Chris Christie & Ignorant Libs Full Of Tyrannical Shit

The most important and devastating thing Chris Christie said last Thursday, was not his attack on libertarianism, nor even his spitting on the idea of liberty, but it was his accurate assessment of Barack Obama's own betrayal of his campaign posture of being outraged, instead of inspired, by the ghastly works of George W. Bush. Obama as president operated on the principle that being Bush on the war was what stupid Americans really wanted. Christie fully supports that attitude towards the people.
I write this after viewing numerous comments on Huffpo's Facebook page, where they posted a link to a Huffpo article about Ted Cruz supporting Rand Paul in their war of weenies against fatuous blowhard, Chris Christie. The comments are largely supportive of Christie, mainly because liberals view Christie as pro-Obama.

The issue of the Christie attack on Rand Paul is NOT that these Republicans are wallowing in the dirt of internecine squabbles—which pleases liberals—but that liberals and Dems who ONLY see this battle as one between arch-conservatives and the faux-Republican Christie, are MISSING THE FUCKING POINT!

And that's nothing new on Facebook or on Huffpo particularly, as posting from the advantageous position of knowing what the fuck you're talking about is too much work in the age of kneejerk opinionating.

"The fucking point" started not with Christie's words against libertarianism, but with last Wednesday's vote in the House of Representatives, on something called the Amash-Conyers amendment, which, in a single stroke of libertarian pushback, almost sunk the NSA's bulk phone-record data collection program.

What most Democrats have missed, since they have been mentally sidelined given that Barack Obama was leading the charge FOR the fascist pro-NSA forces, is that the MAJORITY of people voting for the amendment, and against the NSA, were DEMOCRATS!

As it is, even though the amendment barely lost, the large level of bipartisan support for stripping funding from the NSA's tyranny program has many pundits now figuring more such votes (in the Senate too) will likely succeed in restraining the NSA's powers.

 So terrified are the forces of Big Brother, which include leadership of both parties in all three branches of government, they have begun to send out messages to the usual suspects to come to Big Spying's rescue.

And so entered Chris Christie into this fray, on the side of fascism and liberty-hatred. Christie was also establishing some hawkish ground against Rand Paul, whom Christie may face in the 2016 Republican presidential primary.



During an event at the Aspen Institute, Christie responded to a question about whether libertarianism was an ideology that was influencing younger Republicans, such as his son (who is a Republican attending Princeton). Christie responded with an attack on what he called the dangerous "esoteric" debates of libertarians (such as Senator Rand Paul).

However, the context of the question and Christie's response was the vote the night before in the House of Representatives on defunding the NSA mass spying program on Americans. Christie sought to explain why being against the NSA and Big Brother was SO dangerous, in his view:
"On the libertarian side of things, as a former prosecutor, who was appointed by President George W. Bush, on September 10th, 2001, I just want us to be really cautious. Because this strain of libertarianism that’s going through both parties right now, and making big headlines, I think is a very dangerous thought...And I think what we as a country have to decide, is do we have amnesia? Cause I don’t. And I remember what we felt like on September 12, 2001."
The unspoken subtext for this statement is summed up in the infamous John Cornyn (R-TX) policy, articulated in 2005 in defense of the Patriot Act:
"None of your civil liberties matter much after you’re dead."
In John Cornyn's eyes, Patrick Henry, who said death was preferable to a loss of essential liberty, was a fool or some kind of lunatic.

What Christie said next in his Thursday comments was a much more damning, disturbing thing, which has not been covered by liberals at all. But it is an accurate assessment of the cowardice and pro-fascist sentiments of Barack Obama:
"President Obama has done nothing to change the policies of the Bush administration in the war on terrorism, and I mean practically nothing. And you know why? Cause they work. Because they work."
President Obama of course ran on a platform of condemning the Bush way of war and foreign policy. And to know, as the facts certainly support too, that Obama simply embraced the Bush policies and continued them, and with respect to NSA surveillance, that Obama embraced the huge expansion of spying on Americans, should deeply trouble the people who voted for the President.

Christie went on to explain, in his usual demagogic style, how what he called "esoteric debates" about liberty versus safety would never be conducted in front of the "widows and orphans" of 9/11, because Christie implied, arguing for liberty in front of them would be offensive to the memory of their lost loved ones.

And this led in to the bigger point Christie was making, that is the Cornyn policy mentioned above: protecting the constitutional liberty of citizens is not the first and most important concern for government leaders.

Instead, the New Jersey governor insisted:
"Our first job is—all of us—is to protect the lives of the people we serve."
This rhetoric asserting the supreme importance of protecting the lives of Americans from the never-ending threat of some kind of terrorist attack is basically a post-9/11 phenomenon, and one pushed by fascist politicians, hoping to turn the USA into a police state. The disdain shown by these fascists for constitutional liberties would actually have been intolerable anathema to all earlier generations of Americans. And the division of important concerns into liberty versus safety binaries helps the fascists crush the former while claiming to provide the latter.

Prior to Obama being elected, liberals were highly critical of that kind of twisted, repressive calculation, coming in torrents from George W. Bush and his co-conspirators.

However, because what Christie says about Barack Obama is correct, that Obama simply adopted and continued to perpetrate the heinous and criminal war policies of George W. Bush, Democrats have generally refused to be vocal or even reasonable in their discussion of these issues—to the point that when Obama acts even worse than Bush—for example locking down Boston under martial law, Obama defenders often sound like goosestepping drones of tyranny.

And that has been the case in the last few days as witless ninnies in the lib-MSM have taken an important issue, the NSA debate, and dumbed it down to a stupid civil war between the GOP's old school and the libertarians.

Meanwhile, the very same division, on the NSA issue, is sharply apparent in the Democratic Party too, just as Christie said.

The ripples of political change are being felt transcendentally across the parties. New alignments and new parties may come out of this before 2016. Whether you call the anti-fascists libertarians, or constitutionalists, or simply pro-freedom forces, they are offering a choice to the American people between the old, dreadful, school that has led us into tyranny, and the people who may supply us one more chance to save the nation from its worst tendencies.

Comments