Chris Christie: A Self-Loathing Republican?

Usually I try and remain as un-biased as a recent college graduate living in Washington D.C. interning for an environmental law firm can be, but today I wanted to write about Chris Christie. I like you, Christie. You do it for me.

I started thinking about the Republican Governor of New Jersey this afternoon when I came across a Huffington Post article detailing his interview with the Washington Post in which he condemned of the GOP by calling their decision to lengthen the nomination process in 2012 the "stupidest thing the Republican Party ever did." A party, keep in mind, that he is very much a part of. 

Last February he made a similar remark in an interview with Fox News (gasp), in which he called the Republican National Committee's decision to award delegates in most states proportionally "the dumbest idea anybody ever had."

I can't help but be brought back to the controversial Hurricane Sandy. You know, that annoyance that disrupted the 2012 campaign trail. When Sandy quite literally ripped open the east coast, both presidential candidates took barely a moment to comment before jumping back on the trail. But not Christie. In my opinion, this was the game changer.

Here was Christie with his state, his people, his beaches, destroyed. He praised Obama for his "outstanding" action post-disaster and politely declined the Republican's request to attend a pro-Romney event. Isn't this exactly what a leader is supposed to do? Put party sides away, and fix the problem? But of course this drew out the peanut gallery, proclaiming that Christie was throwing Romney under the proverbial bus. Why? Because he was there to support the people of the state he governs?

When asked on Fox & Friends about his oh-so-questionable actions, he replied that he doesn't "give a damn about presidential politics" right now. 

Continuing on with Sandy, more recently, Christie pushed for Congress to pass a bill for disaster relief aid. We all know now that in the eleventh hour...the bill was not passed. Pulling no punches, Christie stated: "[Last night,] the House majority failed most basic test of leadership and they did so with callous disregard to the people of my state. ... It was disappointing and disgusting to watch." He also unapologetically named names: "There's only one group to blame ... the House majority, and their Speaker, John Boehner." He added that the relief bill "just could not overcome the toxic internal politics of the House majority."

Burn! And in case you didn't know, John Boehner is a Republican. Christie also took the high road in terms of decrying the overall atmosphere of hyperpartisanship in the government, arguing very correctly that "Americans are tired of the palace intrigue and political partisanship of this Congress ... this used to be something that was not political. Disaster relief was something that you didn't play games with."

His strong statements of non-conformity are more than anomaly in today's polarized world of Democrat vs. Republican. Why does a Republican have to be one way and a Democrat another? Can't we all be a bit self-loathing to our registered parties? Can't some people be pro-gay rights and anti-abortion? 

Although I do not agree with everything Christie stands for, I believe he is a model politician. In brief...here are some of this beliefs:

• Abortion: Pro-life, but supports the exceptions for rape, incest, and life of the mother. He opposes public funding for abortions.
• Homosexual rights: For same-sex rights in form of civil union. Believes homosexuality is not a sin; people are born that way.
• Energy: Pro-renewable/green energy. Currently considering a windfarm off the coast of NJ. Does not oppose NJ's state-wide cap-and-trade legislation.
• Environment: Acknowledges the reality of climate change.
• Immigration: Supports amnesty for illegal aliens, has expressed support for a pathway to citizenship.
• Education: For the protection of teacher pensions and collective bargaining.
• Gun control: Governor Christie supports gun conrtrol laws. He has supported the assault weapons ban, opposes concealed carry laws, and supports the New Jersey one gun per month law. Would expand 'gun control' into broader 'violence control'.
• Government: Stricter limits on PAC campaign donation, cut wasteful spending, improve transparency. His Ethics Reform plan in 2010 sought to increase transparency in government, accountability to the public from elected officials and strengthen New Jersey's existing laws to ensure that the electoral process is conducted with integrity – a critical step in gaining and keeping the public's trust in their government.

I am very interested to see how Christie's future pans out. Although he has not directly come out and said it, there have been many indications that he is considering a run at the 2016 president elections. Either way, it's refreshing to see a politician who doesn't fit the cookie cutter mold his or her party has created.

What Happened in Benghazi?

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton today (Wednesday, January 23) took on Republican critics of her department's handling of the Benghazi incident.

Headlines since September 11, 2012, have been circulating regarding the situation, leaving many Americans wondering, "Where is Benghazi" and "What happened in Benghazi" and "Wait, didn't the September 11th attacks happen in 2001?"

Where is Benghazi?

Let's start with a geography lesson. Benghazi is the second largest city in Libya. Libya is located in Northern Africa, sandwiched between Algeria and Egypt. To it's north, is the Mediterranean Sea. Libya is included in the generalization of the 'Middle East.'

What has been happening in Benghazi?

