Chris Christie Bellyflops on NSA Spying and Libertarianism

Christie says Rand Paul's views are dangerous. Is he right?

Rep. Justin Amash's unsuccessful July 24 effort to defund the National Security Agency's dragnet collection of Americans' call records failed in a close vote, 205 to 217.

Thursday morning, New Jersey's Chris Christie threw a punch at surveillance skeptics like the Michigan Republican: "This strain of libertarianism that's going through both parties right now ... I think is a very dangerous thought." "These esoteric, intellectual debates" won't mean anything when "the next attack" kills "thousands of Americans." "I remember what we felt like on Sept. 12, 2001," Christie declared.

My first thought was, "I take back everything nice I've ever said about him. Maybe he IS too obese to be president."

My second was, haven't the arguments for unrestrained spying gotten any better over the last 11 years? Talk to the "widows and orphans," visualize a smoking crater, and write a blank check to the Security-Industrial Complex?

That took some chutzpah: The debate Obama allegedly welcomes is only taking place because a former NSA contractor revealed that the administration had been lying to the public about bulk data collection. During the July 24 debate, Rep. James Sensenbrenner, R-Wis., one of the PATRIOT Act's principal authors, reaffirmed that it was never intended to make every American's call records "relevant" to terrorism investigations.That, apparently, is the kind of debate over NSA spying that Christie's pal, President Obama, "welcomes." Just before the vote on the Amash amendment, the White House charged that "this blunt approach is not the product of an informed, open, or deliberative process."

Contra Christie, the implications of the administration's sweeping legal theory aren't particularly "esoteric." Last Tuesday, Senator Ron Wyden, D-Ore., explained: "If you know who someone called, when they called, where they called from, and how long they talked, you lay bare the personal lives of law-abiding Americans to the scrutiny of government bureaucrats."

There's nothing in the administration's interpretation of the PATRIOT Act that limits bulk collection to call records. It could be used to vacuum up "medical records, financial records, or credit card purchases," Wyden said, or for databases of "gun owners or readers of books and magazines deemed subversive" -- it makes "the government's authority to collect information on law-abiding American citizens essentially limitless."

"Collect it all" is the mentality driving NSA director Gen. Keith Alexander, according to a recent Washington Post profile. A senior intelligence official who worked with Alexander on Iraqi counterintelligence notes, "his approach was, 'Let's collect the whole haystack.' "

Alexander takes a similarly maximalist approach on the home front. The Post describes a private meeting a few years ago between General Alexander and financial industry leaders, where he proposed "an unprecedented intrusion into the financial institutions' databases."

To deal with cyberattack threats, the NSA head suggested that "private companies should give the government access to their networks so it could screen out the harmful software." According to one participant, "folks in the room looked at each other like, 'Wow'" and refused.

In a July 19 interview, General Alexander's predecessor, Gen. Michael Hayden, revealed a few "dangerous thoughts" of his own. Musing about the "ideological embrace of transparency as a virtue," the former NSA head opined:

"It is a little like the Boston bombers.... at what point does a cultural tendency towards transparency flip-over to become a deep threat inside your system?" "Wow," indeed.

On one side, you have a band of legislators from both parties, determined to cut through a thicket of lies and restore legal limits on domestic surveillance. On the other side, a rapacious desire to "collect it all" -- in secret because the push for transparency is "a little like" Islamic terrorism.

You'll have to decide for yourself which is the more "dangerous" line of thinking.

This column originally appeared in the Washington Examiner.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Pro Libertate||

    Christie is proving to be a joke. He has no chance at the nomination. None.

  • WTF||

    Never underestimate the Stupid Party.

  • Pro Libertate||

    I'm not, but he's burying himself.

    I think Rubio is doing some good self-destruction, too, which could throw the nomination wide open.

  • ||

    It will be interesting to see if the republicans do to Rand, what they did to his father. And even more interesting to see if the people will tolerate it.

    My guess is that they will try and fail.

