Saturday, October 30, 2010

What Can We Expect From Chris Coons

What Can We Expect From “Senator” Chris Coons
Oct 25th, 2010 by Frank Knotts

I have to wonder how many people have taken the time to stop and consider just what we could expect if Chris Coons were to be elected as the next senator from Delaware.

First let’s look at were Mr. Coons has been, so as to see where he might be headed.

As a member of and also as the County Executive of New Castle County Council, Chris Coons has been a tax and spend, big government party wonk.

He promised voters that he wouldn’t raise taxes and then did, by 48%. He supported tax increases on utilities, hotel stays, ambulance services and even 911 calls.

He increased wasteful spending by over 30%. And pissed away a $200 million surplus, putting New Castle County at risk of losing its AAA Bond rating and possibly bankruptcy.

So ! Now we know a little about the type of politician that Chris Coons is. Knowing this, we can make a fair guess at what type of U.S. Senator that he would be.

I believe that we can expect Chris Coons to toe the line for the Obama administration on some very radical agenda items. This is even more worrisome because this is a special election. That means that the winner will be seated immediately after the election. We know that Sen. Harry Reid and Speaker Pelosi are planning a lame duck session after the election.

I am sure that Sen. Reid, who described Chris Coons as his pet, would love to have Chris Coons in that lame duck session, instead of the Republican Christine O’Donnell.

What are some of the important issues that we can expect the Reid,Pelosi, Obama axis of leftism to try to push through congress ?

You can bet that cap-and-trade will be moved on. This would result in the highest tax increase on every citizen in the history of the nation. Chris Coons supports cap-and-trade.

The Bush tax cuts are set to expire unless congress does something to stop it. If these tax cuts expire they too will result in increased taxes. Again placing a burden on citizens during these tough economic times. Chris Coons is in favor of allowing the Bush Tax cuts to expire. And in so doing, he supports raising your taxes. Oh, he’ll tell you that he ahs changed his mind. And you can bet he’ll change it again if elected.

Amnesty for illegals is also likely to come up in the lame duck session. Chris Coons has spoken of his support for a “path to citizenship”, this is code speak for amnesty.

Chris Coons would support “card check”. This would eliminate the secret ballot when unionizing shops. This is a sop to the organized labor unions like the SEIU and LUNA who have dumped thousands of dollars into the Coons campaign fund.

Chris Coons would oppose the de-funding and repeal of Obama care. Doctors from around the state of Delaware have come out in support of Christine O’Donnell. Why? Because she has stated clearly that she would vote to de-fund and repeal Obama care. If Obama care is allowed to be implemented, it will not only raise the cost of health care, but it will lower the quality of our health care. Chris Coons has said on more than one occasion that he supports Obama care.

Let us not forget that one of the most important roles a senator plays within the Senate is the confirmation of Supreme Court Justices. So what type of Justice would appeal to “SENATOR” Chris Coons?

Well Chris Coons believes that separation of church and state exist within the First Amendment. He believes that a mere conversation about creationism, constitutes a state-run religion. Chris Coons also believes that the Constitution is just a suggestion about how to govern the nation. Chris Coons sees the Constitution as nothing more than a political tool to be molded and twisted to suit the political needs of those who would use it to hold their political power. One can only assume that Chris Coons sees the Constitution as a document of negative rights, the same as does Pres. Obama.

So we can assume that if this is who Chris Coons is, when it comes to constitutional issues, then this is the type of Justices he would seek to confirm.

At a time when states are challenging the federal government on issues of sovereignty over illegal immigration and Obama care, can we risk allowing a man such as Chris Coons to be any part of confirming Supreme Court Justices?

So now I come back to the original question. What can we expect from a “SENATOR” Chris Coons? We can expect just another tax and spend, big government Democrat. We can expect a senator that will cower before the Executive branch of the federal government. We can expect a senator that will be a pet to Harry Reid. We can expect a senator that has no respect for the Founding principles of this nation. And a senator that would gladly shred the Founding documents if it meant holding onto power.