Now a history lesson. In 1951, the United States supported the United Nations resolution that provided Libya its independence. Oil was discovered in 1959 and the country began to take advantage of this commodity. To make a long story short, in their attempt to make the oil industry as profitable as possible, the government (led by King Idris) replaced the federal system with a centralized one, causing problems in a country that was deeply divided along regional, ethnic and tribal lines.

This lead to Muammar Gaddafi's 1969 coup d'etat - the revolution he lead to overtake the King and government. Since then, the US-Libyan relations became increasingly strained when Gaddafi nationalized the oil companies. In 1972, the United States recalled its ambassador. Export controls on military and civil aircraft were imposed during the 1970s, and US embassy staff members were withdrawn from the after a mob attacked and set fire to the embassy in December 1979. The US Government designated Libya a "state sponsor of terrorism" on December 29, 1979.

Gaddafi led the country, and its oil exports, until February/March 2011, when anti-government protests broke out in Tunisia and Egypt, marking the start of the Arab Spring - and when the Libyan civil war occurred. At this point, the US had cut ties with Gaddafi. The US, along with several European and Arab nations, called for the UN to authorize military intervention in the conflict. In the end, Gaddafi lost (he died) and his opposition (National Transitional Council) won.

Shortly after the fall, on March 14, 2011, Hilary Clinton made first direct contact with the anti-Gaddafi opposition leader and then on July 15 recognized this as Libya's legitimate authority. The US then led an effort at the UN to repeal parts of UN Security Council Resolution 1970 in order to allow unfrozen Libyan assets to be transferred to the interim government. In October 2011, President Obama pledged to work with the new Libyan government as a partner, and said the US was "committed to the Libyan people". Up to this point, all seemed okay.

September 11, 2012

Now we can continue onto what happened on September 11, 2012. On this day, the American diplomatic mission at Benghazi was attacked by a heavily armed group. Four Americans were killed, including US Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens, and ten others were injured. Note: this attack was completely separate than the attacks on New York City on September 11, 2012. The groups behind the attacks were not associated with one another.

The 2012 attack was strongly condemned by the governments of Libya and the US, and an investigation into who the attackers were is ongoing. Obama went as far as to call it an 'Act of terror' (does that bring a certain Mitt Romney debate fail to mind?),

So where does Clinton fall into it all? 

Well, since the attacks she has repeatedly distanced herself from a direct role in specific situations. Critics of Clinton (mostly Conservative Republicans, go figure) challenged her on two things: 1) the lack of security at the diplomatic compound in Benghazi, and 2) the erroneous account provided four days later by UN Ambassador Susan Rice that the attack grew spontaneously from a protest over an anti-Islam film produced in the United States.

So today, Wednesday January 23, Clinton testified and defended her handling of the attack and denied any effort to mislead people.

Clinton took responsibility for the failures that led to those deaths, citing a "personal" commitment to improving diplomatic security abroad. Although she accepted responsibility, she still defended the actions of herself and her department.

A Senate committee report said the State Department made a "grievous mistake" in keeping the Benghazi mission open despite inadequate security and increasingly alarming threat assessments in the weeks before the attack. She placed the incident as part of a long history of such violence as well as the result of regional instability since the Arab Spring in 2011.

In addition, Clinton acknowledged the "systemic breakdown" cited in a report by an Accountability Review Board she appointed and noted that she had accepted all 29 of its recommendations. She also said that her department was taking additional steps to increase security at US diplomatic facilities around the world.

The independent report from the review board said it did not find "that any individual U.S. government employee engaged in misconduct or willfully ignored his or her responsibilities" leading up to the attack. However, one State Department official resigned and three others were placed on administrative leave after the report was released in December 2012.

This is a particularly big deal for Clinton, who ran an unsuccessful presidential campaign in 2008 and was considering running again in 2016, as this may tarnish her chances.

Obama Proposes Gun Control Plan

President to propose assault weapons ban, tougher background checks

President Barack Obama will propose an assault weapons ban and better background checks for gun buyers on Wednesday as part of a package of proposals to curb gun violence one month after the Newtown school massacre, according to the Chicago Tribune. 

The proposals will include executive and legislative measures, with the latter sure to face an uphill battle in Congress, where appetite for renewing an assault weapons ban is low.

Gun restrictions are a divisive issue in the United States, which constitutionally protects a citizen's right to bear arms.

Obama and Vice President Joe Biden, who led a task force that made recommendations on the issue, will present the measures at a White House event attended by children from around the country who wrote letters to the president about gun violence and school safety.

