Christmas, a Time for Censorship?

As Christmas quickly approaches, businesses, schools, and the ACLU scramble to censor this wonderful holiday. Stores such as Wal-Mart, Lowe's, Sears/Kmart, Costco and Kohl's have handed down corporate policies prohibiting employees from saying “Merry Christmas.” Public schools across the country have banned students from singing Christmas Carols, and dozens more have caved to ACLU threats to sue if the school does not drop the term Christmas altogether.

Who gets offended by hearing “Merry Christmas?” Is anyone so sensitive that their feelings are hurt by those two words, which for years have conveyed a well wishing of Christmas spirit?

Ironically, not only do these policies pander to extremist-liberals, but the majority of Americans actually reject this absurd idea. Consider that 90 percent of Americans recognize Christmas as the birthday of Jesus Christ (Gallup, 2000). In fact, 88 percent of Americans are more likely to wish someone they just met “Merry Christmas” rather than “Happy Holidays” (CNN/USA Today/Gallup, 2004).

On November 10, 2003 the Colorado ACLU, in a letter joined by the Anti-Defamation League, alleged that, "Jewish students no longer feel safe or welcome at the Elbert County Charter School" because the school gave students a “Christmas holiday.” The letter demands that the school ban all references to Christmas in the school’s annual holiday program, including secular songs such as Jingle Bells.

In December 2004, Plano Independent School District School officials went so far as to prohibit students from wearing red and green at their ‘winter break’ parties because they claimed they were Christmas colors. Even the plates and napkins had to be white.

Within the past few years, liberal organizations such as the ACLU have initiated over nine lawsuits against school districts to purge the use of Christmas. They claim a violation of the so-called “separation of church and state.”

While I don’t have time to get into a detailed history of this absurd doctrine, realize that the words “separation,” “church,” and “state” never appear anywhere in the First Amendment! The Supreme Court has acknowledged the government’s longstanding recognition of holidays with religious significance, such as Christmas. Congress has proclaimed Christmas to be a legal public holiday. Guidelines issued by U.S. Secretary of Education Richard Riley (under President Clinton) state “students therefore have the same right to engage in…religious discussion during the school day as they do to engage in other comparable activity.”

Stores and schools are disenfranchising the majority of Americans by bowing to the minority who is supposedly offended by the use of “Merry Christmas.”

Think about what Christmas brings to our society; it is such a wonderful holiday. Family and friends unite together around a charitable spirit. Stories such as Dickens’ A Christmas Carol, or It’s a Wonderful Life, show how even those with little have much to be thankful for. And if there is a God, and Jesus Christ is His son, then wouldn’t it be wonderful to know that Christmas is the celebration of His birth? Just something to think about…

In the meantime, I wish you a very Merry Christmas.

McCarthyism and Communism

The Santa Rosa Junior College sponsors lectures by notable intellectuals. I commented on Peter Laufer's "The cases for opening the Mexican-American Border" lecture. On October 17, the SRJC sponsored another lecture titled, "McCarthyism, higher education, and the new assault on academic freedom." This is the article that I have submitted to our school newspaper for publication as an opinion piece:

In another example of blatantly partisan bias, the SRJC Arts and Lectures Series, the Sonoma County Chapter of the ACLU, and a local union, SRJC/CFT Local 1946, hosted Ellen Schrecker to deliver the lecture, “McCarthyism, higher education, and the new assault on academic freedom.” (The sponsor list alone casts suspicion on the objectivity of the lecture.) In addition to Schrecker, three teachers who were targeted during the “Red Star incident” also presented their opinions October 17 in Newman Auditorium.

I have to give some credit to Schrecker for not completely hiding the historical record. She readily admitted that in the 1940s and 50s, “the communist threat was a reality.” However, she did not fully explore that reality. Before addressing the rest of the lecture, allow me to set the record straight about Senator McCarthy.

The truth about McCarthy will sound insane, because it has been the liberals’ goal to make him sound insane. However, McCarthy’s campaign was far more limited than is portrayed. He only investigated federal governmentemployees, between 1950 and 1953, in the Senate Permanent Sub-committee on Investigations, the express mandate of which was to investigate the federal government.

McCarthy didn’t suddenly appear on the scene with a witch-hunt. In fact, the investigation of Un-American (communist) activities had begun long before McCarthy even came to office. The infamous “Smith Act” was passed in 1940, six years before McCarthy was elected to the Senate. The act, which criminalized “teaching and advocating the violent overthrow of the government,” was written by a Democratic House and Senate; signed into law by FDR, and enforced by Harry Truman.

But was McCarthy searching for communists that didn’t exist? Consider the Venona project, something your liberal professors won’t tell you about. Throughout the history of the USSR, from World War II until President Reagan brought it down in 1991, an intelligence division of the army decrypted thousands of Soviet cables in a secret operation called the Venona project. Declassified in 1995, the cables confirmed every single allegation McCarthy made, including those against liberal darling Alger Hiss. The Soviets specifically named him as a spy in their communications.

However, Schrecker, and probably most of your teachers at the SRJC, continue to demonize McCarthy not realizing that his service to this country was in bringing the atrocities of communism back into the spotlight.

