Chris Coons - The REAL out of touch and Extreme Candidate Running for the Delaware Senate

Chris Coons is so out of touch with the American people that on his website he states that matters such as his following Marxism and promoting the Marxist agenda are a distraction.  He wants us to consider it a distraction since it reveals his extremist views and policies which are very much aligned with Obama's extremist policies, which are harming America.  He'll have to talk to Dingy Harry about the "pet" thing and his strange fetish with thinking of Coons as a "pet".  

 R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr. of the American Spectator gives us some insight into how Coons became a "Bearded Marxist" and exposes some of his extreme beliefs.  He also reveals one of Coons broken promises:
"As county executive of New Castle County, Coons promised voters he would keep taxes down. Once elected, he raised property taxes by 5% in 2006, by 17.5% in 2007, and by 25% in 2009. He loves taxes. Lord tells us he has proposed to raise hotel taxes, paramedic taxes, and something heretofore unheard of. Lord tells us that Coons has a proposal to raise taxes on 911 calls. Lord discovered that by reading Byron York's report in the Washington Examiner."

I found Chris Coons essay on nj.com:

"College is supposed to be a time of change, a time to question our assumption about the world and define our basic values. For me, the transformations of the last few years have been especially acute. I came to Amherst from a fairly sheltered, privileged, and politically conservative background. I campaigned for Reagan in 1980, and spent the summer after freshman year working for Senator Roth (of Kemp-Roth tax-cut fame.) In the fall of 1983, I was a proud founding member of the Amherst College Republicans. In November 1984, I represented the Amherst Democrats in a hotly contested pre-election debate against my former roommates, co-founders and leaders of the Republicans. As the debate progressed it became obvious how unreconcilably different our opinions had become. What caused such a shift in only one year?

I spent the spring of my junior year in Africa on the St. Lawrence Kenya Study Program. Going to Kenya was one of the few real decisions I have made; my friends, family, and professors all advised against it, but I went anyway, My friends now joke that something about Kenya, maybe a strange diet, or the tropical sun, changed my personality; Africa to them seems a catalytic converter that takes in clean-shaven, clear thinking Americans and sends back Bearded Marxists.

The point that others ignore is that I was ready to change. Experiences at Amherst my first two years made me skeptical and uncomfortable with Republicanism, enough so that I wanted to see the Third World for myself to get some perspective on my beliefs. Certainly Kenya provided a needed catalyst; I saw there poverty, and oppression more naked than any in America, and I studied under a bright and eloquent Marxist professor at the University of Nairobi. Nevertheless, it is only too easy to return from Africa glad to be an American and smugly thankful for our wealth and freedom. Instead, Amherst had taught me to question, so in return I questioned Amherst, and America.

When I first arrived at Amherst, I was somewhat of a Republican fanatic. I fit Churchill’s description, namely, that a fanatic is “Someone who can’t change their mind, and won't change the subject.” While other freshman share care packages from home, I was equally generous with my inherited political opinions giving them to anyone who would listen. It was in this manner that I soon met a creature I had never known before—a Democrat, several of them. Some of the “Leftists” that I met early on were terrifyingly persuasive, although I never admitted that. A few became my friends and provided a constant nagging backdrop of doubt, for which I am now grateful.

More importantly, during sophomore year, several professors challenged the basic assumptions about America and the world relations with which I had grown up. Cultural Anthropology inspired a fascination with other peoples, and undermined the accepted value of progress and the cultural superiority of the West. In examining the role of myths in “primitive” cultures, we also studied the myth of equal opportunity in this country, a myth I had never questioned. A course on the Vietnam War painted in gory detail a picture of horrible failures made possible by American hubris and dogmatism. I came to suspect, through these and other courses, that the ideal of America as “a beacon of freedom and justice, providing hope for the world” was not exactly based in reality. So, I went to Africa, hungry for a break from Amherst and eager to gain some broader political insight from the brutally real world. What do other nations think of us? Can private enterprise and democracy solve the problems of developing nations? Is Marxism an evil ideology, leading millions into totalitarian slavery? These were some of the questions in the back of my mind as I left for Kenya.

