Christians are Being Persecuted by Marxist Christmas Haters.

I say forget the constitution. If the state can use federal funds to pay for religious memorials, schools, and social programs, I say let the state provide all citizens with access to unbiased medicine. (That's my screed.)

Read below for Missourian Mike Hall's screed on how our society is working to remove Christianity from our lives. But beware, it's a horror story of the war on Christmas, perpetrated by the Marxist state of Oregon, heathens and those disgusting liberals.

The First Amendment to the Constitution reads, in part, that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." The First Amendment explicitly applies to "Congress," but through a series of liberal Supreme Court rulings, it has wrongly been extended to the executive and judicial branches of government as well. It was clearly intended to keep the government from establishing a state-run religion, or favoring one religion over another.

Nowhere in the Constitution do the words "separation of church and state" appear. These words are from a letter that Thomas Jefferson wrote 15 years later to the Danbury Baptists in 1802, regarding their fears that Connecticut's constitution lacked protections concerning their religious practices. Jefferson agreed with them and wrote that states should "make no laws respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state." Justice William Rehnquist stated that the "Establishment Clause" as it's commonly known, was intended to protect local establishments of religion from federal interference."

Because of liberal misinterpretations of the First Amendment there is no prayer in schools, no Ten Commandments on government property (except for historical references) and more and more often, none of those horribly evil "Christmas breaks." This brings me to the perfect example of liberalism's "freedom from religion" campaign, the WWI War Memorial in the Mojave Desert in California. This memorial was built in 1934 on private land and has a plaque that reads "In memory of the dead of all wars." It was eventually purchased by the National Parks Department. It's a simple cross built high on a hilltop overlooking the desert. Then one day Frank Bruno decided it "offended" him on his drives back to the Marxist state of Oregon. Bruno sued in district court to have it torn down. Of course, the ACLU was only too glad to help, and Bruno won the case, and the subsequent appeals. The Republican-controlled Congress then sold one acre of land the memorial sits on, to the VFW, meaning government no longer owned the property.

However, this didn't stop the ACLU. The 9th Circuit court of Appeals disallowed the sale, saying that carving out a tiny parcel of land "will do nothing to minimize the impermissible governmental endorsement" of religion. Ironically, the 9th circuit used the same Constitution to order the memorial's destruction, as the men who died fought for. The case was heard by the United States Supreme Court this fall, with a ruling expected early next year.

This cross doesn't establish a religion, it's a war memorial. What's next? Renaming Corpus Christi, Texas (body of Christ); Las Cruces, N.M. (the crosses); and Sacramento, Calif. (the Sacraments)? The Navy better do away with all those Los Angeles Class nuclear powered submarines. And Arlington Cemetery has to go, too. Welcome to your world if liberals ever run it.

While I'm still allowed to say it, "Merry Christmas" to all!

My Token 'War on Christmas' Post.

From CNN:

Americans are in a war that pits the politically correct against Christmas carolers, some say. They say it's a battle that plays out in the halls of Congress, retail stores and public schools across the country, and it's one that's been raging for years.Republican Rep. Henry Brown of South Carolina introduced a resolution this month asking that the House express support for the use of Christmas symbols and traditions and frown on any attempt to ban references to the holiday.

"Each year, I could see a diminishing value of the spiritual part of Christmas," Brown said. "It would seem like another group would go from the Christmas spirit to the holiday spirit.""What I'm afraid of -- if we don't bring some kind of closure to this continuous change, then in 20 years it will almost be completely different from what we see today ... and so we would lose the whole emphasis of what the very early beginnings of Christmas was all about.

"So far, the resolution has one Democrat and 72 Republicans as co-sponsors. The House hasn't taken it up, but the chamber adopted similar resolutions in the past.Barry Lynn, an ordained minister and executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, isn't keen on the prospect of congressional action.

"Resolutions like this come up because there is this bizarre view by some members of Congress that there is a war on Christmas and that they have to be the generals in some responding army," he said.

"My advice to the lawmakers would be promote anyreligion you have through your private acts, and don't try to 'help' the baby Jesus by passing a resolution on his behalf. It is arrogant and ridiculous at the same time," Lynn said.