Just a small requirement. Please bear with me while I see if this works. Thanks, Mike

I received the following article from the Stop The ACLU Coalition:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact: Media@aclu.org

NEW YORK - The American Civil Liberties Union today sharply criticized a Justice Department investigation into the disclosure of an illegal National Security Agency domestic eavesdropping operation approved by President George W. Bush.

In a letter to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales as well as two full-page advertisements in the New York Times, the ACLU has called for the appointment of a special counsel to determine whether President Bush violated federal wiretapping laws by authorizing illegal surveillance of domestic targets.

The following statement can be attributed to ACLU Executive Director Anthony D. Romero:

?President Bush broke the law and lied to the American people when he unilaterally authorized secret wiretaps of U.S. citizens. But rather than focus on this constitutional crisis, Attorney General Gonzales is cracking down on critics of his friend and boss. Our nation is strengthened, not weakened, by those whistleblowers who are courageous enough to speak out on violations of the law.?

?To avoid further charges of cronyism, Attorney General Gonzales should call off the investigation. Better yet, Mr. Gonzales ought to fulfill his own oath of office and appoint a special counsel to determine whether federal laws were violated.?

It comes as no surprise that the ACLU has jumped to the defense of would-be terrorists. After all this is an organization that despises everything America stands for.

As I have often mentioned, the American Civil Liberties Union has very little to do with protecting American civil liberties. This is an organization which has supported the North American Man Boy Love Association (NAMBLA), which has advocated that it is okay for our schools to teach our children about homosexuality, but that they dare not mention God, and has generally made it their mission to annihilate any reference to the existence of God in the public sector.

From everything that I have seen or read, the Bush administration has acted totally within the law in regards to the wiretapping issue. The ACLU is an organization dedicated, in my opinion, to trying to bring down this administration, as it is an administration which focuses on the value of life, a belief in God, and family values. These are things to which the ACLU is adamantly opposed.

Please visit the Stop The ACLU Coalition's website at: www.stoptheaclu.org.

A couple of stories ago, in a story I called The Homosexual Holy Bible, I told you about a show which NBC plans to air called the Book of Daniel. In that story I asked you to contact your local NBC affiliate and ask them not to run the show.

I recently received an e-mail from my local affiliate, Wave 3. In that message, I was told by the vice president and general manager of the station that he had not yet viewed the pilot episode. I was also told that he would be forwarding my e-mail, along with many others, directly to NBC.

He also assured me that he would be viewing the pilot episode that very afternoon, and that he would reserve his final decision until then. I then got the standard "you can be certain that NBC will hear your voice via mine."

This morning I sent off an e-mail to Mr. Stephen Langford, vice president and general manager of Wave 3, in which I asked him to please inform me about his final decision.

A show such as this, aired during prime time on a Friday night, can cause irreparable harm to impressionable young viewers whose parents may not be as concerned about their children?s viewing habits as they should be. Unfortunately, many times when parents are not concerned about what their children are watching, they also lack the education and moral fabric to discuss these kinds of issues with their children.

As I did in that article, I am calling on everyone who reads this to contact their local NBC affiliate and ask that they not run the show! When you do contact your local affiliate, here's a link to which they can refer, showing that the federal government has mandated that local affiliates are not required to broadcast network shows. That link is: http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/get-cfr.cgi?TITLE=47&PART=73&SECTION=658&YEAR=2004&TYPE=TEXT .

I also am going to include in this article the latest e-mail which I received from American Family Association Online. I am requesting also that you follow the instructions included in their e-mail, and ask potential advertisers to not sponsor this show, which only serves as an assault on Christian values.

Here is the email which I received:

Ask potential advertisers not to sponsor 'The Book of Daniel'
Main character says if the show offends some Catholics, "I don't really care..."
Dear Michael,

?
Despite receiving nearly a half-million emails, NBC still intends to begin their new series The Book of Daniel next Friday. While NBC refuses to release the sponsors of the program, AFA has identified 10 potential sponsors. Send them an email asking them not to sponsor the show. Ask local advertisers on your NBC affiliate to pull their advertising from the local station if they carry The Book of Daniel.

The network is promoting "The Book of Daniel" as a serious drama about Christian people and the Christian faith. The characters include: Daniel Webster, a drug-addicted Episcopal priest; his alcoholic wife; his son, a 23-year-old homosexual Republican; his daughter, a 16-year-old drug dealing daughter; a 16-year-old adopted son who is having sex with the bishop's daughter; his lesbian secretary who is sleeping with his sister-in-law; and a very unconventional white-robed, bearded Jesus who talks to the priest.

The writer for the program is Jack Kenny, a practicing homosexual who describes himself as being "in Catholic recovery," and is interested in Buddhist teachings about reincarnation and isn't sure exactly how he defines God and/or Jesus. "I don't necessarily know that all the myth surrounding him (Jesus) is true," he said.

Aidan Quinn, who plays Rev. Webster, said if the show offends some Catholics, "I don't really care..."

Take Action Now! Time is Short!

What can you do:

Print out the AFA pass along sheet and distribute it in your Sunday School class and at your church this Sunday. Ask your pastor to urge members to call their local NBC affiliate asking the station not to air the program. [ http://www.afa.net/passalong/pdf/nbc_bookofdaniel.pdf ]

Contact local advertisers on your NBC affiliate and ask them to pull their advertising from the local affiliate if it carries the show. (By Federal Law , NBC cannot force the local affiliate to air the show. The local affiliate has the option not to air the program. Federal Law - 47 C.F.R. 73.658(e)) [ http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/get-cfr.cgi?TITLE=47&PART=73&SECTION=658&YEAR=2004&TYPE=TEXT ]

Send an email to ten potential sponsors asking them not to sponsor The Book of Daniel. [ https://secure.afa.net/afa/afapetition/takeaction.asp?id=177 ]

Forward this information to your family and friends.
Finally, would you consider a small financial gift to help AFA continue this battle? Click here to help. [ http://www.afa.net/donate.asp ]
Sincerely,
Don
Donald E. Wildmon, Founder and Chairman
American Family Association
P.S. Many of your family and friends aren't aware of NBC's The Book of Daniel. Please forward this to them.

End of email--

Our country has been under assault from those who would like to see any form of Christian values removed from our moral fabric long enough. Please do all you can to start out the new year by sending them a message that we're not going to take it anymore.

Thank you and God bless.

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."