Our nation is a t a cross-road. We must decide whether we will steer a path of freedom and individual Liberty. Or will we allow the Chris Coons of the world to destroy what has stood for so long? Will we vote for a future where our children and their children can grow up knowing that they will have the same opportunities that we had? Or will we allow the Chris Coons of the world to rob them of that which they were endowed by their Creator,life Liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

This is what is at stake on November 2nd and no less. We the Delaware voters must make these choices. Will we vote for Chris Coons and all he stands for. Or will we elect Christine O’Donnell who believes in and who will fight to protect our God-given rights. A person who holds dear our Founding principles. For me the choice is an easy one. I will vote for Liberty, I will vote for Christine O’Donnell.

The “mainstream” media has had a loathing for Christine O’Donnell not seen since the Sarah Palin Demonization Campaign, so it is natural for them to attack her for pretty much any rational thing she says. When you add to the mix the fact that in making this statement O’Donnell had blasphemed against the MSM religion of secularism, these “journalists” had a reaction that reminded me of the Sanhedrin’s reaction to Stephen.

The fact remains that the evidence is conclusive that our founders did NOT want a government devoid of the moral foundation of Christianity.

Old U.S. House chamber, inside which church services were held for many decades
Almost all of the founders were sincere, Bible-believing Christians. One of the least religious among them, Benjamin Franklin, is to thank for the tradition of opening congress in prayer.

Also, if America was the secularist nation liberals dream of, their patron saint Thomas Jefferson never would have attended church services in the U.S. house chambers and commissioned the Marine Corps band to play worship music for services.

Consider also just a handful of the statements of our founders on this subject:

The great pillars of all government and of social life [are] virtue, morality, and religion. This is the armor, my friend, and this alone that renders us invincible. – Patrick Henry

Statesmen, my dear Sir, may plan and speculate for liberty, but it is Religion and Morality alone, which can establish the Principles upon which Freedom can securely stand. – John Adams

Religion is the only solid base of morals and that morals are the only possible support of free governments. Therefore education should teach the precepts of religion and the duties of man toward God. – Gouverneur Morris, signer of the Constitution

Human law must rest its authority ultimately upon the authority of that law which is divine …. Far from being rivals or enemies, religion and law are twin sisters, friends, and mutual assistants. Indeed, these two sciences run into each other. – James Wilson, signer of the Declaration, member of the Continental Congress, constructor of the Constitution, one of the original Supreme Court justices appointed by President George Washington.

It is Religion and Morality alone, which can establish the Principles upon which Freedom can securely stand….The only foundation of a free Constitution, is pure Virtue, and if this cannot be inspired into our People, in a great Measure, than they have it now, They may change their Rulers, and the forms of Government, but they will not obtain a lasting Liberty. – John Adams

Whereas true religion and good morals are the only solid foundations of public liberty and happiness: Resolved, That it be, and it is hereby earnestly recommended to the several states, to take the most effectual measures for the encouragement thereof, and for the suppressing theatrical entertainments, horse racing, gaming, and such other diversions as are productive of idleness, dissipation, and a general depravity of principles and manners. – Journals of the American Congress: From 1774 to 1788

[T]he genuine source of correct republican principles is the Bible, particularly the New Testament or the Christian religion. . . . and to this we owe our free constitutions of government. – Noah Webster

I have always considered Christianity as the strong ground of republicanism. The spirit is opposed, not only to the splendor, but even to the very forms of monarchy, and many of its precepts have for their objects republican liberty and equality as well as simplicity, integrity, and economy in government. It is only necessary for republicanism to ally itself to the Christian religion to overturn all the corrupted political and religious institutions of the world. – Benjamin Rush, signer of the Declaration of Independence

It would be unbecoming the representatives of this nation to assemble for the first time in this solemn temple without looking up to the Supreme Ruler of the universe, and imploring his blessing…Here, and throughout our country, may simple manners, pure morals, and true religion flourish forever! – President John Adams, dedicating the U.S. Capitol Building, Nov. 22, 1800

Thomas Jefferson quote, on the wall of the Jefferson Memorial, Washington D.C.
If [the] empire of superstition and hypocrisy should be overthrown, happy indeed will it be for the world; but if all religion and all morality should be over-thrown with it, what advantage will be gained? The doctrine of human equality is founded entirely in the Christian doctrine that we all are children of the same Father, all accountable to Him for our conduct to one another, all equally bound to respect each other’s self love. – John Adams

Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is the duty, as well as the privilege and interest of our Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers. – John Jay, First Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court

We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion…Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other. – John Adams

Capstone of the Washington Monument facing east says Laus Deo (Praise be to God in Latin)
No government can flourish without religion. – Thomas Jefferson

Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, Religion and Morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of Patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of Men and Citizens. – George Washington, Farewell Address

Religion should therefore be considered as the first of their [Americans] political institutions. From the start, politics and religion have agreed and have not since ceased to do so. – Alexis de Tocqueville / Democracy in America

In the United States religion exercises but little influence upon the laws and upon the details of public opinion, but it directs the manners of the community, and by regulating domestic life it regulates the State. – Alexis de Tocqueville / Democracy in America

The Americans combine the notions of Christianity and of liberty so intimately in their minds, that it is impossible to make them conceive the one without the other. – Alexis de Tocqueville / Democracy in America

Upon my arrival in the United States, the religious aspect of the country was the first thing that struck my attention; and the longer I stayed there the more did I perceive the great political consequences resulting from this state of things, to which I was unaccustomed. In France I had almost always seen the spirit of religion and the spirit of freedom pursuing courses diametrically opposed to each other; but in America I found that they were intimately united, and that they reigned in common over the same country. – Alexis de Tocqueville / Democracy in America

Protestant pilgrims are shown on the deck of the ship Speedwell before their departure for the New World from Delft Haven, Holland, on July 22, 1620. William Brewster, holding the Bible, and pastor John Robinson lead Governor Carver, William Bradford, Miles Standish, and their families in prayer. The prominence of women and children suggests the importance of the family in the community. At the left side of the painting is a rainbow, which symbolizes hope and divine protection. This painting, along with three others that illustrate America's Christian heritage, hang in the U.S. Capitol rotunda.

This is only a tiny sampling of the multitude of statements from our Founders which make clear their Christian beliefs and their intent for our nation to remain a religious people.

Consider also the statement of the U.S. Supreme Court in 1892 when asked to examine the question of whether the United States was a Christian nation. This is what the court found:

“It is also said, and truly, that the Christian religion is a part of the common law of Pennsylvania.”

If we pass beyond these matters to a view of American life, as expressed by its laws, its business, its customs, and its society, we find every where a clear recognition of the same truth. Among other matters, note the following: the form of oath universally prevailing, concluding with an appeal to the Almighty; the custom of opening sessions of all deliberative bodies and most conventions with prayer; the prefatory words of all wills, “In the name of God, amen;” the laws respecting the observance of the Sabbath, with the general cessation of all secular business, and the closing of courts, legislatures, and other similar public assemblies on that day; the churches and church organizations which abound in every city, town, and hamlet; the multitude of charitable organizations existing every where under Christian auspices; the gigantic missionary associations, with general support, and aiming to establish Christian missions in every quarter of the globe. These, and many other matters which might be noticed, add a volume of unofficial declarations to the mass of organic utterances that this is a Christian nation.

Clearly while America was never intended to be a theocracy, having an official state church or religion, our nation was founded by Christians on Christian principles with the hope that the American people would ever remain true to their Christian heritage.

Incidentally, while the “mainstream” media has been busy with this fresh round of smearing against O’Donnell, nearly lost in the discussion is O’Donnell’s opponent Chris Coons’ actual and demonstrated ignorance of the First Amendment.

From Michelle Malkin, quoting the Politico:

O’Donnell was later able to score some points of her own off the remark, revisiting the issue to ask Coons if he could identify the “five freedoms guaranteed in the First Amendment.”

Coons named the separation of church and state, but could not identify the others — the freedoms of speech, press, to assemble and petition — and asked that O’Donnell allow the moderators ask the questions.

“I guess he can’t,” O’Donnell said.