What I learned in Africa unsettled me. I saw the deprivation and oppression of the poor and the politically disfavored in a way not possible in the U.S. In Kenya, my position was not at stake; I was not directly benefiting if the underprivileged had little hope of advancement. I lived with the struggling African family for a month and came to know the hardships that they face. What surprised me was the attitude of the elite; I became friends with a very wealthy businessman and his family and heard them reiterate the same beliefs held by many Americans; the poor are poor because they are lazy, slovenly, uneducated. “Kenya is a land of opportunity,” they said, “those who work receive their just reward.” I knew this was not true in the case of many black Kenyans; this story merely served to justify the position of many who had done well only by working for the British colonialists. I realize that Kenya and America are very different, but experiences like this warned me that my own favorite beliefs in the miracles of free enterprise and the boundless opportunity to be had in America might be largely untrue.

When I returned last summer, I traveled all over the East Coast and saw in many ways a different America. Upon arriving at Amherst this fall, I felt like a freshman at an unfamiliar school all over again. Many of the questions raised by my experiences of the last year remained unanswered. I have spent my senior year reexamining my ideas and have returned to loving America, but in the way of one who has realized its faults and failures and still believes in its promise. The greatest value of Amherst for me, then, has been the role it played in allowing me to question, and to think. I had to see the slums of Nairobi before the slums of New York meant anything at all, but with out the experiences of Amherst, I never would have seen either."

This essay certainly displays Coons youthful naivete.  It looks like ever since then, he has adhered to what is an utterly irresponsible and naive philosophy.
On Chris Coons website he talks about supporting the right for every student to have a quality public education and strengthening Head Start, Early Head Start and high-quality pre-K programs.  This is fine and well but his site states nothing on school vouchers and no specifics on how he is going to strengthen the public school system.  Is he planning on just throwing more money at the Teacher's unions and schools or is he actually planning to implement policies to make sure that children actually receive a quality education?  The policies of the teachers unions and the Democrats have not helped children and their public educational system over the years but in fact their programs have hurt our public education system with more layers of bureaucracy and continues to hurt our students chances of receiving a good public education.

Chris is calling for a nationwide cap and trade program that will help establish a price on carbon and unleash the creativity of American ingenuity to help solve this crisis.  Chris is for Cap & Trade which will tax us out of existence, tax our country out of prosperity.  This is an extreme view especially in light of further proof that man made climate change is a hoax.  Lord Monckton exposes lies of those who follow Al Gore the Environmental Whore. Here are 70 scientists who do not believe the global warming hysteria.  More information here that exposes the global warming hoax.  A scientist, named Andrew Montford, debunks the hockey stick that global warming hystericists claim "proves" man made global warming exists.  Obama even says that "prices will skyrocket" and will cause unemployment among those working in the coal industry.

Under Coons-Obama-Reid-Pelosi's policy of Cap & Trade your energy bills will skyrocket and there will be higher unemployment caused by this legislation.  Do you really want to pay prohibitive costs for all your energy bills?  Do you want a higher unemployment rate?   If not, then don't vote for the EXREMIST, Chris Coons!

Chris Coons supports public funding of all reproductive health services for women who depend on the federal government for their health care.  He supports the federal funding of abortion. Do you want to fund the killing of innocent unborn life? He believes in forcing others, who believe it is morally wrong to kill an unborn child, to fund other persons' abortions.  This is unconscionable!! This is immoral!!  

"Chris opposes proposals such as the Child Custody Protection Act; gag rules that prohibit health-care professionals from counseling patients; and bans on safe procedures that protect the life and health of the mother." 

Chris Coons believes it is okay for a stranger to take your daughter across state lines in order for her to be able to have an abortion without your knowledge or consent. 

Chris Coons is way too EXTREME to be Senator of Delaware.

 

Marxism/Socialism/Liberalism FAIL -- Democrats Policies Caused Financial Crisis, NOT Bush's Policies

Obama continues to try to deflect the blame from himself, by blaming Bush again and again, and again, meanwhile the policies of Democrats are the ones that caused this financial crisis and not Bush‘s policies. Lyndon B. Johnson, Clinton, Obama, Democrats, Fannie, Freddie, and Community Reinvestment Act epitomizes the failure of Marxism/Socialism/liberalism/ Progressivism. Yes, the problem originates all the way back to LBJ. 
LBJ created the problem! Explained here:

