22 Congresspeople hate Christmas

This year's "War for Christmas" – keeping "Christ" in the holiday has apparently been won. And, like many "wars," there has even been a Congressional resolution in support of keeping Christmas alive and well.

On December 15 the House of Representatives passed a resolution "protecting the symbols and traditions of Christmas" by an overwhelming 401-22 vote.

Representative JoAnn Davis (R-VA), the resolution's sponsor, said the resolution was necessary to counter "political correctness run amok."

"No one," she said, "should feel like they have done something wrong by wishing someone a Merry Christmas."

Representative Robert Scott (D-VA) said Republicans were more concerned with the symbolism rather than the substance of Christmas – referring to Republican passage of a bill to slow the rate of growth in federal entitlement programs.

Davis lodged a preemptive response to critics who might question the constitutionality of her resolution.

"Celebrating Christmas is not a violation of separation of church and state," she said. "The Framers intended that the First Amendment to the Constitution would prohibit the establishment of religion, not prohibit any mention of religion or reference to God in civic dialogue."

Whereas the Framers intended that the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States would prohibit the establishment of religion, not prohibit any mention of religion or reference to God in civic dialog: Now, therefore be it resolved, that the House of Representatives –

(1) Recognizes the importance of the symbols and traditions of Christmas; (2) Strongly disapproves of attempts to ban references to Christmas; and (3) Expresses support for the use of these symbols and traditions, for those who celebrate Christmas.

As the Christmas season draws to a close, we thought we would share the names of the 22 Congressman who voted against the pro-Christmas resolution:

Editor's note: Shop NewsMax.com's store for the best deals on books, tapes, videos and more! Click Here Now! Own a piece of authentic Ronald Reagan history – Click Here now! Drink Coffee the Red America Way – Get the Bush Map Mug – FREE Offer! Click Here Now

Editor's note: Shop NewsMax.com’s store for the best deals on books, tapes, videos and more! Click Here Now! Get the USS Ronald Reagan Cap FREE – Click Here Now Your Success Depends on How You Speak – Find out the power of "Success Talk" – Click Here Now

I think Jefferson put it best:

"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man & his god, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only and not opinions, 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, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;" thus building a wall of eternal separation between Church & State. Congress thus inhibited from acts respecting religion, and the Executive authorised only to execute their acts, I have refrained from prescribing even those occasional performances of devotion, practiced indeed by the Executive of another nation as the legal head of its church, but subject here, as religious exercises only to the voluntary regulations and discipline of each respective sect,..." (http://www.loc.gov/loc/lcib/9806/danpost.html)
________________

Back in the mid-1600s, the king of England was insisting that the Church of England be the only church. This was one (among many) of the issues that lead to the king's execution. When Cromwell came into power, many of the nobles and aristocrats fled to America (some Americans have more royal blood than Europeans) and, remembering what it was like in England, these 'refugees' wrote a constitution that would guarantee the rights and liberties of the citizens.

Don't forget too the other looney libbies who BACK these losers with their own Anti-American-Anti-Troop agendas!!

From National Review :

December 22, 2005, 8:40 a.m.
Annihilating Boy Toys
Peace On Earth = No Fun for Sons.

By Carrie Lukas

For kids, Christmas means toys. For boys in particular, the hottest toys often have a martial theme — BB guns, army men, light sabers and the like.

But this Christmas season, some parents trudging to the malls for G.I. Joes have had to meet the politically correct platoons now infiltrating the local Toys R' Us.

Code Pink, a leftist women's outfit that's a fixture at antiwar rallies, is taking a break from protesting real conflict in Iraq to campaign against so-called "war toys." As the Pink website warns: "Every holiday season manufactures prey on our children with pro-war propaganda disguised as innocent toys. Don't let your child be a victim of G.I. Joe!"

I feel compelled to note that the gracefully aging ladies of Code Pink obviously never have watched an actual G.I. Joe cartoon since the Real American Hero's enemies are famous for rolling, flying, or parachuting their way out of danger. The Teletubbies have a better kill rate than Joe and his comrades.

Nevertheless, Code Pink is calling for parents to boycott purveyors of pretend weaponry. Fair enough, I suppose. If American parents really think that a cowboy hat and plastic six shooter will turn their little darling into a senseless killer, then by all means: Send a message by buying "The Rainforest Playset" or "Sensitivity: The Boardgame" instead. Voting with your dollars — it's the free market at work. Code Pinkers horrified by a foam ninja throwing stars or a water gun can avoid these things and argue that others should too.

Yet Code Pink goes way beyond the venerable boycott. While the group urges activists to don pink camouflage and distribute sidewalk propaganda on the evils of war toys, it also instructs would-be peace warriors to pursue their campaign inside stores.

One suggested tactic is the "buy and return." The idea is for activists themselves to purchase war toys and then head straight to customer service. There they return the offending products while engaging in a verbal strike — imploring managers to take "violent" toys off the shelves and pestering fellow customers about war toys' dangers. (Certainly, there's no better way to win converts than to gum up the return and exchange lines during the holiday rush.) Code Pink suggests pre-arranging local media to cover the impending ruckus.

At least Code Pink's "buy and return" silliness is probably legal. Operation "Stick It To 'Em," however, encourages activists to deface private property by placing surgeon general-style warning labels on offending toys. The Code Pink website includes helpful samples that, they explain, are easily printed on sticky mailing labels. One sums up the heart of the campaign: "Violent Toys=Violent Boys."

That equation just doesn't add up. Clearly, not all toys are virtuous or appropriate for children. Video games like Grand Theft Audio, in which players can decapitate police officers (or alternatively, set them on fire or brutalize them with a chainsaw), are unhealthy for children — and probably for everyone else. Some toys have few redeeming values.

Yet there's a big difference between GTA: Vice City and G.I. Joe, plastic army men, or Super Soakers. As Code Pink says, wars — real wars — aren't games. But the reverse also is true: Games aren't wars. Neither research nor common sense supports quashing the natural tendency of little boys to play soldier, cowboy, or cop. And like it or not, violence is a reality in the world and soldiers and policemen aren't villains to most Americans. These professions embody the discipline, responsibility, and self-sacrifice that most parents want to nurture in their children. What better way for kids to express admiration and explore these virtues than through games and make believe?

Sometimes games turn ugly. Rough-and-tumble play can lead to bruised egos as well as bruised knees and elbows. Parents should set limits and exercise supervision to ensure that games and play don't go too far. Such parental involvement — teaching limits and under what circumstances aggressive behavior is appropriate — will do far more to shape boys into honorable young men than costumed whining at toy stores.

— Carrie Lukas is the director of policy at the Independent Women's Forum.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.