Obama will urge lawmakers to act quickly, White House spokesman Jay Carney told reporters:

"There are specific legislative actions that he will continue to call on Congress to take, including the assault weapons ban, including a measure to ban high-capacity magazine clips, including an effort to close the very big loopholes in the background check system in our country,"

Biden delivered his recommendations to Obama after a series of meetings with representatives from the weapons and entertainment industries requested by the president after the December 14 school shooting in Newtown, Connecticut, in which 20 children and six adults were killed.

A White House official said Obama had not endorsed all of the ideas put forward by Biden's team but declined to lay out specifics on what would be announced. Obama has signaled his plan would include elements that did not require congressional approval. The president could take action to ban certain gun imports and bolster oversight of dealers.

Though the chances of getting a ban on assault weapons appear low, the White House seems set on getting Obama's support of such a ban solidified in a legislative draft.

What exactly is being proposed?
1. Assault weapons ban
2. Ban on high-capacity magazines capped at 10 bullets
3. Universal background checks
4. Federal funds for national background checks
5. Research on gun violence
6. Better mental health training

What does the NRA have to say about it?
The proposals are likely to draw ire from the National Rifle Association, a powerful lobbying group that is traditionally associated with Republicans. The NRA proposed having armed officials in schools throughout the country and has said the media and violent video games shared blame for the Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre, the second-deadliest school shooting in U.S. history.

What about the public?
New national polls indicated a majority of Americans support some or most gun control measures.

By a 51 to 45 percent margin, Americans questioned in a new Pew Research Center poll said it was more important to control gun ownership than to protect gun rights. And by a 52 to 35 percent margin, a new ABC News/Washington Post survey indicates the public says it is more likely to support some forms of gun control after last month's massacre. However, the polls showed continuing divisions on political and gender lines.

Northeast Needs Congress to Help Rebuild After Sandy

Following the aftermath of Hurricane Sandy, several governors and CEOs are asking that Congress pass a $60.4 billion aid package for the hurricane relief.

Although Hurricane Sandy has come and gone, the restorations and rebuilding following the damage are still underway. For this reason, the governors of New York, New Jersey and Connecticut - in addition to over 125 big corporation CEOs based in New York - are urging Congress to pass the aid package for Sandy relief.

The northeastern states still have a lot to do, and don't have the necessary funds. Some projects include taking a tip from San Diego solar projects and securing grid independence for homes and businesses by installing solar panels. In case of another disaster, this would be able to provide residents with some back-up power. This even goes as far as solar powered street lights! 

Govs. Chris Christie (R-NJ), Andrew Cuomo (D-NY) and Dannel Malloy (D-CT) all requested funding from President Barack Obama, and a week ago proposed $60.4 billion for the states affected, which actually is about three-quarters of what they requested. 

The CEOS, including top executives of Time Warner, NBC Universal, Bloomberg, Morgan Stanley, Madison Square Garden and the National Basketball Association, are joining the governors in their plea to urge Congress to act quickly on the aid before lawmakers take their break for the holiday. 

In an opinion piece published in the The Washington Post, the governors state that no region or state should have stand have to alone after a disaster. They say Congress hasn't acted in these seven weeks following Sandy, taking longer to provide aid than in previous disasters such as Hurricane Katrina. 

The governors said their states’ legislators had supported aid after previous disasters. "They did so in the spirit of compassion, recognizing that in times of crisis no region, state or single American should have to stand alone or be left to fend for themselves," they wrote.

The govenors wrote “Storms and disasters lay waste to communities and deliver damage far beyond the resources and capacity of any single state to recover on its own...This is why Congress has always come to the assistance of Americans facing a recovery effort of this scale.”

"Americans come together in times of crisis," they wrote. "Our states have stood with your communities when they suffered and faced devastation. It's time for Congress to stand with us."

The decision on the aid, now that Obama has approved and proposed it, it now in the hands of Congress, which is already in a budget battle to cut spending by January 1, 2013.

Solar panels San Diego iniatives have made the city, as well as state, a leader in using solar power technology to recude dependence to local grids. New Jersey, New York, and Connecticut hope to take a step in the similar direction and rebuild in the most efficient way in order the states are up against an disaster like Hurricane Sandy in the future, but that may not be possible if the aid isn't passed.


Other politicians are speaking up as well. Rep. Peter King (R-NY) is pushing the aid request in the Republican House and told The Associated Press in an interview that the high-stakes budget negotiations already under way when Sandy hit made the requests more challenging. 

Natural disasters shouldn't have to pick sides. Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY), said the aid package should be a bipartisan priority. "Before we leave this year, we must act to provide emergency disaster aid to fund the response to Superstorm Sandy," Schumer said. When it comes down to it, Americans need Congress's help - and all they're asking is for them to pass the bill before they go on their holiday breaks.

