Christie To Republicans: Thanks for the $51 Billion Now F*ck Off

NJ Gov. Chris Christie seems determined to offend every conceivable important republican constituency. Fresh off his two month disaster of sucking up to Obama the week before the election and then excoriating House republicans for balking on another porkulus bill ostensibly designed for Sandy relief, the loud-mouth Governor is now attacking the NRA.

He calls their latest ad "reprehensible." Pretty strong language. Their crime? Pointing out that Obama's daughter's get the kind of armed guard protection at school the president doesn't see as appropriate for ordinary citizens. We protect government builidng with armed guards. We protect banks with armed guards. We protect airports with armed guards. All manner iof VIPs are protected by armed guards. Schools? Apparently there is something about schools and the kids inside that makes them less worthy of such protection. And shame on you if you point out the discrepancy.


Hard to believe this fat asshole was on the short list for VP and seen as a likely presidential candidate just a couple of months ago.
******************************************
Christie: NRA Ad on Obama Daughters ‘Reprehensible’

TRENTON, N.J. — New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie is labeling “reprehensible” the National Rifle Association ad that brought President Barack Obama’s daughters into the gun-control debate.

The NRA ad accused the president of being a hypocrite for allowing his daughters to be protected by armed Secret Service agents but not embracing armed guards for schools.

The Republican governor and father of four said at a briefing Thursday in Trenton that the children of public figures should be off-limits to political attacks.

Christie again refused to take a position on Obama’s call for a federal assault weapons ban. The governor says he has no influence over what Congress and the president decide.

Christie has said he supports New Jersey’s current gun laws. They include an assault weapons ban in place for 21 years.


http://washington.cbslocal.com/2013/01/17/christie-nra-ad-on-obama-daughters-reprehensible/

 

I'm really starting to like this guy

 

The response to the ad is like a bunch of histrionic old women who get the vapors because someone mentioned the unmentionable.

Personally I wish Barry would just comment on armed gaurds for the schools.

No one is stupid, we all know why his daughters have armed gaurds but there are plenty of private schools with armed security for the elite.

 

He is finished and might as well just sing.

 

I told you so.

Where's Maxipad.

Perhaps he's grooming himself for a run on the democrat ticket.

 

Christie is a fiscal conservative(and unlike clowns like Paul Ryan actually has a record to back it up),sane,will take Jersey and has a shot at PA,OH and VA and is the GOP's best and only chance to win the White House in 2016 and this is how republicans treat him,no wonder The GOP is doomed

 

Christie has a no nonsense air about him that a lot of Republicans admire. But, I've had him on my fence between liberal and conservative since I don't know a lot about his policy views. When I saw him walking arm in arm with Obama then praising Obama in the midst of the campaign he turned my stomach. I've since knocked him off my fense and he landed on the liberal side.

As big as he is, it is going to take a lot of work on his part to climb back over to the other side of my fence even if he tries.

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...5b2127a-6032-11e2-9940-6fc488f3fecd_blog.html

The Facts


"The NRA ad notes that Obama said he was skeptical about armed security in schools, which the organization has touted as a solution to mass shootings such as at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn., in December. Obama did use the word skeptical, in an interview with Gregory, but the NRA has clipped the full meaning of his words.

GREGORY: “Should we have an armed guard at every school in the country? That’s what the NRA believes. They told me last week that that could work.”
OBAMA: “I'm not going to prejudge the recommendations that are given to me. I am skeptical that the only answer is putting more guns in schools. And I think the vast majority of the American people are skeptical that that somehow is going to solve our problem.”

Note that Obama said he was skeptical that armed guards were the “only answer,” not that he was skeptical of the idea. Indeed, in the package of gun-control proposals he unveiled on Wednesday, he called on Congress to help schools hire more guards or other school resource officers.

“Each school is different and should have the flexibility to address its most pressing needs,” the White House said. “Some schools will want trained and armed police; others may prefer increased counseling services.”

So the frame of hypocrisy is already a bit misshapen. But what about the claim that Sidwell Friends has 11 armed guards, which some Web sites have depicted with images of armed police with binoculars?

This is based on the fact that the online directory for Sidwell Friends lists 11 people as working in the Security Department. Five are listed as “special police officer,” while two are listed as “on call special police officer,” which presumably means they do not work full-time. The directory also lists two weekend shift supervisors, one security officer and the chief of security.

Under the District of Columbia General Order 308.7, a special police officer is a private commissioned police officer with arrest powers in the area that he or she protects. They may also be authorized to bear firearms — but it is not required. Security officers, by contrast, cannot carry firearms and in effect are watchmen. So five to seven security personnel in theory could be licensed to carry firearms.

But we spoke to parents who said they had never seen a guard on campus with a weapon. And Ellis Turner, associate head of Sidwell Friends, told us emphatically: “Sidwell Friends security officers do not carry guns.”

Sidwell Friends, by the way, has two distinct campuses, a lower school in Bethesda and a middle and upper schools in Washington. So given shift rotations and three different schools, it appears that the 11 “armed guards” is really just one or two unarmed guards per school at a time.

The most recent data on school security by the National Center for Education Statistics shows that 27 percent of public schools have either police or security guards on campus, with virtually all of the larger schools (1,500 students or more) having such security. Indeed, 58 percent of all public high schools have security personnel.

Interestingly, only 6 percent of all private schools have security personnel, though more than 50 percent of those with more than 1,000 students do have security. Sidwell’s enrollment is just over 1,000 students, so having some security guards is not unusual for a private school of its size.

An NRA spokesman did not return a call for comment."

 

I think us taxpayers are being taken for ride with this $51 billion dollars for Sandy. And why are we responsible for the damage that wasn't insured? There must be 50% or more waste in this figure. It's just another huge political slush fund and the raping of the taxpayer.

According to the Financial Times, the insurance industry estimates the total bill for insurers from Hurricane Sandy will be between $20 billion and $25 billion. President Barack Obama’s emergency request for Hurricane Sandy totals $60.4 billion. One must naturally wonder how the damages not covered by insurance could be roughly triple the insured estimate?

More specifically, how are the total damages sustained by federal facilities and assets—$3 billion—roughly 15 percent of the total private-sector insured damages? Let’s go one step further: How is it that the total amount of funds requested by President Obama for the Federal Emergency Management Agency ($5.4 billion), the National Flood Insurance Program ($9.7 billion), and state and local transportation repairs ($6.2 billion) match the total estimated costs for the entire insurance industry?

When the other roughly $40 billion requested by President Obama is added to the mix, the sheer fuzziness of the “emergency” spending request becomes, well, even fuzzier.

As we’ve written before, the debate in Congress should focus on a much smaller amount of funding than was requested by President Obama, and any funding should be tied to reforming FEMA and the NFIP.

http://blog.heritage.org/2012/12/24/fuzzy-numbers-drive-obama-hurricane-sandy-request/

 

Maybe we are. Best thing to do before passing judgement is to read the bill and see what it says:

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-113hr152eh/pdf/BILLS-113hr152eh.pdf