Christie Promises More Surveillance and Military Spending Too

Christie Promises More Surveillance and Military Spending Too May 20, 2015

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?

Browse Our Archives