  • Pro Libertate||

    I think Rand has a better chance than his dad did, but he's still got to deal with some very powerful opposition within the party. By any rational measure, they should support him, but they fear that he'll do things like drastically cut spending.

  • Hayeksplosives||

    Oi am a lifelong Republican and a 9 year veteran of local Minnesota politics. I could not support Ron Paul because of his "blame America first" attitude and also the fact that he attracted many paranoid supporters/triggers and so forth. Locally the atom Paulers took over the party caucuses but had no idea how to.organize. It was awful, and many stalwart vets quit. However, I am becoming a huge fan of Rand Paul! He seemsto have all the positives of Ron but without the cray-cray. I think conservatives like me will flock to Paul the Younger. I sure hope I'm not wrong.

  • Hayeksplosives||

    Mobile device.spell check sucks. "Triggers" should read "truthers ". Atom should read Ron.

  • d_remington||

    See, to republicans and conservatives, if you refuse to absolve the US of all blame without exception or reservation, you're "blaming america first".

  • anon||

    It will be interesting to see if the republicans do to Rand, what they did to his father.

    They've been laying the foundation for the attacks on Paul ever since he became a Senator.

    There's about zero chance Paul is nominated.

    And if he is, I'll be the most ecstatic person in the country to be wrong.

  • Pro Libertate||

    I think both Paul and Cruz will make serious splashes. Whether that results in one of them getting nominated is still a guess at this point.

  • anon||

    Cruz might make a splash; he's a generally more accepted Republican, whereas GOP assholes are smart enough to realize Rand winning would jeopardize the GOP's big government agenda.

  • Drake||

    I think either Cruz or Amash would make an excellent running mate for Paul.

  • Lord Humungus||

    I believe Rand - and this does sound dramatic - is the last chance for this decrepit republic. At least it would make one helluva a novel.

  • CE||

    Ron Paul was the last chance. We blew it.

  • OneOut||

    Cruz is just as strong as Paul. I'll take either one.

  • Bobarian||

    I'm hoping that Rand Paul can avoid peaking too soon.

  • anon||

    insert weiner joke here.

  • ||

    "'Peaked', Dee? Let me tell you something. I haven't even begun to peak. And when I do peak, you'll know. Because I'm going to peak so hard, that everybody in Philadelphia will feel it."

  • mr simple||

    Don't worry, there's still plenty of time for the media to demonize Rand or any other clear thinking choice.

  • ||

    Aqua Buddha!

  • SweatingGin||

    MSNBC: "and now a lineup change. Starting tonight, weeknights in the 8 o'clock hour, we'll be featuring our new show "Rand Paul's CRA Interview", in which we'll playing the clip of Rand Paul opposing the Civil Rights Act on Maddow on repeat for an hour, with expert commentary and analysis of it."

  • anon||

    Well, anyone dumb enough to watch MSNBC probably wasn't going to vote for Paul anyways.

  • SweatingGin||

    They'll be shrill, though.

  • ||

    The MSM are so disconnected from reality I could see them actually trying to prop up Paul in the primaries because they mistakenly believe he stands no chance of winning the general. I think they fear a team purple statist member like Christie more than Paul.

  • ||

    Does that sound right to you?

    Good moniker!

  • CE||

    Yeah, but that would help him in South Carolina, so they'll hold off a while.

  • H. ReardEn||

    Perhaps he could challenge Hillary for the Democratic nomination.

  • Pro Libertate||

    The Urkobold thought she'd be the Republican nominee in 2012. Maybe His Trollosity just missed by an election?

  • anon||

    You say that now, but I give him 50/50 odds.

    Rand Paul, OTOH, has zero chance of being nominated, just cause he got in line too late.

    Fat Fuck Christie will be the GOP nominee, and he'll lose by a significant margin to Hillary.

  • Hyperion||

    It's more likely that Christie will be Hillarys running mate on the D ticket.

    He's toast as far as the GOP goes. Most Republicans despise him now.

