Chris Christie Endangers Freedom

Chris Christie Endangers Freedom
  • Friday, August 7, 2015
  • Nibeyu Yegezu
Last night's second GOP debate featuring top 10 presidential hopefuls, gave us a heated exchange between Rand Paul and Chris Christie over the Patriot Act. It was an anticipated battle between two schools of thought that has pitted hawkish and interventionist Republicans against one another leading to a perceived disarray over foreign policy. Make us safer or protect our civil liberties?

Certainly both can and should be done but Christie has drawn a line in the sand between the American people and his government expanding agenda. In their clash, Paul firmly stood by the Bill of Rights and the 4th amendment's purpose, while Christie touted his experience of overseeing the insurance of American safety and respecting civil liberties as U.S.. Attorney of New Jersey. Any observer could tell the clear difference between the two stances. As Paul invoked John Adams when explaining that the fourth amendment is what we fought the revolutionary war over, he aligned himself with the fundamental right to privacy we all share. 

On the other hand Chris Christie never properly addressed surveillance abuses and gave the impression that he was readily willing to risk our privacy for the sake of safety. If only Christie was further pressed about the NSA's illegal bulk collection of phone records authorized by the Obama administration, we could have further evidence of his misunderstanding of the Bill of Rights as Paul pointed out.

Thomas Jefferson famously said, "When the people fear the government theres is tyranny. When the government fears the people there is liberty."

Rand Paul is unquestionably standing up for Americans while Chris Christie would rather heed importance to other priorities like he did by wanting to "balance" gun rights. Christie has shown the whole time that he'll disregard the Bill of Rights for political compromise. New Jersey has one of the strictest gun laws in the country and he deservedly received a C rating from the National Rifle Association in 2013 before his reelection in a blue state. Paul carries an A rating from the NRA despite not being invited to their annual convention in Nashville. The NRA regrettably couldn't squeeze Paul into their lineup but Christie was never getting an invitation.

From the big hug that Christie gave Obama right before the 2012 election to Boehner celebrating passage of Medicare reform by kissing Pelosi on the cheek, we have symbolically seen the envelope being sealed on our liberty time and time again. Paul was justified in telling Christie to hug Obama again. Why would Americans elect a candidate that could dangerously support more of this administration's privacy violations? Unfortunately without crusaders such as Rand Paul the likelihood of our hands continually being tied in the matter is very real.

Whatever conservative accomplishment's Christie holds on to as Governor don't hold any weight unless he can prove that he has a defined understanding of the constitution's relationship with American citizens. It's a relationship that has been and is continually fractured in Washington since the escalation of big government from both sides of the isle that leaves us with the conundrum of reducing it's size for future generations.

Christie needs to explain how he'll protect Americans in both categories of privacy and safety with an understanding that only liberty from intrusion will aide a properly targeted effort of persecuting our enemies.
JavaScript is off. Please enable to view full site.