past his house in Thonotosassa, where his children play in the front yard. Podany fetched his handgun and rode his bicycle down the street to the house where the truck was parked to get a license plate number.

He found himself in a confrontation with Casey Landes, 24, who had been a passenger in the truck. Landes, legally drunk, attacked the smaller Podany and wound up on top of him. Podany drew his weapon and fired twice. The second bullet entered Landes' left cheek and struck the back of his skull, killing him instantly.

Podany was charged with manslaughter. But before trial, a judge ruled that despite initiating the confrontation by arming himself and riding his bicycle to the speeder's house, Podany was in a place he had a legal right to be and he was carrying a weapon he had a legal right to carry. He found that Podany feared for his life and had the right to defend himself with deadly force.

"There is not an exception to the law that says if you're doing something stupid, or risky, or not in your best interest, that 'stand your ground' doesn't apply," Romine said.

In May, Carlos Catalan-Flores, 26, a security guard at a Tampa strip club called Flash Dancers, confronted men who were drinking beer in the parking lot. One of the men threw a beer bottle at Catalan-Flores' head and prepared to throw another. Rather than taking cover inside the club, or using his baton or pepper spray to protect himself, Catalan-Flores drew his weapon and began firing. Several of the six shots hit the man who threw the beer.

A judge ruled that Catalan-Flores was justified, even though he initiated the confrontation. Being hit by a beer bottle constitutes a forcible felony, so he had the right to shoot, to protect himself.

"Fundamentally, this law is in place to protect us from prosecution and to allow us to protect ourselves," said Catalan-Flores' attorney, Joe Caimano. "If somebody takes it to the extreme, it will come out in the investigation."

Some extreme cases have tested the law.

A man got into a shootout on a Sarasota street, for instance, killing a man who owed him money and endangering bystanders. But a judge granted him immunity because a witness testified that his rival had claimed he had "fire in his pocket" and threatened the shooter. Police found no weapon at the scene, but that didn't matter. What mattered was that the shooter believed his enemy had a weapon and was ready to use it.

The court has even ruled that the statute can protect someone who shoots a retreating person. In overturning a ruling against Jimmy Hair, who shot a man who was retreating from a fight, a judge in Tallahassee wrote that the statute "makes no exception from the immunity when the victim is in retreat at the time the defensive force is employed."

Prosecutors argue that these types of cases should be brought before a jury.

"Jurors understand self-defense," said Griffith, the spokesman in Miami. "That's really where it should be."

Nine days after Trayvon Martin was shot dead in Sanford, Brandon Baker, 30, and his twin brother were driving separate cars toward the apartment they shared in Palm Harbor.

Seth Browning, a 23-year-old security guard who later told deputies he was concerned with Baker's erratic driving, pulled in close behind Baker to get his license tag number.

Baker turned off East Lake Road, then onto an access road and came to a stop, according to Pinellas sheriff's investigators. Browning followed and stopped behind Baker's Chevy truck.

Baker climbed out of his truck and walked to Browning's window. His brother, Chris, watching from behind, said Baker was trying to figure out why Browning was tailgating him.

Browning sprayed Baker with pepper spray, then shot him in the chest. He told deputies that Baker had punched him and he was in fear for his life. Browning called police as Chris Baker tried to revive his brother.

His father, Kevin Lindsay, rushed to the scene and watched as Browning was questioned at length. Then he learned the man who killed his son was released.

Baker's parents had never heard of the "stand your ground" law. Waiting for some type of action has exhausted them. They long for justice in what appears to them to be a clearly unjustifiable killing.

"I always knew that the law would protect you if somebody broke into your home. Sure, you can protect yourself," said his stepmother, Alex Lindsay. "But why did they have to expand it to protect people who do things like this?"

Their friends and family are just as shocked when they learn Browning might not be charged.

"They're incredulous," Alex Lindsay said.

More than 500 people have signed their online petition to get "stand your ground" repealed.

"This case is being considered a 'stand your ground' case and should not be since Seth Browning was the sole 'AGGRESSOR' and 'CHOSE' to tailgate, pull over, pepper spray, and shoot and kill Brandon Baker," it says. "Seth Browning did NOT act out of self defense and should be prosecuted for killing Brandon Baker."

But if history serves, the pursuit may not matter. The case will hinge on what happened in the moments before Browning pulled the trigger, and whether he feared for his life. Pinellas Sheriff Bob Gaultieri said this week that the case is still under investigation.

Baker's parents, like Martin's, are appalled that the law might protect the man who killed their son, and shocked that men who backed the law are saying they didn't know it could.

"Even if they had the best of intentions, they need to change this law," Alex Lindsay said. "They will never fully understand the repercussions of it."

"I don't wish this on anyone," said her husband. "And this is going to keep happening. It's going to happen to other families."