  • Pro Libertate||

    While it's early, I'll predict this much--neither Christie nor Clinton will win the nomination. I'm almost certain about that. Who will win, no idea.

  • anon||

    I vaguely recall similar sentiments about Mitt Romney a while back.

  • Pro Libertate||

    Indeed. I was surprised that he won, but the competition was really bad, and Ron Paul, unlike his son, was too far outside the norm to win.

    But Christie has seriously alienated the base. Romney never really did that--he just made the base uncomfortable.

  • anon||

    And you put the GOP above associating everything Ron believes with Rand?

    It's literally going to be "Your father said this: blah blah blah. How do you respond?"x50000

  • Pro Libertate||

    I'm not saying Paul will win. He just has a better chance at the nomination than Ron did. Some of that is the result of the continued lackluster economy and more flagrant abuses of government power over the last decade.

  • Drake||

    I agree that Rand has a better chance than Ron ever did. He avoids saying the crazy stuff that offends the mainstream, while putting himself out there on libertarian issues many can agree with - like our government not spying on us.

  • ||

    He avoids saying the crazy stuff that offends the mainstream

    That's why the republican establishment will have a hard time marginalizing him. With his dad it was easy.

  • DarrenM||

    Rand Paul will need to watch what he says and avoid as much as possible anything that can be taken out of context or distorted, which will most certainly happen.

  • ||

    ProL, your track record with predictions is horrendous. This is making me think Christie will be the GOP candidate, just because you say he won't.

    Maybe you should stop making predictions. For everyone's sake.

  • Pro Libertate||

    Actually, no it isn't. I just got zapped last election. I overestimated America's tolerance for a bad economy.

  • anon||

    I overestimated America's tolerance for a bad economy.

    To be fair, the Government has been handing out so many freebies I can see how that would've been hard to believe.

  • Pro Libertate||

    That's not just because of welfare. It's also bailouts, propping up entire industries, meddling in markets, Fed shenanigans, etc.

  • anon||

    Yeah, that's why I said freebies instead of welfare.

    People love free shit, period. Yet another reason Paul won't win.

  • anon||

    Also, on the bright side, consider this: 6 years ago McCain was the "sensible consdervative" and Mitt Romney was the conservative extremist.

    I'm actually feeling a little hopeful. I'd find Cruz or Amash very acceptable compared to GWB, Obama, and McCain.

  • Pro Libertate||

    Paul's biggest problem within the party is how much of the party leadership likes big government and big spending. The power has shifted a bit in the GOP, but not enough. If it had, we'd see a different Speaker, for instance.

  • anon||

    Don't even get me started on that teary-eyed fucking Boner.

  • ||

    The power has shifted a bit in the GOP, but not enough.

    Three years is an eternity in politics. Look how fast the Tea Party became relevant.

    The best thing that can happen to us is for the MSM to keep bagging on libertarians. It gives us credibility.

    I gave up making predictions, but I think there is a legitimate shift in the tide. We'll see how far it goes.

  • CE||

    If you want to know how libertarian the federal government is becoming, watch the federal budget. It goes up every year.

  • Lord Humungus||

    the recent historical case for 2012 was Granholm vs. Devos in Michigan - 2006 run for the governor.

    Michigan was reeling from a bad economy, but the electorate decided that the freebie wagon was better than a rich successful businessman.

    I admit I also gave Romney a better chance than reality.

  • General Butt Naked||

    ProL, your track record with predictions is horrendous.

    He's not as bad as John. Geeze man, take anything John says and aver the opposite and you'll never be wrong.

  • bassjoe||

    The Republican Party nomination is going to be a battle between the corporatists, the libertarians and the evangelicals, similar to how it's been for the past 30+ years. The past few years, however, is the first time I remember when all three groups are shouting LOUDLY about what they want and not simply falling in line for the "good of the conservative movement" (i.e., letting the corporatists run the show since they had access to the money and media while throwing meaningless bones to the other groups).

