Gov. Chris Christie Declares 'Change Has Arrived' in His Inaugural Speech

From Home News Tribune
By Rick Malwitz

Taking the office at a time when New Jersey is facing historic economic challenges, Gov. Chris Christie declared in his inaugural address, "Today change has arrived.''

He made quite clear, as he became the 55th governor of New Jersey, that change is needed to turn around a state with enormous economic woes.

His theme: Change, change, change.

"Our economy is struggling. Our budget is in deep deficit and our state is losing ground. Our people are dispirited and wondering if our best days are truly still ahead of us,'' he said.

"I understand the task before me and I am well aware of your expectations for me and this government. You voted loudly and clearly for change and you have entrusted us with what may be our last, best hope for a stronger New Jersey,'' he said.

"New Jersey, you voted for change and today change has arrived - right here, right now.''

Republican Gov. Chris Christie interrupted his inaugural address to reach across the political aisle and clasp hands with Senate President Steve Sweeney, D-Gloucester, and Assembly Speaker Sheila Oliver, D-Essex.

The gesture drew the loudest applause during his address.

"Let us shake hands as a symbol for our citizens of all that is possible in a future that demands that who gets the credit finally takes a back seat to doing something worth getting credit for,'' Christie said.

For the first time since Gov. Tom Kean took office in 1982, a Republican chief executive will govern with Democrats controlling both houses of the legislature.

Democrats have a 23-17 margin in the senate and 47-33 in the assembly.

Bret Schundler, who lost the governor's race to Jim McGreevey in 2001, is confident Christie can woo Democrats.

"He is a very charming guy. He will make connections with the Democrats to get things done,'' said Schundler, Christie's nominee to be Commissioner of Education.

In attendance yesterday was Michael Steele, Republican National Committee Chairman, who called the inauguration of a Republican governor in New Jersey, "A big deal, a very big deal.''

Coupled with the victory in November of a Republican in the Virginia governor's race - and anticipated success Massachusetts, where a conservative is poised to win the seat vacated by the death of U.S. Sen. Ted Kennedy - a message is being sent to Washington, Steele said.

"This sends something very loud to the administration (of President Barack Obama),'' Steele said.

While he governs as a member of the minority party here, Christie made it clear he is in charge of the state's executive branch.

"Whether you voted for me or not, whether we have agreed or disagreed in the past - today, I am your governor. Young or old, Republican or Democrat, rich or poor, regardless of color or heritage, I promise you this: I will work every waking hour of every day for a better life for all of our citizens,'' he declared. While emphasizing his theme of change, the new governor said, "The era of runaway spending and higher and higher taxes has not worked. We have the largest budget deficit per person of any State in the Union. We have the highest tax rates in the nation. We have the highest unemployment rate in over a quarter century.''

He did not elaborate on specific plans to reduce taxes and spending.

"Our economy is stagnant and our people are suffering under the burden government has placed on them,'' he said.

"Today, a new era of lower taxes and higher growth will begin. The era of broken schools and broken streets and broken dreams in our cities has not worked. Too many urban school districts have failed despite massive spending per pupil,'' he said, while calling on the state to embrace school choice and charter schools.

"I stand here today as governor supremely confident that we are up to the challenge. Why am I confident? Because we have the tools to grow again. Because we have resources that few other states can match,'' he said.

While confident in himself, he said, "We are not a state of passive observers. We are a state of builders and doers.'' "This is not a time for just another season of cynicism. With a state in crisis, we must cast aside blame and embrace action. One person can make a difference. I will make a difference. And each of you will make a difference too, if you believe in a better tomorrow,'' he concluded.

A Den of Thieves -- A Day of Reckoning

In our lifetime, we remember only one previous upset that was as improbable as the outcome we expect in Massachusetts this evening -- and that was when James L. Buckley, older brother of the late William F. Buckley, Jr., was elected to the U. S. Senate from New York in 1970. In that race liberals were split between a liberal Republican and a liberal Democrat. James Buckley won with 38.7% of the vote in a field of six. Tonight should be even more astounding.