Times computer-assisted reporting specialist Connie Humburg and staff writer Kris Hundley contributed to this report. Ben Montgomery can be reached at or (727) 893-8650.

fort myers

Defendant: Demarro Battle

Victim: Omar Bonilla

Case: Battle fatally shot Bonilla, who was unarmed, during an argument at a party in Fort Myers in July 2009. Battle was arrested and charged with second-degree murder, but prosecutors later dropped the charge.


Defendant: Charles Podany

Victim: Casey Landes

Case: Podany, 49, asked a man driving through his Thonotosassa neighborhood to slow down. The driver's drunken friend, Landes, 24, objected and began beating Podany, who shot him in the head. A Hillsborough judge granted Podany immunity.

new port richey

Defendant: Max Wesley Horn Jr.

Victim: Joseph Martell

Case: Horn, 47, shot and killed Martell, 34, after an argument in March 2008. According to Horn, Martell threatened his sister-in-law. Witnesses disagree on whether Martell punched Horn, who fired six bullets at Martell. A judge denied "stand your ground," but Horn was acquitted at trial.

palm harbor

Shooter: Seth Browning

Victim: Brandon Baker

Case: Browning, an off-duty security guard, shot and killed Baker, 30, on March 5. Concerned about Baker's erratic driving, Browning followed to get his tag. The cars pulled off, and Baker approached Browning's car. Whether Baker threatened or punched Browning is in dispute, but Pinellas sheriff's investigators have not charged Browning.

'feared for life'

Shooter: Oscar Delbono

Victim: Shane Huse

Case: Delbono shot Huse, 34, in the neck and shoulder after an argument in June 2009 between the neighbors. An autopsy showed Huse was turning to leave when shot. Delbono said he "feared for my life." The State Attorney's Office in Citrus County declined to prosecute.

miami chase

Defendant: Greyston Garcia

Victim: Pedro Roteta

Case: When Greyston Garcia discovered Pedro Roteta was stealing his car radio in Miami in January 2011, he grabbed a knife, ran downstairs and chased him down the street. Roteta reportedly swung a bag of car radios at him, and Garcia fatally stabbed him. The officer who supervised the case asked, "How can it be 'stand your ground' ?"

shot from inside

Shooter: Damian


Victim: Benjy Young

Case: Damian Niemeyer, 37, shot and killed Benjy Young, 19, in December as Young and two men tried to steal his motorcycle. Niemeyer of Royal Palm Beach said one of the men pointed a gun at him as he shouted at them from his second-story townhouse window. Sheriff's officials declined to prosecute Niemayer, saying he fired in fear.

backyard killing

Shooter: Todd


Victim: Michael Frazzini

Case: Frazzini, 35, was shot and killed near his mother's back yard by the father of a man who Frazzini believed was harassing her. Todd Rasmussen shot Frazzini as Frazzini squared off with Rasmussen's son. The State Attorney's Office said Rasmussen was allowed to use deadly force as long as he was in fear for himself or someone else.

unarmed, drunk

Shooter: Gregory


Victim: William Kuch

Case: William Kuch was unarmed and drunk when he wandered up to Gregory Stewart's door about 5 a.m in August 2009. When he tried to open the door, Stewart warned him off. When he tried again, Stewart pointed a gun at him. Stewart said Kuch then moved toward him, so he fired. Kuch recovered and Stewart faced no criminal action.

alley scuffle

Defendant: Nadim Yaqubie

Victim: Roberto Camacho

Case: Nadim Yaqubie, 19, bought a homeless man's ID from a third party so he could get into a nightclub in South Beach in 2008. When Roberto Camacho, 50, demanded it back, the men scuffled in an alley and Yaqubie stabbed him four times. A judge initially denied Yaqubie's claim of immunity, but an appeals court asked him to reconsider.

Share KeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)

To: Cogito who wrote (186409)3/31/2012 9:59:10 PM
From: koan
of 374539
Boy, great explanation and right on the money.

Share KeepReplyMark as Last Read

To: Win Smith who wrote (186421)3/31/2012 10:22:35 PM
From: Win Smith
of 374539
Ok, so I made the mistake of checking the nether regions of SI on the "stand your ground" issue, and I stumbled on what seems to be a bizarre return to the black helicopters mindset, this time based on an obscure UN conference and its report. The main issue seems to have been sustainable development, and the plan itself seems 20 years old and no doubt deader than the Kyoto protocols, but it doesn't matter to the ever rational right. The RNC has taken a stand.

Bare bones from Wikipedia,

Agenda 21 is an action plan of the United Nations (UN) related to sustainable development and was an outcome of the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) held in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, in 1992. It is a comprehensive blueprint of action to be taken globally, nationally, and locally by organizations of the UN, governments, and major groups in every area in which humans directly affect the environment.

. . .