Actually, I should (again) point out that the freedom of “separation of church and state” is not found in the First Amendment; the free exercise of religion, however, is.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Coons doesn’t even have liberal obfuscation to fall back on here. The U.S. Constitution clearly does not mention “separation of church and state” (look all day; you will not find that statement in the Constitution); absolutely no one contests either the actual words or the meaning of the freedoms of speech, press, assembly or petition.

It is amazingly clear which of these two candidates is least qualified to represent the people of Delaware (and ultimately the people of the United States). Hint: it isn’t Christine O’Donnell who’s least qualified.

So while the liberals are yuking it up in their little laugh-riot, I don’t think they’re bright enough to realize that the laugh is on them. Some of them might actually believe their own secularist propaganda, but most of the American people aren’t nearly as stupid as liberal elitists think they are.

Christine O’Donnell comes out…the smart chick of the day!

Separation of Church and State
Thomas Jefferson and the First Amendment
Who was Thomas Jefferson - what did he believe?

Many Americans think that the First Amendment says "Separation of Church and State." The Courts and the media will often refer to a ruling as being in violation of the "Separation of Church and State." A recent national poll showed that 69% of Americans believe that the First Amendment says "Separation of Church and State." You may be surprised to learn that these words do not appear in the First Amendment or anywhere else in the Constitution!1 Here is what the First Amendment actually does say.

The First Amendment :
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

So where did the words "Separation of Church and State." come from? They can be traced back to a letter that Thomas Jefferson wrote back in 1802. In October 1801, the Danbury Baptist Association of Connecticut wrote to President Jefferson, and in their letter they voiced some concerns about Religious Freedom. On January 1, 1802 Jefferson wrote a letter to them in which he added the phrase "Separation of Church and State." When you read the full letter, you will understand that Jefferson was simply underscoring the First Amendment as a guardian of the peoples religious freedom from government interference. Here is an excerpt from Jefferson's letter. . .

"I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between church and State." Read the full text of Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptist Association ..

Jefferson simply quotes the First Amendment then uses a metaphor, the "wall", to separate the government from interfering with religious practice. Notice that the First Amendment puts Restrictions only on the Government, not the People! The Warren Court re-interpreted the First Amendment thus putting the restrictions on the People! Today the government can stop you from Praying in school, reading the Bible in school, showing the Ten Commandments in school, or have religious displays at Christmas. This is quite different from the wall Jefferson envisioned, protecting the people from government interference with Religious practice.

When Thomas Jefferson wrote his letter to the Danbury Baptist Association he never intended the words "Separation of Church and State" to be taken out of context and used as a substitute for the First Amendment, but for all practical purposes is what the courts have done.

If actions speak stronger then words, it is interesting to note that 3 days after Jefferson wrote those words, he attended church in the largest congregation in North America at the time. This church held its weekly worship services on government property, in the House Chambers of the U.S. Capital Building. The wall of separation applies everywhere in the country even on government property , without government interference. This is how it is written in the Constitution, this is how Thomas Jefferson understood it from his letter and actions, and this is how the men who wrote the Constitution practiced it.

"The metaphor of a wall of separation is bad history and worse law. It has made a positive chaos out of court rulings. It should be explicitly abandoned."Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, William Rehnquist

Also notice that there are two parts to the First Amendment that refer to religion: the establishment clause2 and the free exercise clause3. Today much is said about the establishment clause but there is very little mention of the free exercise clause.

While the words "Separation of Church and State" do not appear in the U.S.A. Constitution, they do appear in the constitution of the former U.S.S.R. Communist State.

O'Donnell interrupted: O'DONNELL: "So you're telling me . . . that the phrase 'separation of church and state' is found in the First Amendment?"

Coons didn't take the bait and went on, citing the Supreme Court's interpretation of the First Amendment as confirmation of the First Amendment's intention. The debate soon after returned to the subject:

O'DONNELL: "Let me just clarify, you're telling me that the separation of church and state is found in the First Amendment?"

COONS: "'Government shall make no establishment of religion'"

O'DONNELL: "That's in the First Amendment"

Amendment I: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

This point --that the First Amendment does not call for the separation of church and state --is a favorite among some conservative religious activists who say that proponents of secularism have gone too far in removing religion from the public square.

No comments: