I would like to apologize to my readers for my absence over the last couple of weeks. However, I was fortunate enough to be able to spend the time with my two children over the holidays.

I hope that each and every one of you had a safe, enjoyable time over the holidays. I wish each and every one of you a New Year filled with love, tranquility, and prosperity.

Now it is time to get on with the business at hand. God bless.

Federal: Sixth Circuit Upholds Ten Commandments Display at Mercer County

A federal appeals court says a Kentucky courthouse can keep its display of the Ten Commandments.

The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled today that the Mercer County Courthouse in Harrodsburg can continue to display the Ten Commandments which are viewed alongside nine other historial documents, including the Bill of Rights and Declaration of Independence.

The American Civil Liberties Union brought the case against Mercer County, arguing the display violated the Constitution's guarantee separating church and state.

In a turn of fortunes, the ACLU's lawyer argued for the side that prevailed in the Supreme Court case did not fare as well in the Sixth Circuit and was on the short side of this decision. Although appellate cases should not be considered as 'wins and losses', the irony highlights the old saw among lawyers that my old mentor Reford Coleman in Etown taught me "There ain't a horse that can't be rode, and ain't a rider that can't be throwed."

In light of the basic fact that the ACLU was given 120 days to conduct discovery into the purpose of this display and did NOT do so, but appealed the district court ruling nonetheless, it would be another odd turn of events for the ACLU to appeal this up to the U.S. Supreme Court and not now simply allow the lower courts apply the standard as enunciated in the McCreary, Pulaski decisions.

A reader sent me the following commentary on the Ten Commandment posting cases, and please note his/her comments were independent of mine and I have not modified mine to address those comments since this is not a 'point/counterpoint' but rather a discussion of a sensitive issue. They are posed to provide you another perspective on this topic:

In the case discussed, the 10 Commandments were posted with historical documents which the Court said made it appear to be historical and not religious to the objective reasonable observer. Distinguishing other opinions where posting historical documents seemed to be a litigation ploy late in the game, the Sixth Circuit rejected a challenge by the ACLU. Ironically, the more the religious conservatives that push for such postings say and do, by holding religious rallies, public prayers when they are dedicated etc., the more likely they will be struck down later by the courts as an endorsement of religion. I predict this will lead to a new round of postings and be a recurring issue for the right wing to endorse posting this type of display, as this plays well with certain types of voters and distracts from the hard issues such as passing a budget, fully funding education, solving the public pension deficit, and otherwise governing. As a taxpayer, I am not amused. When a government loses these cases, the ACLU gets its attorneys fees paid by the taxpayers. When the county or state wins, what have we really accomplished? The average Kentuckian is probably not horribly offended when such displays are posted, but neither are they likely to have a religious conversion or change their behavior. The only winners are politicians who exploit this non-issue and lawyers who are paid well to litigate endlessly.

Here is a link to the full text of that decision:

American Civil Liberties v. Mercer County Kentucky Sixth Circuit 12/20/2005

"Because the challenged display here is identical in all material respects to the third and final display in McCreary County, we held this appeal in abeyance pending Supreme Court review. Unlike McCreary County , we conclude that the Mercer County display lacks a religious purpose and further conclude that it does not endorse religion." [. . .]

" In the affidavit, Judge McGinnis explained the County?s decision, including Mr. Rousey?s involvement and the Mercer County Fiscal Court?s awareness of the Kentucky legislature?s resolution authorizing such displays. He stated that the purpose for erecting the "Foundations" display was that "all of the documents, including the Ten Commandments, have played a role in the formation of our system of law and government. . . . [The] display is not intended [to], nor does it, endorse or promote religion. It simply acknowledges our history." [. . .]

". The County nevertheless argues that its display is constitutional because, in contrast with McCreary County, the predominant purpose of the display in this case is secular. We agree. Mercer County concedes that the display itself is identical in all material respects to the third and final displays found unconstitutional in McCreary County was the extended history: the original standalone copy of the Ten Commandments; a pastor?s speaking to the existence of God at the hanging ceremony; a second, more distinctly religious display; and the "extraordinary" resolutions authorizing the displays that were not repealed even after the "Foundations" display was posted. The objective observer in McCreary and Pulaski Counties was deemed aware of this background, and thus saw an impermissible purpose.Critical to the finding of sectarian purpose in id. at 2735, except "in those unusual cases where the claim was an apparent sham" and the primary objective is religious, id. at 2736 (emphasis added)."

The Mercer County display, on the other hand, lacks a similar sectarian pedigree. Here, there was only one display, one authorizing measure, and one implementation, all of which demonstrate a secular purpose. The "Foundations" display is the lone exhibit the County has posted in its courthouse. There being but one display, the County has needed but one resolution. Mr. Rousey hung the display himself; there is no evidence of a ceremony solemnized by a clergyman. In fact, the only history the objective observer would incorporate into this display is the statement of Judge McGinnis that the purpose of the display is to recognize American legal traditions. We defer to the government?s stated purpose, McCreary County." [ . . .]

