Our Girlfriends Christmas Party is coming up on Saturday, December 18th at 6:00 p.m. at the Condreay home. Bring some goodies or an appetizer to share plus a wrapped ornament ($10 value) for our gift exchange.  Plan on an evening filled with fun and laughter as we celebrate Christmas . . . Girlfriend style!


It is if you follow the City of Philadelphia's logic.

For three years in a row, the German Christmas Village has successfully set up booths and tree vendors at City Hall. Each year a festive archway with the words, "Christmas Village," is mounted, announcing its name to the public. Until this year, that is. Due to complaints, the German Christmas Village will now bare the words, "Holiday Village." The city's managing director, Richard Negrin, requested the change. In defense of the name change, Philadelphia's city spokesman Mark McDonald said, "As a city of great diversity, one shouldn't be surprised that there's a difference of views when it comes to symbols and words." To that I say, "As a city of great diversity, one shouldn't be surprised to see religious holidays mentioned on public property." As a free society we have to see different views and opinions all the time. Some we'll share, some we won't. The sensitivity over simply seeing reference to a holiday you might not celebrate is a little more than outrageous.

About a week ago I posted an article on separation of church and state, pointing out the fact that the First Amendment prohibits the establishment of religion while protecting the expression of religion. In other words, freedom OF religion and not freedom FROM religion. This Philadelphia story is a perfect example of confusing the two. Where does the Constitution state that religious imagery - or in this case, the name of a specific holiday (even more ridiculous) - shouldn't or can't be on public property?

I'd like to know when the word "Christmas" became such a vulgarity, and how in the world is it an offensive word? I suppose it doesn't matter in this case because ultimately Thomas Bauer, manager of the Christmas Village, says he was happy to change the name. "People have to go to public buildings," Baur states, "They shouldn't feel offended." It's convenient for the city that he feels this way but I think its pretty idiotic to be "offended" by a holiday most people celebrate, including many who aren't Christian. I hope those on my "Christmas Card" list will let me know in advance of any offense they may take to my use of the word Christmas. I can save myself the stamp because in this rough economy, every penny counts.
With a fridge still full of Thanksgiving leftovers, our Senators are planning to get back to work and continue their efforts in their war on food and small farmers. The Senate will be making a critical vote on S. 510, the so-called “Food Safety Modernization Act,” on November 29th. This is an awful, liberty grabbing bill that gives the FDA significantly greater authority over family farms and what you put into your body.

There’s been a lot of talk about how new provisions in the bill protect those small, family farmers but the reality is the FDA will impose costly regulations which, if not adhered to, give it power to shut down these farms. Also troubling is how Big Agra farms benefit form this bill; small farms will be saddled with additional costs that could threaten their survival while Big Agra will be able to absorb the increased financial burden.

I’m certainly no enemy of big, corporate farms. I love capitalism and all the big business it brings. Even more than this, I love competition of the free market and the choices it affords us. One of those choices is whether to consume genetically modified organisms (GMO). I choose to eat natural fish, meats, poultry and vegetables because I’m worried about the potential health risks posed by GMO food. I don’t want to eat salmon that was created in a lab. I also prefer raw milk over pasteurized because it is easier for me to digest and has more nutritional value. Additionally, dairy farms offering raw milk have much higher quality and care standards for their cows because they can’t pump them full of steroids and antibiotics like large scale, corporate dairy farms. The fact is S. 510 threatens my ability to make these choices.

The bill would raise costs for small farms that offer organic and all natural produce as well as raw dairy products. This will lead to an increase in food costs for those who eat those foods, something that could have a devastating effect on these small farms during this rough economy if we can’t afford that increase. Big Agra farms have no reason to truly “compete” if their competition is forced out of business due to the government’s intervention. It’s no wonder Big Agra farms and unions have backed this bill!

S. 510 is bad policy. It is not the sort of policy our government should be creating in a free market, capitalist system. In an attempt to offer “food safety,” the FDA threatens to strip away our ability to make our own decisions. Government exists to protect our freedom, not prohibit it; we should never support policy that aims at restricting our rights regardless of any good intentions the policy is created with.

Please go here to get information on contacting your Senators via phone, fax, or email. Leave a message for them when they get back to work on Monday. I know your weekend is hectic with family in town and holiday shopping but think of those leftovers in your own fridge. How will next year’s holiday be affected by choices made this week?