    The Tea Party has exposed fissures within the Republican Party that extremely charismatic leaders (Reagan and Bush II) managed to cover up for decades. It'll be interesting to see if another Republican can pull off the feat in 2016. If not, the Democrat will win.

    At this point, I don't see anybody bridging the gap.

  • EDG reppin' LBC||

    The D's will nominate Hillary, and there will be another mobilization to take part in an "historic" election. And we'll end up with the First Woman President.

    It doesn't matter what R gets the nomination. They are dead in the water.

  • CE||

    If Hillary is nominated, the D's lose automatically. No one is voting for a grandma.

  • bassjoe||

    Seriously? You're using her AGE against her? That stinks of desperation, obviously so.

    Reagan was the oldest person ever elected to the presidency and he crushed the competition both elections. That he was the age of a great grandpa didn't seem to matter to most most people.

  • Pope Jimbo||

    My theory is Obama got the nomination in 2008 because so many D's were looking for any excuse to not vote for Hilary.

    The fact that they could vote for a black guy gave them cover to not vote for her.

    Who knows? Age might be the straw they grasp at next time to not vote for her.

  • Libertarius||

    You guys cannot be serious with this Hillary Clinton crap. Women will not vote for her, no matter what the lamestream libtard narrative is telling them to think, and no matter how ubiquitous the "girl power" bullshit bromides become.

    The only people who would vote for Hillary are leftoid beta males who want to kiss women's asses (because they're leftoid betas).

  • OneOut||

    Old Grandmas and old Grandpas are two different political entities.

  • DarrenM||

    No one is voting for a grandma.

    They won't be voting for Hillary. They'll be voting for Hollywood's sanitized version of a career in which nothing was accomplished besides holding office. People will have forgotten about her screw-ups by the time the election comes around.

  • James Anderson Merritt||

    Clinton has been horrible. She has a lot of blood on her hands. The only way she could win is through name recognition and some misplaced desire to follow the first black President with the first woman President -- in other words, mindless group partisanship. If that's how she DOES win, then it's only one more (big) data point to support the assertion that this country is done: toast.

  • Libertymike||

    GWB "extremely charismatic"?

    Maybe you should consider editing that.

  • Bobarian||

    I was going to offer that you put down the paper bag and can of spray paint.

    extremely charismatic leaders /= Bush II

  • anon||

    You have to attain a certain level of likeability to become President. That said ... Bush was charismatic, but I'd hardly use the adjective "extremely" in front of it.

  • Emmerson Biggins||

    I don't know about "extremely", but I'd go for "fairly" or "pretty" charismatic ...... in 1999.

    By 2008 the you could see the puppet strings coming out of the husk of the corpse.

  • bassjoe||

    Fair enough... :)

    Reagan was the extremely charismatic one of those two. Bush II had a certain... good ol' boy charm which was wearing very thin even before Hurricane Katrina hit...

  • wareagle||

    I want to think the evangelicals are losing sway as more folks start to question what govt actually should be doing, and people see no difference between the morality police and liberals on that front. Ironically, that makes the evangelicals a potential swing group which gives them potentially even more power than they previously had.

  • robc||

    Guess who pushed Paul and Massie thru to victory in their primaries?

    General elections were much easier for both.

  • bassjoe||

    Born-again evangelicals will never side with liberals en masse, at least not for the foreseeable future. "Pro-life" is simply too big of a part of their religious, political and cultural identity.

  • Hayeksplosives||

    I get how abortion is a very sticky issue. if you think that a fetus is a person, you believe in its right to life, outweighing inconvenience to the mother. If you don't think a fetus is a person, you are livid at the idea the mother shouldn't have access to abortion.
    I happen to believe the fetus is a person with rights. But I am willing to let it go as a decided legal right in the interests of defending other personal liberties.
    I don't think I am alone among prolifers in this attitude.

  • Hayeksplosives||

    I personally am an evangelical Christian, but what I love about Libertarianism is that you and I don't have to agree about anything religious. We believe in life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Why should we have to think about the government every day of our lives, or agree about our outlook on life? It shouldn't matter, because we should live by the rule of law, and limited goverment. That's how my somewhat hedonistic brother and I agree about politics although we have vastly different worldviews. If you understand libertarianism, you see how easy it is to agree to disagree.