As those notorious gun and Bible clinging conservatives in Massachusetts head to the polls today, it is important for all Americans to remember what brought us to this juncture, and it has everything to do with the criminal thugs in the White House and the Congressional leadership.

The following is just some of what we know about these felons. How much more is hidden?

$34,000:

The amount of federal taxes that Secretary of the Treasury Timothy Geithner (D) failed to pay during his employment at The International Monetary Fund despite receiving extra Compensation and explanatory brochures that described his Tax liabilities.

True: http://www.cleveland.com/nation/index.ssf/2009/01/timothy_geithner_obamas_nomine.HTML


$75,000:

The amount of money that the head of the powerful tax-writing committee, Rep. Charlie Rangel (D-NY), was forced to report on his taxes after the discovery that he had not reported income from a Dominican Republic rental property. His excuses for the failure started with blaming his wife, then his accountant and finally the fact that he doesn't speak Spanish.

True http://www.nypost.com/seven/09102008/news/regionalnews/rangels_spanish_excuse_128444.htm


$93,000:

The INCREASE in the amount of petty cash each of our Congressional representatives voted to give themselves in January 2009 during the height of an economic meltdown.
That's a $40 + million INCREASE!

http://gatewaypundit.blogspot....com/2009/01/its-recession-congress-gives-lawmakers.html See video here from Fox


$133,900:

The amount Fannie Mae "invested" in Chris Dodd (D-CT), head of the powerful Senate Banking Committee, presumably to repel oversight of the GSE prior to its meltdown. Said meltdown helped touch off the current economic crisis. In only a few years time, Fannie also "invested" over $105,000 in then-Senator Barack Obama.

True: http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2008/07/top-senate-recipients-of-fanni.HTML


$140,000:

The amount of back taxes and interest that Cabinet nominee Tom Daschle (D) was forced to cough up after the vetting process revealed significant, unexplained tax liabilities.

True: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123335984751235247.HTML?mod=googlenews_wsj Wall Street Journal


$356,000:

The approximate amount of income and deductions that Daschle (D) was forced to report on his amended 2005 and 2007 tax returns after being caught cheating on his taxes. This includes $255,256 for the use of a car service, $83,333 in unreported income, and $14,963 in charitable contributions.

True: http://online/..wsj.com/article/SB123335984751235247.HTML?mod=googlenews_wsj Wall Street Journal


$800,000:

The amount of "sweetheart" mortgages Senate Banking Chairman Chris Dodd (D-CT) received from Countrywide Financial, the details for which he has refused to release details despite months of promises to do so... Countrywide was once the nation's largest mortgage lender and linked to government-sponsored entities like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Their meltdown precipitated the current financial crisis. Just days ago in Pennsylvania, Countrywide was forced to pay $150,000,000 in mortgage assistance following "a state investigation that concluded that Countrywide relaxed its underwriting standards to sell risky loans to consumers who did not understand them and could not afford them."

True: http://rightvoices.com/2008/08/21/more-sweetheart-loan-details-on-senator-Chris-dodd-d-CT-chairman-of-the-senate-committee-on-banking-housing-and-urban-affairs/


$1,000,000:

The estimated amount of donations by Denise Rich, wife of fugitive Marc Rich, to Democrat interests and the William J. Clinton Foundation in an apparent quid pro quo deal that resulted in a pardon for Mr. Rich. The pardon was reviewed and blessed by Obama Attorney General and then Deputy AG Eric Holder, despite numerous requests by government officials to turn it down.

True: http://articles.latimes.com/2008/Nov/20/nation/na-holder20


$12,000,000:

The amount of TARP money provided to community bank OneUnited despite the fact that it did not qualify for funds, and was "under attack from its regulators for allegations of poor lending practices and executive-pay abuses." It turns out that Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA), a key contributor to the Fannie Mae meltdown, just happens to be married to one of the bank's former directors.

True: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123258284337504295.html Wall Street Journal


$23,500,000:

The upper range of net worth Rep. Allan Mollohan (D-WV) accumulated in four years time according to The Washington Post through earmarks of "tens of millions of dollars to groups associated with his own business partners."