"The Mercer County display has a secular purpose. Unlike McCreary County , there is nothing in the legislative history or implementation that tends to prove a religious purpose. Nor does the display have the effect of endorsing religion. The display is therefore constitutional as a matter of law. There being no genuine issue of material fact, the district court properly granted Mercer County?s motion for summary judgment."

The following is an open letter to both the Kentucky General Assembly, and to a man whom I've come to regard as a friend, and a true man of the people, Rep. David Floyd (R-50th District: Bullitt, Nelson and Spencer Counties).

Rep. Floyd:

Thanks so much for sending a direct link to your proposed bill on Eminent Domain legislation: http://www.lrc.ky.gov/record/06RS/HB165.htm ...the information I found there was extremely enlightening, albeit somewhat brain-rattling for my not-quite-ready for prime time legal knowledge!

I really appreciate all the hours of work it must have taken to write, re-write, etc. As I said, to the legally untrained eye, it certainly looks like you are trying to look out for the interest of your constituents here in the Bluegrass.

My major problem is with all the legalese, which I assume are mostly standard.

One word, however, that struck the attention of both myself and a sharp-eyed reader, was in Sec.2, subsection b; the word "blight." Merriam-Webster online definers it as:
"Main Entry: 1blight
Pronunciation: 'blIt
Function: noun
Etymology: origin unknown
1 a : a disease or injury of plants resulting in withering, cessation of growth, and death of parts without rotting b : an organism that causes blight
2 : something that frustrates plans or hopes
3 : something that impairs or destroys
4 : a deteriorated condition "

There seems to me to be an inherent danger in using "blight" as a standard for the authorization of eminent domain. All that would be needed for a municipality to declare an area blighted would be for that municipality to simply ignore the upkeep of the targeted area.

I know this may sound extreme, but, as you and I have both witnessed in our day, there are those out there who are cunning (and extreme) enough to make a five, or even ten year plan to make an area blighted: ignore this for two years; ignore that for three; and ignore the rest for five and...Walla! We have a blighted neighborhood which, for the good of the city, would be much better served with an up-scale hotel and casino.

Another possible scenario might be a working class neighborhood with fairly-well maintained homes which is dotted here and there with a run-down home...but a home nonetheless. Would it be worth condemning this neighborhood as blighted because, say, 10% of the homes were run-down? Or would 5% suffice? See what I mean? Where is the line drawn? This is something that MUST be clarified for the good of our property owners.

And to take it a step further-when is a home considered "run-down" to begin with? This is another obstacle which, in my humble opinion, needs to be addressed. Yet another is, could the neighborhood in question be brought up to "unblighted" standards for a fraction of the cost that it would take to raze the whole community and rebuild a more prosperous one?

After all, in most of these eminent domain cases we have seen since the unfortunate Connecticut Supreme Court ruling, all that is being done is running out a group of hard-working lower-middle class families and businesses in an effort to bring in higher scale properties and businesses--naturally for the intention of a higher tax base and more revenue for the local government. They don't come straight out and admit that is the reason, but once in a while, like with that genius of a mayor in Florida, one will slip and the sheep's clothing comes off. We would be insane to think that the same thing couldn't possibly happen here.

I am not claiming to have all the answers to what are obviously some pretty tough questions. I am not a politician, and I never even went to law school. However, I was raised to know right from wrong, and I am going to give the GREAT benefit of the doubt that all of your colleagues in our State Assembly were as well.

Now, all we need to do is to get our Senators and Representatives, whom we have already established know right from wrong, and who, by their very titles, are politicians, to fuse those two virtues into an alloy that would make a bullet-proof eminent domain law for the people of the Commonwealth of Kentucky!

During my weekly visit to the Kentucky chapter of the ACLU's website, I came across this interesting story, which emphatically shows the ACLU's disdain for the American military, which is, without question, the greatest fighting force on the face of the Earth.

Although I peruse the site regularly, this story, which is now two months old, either just appeared on the site, or was somehow overlooked by yours truly. Either way, it has left a bitter taste in my mouth.

The website's story, viewable at: http://www.aclu-ky.org/news.html#Military%20Opt-Out%20Press%20Release, claims to be a letter to school superintendents across the Commonwealth to "improve their procedures to inform parents and students about their right to control the release of student information to military recruiters, colleges, and the general public." This, I assure you, is not the case.

I offer as exhibit one the very link to the website's story. It is called "Military%20Opt-Out%20Press20Release." Not, "College or general public opt-out," just "military opt-out." That alone is a slam-dunk that this has absolutely nothing to do with the general public or college recruiters.

Exhibit two: Why in the world would the ACLU want to promote an opt-out option for college recruiters? It has been shown time and again that the VAST majority of college professors in this country are tree-hugging, bleeding-heart liberals who support socialism over capitalism, just as the ACLU does.

Exhibit three: Again referring to the opt-out for college recruiters--does the ACLU mean to imply that it would like to see a nation of non-college-educated people in this country? Why, who would go on to law school to become the lawyers that would fight against decency and morality in our beloved country? They would be cutting their own throat!

Finally, as Shepard Smith would say, and then there's this: the ACLU is "requesting" that this opt-out option "should be provided in a communication separate from other school directives and regulations. School districts around the country have found that putting notice in the school handbook leads to parents and students overlooking this information." Once again, the ACLU is making personal accountability something that should not be a standard in America.

Come on now, a communication separate from other directives and regulations? Obviously, what they are saying is that parents don't bother to read the information that affects their children's future, and should have a special contingency to take away what could be a wonderful opportunity for the future of their kids.

Yes, joining the military means there is a chance you could go to war, but it also means you have self-discipline, the best training available on Earth, a GUARANTEED college education, special financing to purchase a home not available to the general (civilian) public, lifetime medical benefits, the list goes on and on.

It would seem to me that the ACLU would be pushing for a communication separate from the handbook that says, "Please read this handbook in its entirety, as your child's future may well depend upon its contents!"

I will even take this argument one step further--Our children are being provided a FREE education (well, sort of) because of the freedoms afforded us by millions of brave men and women who have valiantly served this country for over two centuries. The government should ABSOLUTELY be allowed to show students the benefits that can come from joining the military.

Now, I would agree to a requirement that they also tell potential recruits that they could be sent to war to fight for freedom and liberty...and that they may even be killed in that effort. But there is NO WAY they should ever be required to be "opted-out" of the opportunity to try and recruit young Americans for service to their country!

As always, I encourage all to visit the Stop The ACLU Coalition's website at: http://www.stoptheaclu.org/. As the State Coordinator for Kentucky, I need help from those willing to fight the anti-American ACLU by becoming County Coordinators. Please visit the website for details on how you can help keep America FREE!!

I was in "shock and awe" when I received the following email from the American Family Association. Although I will put it here in its entirety, I want to give a little commentary, too (As hard as that is for some of you to believe, I'm sure!).

Well, let me put the email here, and then I will comment on it:

"NBC Demeans Christian Faith
Writer for new series is practicing homosexual
Dear Michael,
NBC is promoting the network's mid-season replacement series "The Book of Daniel" with language that implies it is a serious drama about Christian people and Christian faith. The main character is Daniel Webster, a drug-addicted Episcopal priest whose wife depends heavily on her mid-day martinis.

Webster regularly sees and talks with a very unconventional white-robed, bearded Jesus. The Webster family is rounded out by a 23-year-old homosexual Republican son, a 16-year-old daughter who is a drug dealer, and a 16-year-old adopted son who is having sex with the bishop's daughter.

At the office, his lesbian secretary is sleeping with his sister-in-law.

Network hype-and the mainstream media-call it "edgy," "challenging" and "courageous." The hour-long limited drama series will debut January 6 with back-to-back episodes and will air on Friday nights. The writer for the series is a practicing homosexual.

The homosexual son will be network prime-time's only regular male homosexual character in a drama series.

Please use the link below to send a letter to NBC Chairman Bob Wright.

Next, please forward this to your family and friends today!

Those at NBC responsible for this program consider it a good, religiously oriented show typical of Christian families.
Click Here to Email NBC Now! https://secure.afa.net/afa/afapetition/takeaction.asp?id=175
Sincerely,
Don
Donald E. Wildmon, Founder and Chairman
American Family Association
P.S. Please forward this e-mail message to your family and friends."

Now, far be it from me to encourage censorship, HOWEVER, I hope and PRAY that it be close to me to encourage morality and values. What these people are doing is exposing ALL AMERICANS, from the age of one to one-hundred-one to what sounds like a pornographic version of the Holy Bible. I find this DESPICABLE!

We live in a nation where, according to recent polls, 85% of us at least CLAIM to be Christians. Why in the world would NBC choose to air a program which, if the polls are correct, is so offensive to 85% of the American population? Maybe they have polls that show the other 15% are watching NBC?

Either way, I am pleading with all who read this to go to the site listed above, and here: https://secure.afa.net/afa/afapetition/takeaction.asp?id=175 and sign the petition by the AFA. This outrage must be stopped before it happens.

I also encourage all to write their local NBC affiliate and demand that this mini-series not be aired in their area. As it says in the AFA petition, Mr. Bob Wright, Chairman of NBC, himself testified before Congress last year that "they are not required to air this program if they choose not to."

Please take action NOW! If NBC thinks that this junk represents a typical American family, they have proven what most of us have known all along: the mainstream media is WAY OUT OF TOUCH with the pulse of the American public.