  • ||

    Chris Christie is a lock for the pro-Obama Republican camp.

  • tlapp||

    Christie is done unless he becomes a democrat.

  • Wyrd Wulf||

    Do people still buy this BS about bureaucrats protecting the people? They could give a shit whether most of us live or die beyond what they can get out of us. Who is protecting us from them? They are the very people causing our worldwide hatred.

  • bassjoe||

    I remember after 9/11 when all of the statists went on TV to spout off about how the legal "firewall" between the FBI and CIA prevented those agencies from "connecting the dots" and potentially stopping those attacks. The firewall was duly done away with within a month.

    Nobody -- NOBODY -- bothered to ask why that firewall was there to begin with. Because we figured out during the Cold War that it's extremely dangerous to treat domestic criminal investigations (the FBI's domain) as foreign threats (the CIA's domain). The CIA simply is institutionally incapable of distinguishing between a "real" threat and a perceived threat (which is fine if it's monitoring, you know, Pakistan or Iran; we in those situations want them to be paranoid). Due to serious civil rights' violations by the CIA against American citizens on American soil (some of which were arguably politically motivated), the firewall was put into place.

  • ||

    THIS, THIS, a thousand times THIS!

    Firewall? What the hell is this doing here?

  • Pro Libertate||

    Church Committee? Why did we need that again?

  • Drake||

    Yep.

    I miss the Cold War.

  • wwhorton||

    The beauty part is that nothing about the Patriot Act managed to eliminate stovepiping of intel, it just moved the pipes around.

  • CE||

    There used to be a firewall between the military and the police (posse commitatus or some such). Now they're basically the same thing, and mostly the same people.

  • ||

    and mostly the same people

    How do you figure that?

  • DarrenM||

    How do you figure that?

    There does seem to be a lot of police who are ex-military. I'd be curious to know what percentage, though.

  • Andrew S.||

    Yep.

    The response to 9/11 was my final "fall" into libertarianism. I'd been mostly one for a few years, but I supported Bush in the 2000 elections and was still a Team Red member in many ways. Seeing the way that both teams responded to 9/11 finally made me give up on them.

  • anon||

    Noun, Verb, 9/11 wins every time.

  • Brian D||

  • Calidissident||

    Knew it would be Family Guy. Great scene

  • CE||

    But "pre-9/11" is an adjective.

  • Slammer||

    Bellyflop. Nice.

  • rudedog4||

    I'll take "dangerous" liberty over "safe" tyranny any day.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    Christie is proving to be a joke. He has no chance at the nomination.

    Maybe his wife has forbidden him to run, so he wants to be a really big walrus in his own little pond, entrench himself on the gravy train of federal assistance.

  • anon||

    So ... just like almost every other politician ever?

  • Marc F Cheney||

    You'll have to decide for yourself which is the more "dangerous" line of thinking.

    Wait. Just give me a minute. I know this one.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    just like almost every other politician ever?

    Yep.

  • ||

    The best part about this debate over the surveillance state is that all the parties involved are throwing off their masks.
    It is clearer and clearer who stands for liberty and who stands against it. Unsurprisingly there are precious few that stand for liberty.

  • anon||

    I will say Michelle Bachmann was predictable. Knew that cunt was a standard statist fuck.

  • ||

    Anyone who has anything to do with a 'pray the gay away' operation.....yeah.

    Speaking of women, I'm expecting Faucahontas is high on the dems list of potential nominees. That is one reprehensible socialist scumbag. Clearer and clearer.......

  • Pro Libertate||

    See, that's one of the things I see happening with the Dems, sooner or later. Obama tried really hard to hide the degree of his socialist beliefs, especially the first go-around. But the masks have been coming off more and more often.