True: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/14/AR2006051401032.html Washington Post


$2,000,000,000:

($2 billion) the approximate amount of money that House Appropriations Chairman David Obey (D-WI) is earmarking related to his son's lobbying efforts. The son, Craig Obey, is "a top lobbyist for the nonprofit group" that would receive a roughly $2 billion component of the "Stimulus" package.

True: http://www.newwest.net/topic/article/a_plan_for_stimulus_money_national_parks/C530/L37/

and this is a list of related stories: http://search.yahoo.com/404handler?src=news&++++fr%3D404_news%26ref%3Dhttp://directorblue.blogspot.com/2009/01/obama-democrats-by-numbers.html&url=http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090129/ap_on_go_co/stimulus_national_parks_2


$3,700,000,000:

($3.7 billion) not to be outdone, this is the estimated value of various defense contracts awarded to a company controlled by the husband of Rep. Diane Feinstein (D-CA). Despite an obvious conflict-of-interest as "a member of the Military Construction Appropriations Subcommittee, Sen. Feinstein voted for appropriations worth billions to her husband's firms."

True: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2003/04/22/MN310531.DTL


$4,190,000,000:

($4.19 billion) is the amount of money in the so-called "Stimulus" package devoted to the fraudulent voter registration group, ACORN, under the auspices of "Community
Stabilization Activities". ACORN is currently the subject of a RICO suit in Ohio .

True: http://www.ocregister.com/articles/stimulus-economy-percent-2295331-bill-pelosi


$1,646,000,000,000 ($1.646 trillion):

The approximate amount of annual United States exports endangered by the "Stimulus" package, which provides a "Buy American" stricture. According to international trade experts, a "US-EU trade war looms" which could result in a worldwide economic depression reminiscent of that touched off by the protectionist Smoot-Hawley Act.

True: http://www.asiaing.com/2008-national-export-strategy-the-new-global-main-street.html

and http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2009/01/022685.php

Background: Smmot-Hawley Act: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smoot-Hawley_Tariff_Act

Happy Birthday, General Lee

Why This Man, and His Era, Merit Our Consideration

By H. Alexander Wise Jr.

On the verge of the 21st century, some may ask, "Why the Museum of the Confederacy" The answer varies with the person. For me, it is that the culture of which the Confederacy was the final expression can teach us many lessons as our country prepares for a new century. We owe it to ourselves and our society to re-examine that culture. Nor can we afford to let stereotypes - either pro or con blind us to the good things.

The culture that gave rise to the Confederacy was imperfect and provincial. But in a way its provincial character was its strength. It was a holistic and cohesive culture, rooted in time and place, both seeking God and remaining close to the soil. It stood in stark contrast to the fragmented, abstract, rootless, and materialistic culture of modern America - a culture unheightened by poetry, continually in search of meaning, and riddled with social pathologies. Look around us at the symptoms: co-dependencies, violent crime, pornography, divorce, latchkey children, and the cult of victimhood, to name but a few.

On Robert E. Lee's birthday it is fitting to note that he represented his culture as its best. Lee was admired and loved by his countrymen precisely because he came close to embodying the ideal of what a man in that culture was supposed to be, For Lee and his time manhood was a positive concept. It was almost synonymous with the concept of the gentleman. Neither was something to apologize for or be chauvinistic about. Both were to be striven for. Both meant having body, mind, and spirit in proper relationship, Most people in the society - both men and women shared in the consensus. Identity and "values" were not up in the air. As journalist Paul Greenberg has said, "The very words Lee used--gentleman, duty, honor, valor-- have a quaint and different sound in these times." We might also add the word "forbearance." Lee wrote:

"The forbearing use of power does not only form a touchstone, but the manner in which an individual enjoys certain advantages over others is a test of a true gentleman."

Lee would have agreed with Atticus Finch, who said, "It's a sin to kill a mockingbird."