From AEI.org: “The peculiar structure of the GSEs--shareholder-owned companies with a public mission--reflected a serious confusion of purpose on the part of the Lyndon Johnson administration and the members of Congress who created this flawed structure in 1968. In seeking to reduce the budget deficits associated with the Vietnam War and Great Society programs, the administration hit upon the idea of "privatizing" Fannie Mae by allowing the company to sell shares to the public. This, according to the budget theories of the time, would take Fannie's expenditures off-budget, while allowing it to continue its activities with funds borrowed in the public credit markets. But turning Fannie into a wholly private company was not acceptable either. Various special provisions were placed in Fannie's congressional charter that intentionally blurred the line between a public instrumentality and a private corporation. Among these provisions: Fannie was given a line of credit at the Treasury; the president could appoint five members of its board of directors; and its debt could be used, like Treasury debt, to collateralize government deposits in private banks.”


Democrats from the time of Clinton and continuing all the way thru to Obama caused this financial crisis in their trying to “level the playing field” with instituting and promoting these sub-prime mortgages for low-income people to take on. Many of the low-income people that took on mortgages knew they couldn’t afford them. Both Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are government-owned or State-owned enterprises (GOC‘s). GOC’s are companies that are created by our government to undertake commercial activities. The GSE business model faces inherent conflicts due to being indebted to the government mission and trying to compete in the private sector at the same time.

More from AEI.org

"The government mission required them to keep mortgage interest rates low and to increase their support for affordable housing. Their shareholder ownership, however, required them to fight increases in their capital requirements and regulation that would raise their costs and reduce their risk-taking and profitability. But there were two other parties—Congress and the taxpayers—that also had a stake in the choices that Fannie and Freddie made. Congress got some benefits in the form of political support from the GSEs' ability to hold down mortgage rates, but it garnered even more political benefits from GSE support for affordable housing." Peter J. Wallison explains the peculiar structure, flawed structure in more detail as well as outlines other pertinent information on GSE‘s. Since these GSE’s were government backed our government allowed the GSE’s to take excessive risks. These excessive risks were done at the taxpayers expense.


“That result--the privatization of profit and the socialization of risk--has now come to pass. U.S. taxpayers are now called upon to fill in the hole that reckless and improvident investment activity--fueled by inexpensive and easily accessible funds--has created in the GSEs' balance sheets. The special relationship was also the GSEs' undoing, because it allowed them to escape the market discipline--the wariness of lenders--that keeps corporate managements from taking unacceptable risks. Normally, when a privately held company is backed by the government (for example, in the case of commercial banks covered by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation), regulation is the way that the government protects the taxpayers against the loss of market discipline. When Fannie Mae was privatized in 1968, however, no special regulatory structure was created to limit the taxpayers' exposure to loss. The Johnson administration officials who structured the privatization may not have realized that they were creating what we recognize today as a huge moral hazard, but when Fannie became insolvent (the first time) in the high-interest-rate environment of the early 1980s, policymakers recognized that the company represented a potential risk to taxpayers.” After recognizing the potential risk to taxpayers in 1991, Congress created their first time regulator, the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight (OFHEO) but unfortunately the OFHEO had only limited regulatory authority and it was housed under HUD which had no regulatory experience whatsoever.

“… and it was funded by congressional appropriations, allowing the GSEs to control their regulator through the key lawmakers who held OFHEO's purse strings.”

"In congressional testimony on September 23, James Lockhart, the director of their new regulator, the Federal Housing Finance Agency, cited these loans as the source of the GSEs' ultimate collapse, as reported in the Washington Post:

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac purchased and guaranteed 'many more low-documentation, low-verification and non-standard' mortgages in 2006 and 2007 'than they had in the past.' He said the companies increased their exposure to risks in 2006 and 2007 despite the regulator's warnings.

Roughly 33 percent of the companies' business involved buying or guaranteeing these risky mortgages, compared with 14 percent in 2005. Those bad debts on mortgages led to billions of dollars in losses at the firms. 'The capacity to raise capital to absorb further losses without Treasury Department support vanished,' Lockhart said."

In 2003, the Bush administration tried to create a new agency to oversee Fannie and Freddie but unfortunately no reform bills materialized. Many Democrat members of Congress expressed faith in the solvency of Fannie and Freddie. Barney Frank, at the time stated that they were "not facing any kind of financial crisis."