I love Thanksgiving. Of all the holidays in America, this is by far my favorite. Thanksgiving is a purely American holiday, exclusive of no citizen. Though initially a religious multi-day feast giving thanks to God for a bountiful harvest, it is at its heart of hearts a celebration of success. The original Thanksgiving celebrated the successful pilgrimage across the ocean, successful creation of a settlement, and of course, a successful harvest.

Thanksgiving is perhaps the only holiday enjoyed by Christians, Jews, Muslims, Atheists, and any one else sharing the common thread of American citizenship and the freedoms it affords us. What Thanksgiving symbolizes to each of us may vary but at its core is a uniquely American celebration, honoring the country's productive nature and the many accomplishments we've made.

We would not be such a productive and strong nation if not for the foresight of our Founders and a history full of strong leaders who've governed with We The People in mind. Our system of self-governing is often slow and frequently bumpy but it was designed to be that way in order to prevent us from changing with every political whim. As the first nation with a written Constitution, the United States is founded on certain principles and those principles have been the foundation of a productive and powerful people.

In these days of...questionable leadership...I'm thankful for those individuals and elected officials who have been vocally opposing harmful policy. Policies like The Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) and The Food Safety Modernization Act (The Monsanto Bill) have been met with strong opposition by people who understand and fight for the principles America was founded upon. I'm thankful for peoples' politicians like Rep. Ron Paul who has sponsored the American Traveler Dignity Act, fighting against unreasonable TSA procedure. And, slow as it is, I'm thankful I live in a nation that has provided checks and balances to prevent government from making rash decisions and allowing us time to fix what mistakes are made.

So when you're enjoying your Thanksgiving feast - whether its turkey, ham, turducken or tofurkey - remember that it is more than a day of remembrance or gratitude. It should also serve as a call to action; the rights provided by self-government also require a responsibility from each one of us. We've become this prosperous thanks to the American principles of productivity and liberty. Don't let any of our leaders pretend otherwise.

Happy Thanksgiving!

Am I the only person who cringes when I hear those words? More and more frequently our civil liberties are being taken away and that is the line of reasoning offered.

First we had the Paycheck (un)Fairness Act, forcing employers to pay equal wages regardless of the individual situation. We've got the Food Safety Modernization Act, placing ever increasing regulations on small, local farmers and ensuring the Big Agra reaps the benefits. Let's not forget about the current TSA situation which requires citizens to give up their 4th Amendment rights (not to mention their dignity) just in order to travel. Oh, and in San Francisco, as of December 1st Happy Meals must be met with nutritional requirements before a toy can be included with the meal.

Luckily, the Paycheck (un)Fairness Act failed in the Senate. We might not be so lucky with Food Safety Modernization Act as that is scheduled to go to vote on November 29th. If you support local farmers and their right to manage their own seeds, sell raw milk, make artisan cheeses and so forth and so on, please contact your Senator's office and urge them to vote "NO" on S. 510, the Food Safety Modernization Act (aka The Monsanto Bill).

Speaking of contacting your elected officials...we have to reclaim our dignity and respect while traveling. This is not Nazi Germany or an Israeli checkpoint, this is America. Allowing a government agency to virtually undress us or molest us in order to travel is absurd. And just think about how fast we've lost rights...TSA didn't even exist prior to 2001! Contact your Congressman and urge him or her to support Rep. Ron Paul's American Traveler Dignity Act 2010 (HR 6416).

These are not partisan issues, though I'm sure they will be turned into such. These are issues that are impediments to the freedom this nation was formed upon. Please get on the phone or send an email to your elected officials. Tell them we won't stand for anymore liberties being stripped away, especially in the name of safety. As Benjamin Franklin said, "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." Those words ring loudly today.

Much debate surrounds the topic of religion’s role in American government, specifically Christianity’s role. Everyone from scholars to clergymen to elected officials and candidates seem to disagree on where, exactly, the First Amendment’s limitations on religion end. Most recently notable on this front was Christine O’Donnell, a candidate for U.S. Senate in Delaware. O’Donnell was criticized, and may have even lost her bid for Senator, over her perplexing comments regarding what the First Amendment’s establishment clause says (or doesn’t say) about separation of church and state. So what does the First Amendment say about religion and politics?

The First Amendment says, “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.” The portion that directly applies to religion’s role is that first clause, dubbed the “establishment clause.” But what is meant by the words, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” and how can we know what the framers intended with that phrase?