Some may say that such a philosophy was paternalistic and therefore unacceptable. But we have to put it in the context of the time and also to realize that his was infinitely better than the attitude so prevalent today: "I'll get mine."

This belief in forbearance was the source of Lee's doubts about slavery. He saw that the "peculiar institution" created too much of a temptation for slaveholders to abuse their power. This objection was an outgrowth of Lee's own code, not something imposed from outside.

In 1861, Lee's fellow Virginian and mentor Winfield Scott offered him command of the Federal forces - a great temptation. Yet Lee stayed with the state and his "people." He wrote his sister, "With all my devotion to the Union and the feeling of loyalty and duty of an American citizen, I have not been able to make up my mind to raise my hand against my relatives, my children, and my home."

In December 1862, at Fredericksburg, Lee watched "those people"- his remarkably restrained name for people he fought every day - march to almost certain death uphill toward his own massed and waiting army, When Jackson's men charged and nearly drove the Federals into the Rappahannock, Lee remarked, "It is a good thing war is so terrible; else we should grow too fond of it," This was a moment of insight into his own human weakness.

The next year came Gettysburg, the battle that gave rise to what many consider Lee's greatest military mistake, What caused him to order Pickett's and Pettigrew's divisions to attack up the long unprotected sweep toward Cemetery Ridge on the third day of the battle? He asked his men to do what "those people" could not do at Fredericksburg: Take an open slope with a frontal attack. Was Lee seduced by the seeming invincibility of his army? Did he forget the lesson of Fredericksburg: that he was dangerously close to becoming addicted to the beauty of heroism and the excitement Of victory? Or was it knowledge that Jackson was gone, time was running out, and his chance to demoralize "those people" and end the killing in a single bold stroke might never come again? Lee took the gamble, knowing that its outcome was in the hands of the Almighty he relied upon so completely...

We are touched by his fatherly concern for his men and his willingness to accept responsibility when the attack failed. As the remnant of Pickett's shattered division came streaming down the hill after the fateful charge, General Lee was waiting for them at the bottom of the hill, saying, "It is all right, men. It is all my fault," He offered to resign his command...

One of Lee's greatest moments came at Appomattox when he wrote his General Order No. 9 on April 10, 1865, announcing his decision to surrender his army.

The conclusion of the order reveals deep feeling and profound Christian faith. He closed with these lines:

"You will take with you the satisfaction that proceeds from the consciousness of duty faithfully performed, and I earnestly pray that a merciful God will extend to you His blessing and protection. With an unceasing admiration at your constancy and devotion to your country, and a grateful remembrance of your kind and generous consideration for myself, I bid you all an affectionate farewell."

General Order No. 9 is the ultimate expression of a leader who loved his men as much as they loved him.

After Appomattox, when presented with the opportunity to become financially comfortable for the rest of his life merely by allowing an insurance company to use his name, he declined. Instead, he served as president of a tiny, destitute college in the mountains of Virginia (now Washington and Lee University), where he led by example in the business of sectional reconciliation. He wrote:

"I have a self-imposed task which 1 must accomplish. I have led the young men of the South in battle; I have seen many of them die on the field; I shall devote my remaining energies to training young men to do their duty in life."

I am pleased to be a part of the Museum of the Confederacy, In the era of Madonna, Michael Jackson, and Donald Trump, it is a place where my children can see that such a man as Lee, and the culture that produced him, once existed, We cannot live in the past or recover it, But perhaps in a small way the Museum can help us all - young and old, rich and poor, black and white -- become aware of the nobility, community, and poetry we have lost; and Once aware, perhaps we can build a new civility in our own time.

Alexander Wise is a lawyer at McGuire, Woods, Battle, and Boothe and has served as president of the Confederate Memorial House of the Confederacy in Richmond. This article first appeared in The Richmomd- Times Dispatch, and was reprinted in The Star on Lee's birthday in 1994.

Christians of Egypt are Massacred, and President Mubarak is Still Silent

St. Anthony's monastery in Egypt maintains the 2000-year tradition of the Coptic Church.

The Copts, Egypt's Christian minority, number approximately 12 million, about 15% of Egypt's population. Under the rule of President Mubarak, violent attacks against them run rampant. These attacks were once carried out mainly by organized Islamic terrorist groups. The climate of hatred in Egypt has worsened to the point that attacks against Christians are now carried out by their Muslim neighbors.

The latest attack took place in Naga Hamady, Upper Egypt, during the late hours of Wednesday, January 6, 2010. Drive-by gunmen opened fire from machineguns at worshippers coming out of church after celebrating Coptic Christmas mass. Seven people were instantly killed, and many others were seriously wounded.

The escalation of attacks is encouraged by the Egyptian government's lack of resolve in addressing the problem and adopting a plan of action to stop it at its roots. The climate of hatred is deeply entrenched in Egypt's mosques, the Egyptian media and the Egyptian educational system. Very seldom are killers of Copts apprehended, and when arrested, they are often released for lack of evidence, or given a very light sentence.

President Mubarak, now in power for almost 3 decades, during which 7 American presidents took office, turns a blind eye to what happens to the Coptic citizens of his country. This seems to be an attempt at appeasing the Islamists to strengthen his hold on power and pass it on to his son. Not once, did President Mubarak address his nation assuring the Copts that he cares about their problems.

Egypt, the recipient of 2 billion dollars yearly of American foreign aid since the signing of the Camp David peace treaty in1978, can not continue abusing the human rights of its Coptic Christian citizens, a basic perquisite for receiving American foreign aid.

The Coptic community asks President Obama, the US Congress and government officials, and all freedom-loving people and organizations in the US and around the world to support the right of the Copts, for protection from aggression and equality under the law.

The American Coptic community will hold a rally in support of the Copts, Christians of Egypt, on Thursday 21, 2010 from 11:00AM to 2:00PM in front of the main gate of the White House, and from 2:30 to 3:00PM in front of the Egyptian Embassy.

Coakley Phone Bank at 10:20 AM This Morning

Panic Grips Health Negotiations as Brown Victory Looms Big

From LifeSiteNews
By Kathleen Gilbert

A sense of panic has begun to seep into Democrat party leaders' marathon of negotiations over the health bill, according to insider reports. The source of the panic appears to be the possibility that the Democrats may lose their filibuster-proof majoirty in Massachusetts' special U.S. Senate election Tuesday

The Hill reports that alarmed Democrat aides are already weighing options in case Massachusetts Democrat Martha Coakley loses against Republican Scott Brown in the special election to overtake Ted Kennedy's senate seat from interim senator Paul Kirk.

Running on an anti-health bill platform, the charismatic Brown has shocked the entrenched Massachusetts Democrat establishment by jumping just ahead of Coakley in polls just days before the election, after being behind by double-digits in December. A Public Policy Polling survey released Sunday showed Brown ahead by 5 points, 51-46%, within the poll's margin of error. The poll was released on the same day that President Obama traveled to Boston to shore up Coakley's falling approval ratings.

Brown has vowed to be the 41st vote against the health bill charging through Congress, which would shatter Senate Democrats' ability to stop a GOP filibuster.

Yet Democrats say they have a few last-ditch maneuvers up their sleeve to save the abortion-expanding bill. One possibility would be to ram the measure through before Brown is sworn in, which could take several weeks.

Another option would be to skip a second Senate vote on the bill by forcing the House to vote on the Senate version unamended; however aides say this would be unlikely to work.

Democrats have also discussed using a procedure called reconciliation, whereby only 51 senators would need to pass the bill. To qualify for reconciliation, the health bill would have to undergo considerable revamping in order to pass as a "budget" measure.

A fourth option that has been considered is to woo Senate Republican Olympia Snowe to provide a 60th vote; however, this too is considered unlikely, as the senator has been outspokenly critical of the bill's artificially rushed timetable.

On Friday, House and Senate leaders returned to the White House for a three-hour negotiating session, following negotiations with President Obama that continued through midnight the previous evening.

"I think we're getting very close," said House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-MD) on CNBC Friday. "I would certainly hope that within the next 24, 48, 72 hours, we have a general agreement between the Senate and the House."

Maintain Military Gay Ban

By General Carl E. Mundy Jr.

Congress will soon decide whether to retain or repeal the 1993 law that excludes homosexuals from eligibility to serve in the armed forces. Although separate from a Defense Department policy popularly known as "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," the statute is routinely confused with that policy and described by the same phrase. The distinction is important, however, and bears directly on the effectiveness of our armed forces.

The Washington Post recently applauded a few members of Congress for requesting Pentagon figures they hope will prove that exclusion of homosexuals imperils military readiness by forcing out valuable personnel. On the contrary, official statistics reveal that since passage of the law 16 years ago, total discharges for homosexuality amount to less than three-quarters of 1 percent of those discharged before completion of enlistment or retirement. More than four times as many have been discharged for inability to maintain personal weight standards.

Moreover, as a 2009 Congressional Research Service (CRS) report notes, most in this small percentage are "junior personnel with very little time in the military," and "the number of cases involving career service members is relatively small."

The CRS added, "The great majority of discharges for homosexual conduct are uncontested and processed administratively," with most receiving honorable discharges. Even this small number of separations might have been avoided with better understanding of the eligibility exclusion that Congress wrote into law following extensive analysis. Twelve congressional hearings and exploratory field trips resulted in the codification of 15 "findings," which were incorporated into the 1993 law to ensure clarity concerning the rationale behind the statute (Section 654, Title 10).

The key findings affirm: "There is no Constitutional right to serve in the armed forces"; "The primary purpose of the armed forces is to prepare for and to prevail in combat"; "Success in combat requires military units that are characterized by high morale, good order and discipline, and unit cohesion"; and "one of the most critical elements in combat capability is unit cohesion, that is, the bonds of trust among individual service members."

Importantly, the statute declared: "The extraordinary responsibilities of the armed forces, the unique conditions of military service, and the critical role of unit cohesion, require that the military community, while subject to civilian control, exist as a specialized society ... characterized by its own laws, rules, customs, and traditions, including numerous restrictions on personal behavior that would not be acceptable in civilian society."

Finally, the law found that "The presence in the armed forces of persons who demonstrate a propensity or intent to engage in homosexual acts would create an unacceptable risk to the high standards of morale, good order and discipline, and unit cohesion that are the essence of military capability."

The law and its supporting findings, which remain valid today, are not guided by considerations involving civil rights, compassion, or individual "fairness." Nor are they based on opinion polls of those not responsible for or qualified to judge military effectiveness or who do not understand the uniqueness of military service.

Rather, the law and its findings reflect one priority: minimizing the risk to the nation's military capabilities. They reflect the informed reasoning of those to whom the Constitution gives the sole right to "raise armies, provide and maintain a navy and make the rules for the government thereof": the Congress.

As lawmakers consider the continuing efficacy of the law, it is imperative that they, and those who offer advice on the subject, focus carefully on the studied and deliberately concluded findings that underpin it. They should also take note of the strong support the law enjoys among many of those who have been charged with ensuring military readiness over long careers of service.

That sentiment has been powerfully expressed recently by more than 1,160 retired flag and general officers from all the armed services, who have spent much of their careers assessing and ensuring military readiness and effectiveness. These leaders personally signed a statement addressed to the president and the Congress urging continued support for the 1993 law (www.FlagandGeneralOfficersfortheMilitary.com). The signatories include officers in command and other significant positions in wars as recent as Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as those who commanded forces in previous wars. They represent the largest number of American senior officers to have jointly conveyed their views and recommendations on a single issue in the history of our nation. Their advice should not be ignored.

American armed forces are the gold standard of the world in terms of combat effectiveness. Our military is engaged in two major conflicts and numerous deterrent operations and performing at consistently high operating tempos. This is no time to subject it to risky, politically driven social engineering orchestrated to satisfy individual and special interest demands, instead of enhancing military effectiveness.

Maintain the law.

Carl Mundy is a retired general and former commandant of the U.S. Marine Corps.