Wednesday, February 15, 2006


A Washington Post story by Tom Jackman reported that sheriff's deputies from the Spotsylvania County (Virginia) Sheriff's Department have been allowed to engage in illicit sexual intercourse in order to make prostitution cases against so-called massage parlors. Jackman's report states that, "They enter the massage parlors as undercover detectives. They leave as satisfied customers." According to court papers, during several visits to the Moon Spa last month, detectives allowed "masseuses" to perform sexual acts on them on four occasions and once left a $350 tip. A $350 tip of taxpayer's money! Wow, that lady must have been an terrific piece of ass!

The Sheriff claims his deputies have been engaging in sexual intercourse with massage parlor prostitutes for some time in order to obtain convictions in prostitution cases. The Sheriff advised that only unmarried detectives are used in these cases. (Obviously, the good Sheriff knows that married officers would soon become unmarried, when investigations permit or require them to have sex with prostitutes.)

Free sex! Gee whiz, if I were only young and single. It would be: Virginia, here I come and how do I sign up for the Spotsylvania County Sheriff's Department?

In all seriousness, requiring or allowing officers to have sexual intercourse with a prostitute in order to make a case against her and the proprietor of the massage parlor is absolutely unwarranted. The Sheriff claims that his department is only one of a number of police agencies engaging in the same practice. However, according to the Washington Post, experts throughout the U.S. advise that they cannot find any other agencies which allow their officers to engage in sexual intercourse with prostitutes.

I have worked a number of prostitution cases. My agency had a very explicit policy - under no circumstances was an officer allowed to disrobe or allowed to have a sexual contact of any kind with the prostitute. If we thought that we could get away with it, we were "wired' to record our conversations, but this was not considered a necessity. All that was required in order to obtain a conviction was for the prostitute to disrobe, for money to be exchanged, and for the investigating officer to testify to that effect. All the experts cited in the Washington Post story, including prosecutors, agreed that this was all that was required for a conviction.

The only problems I ever experienced was when some prostitutes complained that I was not getting undressed while they were getting naked. When that happened, I would claim that the zipper on my trousers was stuck, and that always worked for me. In my opinion, an officer's integrity, and thus his credibility, would become questionable if his testimony revealed that he had sexual intercourse with a prostitute during the investigation.

Now, please give me ALL, and I do mean ALL, of the details in that investigation where the officer gave that prostitute a $350 tip.

Saturday, February 11, 2006


Cindy Sheehan, the anti-war protester who lost her son in Iraq and who previously camped out near President Bush's ranch in Crawford, Texas, was arrested in the Capitol's gallery just before the President was about to deliver his State of the Union message. What did she do to get busted? She wore a T-shirt that said, "2,245 Dead. How Many More?". Several hours after her arrest, the Capitol Police announced that she should not have been arrested and all charges against her were dropped. Thus Sheehan and the radical left scored a big victory.

The police officer who arrested Sheehan, clearly demonstrated how to put your instincts in motion before you put your brain in gear. Her T-shirt may have violated Congressional etiquette, but since when is the display of bad taste a violation of the law? Had Sheehan stood up in the middle of the President' speech and silently opened her jacket to display the T-Shirt, that might have constituted a public disturbance, although that is doubtful. Had she stood up during the President's presentation and shouted "2,245 Dead, How Many More?", she would most certainly have created a disturbance for which she should have been arrested.

All Americans should join Cindy Sheehan in her grief as a mother who has lost a son. Casey Sheehan, a true hero, laid down his life in the service of his country. Does she have a right to protest against the war in Iraq? Of course she does, and we should all fight to defend her right to do so! But Sheehan no longer deserves our sympathy. She has been captured by, and become a willing tool of the radical left. She has stated on numerous occasions that the U.S. is an imperialist nation, a favorite catch-phrase of the extreme left. She has publicly stated that a Jewish cabal led the U.S. into the Iraq War in the interests of the State of Israel. She went to Venezuela, where she publicly embraced its anti-American leader, Hugo Chavez, and called President Bush the world's greatest terrorist. Cindy Sheehan is no longer a grieving mother - she is nothing more than a radical left-wing trouble maker on a mission, determined to attack the President at every stop, and spewing out anti-American rhetoric at every opportunity.

How did Sheehan end up in the Capitol's gallery for the State of the Union message? She received a ticket from Rep. Lynn Woolsey, a California democrat who is a fervent opponent of the Iraq War. Was it Rep. Woolsey's intent to embarrass President Bush by having Sheehan present during his State of the Union message? You bet it was! Sheehan claims that she opened her jacket, thus displaying the T-shirt, because she was warm after climbing several flights of steps. What a crock! She admits that she wanted to make a statement with the T-shirt, but claims that she had no intention of creating a disturbance, Another crock! You can bet that sometime during the President's presentation she would have stood up and called attention to herself and her T-shirt.

Stupid is as stupid does! Surely, the arresting officer must have recognized Sheehan, given all the media publicity she has received. He should have checked with his supervisor before making the arrest. Then the supervisor should have checked to make sure that Sheehan's T-shirt violated the law. After all, that T-shirt did not require a split-second life or death response. Sheehan should have been given any benefit of doubt and allowed to remain in the gallery. If the Justice Department later ruled that the message on the T-shirt, by itself, constituted a violation of the law, a warrant for her arrest would have been issued and she could have been taken into custody at her home or at her next public appearance. Of course, she should have been arrested forthwith, had she created an actual disturbance in the gallery, either before or during the State of the Union message.