None other than Jimmy Carter instituted the Housing and Community Development Act of 1977 which was designed to meet the needs of borrowers from all economic backgrounds, including those that live in low and moderate-income neighborhoods. Then, in 1994 the Community Reinvestment Act was passed under Bill Clinton. Bill Clinton enacted the Community Reinvestment Act in such a way that it basically put the Housing and Community Development Act on steroids, and this is what caused our country’s financial collapse in 2008. This kind of tinkering with the free market - forcing banks to make risky loans to those that in all actuality couldn’t afford their mortgages - is what caused the financial crisis. This kind of combination of Marxist/Socialist/liberal policies that started with Lyndon Johnson and ended with Clinton is what has turned out to be toxic for our economy. Bush was left with a raw deal and the Democrat’s toxic economic policies just happened to fester, surface and eventually burst while he was in office. One can disagree with how Bush handled this financial fiasco but the fact is that Bush was dealt a very bad hand by the Democrats. Plus, the Democrats blocked him from being able to cut off the problem at the impasse before the problem morphed into the financial disaster . Bush, and Capitalism were NOT the cause of this financial meltdown.  The Democrats, who are beholden to the philosophies of Marxism/Socialism/liberalism and who in their misguided compassion endorsed and encouraged low-income persons to take on these sub-prime mortgages, all the while many of these people couldn't afford these mortgage loans in the first place, was in fact the cause of the financial crisis.  Marxism/Socialism/liberalism is the cause of this financial crisis.  The Dems compassion has resulted in economic mayhem which has continued under Obama with extremely slow job growth (if at all in the private sector) and other policies which hurt small business owners, the unemployed, such as higher taxes, a higher deficit due to the passage of the Stimulus, and Obamacare which is going to cause mega-rationing and higher health costs.

Caeser Obama and His Empire of Progressive Leftist-Fascists

This is a great article by James Lewis of the American Thinker :

We are seeing another Left-fascist axis in our time, recapitulating Stalin's (and worldwide communism's) embrace of Hitler's Germany. The Gaza flotilla crisis was set up by the radical Left (Bill Ayers, Bernardine Dohrn, Jodie Evans and other Obama buds), in collusion with Hamas, which is about as fascist as they get. If you doubt it, watch Hamas TV on the MEMRI website. They are the worst. They teach toddlers about the glories of dying for Allah. Even Fatah thinks Hamas is a throwback to the Dark Ages.

In the Gaza flotilla, the Turks who yelled out "Khaibar! Khaibar!" as they were trying to kill Israeli soldiers, were members of the Turkish branch of Hamas, the Muslim Brotherhood. They yelled out "Khaibar!" because that massacre of Jews was Mohammed's own Auschwitz. That doesn't leave any doubt about who they are. Martyrdom is just a means to an end, and that end is "Khaibar." The media always forget to tell us that part.

Words matter, which is why the Left is always making up new words for themselves, to disguise who they really are. The Left isn't Communist any more, they are "progressive" -- which leaves the rest of us back in 1776. "Progressives" always know which way to find "progress," and it always comes down to stomping on the rest of us. Because if you're not "progressive" you must be an enemy of "progress."

The radical Left hasn't changed one smidgen since Stalin. The Left still believes in global totalitarianism. Stalin is dead, but Stalinism is on the march. Listen to the stomping of their boots.

The Left is a throwback to all the ancient utopian cults, the Mayans, Genghis Khan and the Yellow Emperor of China, Idi Amin Dada and Robert Mugabe. It's the ancient Egyptian priesthood, which was also a cult run by a totalitarian clique. In ancient Egypt you had to die to get to utopia, but the psychology is always the same. Utopian cults always appeal to suckers. They are a very nasty part of the human condition. But there's nothing new there, and they are certainly not "progressive." They are a throwback.

Obama doesn't look like a normal American because he is a High Priest. Harry Truman wouldn't recognize him, but King Tut would. Obama has all the arrogance and ignorance of a Pharaoh.

So here are two ways to simplify the daily media circus. First, the media are the cult of the Left, trying to twist your mind. The "Left" equals global totalitarianism, which is Stalinism, which is Leninism, which is radical feminism, which is the hateful racism of the Reverend Wright and Louis Farrakhan. Same story, different labels. Keep it simple.