Hurricane Sandy's Effect on the Elections

New York City Mayor, Michael Bloomberg - a political independent, announced that he was endorsing President Obama, specifically because of Hurricane Sandy. Sandy literally helped him make up his mind between two presidential candidates that he before pretty much equally criticized. Skeptics are now wondering how Sandy will reshape the opinion of other votes and affect the outcome of the 2012 presidential election.


Hurricane Sandy not only caused the city of New York, and United States overall, billions of dollars in damages, but also took several lives. Bloomberg said he had decided over the past days that Obama is the best candidate to tackle the global climate change, which he believes contributed to the violent storm.


Bloomberg’s announcement is just one example of how Sandy may influence the 2012 presidential elections. The hurricane, and the damage it caused, has not only taken over the news coverage, but prompted both Obama and Romney, albeit only for four days, to stop campaigning. 

Romney may be experiencing negative feedback due to the hurricane, as he is being interrogated regarding a statement he made in 2011 about using federal funds for disaster relief. Romney had said to CNN's John King that if elected, he would give the states a larger share of the federal government’s role in disaster response. So would he demolish FEMA? Now he is saying no, but regardless, this topic will be fresh on the mind of many voters when they reach the ballot box. At the same time, Obama is hand-in-hand with Governor Christie, visiting the most damaged areas, stating that the government is in for the "long haul". And lets not forget the whole climate change issue and how it was avoided in all three debates.

When it comes to climate change, Obama is a firm believer. His administration issued the first carbon dioxide reduction requirements for both vehicles and new power plants, as well as supports cap-and-trade. Obama supports tax initiatives and subsidies for projects throughout the country regarding wind and solar San Diego to New York City. The climate science, however, does not convince Romney, who disagrees that CO2 is harmful to the environment and health. He opposes cap-and-trade and any sort of tax on carbon. Romney has said that he would amend the US Clean Air Act in order to reduce the Environmental Protection Agency's power in reducing carbon pollution.

Candidates aside, Sandy is affecting other election-related things as well. Polling places could face complications if they are still experiencing power outages, as no power for electronic voting machines combined with a lack of paper ballots could cause disorder. If a polling place is damaged, and relocation is necessary, there isn't much time left to do so.

If voters are still stuck on Tuesday, they may be unable to get to a polling place due to blocked roads and may be unable to mail in an absentee ballot in time to meet the deadline. Several states, in hope to accommodate affected voters, have pushed back voter registration deadlines and announced extend voting hours.

However, from now until election day, neither candidate can ignore what happened thanks to Sandy since many of the victims are still feeling the effects of the damage caused. 

No one can really ever say if Sandy will sway votes, with the exception of publicly made endorsements of course. Either way - no matter the outcome of of Tuesday's election - it will be interesting to see if climate change will becomes a topic that the next POTUS will focus on.

VA to Vote on Eminent Domain Amendment

On November 6 Virginia residents will vote on an amendment to the state's constitution regarding eminent domain and private property rights. The proposed amendment will change the way that the government can seize private property under eminent domain. Any property rights lawyer would agree that the outcome of this election would surely affect the VA economy.

In a 2005 United States Supreme Court case, Kelo versus City of New London, Connecticut, the courts ruled that the US Constitution gives the government the power to take a person’s private property and then sell or give it to another private entity if jobs and taxes can be generated. The VA state government thus could use eminent domain to transfer land from one private owner to another to further that state's economic development.

The question that VA residents will answer in just one week is this: "Shall Section 11 of Article I (Bill of Rights) of the Constitution of Virginia be amended (i) to require that eminent domain only be exercised where the property taken or damaged is for public use and, except for utilities or the elimination of a public nuisance, not where the primary use is for private gain, private benefit, private increasing jobs, increasing tax revenue, or economic development; (ii) to define what is included in just compensation for such taking or damaging of property; and (iii) to prohibit the taking or damaging of more private property than is necessary for the public use?"

In layman's terms, if this amendment is approved, private property can only be taken for a public use - it cannot be taken and given to another private landowner; if property is taken under eminent domain, the landowner will receive fair compensation for the loss of property (with the assistance of a just compensation attorney if need be); and only the absolutely necessary amount of property can be taken.

Unlike most issues, this amendment has drawn bipartisan support for and against the amendment. Critics are concerned that the amendment may be too broad and have unforeseen consequences. They claim that the state's constitution already provides protection for eminent domain, and if the amendment is approved, then state officials will not be able to use eminent domain to take property for economic development purposes. It could force the state to pay more for what they claim are appropriate eminent domain uses and force them to hire an eminent domain lawyer to review the possible outcomes of any proposal.

If approved, the changes would go into affect on January 1, 2013. Virginia is one of the 44 states that examined the issue of private property and limiting eminent domain since the 2005 Kelo decision.