The Founders were Christian men, mostly of the Protestant Church. There may have been a few who weren’t but that’s not only difficult to prove, it’s irrelevant. The Founding Fathers prayed before meetings, they often spoke of Christ and God in their speeches and God is mentioned throughout the Declaration of Independence. It was written into Federal law that Congress is to begin with a prayer and this is practiced even still today. To try suggesting the nation was not founded by men of the Christian faith is absurd and just as absurd is the desire many liberals have to prohibit expression of religion in the public sphere. The Christian faith played, and still plays, a major role in American life. It would never have been the intent of these men to forbid public or governmental expressions or faith and religion. So how literal do we take the words, “Congress shall make no law establishing religion?

Many look to the personal letters written by some of the Founders, others look to speeches such as George Washington’s Farewell Address to determine the intentions of the establishment clause. However, the Constitution was written to establish all men’s rights as citizens of the United States. Any personal letters or speeches delivered convey only the feelings of the author or speaker, not their position on laws and what other men must be forced to do. Because a Founder may have believed Christianity offers the best morals and values by which one should live does not mean he also thought Christian principles should be manifested into law. In fact, on June 7, 1797, John Adams introduced the Treaty of Tripoli to the Senate. The people of Tripoli were Musselmans and to assure that no religiously based complications would arise, Article 11 of the treaty contained a clear statement on the religious position of our nation: “As the government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion…no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.” This treaty was unanimously approved b the Senate and signed into law by John Adams. This is a crystal clear illustration of the political mindset of our Founders and though they were inarguably Christian men, they had no intention to be “a Christian nation.”

The First Amendment states that the nation will have no established religion but will protect the expression of religion. It does not say that religious imagery must be removed from government buildings. It does not state that public schools must ban prayer – a notion that seems all the more ridiculous when contrasted with Congress’s opening prayer ceremony. The First Amendment does not free us from the religious expression of others but on quite the contrary, it protects others’ right to publicly express that religion. The First Amendment also offers no limits on individual liberties based on the religion of those writing law. What the First Amendment does provide is the security in knowing that any person, from any creed, can enjoy all the freedoms our Constitution protects and Declaration of Independence speaks of. Rather than use the Constitution to prohibit rights, we should be championing the freedom it protects.


From Fox News to local news to Time Magazine, the topic of advertising in schools is being debated all over the country. Yet, if you walk through any school in America you'll see kids with the latest technological gadget, the most current cell phone, and designer (or at least imposter designer) bags. These are not children who have been shielded from commercials or the products they advertise. Why then is there a growing debate across the nation revolving around corporate advertisements on school property?

In a time of school cut-backs and teacher layoffs, money is desperately needed in many public school districts. Advertising dollars have been a Godsend to many struggling schools, with administrators saying the advertisements provide the much needed funds to keep vital programs alive and good teachers employed in these tough economic times. On the opposite side, critics are claiming our schools should not be in the business of promoting brand names to our impressionable, young children. Who's right?

There are a limited number of options for funding public schools and obviously the current method is broken if schools are so hard up for cash. Local property taxes are a major source of funding for schools but state funds are another big source of support. Money on the state level comes from a variety of sources, such as sales and gasoline taxes. The only way to get more money from these sources is to raise taxes or cut other programs. Another option is for the school to make more money or cut costs. School fundraising raises enough to buy new uniforms for the band or football team but not enough to keep teachers employed. That's where the ads come in and, if you asked me (which you didn't but since you're reading this you are kind of enough to entertain my opinion), ads are a great way to get money.

Corporations are happy to pay a fee to plaster buses, lockers, and cafeterias with advertisements promoting their brands and services. Some schools have offered up their roof for billboard space, advertising to the passengers of low flying planes. In my opinion, there is no real down side to this. Corporations become moderately invested in a school, perhaps making them more likely to offer charitable gifts and donations to the school, and the school gets a shot of some necessary funding...keeping the very necessary teachers they may have laid off otherwise.

In most cases, these kids are going home from school to watch tv or surf the internet. They are going to the mall with their friends. In other words, they are not being harmed by a few more ads at school. However, if they lose their favorite teacher (or their least favorite but most effective one), they could be having some harm done. I think funding an education is far more important than pretending our kids are not already living in a commercial world. I don't believe in redistribution of wealth but I do believe that a good education should be a top priority of any community. If funding that education comes from advertising dollars, so be it. It beats having a bunch of uneducated kids who've managed to avoid seeing a few more advertisements during their day.