Whatever mask they try on, radical leftists are internationalists -- meaning that they are against America as a sovereign nation. That's Obama's real beef against us, and it's why he will never enforce our borders. Sure, leftists are all "patriots" in their own minds, because they worship the prairie flowers and the pretty mountains. And they all despise MacDonald's hamburgers and eat arugula, because at bottom they are the most amazing snobs. America is just one little piece of Planet Gaia, where everybody will live in peace and harmony because Obama or Algore will rule us with an iron fist. It's all for our own good.
CONTINUED

I agree with Newt Gingrich

Gingrich said that he stands by his arguments that the "secular-socialist machine" represents as great a threat to America as Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union, not in the sense of the immorality of those deadly regimes, but as a "threat to our way of life."

I agree with Newt's statement.  We see Obama's czars wielding more power and taking more and more of our liberties and freedoms away everyday (or trying to), there is an anti-religious bias in the media with which they attack traditional religion while accepting those who dissent from various teachings of churches, there has been government expansion at an alarming rate, secularism challenging traditional values, judges trying to erase the religious roots of our country with rulings like proclaiming the National Day of Prayer unconstitutional, and then we have a pay czar who wants to limit our success by limiting the amount of money a productive hard-working person is able to get paid.  Hmmm... What would happen to America if all of the hard-working people who pay taxes and don't receive any money from social programs like welfare and medicaid decided to take a stand, say that we aren't going to take this thievery and our governemnt wasting our money anymore, revolted, and quit their jobs?  Just where would the government go to get the "needed" money?  who in this country would our government turn to to help us?  Some people on the Left think that money just grows on trees and that Obama's just handing out his stash of money but they have no idea how the financial system in this country works- where the government gets its money from-well, its from hard-working taxpayers and not from sleezy democrats planning to spread the weealth with other peoples money.  The threat of this Socialist regime in the White House now is trying to destroy our Republic and our way of life as we know it.   Socialism-- communism-Marxism has harmed lives around the world.  I would like someone to show me how any of these economic systems have helped the individual without taking away certain freedoms and liberties.

Al Sharpton Claims Citizens Voted for Socialism & Drank the Socialism Kool-Aid

So, Al Sharpton speaks at least half the truth for once. This is socialist health care. I would guess that about half of the citizens that voted for Obama did vote for him because of his socialist beliefs. When Obama said to "Joe the Plumber" that he intended to spread the wealth that should have been a clue to people of Obama's socialist beliefs. But, some may have been so enamoured with his smoke and mirrors slogan of "hope" and change" that they drank his Kool-aid and ignored the reality of his socialist and radical beliefs. Obama tried to appear as a centrist on the campain trail. Now, it is self-evident that the people who were not educated in the area of politics got snookered when they thought that they were voting for a centrist and in fact ended up voting for an avowed Leftist who surrounds himself with radicals, Socialists, Communists and Marxists, and has sorrounded himself with these types of people for years. Voters didn't want a Bush-like or a Bush-lite candidate like McCain so they voted for a political candidate that was different. But, I doubt that half of voters actually were voting for socialist medicine. They were voting for "change" and health care reform, but not this type of health care "reform". The aforementioned-Communism, Socialism, Marxist- are all related to one another. It just depends how radical the individual is, as to which of these political ideologies the person chooses to follow. Of course the poor want a free handout. Who really wants to work? Not many people. But, most people take the responsibility and initiative to take care of themselves and their own needs. Of course its different if the person is truly sick and can't take care of themselves. The sick deserve charity. They deserve to be helped. Socialists, like Obama, are just cheating the poor out of having a sense of fulfillment and personal responsibilty by having them indebted to the government. The Democrats are chaining them down like dogs who are laying around just waiting for their next meal or welfare check to come along. Conservatives see them as an indivisual human being with needs and not just a part of the collective. Conservatives love to help lift people up and help them better themselves. They want to help the poor be successful and make as much money as possible. Conservatives value that entrepreneurial spirit, want people to achieve their goals, while socialists limit the individuals' success and ability to achieve their goals in life. Yes, Al Sharpton, Obama's policies are at the least socialist and this health care bill is bad for America, and goes against everything that the Founders fought to achieve for this country-Liberty and Freedom. We will fight back, like revolutionaries, and repeal this Obamascare bill.

Was Obama a Marxist in College? John C. Drew Reveals Obama's Beliefs During College

A H/T goes to BBCW for this video.  Dr. John C. Drew used to be an avowed Communist who knew Obama in college and is shedding some light into Obama's secretive past.  While Obama was in college, Drew had an encounter with Obama where they discussed Marxism. 



H/T goes to Breitbarttv