Agenda 21 is viewed by some on the American right as a plan to stealthily impose world-wide centralised control over people, attacking private property and energy usage. [3] [4] A resolution approved by the Republican National Committee on 13 January 2012 asserted that Agenda 21 "is a comprehensive plan of extreme environmentalism, social engineering, and global political control" [5]

The RNC declaration can be viewed at and I'm going to append it. My cursory reading seems to indicate that either sustainable development is a crime against humanity or that one of the two major political parties in the onetime greatest nation on earth has gone officially insane.

WHEREAS, the United Nations Agenda 21 is a comprehensive plan of extreme
environmentalism, social engineering, and global political control that was initiated at the United
Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) held in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil,
in 1992; and,
WHEREAS, the United Nations Agenda 21 is being covertly pushed into local
communities throughout the United States of America through the International Council of Local
Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI) through local “sustainable development” policies such as
Smart Growth, Wildlands Project, Resilient Cities, Regional Visioning Projects, and other
“Green” or “Alternative” projects; and,
WHEREAS, this United Nations Agenda 21 plan of radical so-called “sustainable development”
views the American way of life of private property ownership, single family homes, private car
ownership and individual travel choices, and privately owned farms; all as destructive to the
environment; and,
WHEREAS, according to the United Nations Agenda 21 policy, social justice is
described as the right and opportunity of all people to benefit equally from the resources afforded
us by society and the environment which would be accomplished by socialist/communist
redistribution of wealth; and,
WHEREAS, according to the United Nations Agenda 21 policy National sovereignty is deemed
a social injustice; now therefore be
RESOLVED, the Republican National Committee recognizes the destructive and insidious
nature of United Nations Agenda 21 and hereby exposes to the public and public policy makers
the dangerous intent of the plan; and therefore be it further
RESOLVED , that the U.S. government and no state or local government is legally bound by the
United Nations Agenda 21 treaty in that it has never been endorsed by the (U.S.) Senate, and
therefore be it further
RESOLVED, that the federal and state and local governments across the country be well
informed of the underlying harmful implications of implementation of United Nations Agenda
21 destructive strategies for “sustainable development” and we hereby endorse rejection of its
radical policies and rejection of any grant monies attached to it, and therefore be it further
RESOLVED, that upon the approval of this resolution the Republican National Committee shall
deliver a copy of this resolution to each of the Republican members of Congress, all Republican
candidates for Congress, all Republican candidates for President who qualify for RNC
sanctioned debates, and to each Republican state and territorial party office and recommend for
adoption into the Republican Party Platform at the 2012 Convention.
As Approved by the Republican National Committee, January 13, 2012

Share KeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)

To: Win Smith who wrote (186423)4/1/2012 1:14:34 AM
From: epicure
of 374539
And if you needed any more proof of the nuttiness of some of the wingnuts on SI, there you have it.

Share KeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (2)

To: epicure who wrote (186424)4/1/2012 5:42:56 AM
From: MoneyPenny
of 374539
April 1, 2012 Republicans Reveal that Entire Presidential Race was a Prank April Fool’s Day Announcement Brings Practical Joke to an End
WASHINGTON ( The Borowitz Report) – In an April Fool’s Day announcement that took the political world by storm, the Republican Party revealed today that its entire presidential race had been an elaborate prank.

“April Fool!” exclaimed former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney and former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum at a press conference in Washington, where they were joined by fellow merrymakers Newt Gingrich, Michele Bachmann, Rick Perry and Herman Cain.

Moments after revealing that the GOP primary had been one long practical joke, Mr. Santorum explained the rationale behind staging such a complicated and expensive prank.

“A lot of Americans are suffering right now and need a good laugh,” he said. “I think my colleagues and I can be justifiably proud of the entertainment we provided – even if it meant me wearing these ridiculous sweater vests.”

Former Godfather’s Pizza CEO Herman Cain agreed that the prank had gone well, but added, “I’m just amazed that the American people never figured out we were kidding.”

“I mean, I kept saying ‘9-9-9’ every four seconds, which was total and utter bullshit,” he said. “And everything out of Michele’s mouth made her sound like a mental patient.”

“True that,” Rep. Bachmann agreed.

Texas Governor Rick Perry said he worried that “every time I screwed up at a debate people would figure out I was pulling their legs,” but added, “The American people seemed to accept the idea that a Governor of Texas could be a blithering idiot.”

When one reporter mentioned that Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) was not at the press conference, a sudden silence fell over the gathering.

“Did anyone ever tell Ron this was supposed to be a prank?” Mr. Romney asked. “Holy cow, maybe he’s really serious.”

Borowitz report.

Share KeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)

To: MoneyPenny who wrote (186425)4/1/2012 7:42:19 AM
From: epicure
of 374539
Ok- that's a good explanation for what we've been seeing- possibly the best explanation.

Share KeepReplyMark as Last Read
Previous 10 Next 10 

Copyright © 1995-2018 Knight Sac Media. All rights reserved.Stock quotes are delayed at least 15 minutes - See Terms of Use.