Consider: Joseph Stalin murdered over 43 million people in the name of communism; Mao Tse Tung murdered over 38 million Chinese through forced starvation because he was a Marxist; In Cambodia, 2 million dead at the hands of Pol Pot's Khmer Rouge; Vietnam, 850,000 sacrificed to the greater glory of Ho Chi Minh; Ethiopia, tens of thousands slaughtered during Mengistu Haile Mariam's "Red Terror". Communism is a murderous ideology.

You didn’t hear these facts at the lecture. Martin Bennet and others were too busy demonizing the so-called “anti-communism tactics of the right.”

Post modernism is bad when it allows contradictory views

Ironically, during the lecture, both Terry Mucaire and Joyce Johnson questioned the application of post-modernism. Post-modernism asserts that no view holds the correct answer; we should tolerate all views. However, the thought of tolerating conservative principles apparently frightened both of them.

“If my students can simply dismiss what I say as opinion, what’s the point of education?” Johnson asked.

According to Bennet, “Colleges provide an alternative source of information for students who are disillusioned by the [Bush] Administration.”

So the principles emerge in a two-step model: One, a teacher gives facts, not opinions that can be dismissed. Two, the facts given are to correct those who agree with the Bush Administration in any facet.

And if students continue to disagree with you, a teacher should move to step three: sponsor a lecture where only one side is heard and the opposition is silenced, such as one called, “McCarthyism, higher education, and the new assault on academic freedom.”

Norma McCorvey

I listened to "Jane Roe" speak tonight; real name: Norma McCorvey, the plaintiff in Roe v. Wade (1973). She addressed the audience of 400 who attended a banquet sponsored by the Pregnancy Counseling Center of Santa Rosa, California.

I have spoken on abortion for several years, but I was overwhelmed to meet the woman who, in a sense, started it all. Two emotional premises confronted me: This is the woman. The woman responsible for starting Roe v. Wade. But the other thought was, this woman now speaks the truth. Not only is a Norma McCorvey a pro-life advocate, she is also a Christian.

Her transformation was amazing. She went from saying: "I had a reputation to protect, after all. As the plaintiff in the infamous Supreme Court case Roe v. Wade, my life was inextricably tied up with abortion. Though I had never had one, abortion was the sun around which my life orbited. I once told a reporter, "This issue is the only thing I live for. I live, eat, breathe, think everything about abortion."

To now saying: "I'm one hundred percent sold out to Jesus and one hundred percent pro-life," I like to say. "No exceptions. No compromise."

Her ministry, Crossing Over Ministry, published the following:

"Her story cannot be written off - because once the whole story is known, the truth shines forth. Norma McCorvey's story is truly a miracle. Her story is not as simple as from, to; her story is one that is full of hardship, darkness, and hate - but ultimately her story is one of triumph.

"Poor, pregnant, and desperate, Norma McCorvey fell into the hands of two young and ambitious lawyers. They were looking for a plaintiff with whom they could challenge the Texas state law prohibiting abortion, and Norma signed on. Little did she know that her signature would one day make her an international figure.

"Eventually, Norma's worst nightmare came true. The controversial pro-life group, Operation Rescue, moved in next door to Norma's abortion clinic. A little girl's affection, a mother's trust, and a gregarious man's friendship surprised Norma, and eventually led her to consider the love, forgiveness, and hope offered by Jesus Christ.

"Norma's ensuing conversion shocked the world. The picture of her baptism made headlines in international newspapers. "The poster child for abortion just jumped off the poster," one pro-lifer said, "and into the arms of Jesus Christ."

Well Done Mr. President...

The President has picked an excellent nominee for Sandra Day O'Conner's position: Samuel A. Alito. Alito has a prestigous track record, and is dedicated to original interpretation of the constitution. The Democrats have deemed him "radical" and "extreme right." Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-VT said Bush is bowing to "extreme factions" of the Republican party. Sen. Harry Reid, D-NV insulted the competence of any political official, saying, "word is that they could not find a woman conservative enough to meet the demands of this radical right wing that this White House is so in tune with."

Ironically, Democrats never had a problem with a Democrat president bowing to the extreme factions of their party. In fact, Democrat presidents have been "party line" with each nomination. Republicans could learn a thing or two from the justices Democrat presidents have put in office.

Democrat presidential nominations:

Stephen Breyer, an extreme liberal. (Clinton)
Ruth BaterGinsburg, she cites international law,which should be considered an impeachable offense. (Clinton)

Republican presidential nominations:

Clarence Thomas, a strong conservative. (H.W. Bush)
David Souter, an extreme liberal. (H.W. Bush)
Anthony Kennedy, a swing vote, but mostly liberal. (Reagan)
Sandra Day O'Conner, again a swing vote, definitely not conservative. (Reagan)
Antonin Scalia, a strong conservative. (Reagan)
John Paul Stevens, a mainstream liberal. (Ford)

Not suprisingly the New York Times focused on abortion again. The headline, "Abortion Case May Be Central in Confirmation." Why is abortion a central theme to a confirmation? The Constitution calls for the Senate to confirm a judicial nominee based on his or her abilities and views. But liberals are making Roe v. Wade a litmus test. This atrocious doctrine has become their sacred cow.