    Despite everything, all the welfare and bullshit to buy votes, I think Americans still tend to see themselves as mildly conservative when it comes to government and the economy. If the Democrats show too clearly how far left they've lurched, they could lose big.

    Not that I don't think they crossed that line long ago, but people in general take more convincing.

  • Steve G||

    'mericans see themselves as conservative until they feel the gentle tug of the teet pulling away, and then their masks come off too.

  • ||

    205-217?

    That's a pretty close vote. Surprisingly so. I ask myself why and all I can come up with is that the people are finally fed up with the safety over liberty thing and have voiced their concerns to their reps.

    Of course, one would have hoped for 435-0 on the side of liberty, but there are still a lot of pussies out there. But I think it's moving, finally in the right direction.

  • anon||

    Don't worry, if Liberty starts to win over Security some other great american landmark will suddenly be "attacked by EVIL TERRORISTSZZ!"

  • ||

    Not sure if truther...

  • Cervantes||

    Or just retard...

  • kinnath||

    I saw an article about a week ago that detail Christie's biggest problem -- NJ's laws will make it extremely difficult for Christie to raise funds to run for president while being the governor. To really run for president, he will need to resign from his current office.

  • Bobarian||

    Christie's biggest problem =

    Film of him embracing the messiah.

  • Drizzle||

    This.

    Charlie Crist hugging Obama in 2009 killed his career.

  • BakedPenguin||

    One of the worst things about the debate is the delusion that the total state actually works at protecting people from violent crimes, terrorism, etc.

  • anon||

    Thing is, terrorist attacks and violent crimes are so rare that literally all it takes is some asshole to stand up and say "See? I prevented that by TSA NSA WHATEVER" and people believe it.

  • BakedPenguin||

    I want to buy your anti-tiger rock.

  • ||

    How many times have we heard the Boston bombing brought up in defense of the police state? We traded liberty for security and yet two knuckleheads barely old enough to shave we're able to set off a bomb, kill people and shut down a major city, yet it is touted as a reason to double down. This is why I have very little optimism.

  • CE||

    After our friends in Russia warned us about them.

  • ||

  • Slammer||

    Damn. Did you notice the story below it about the 45 y.o. father of 24?

  • CatoTheElder||

    Their attorney states, "They're not rogue cops."

    I guess he means that, since this is just typical behaviour for cops, it means that they aren't rouge cops.

  • John Galt||

    Christie needs to spend more time stuffing slop into his blow hole so it'll be too occupied to spew crap.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    Speaking of women, I'm expecting Faucahontas is high on the dems list of potential nominees. That is one reprehensible socialist scumbag. Clearer and clearer.......

    I know people who think she's a goddam GENIUS.

    I just don't get it.

  • R C Dean||

    Well, Harvard Law Prof who was so smart she didn't even need a law license to practice law. Genius, obv.

  • CatoTheElder||

    SHE IS A GENIUS at self-promotion.

  • Hyperion||

    Not sure if this has been posted. Too busy today... But this is interesting.

    GOP candidate wins in Cali with Hispanic support

  • Calidissident||

    It was right below this story

  • Hyperion||

    Well, I'm batting 500 so far, depending on how many have posted about the Manning acquittal by now.

    Work, it's always screwing up my posting time...

  • Hyperion||

    Also, Bradley Manning was just acquitted, according to Drudge.

  • ||

    No shit? Bet the presidential pants just got pooped.

    I wonder what bullshit charges Holder is dreaming up now.

  • ||

    not guilty of aiding the enemy -- a charge that would have carried a maximum sentence of life in prison. He was found guilty of most of the remaining charges against him.
  • ||

    He had already pleased guilty to most of the remaining charges against him, so that wasn;'t too hard. Well, lesser versions of the charges.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    Also, Bradley Manning was just acquitted, according to Drudge.

    No fucking way. The President, as Commander in Chief, will invite him to the White House and apologize for his treatment personally, right?

    RIGHT?

  • Doctor Whom||

    A drone with flowers and chocolates is en route as I type this.

  • Loki||

    Gen. Michael Hayden, revealed a few "dangerous thoughts" of his own.
    ...
    "It is a little like the Boston bombers.... at what point does a cultural tendency towards transparency flip-over to become a deep threat inside your system?"

    What the fucking fuck? Hey, asshole, stop trying to turn the USA into North Korea and go live there. Thanks. Shithead

  • James Anderson Merritt||

    Thank you. The US was supposed to be different than other countries, and prosper from that difference. But right from the start, Hamilton and many others sought to mold it into a "me too" state, fitting in, going along and getting along with all the other, traditionally established nations. They wanted the US to be a rich and powerful member of the global club -- perhaps, eventually, the most rich and powerful -- but a conforming member of the club, nevertheless.

    The Constitution challenges us to get what we need as a nation WITHOUT sacrificing individual liberty, rule of law, transparency and responsibility to the people, and all the other great qualities that are characteristically American. When we slack off (or worse, give up and head the other way), that's a FAILURE, not progress! If current policies require us to abandon transparency, and others can achieve our goals, albeit perhaps with more effort on our parts, let's change the policies. If the goals that motivate the policies can't be achieved without tossing American values under the bus, maybe we should choose new goals! If we truly must pursue certain goals, and can only achieve them by unamerican approaches, we need to be honest with ourselves about what we are giving up and why.

  • burserker||

    just wait till some low level NSA analyst runs a report on fatboy's debit card:
    8am-dozen donuts and 3 large coffees
    10-dozen cinnamon rolls and a gallon of coke
    noon-steak and lobster and 3 bottles of wine
    3pm-footlong meatball sandwich and king size doritos
    6pm-chicken fried steak platter with extra gravy and 12 pack of schlitz
    9pm-chocolate cake, ice cream, and half gallon of chocolate milk
    11pm-blowjob from Peter King

  • tlapp||

    Anyone who won't defend my constitutional freedoms will not get my vote.

    Simple as that!

  • James Anderson Merritt||

    I don't care how fat his body is. It's his fat HEAD that concerns me. We need candidates who understand that the barriers described by the Constitution are actually guide-rails to keep us pointed and moving in the direction of WISE and RESPONSIBLE policy. If you find yourself running into and having to go around the Constitution too often, you should pause for a moment to consider whether your policy is WISE and RESPONSIBLE. If not, search for and adopt an alternative that doesn't put you at odds with the Constitution.

    The smart statesman asks the questions, "What is our exposure to terrorism," and "What actions can we take to limit our exposure while promoting our own interests?" The smart American statesman also asks, "Which of those actions are both Constitutional and least likely to deprive people of life, liberty, and property?"

    I don't think our electeds are spending enough time asking, and holding out for solid answers to, those questions. I really don't think Chris Christie cares about those questions at all.

  • DarrenM||

    when "the next attack" kills "thousands of Americans."

    Because there will always be a 'next attack'. It will be any day now and potentially thousands of people will be annihilated. We have to DO SOMETHING!!

  • DenverJay||

    All the talk upstream about the Republican pres nomination misses the point. It no longer matters who they nominate, because the MSM will ACTIVELY campaign for the Democrat. And enough of the electorate is ignorant enough to believe whatever they are told by the MSM. Which is also the reason that Paul, Cruz, Amish, et al, will never get the nomination to start with.

  • staceyshea40||

    my friend's sister-in-law makes $70/hour on the laptop. She has been out of work for 5 months but last month her check was $14048 just working on the laptop for a few hours. Read more on this web site.. www.Rush60.com

  • happel||

    Best investing tip of the decade: If Mr. Christie is elected to the White House, buy as many food stocks as you can get your greedy little hand upon. Mr. Obama has not slowed Presidential spending on his treks around the globe, both personal and 'scheduled' for the purposes of whatever ridiculous notions he stuffs into the media whorehouse for us to eat up. While still on this theme; Christie will spend BILLIONS stuffing his grubby little face on the backs of the dying Middle Class paying the tab.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement