Christie Promises More Surveillance and Military Spending Too

Chris Christie is getting ready to run for the Republican presidential nomination, so the first thing he has to do is pretend to know something about military and foreign policy matters and promise to go even further on illegal surveillance and spend even more on the military.

In a foreign policy speech on Monday ahead of his likely impending presidential campaign announcement, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie proposed stronger government surveillance and criticized “civil liberties extremists” who have been skeptical of the federal government’s intelligence collection programs.

“Let me be clear: all these fears are baloney,” Christie said during his speech in New Hampshire, railing against Democrats’ opposition to the domestic surveillance programs of the National Security Agency. “When it comes to fighting terrorism, our government is not the enemy.”

When it comes to civil liberties and the Bill of Rights, the government is always the enemy. The 4th Amendment was written solely for the purpose of preventing the government from abusing the rights of individuals. The government is the only entity that can violate those protections, so it damn sure is the enemy in that context.

“We shouldn’t listen to people like Edward Snowden, a criminal who hurt our country and now enjoys the hospitality of President Putin — while sending us messages about the dangers of authoritarian government,” Christie said.

A classic case of poisoning the well. Regardless of Putin giving him shelter from an overzealous government that would throw him in prison (or worse), the only thing that matters is whether the information he released shows that our government is violating the Constitution or not. And there is absolutely no doubt that it does show that. We should damn sure listen to that evidence.

In Monday’s speech, Christie also called for expanding the U.S. military and defense spending and criticized President Obama’s handling of the emerging Iran nuclear agreement and ISIS.

Here’s a question I’d like to hear a moderator ask all the Republican candidates during a primary debate: Why do you think 47% of all the world’s military spending is not enough? What percentage would be enough, in your view, to keep us safe?

POPULAR AT PATHEOS Nonreligious
What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • colnago80

    I have a better question for the Rethuglicans. How do you propose to pay for increased defense spending without raising taxes or increasing deficit spending?

  • John Pieret

    What percentage would be enough, in your view, to keep us safe?

    100%, of course.

    How do you propose to pay for increased defense spending without raising taxes or increasing deficit spending?

    By taking it from (mostly) brown people.

  • NYC atheist

    @1 colnago

    Duh, tax breaks. They pay for themselves, obviously.

  • jaybee

    Please square this circle: government surveillance of is essential and the spooks must have the broadest lattitude, but if the government checks to see if your PAC isn’t actually a charity like it claims it is then it is government tyranny.

  • http://twitter.com/#!/TabbyLavalamp Tabby Lavalamp

    “[O]ur government is not the enemy.”

    It’s always amazing, and quite telling, when conservatives praise the government instead of decrying it. The government can’t be trusted to help its citizens, but spy on them? Sure, why not!

  • caseloweraz

    We shouldn’t listen to people like Edward Snowden, a criminal who hurt our country and now enjoys the hospitality of President Putin — while sending us messages about the dangers of authoritarian government,” Christie said.

    The unstated message here is Edward Snowden’s alleged hypocrisy in residing in Putin’s Russia while protesting authoritarian measures enacted by the U.S. The truth is that Snowden did not choose Russia; he’s there because the U.S. prevented him getting to where he wanted to be.

  • caseloweraz

    “Let me be clear: all these fears are baloney,” Christie said during his speech in New Hampshire, railing against Democrats’ opposition to the domestic surveillance programs of the National Security Agency. “When it comes to fighting terrorism, our government is not the enemy.”

    No Democrat, AFAIK, is saying the government is impeding the fight against terrorism. Republicans do say that, however. Every day some of them assert that Obama is in the pocket of Muslims who want to destroy America, or is covertly using them to accomplish the destruction.

    That said, a case can be made that the Bush administration aided terrorism on purpose. One incident was when Cheney asked for portions of a report to be declassified. The report showed the war in Iraq was aiding the recruitment of jihadis,* while the portion Cheney wanted declassified would suggest the opposite. Jami Miscik was forced out of the CIA for refusing to go along with Cheney.

    *And yes, it’s likely that Obama’s drone strikes are doing that as well.

  • raven

    In Monday’s speech, Christie also called for expanding the U.S. military and defense spending

    LOL. I see colnago at comment #1 already said it.

    Just where are we getting the tax money to increase military spending. We have a high National Debt and are running deficits still. Both giant problems according to the GOP.

  • busterggi

    Christie is Bush the lesser on a high-fat diet.

  • raven

    How do you propose to pay for increased defense spending without raising taxes or increasing deficit spending?

    By taking it from (mostly) brown people.

    Sure. As well as from single mothers, children, poor people, old people, sick people, science, education, and the EPA.

    1. This is an important point and exactly what the state’s GOPers are doing right now. They cut taxes on the basis of magic, supply side economics. Magic didn’t work = deficits. So they cut services to education and poor people and the road systems.

    It’s happened in Wisconsin, Florida, Kansas, Louisiana, and Arizona among others.

    Some of the states that raised taxes such as Minnesota and California are doing much better.

  • raven

    Arizona legislature votes to cut off welfare benefits after 12 …

    www .theguardian. com › US News › Arizona

    2 days ago – Arizona legislature votes to cut off welfare benefits after 12 months. At least 2,700 children to be hit by new restriction that will save $4m-$9m

    What is up with this? Seems like a good way to end up with destitute people living in the streets. And oh yeah, Arizona cut corporate taxes a lot which resulted in a large deficit.

    1. I know 4 people on public assistance off hand.

    2. All 4 are mentally ill. Two of them literally lived on the streets for years.

    One guy is so fogged up, he lived in a greenbelt park for a decade until he was almost 70. Finally someone literally led him by the hand to apply for public assistance. You have to renew once a year, so once a year someone has to do it again.

    Without that, some of them can and will die during the winter. Of exposure, hypothermia. Happens once or twice a year in my local area.

  • marcus

    Raven @ ^ But…but, Republicans are pro-life! They are always screechpreaching about how much they “respect life”. (The fact that they will happily let children, the aged or the mentally ill starve to death notwithstanding.)

    (To be fair those are “natural” causes.)