What did the police stupidity of this arrest accomplish? It has brought more undeserved attention to Sheehan. Now she and her fellow radical left-wing ideologues are trumpeting the claim that the government is taking away our freedom of speech. They have been given new ammunition in their anti-war and anti-American activities, thereby giving more aid and comfort to our enemies. When the arresting officer put his instincts in motion before he put his brain in gear, he scored a big victory for the radical left and its ideology.

Tuesday, February 07, 2006


In September, 2005, several political cartoons depicting caricatures of the Prophet Muhammad were published in a Danish newspaper. One of the cartoons depicted the prophet wearing a turban in the form of a bomb. The Muslim faith considers any depiction of the Prophet Muhammad as blasphemy.

In 1989, contemprary artist Andres Serrano exhibited his "Piss Christ" (Serrano's title) photogragph of a crucifix submerged in a jar of Serrano's blood and urine. The exhibit was a deliberate attempt by the artist to offend members of the Christian faith. Serrano had received a $15,000 grant for his exhibit from the National Endowment for the Arts, an agency funded by American taxpayers. In 1990, the "Tongues of Flame" exhibit by artist David Wojnarowicz consisted of several offensive depictions of Jesus Christ, including one of Jesus "mainlining" heroin by injecting a hypodermic needle into his arm. Wojnarowicz's exhibit was also funded by the NEA.

The Danish political cartoons resulted in outrage throughout Islam. The Serrano and Wojnarowicz exhibits resulted in outrage among the Christian faithful within this country. One group expressed its outrage by lawful means. The other group expressed its outrage with threats and violence. Both groups were justifiably outraged, but the difference in which that outrage was expressed is the difference between civilized and barbaric behavior.

The Christian faithful expressed their outrage through peaceful picketing of the exhibits, through media campaigns, and through their congressional representatives. No threats were issued against the lives of Serrano and Wojnarowicz. Most of the outrage was expressed against the NEA for funding these offensive exhibits, but attempts by members of Congress to withhold its funding failed.

By contrast, the outrage of Muslims was expressed by massive violent riots throughout Islam. These occurred in Gaza and the West Bank, in Syria and Lebanon, in Pakistan and Afghanistan, in Indonesia, and in most other Muslim countries. An Islamic group in Pakistan offered a bounty for the murder of the Danish cartoonists, while others threatened to cut off their hands or heads. Of special interest is the fact that, while the cartoons were published in September 2005, the rioting did not start until the end of January 2006. During that interim, Islamic clerics took those cartoons and planted them throughout the Muslim world. Thus it would seem that these violent demonstrations were planned, instigated, and orchrestrated by mullahs preaching from their religious schools and mosques.

How does one explain the differences in the way the Christian and Muslim faithful expressed their outrage when their most revered religious icons were defiled. Education made the difference. The Western nations, which are predominantly Christian, have modern educations systems, while in many parts of the Muslim world, education takes place in fundamentalist religious schools. Textbooks are full of hatred against Western culture, against Jews, and even against other Muslim sects, such as the hatred between Shiites and Sunnis. While the religious schools do teach some basic skills, the emphasis is on religion, instead of on a well-rounded modern curriculum. That helps to explain why so many Muslims live in poverty - by Western standards they are simply ignorant. The dictatorial rulers in the Arab world thrive from this ignorance - it keeps them in power.

Devout Muslims throughout the world, who have been educated in modern secular schools, did not resort to violence when the Prophet Muhammad was defiled by political cartoonists. In Lebanon, the uneducated Islamists took to the streets in violent outrage, while the educated Muslim elite remained in their homes or in their work places. Muslims who are well educated share in the world's wealth, while those from the fundamentalist religious schools will continue to live in poverty and ignorance. The difference between people educated in the Western world and Islam's uneducated masses is that Westerners express their religious outrage lawfully, while Islamists express theirs by resorting to barbaric threats and violence.

Sunday, February 05, 2006


Hey parents! Do you actually know much about the individuals or the group your teenage kids are hanging around with? Bet you don't. Well, you better take a long,hard and close look, because if their friends are into drugs, your kids are doing drugs too. How come? Because, anyway you cut it, ILLEGAL DRUG USE IS A DISEASE OF ASSOCIATION. Drugs just don't suddenly fall out of the sky into some poor soul's lap. Some stranger lurking in a doorway, grabbing a kid walking by, and offering him drugs - it just does not happen that way. To use drugs, you've got know someone who uses drugs. To get introduced to a drug dealer, you've got know someone who the dealer trusts, sort of. It's the disease of association bit.

So, you've talked to your kids about drugs. Good for you. And they've sworn on grandma's grave that they don't use drugs. You better pray that they are telling the truth. If they are not, you'll never know it just by talking to them, as THERE IS NOTHING MORE CONVINCING THAN A DRUG USER TRYING TO CONVINCE SOMEONE THAT THEY DON'T USE DRUGS. With the prolonged use of drugs, the user may end up as a pathological liar, able to beat most polygraph examinations.

DO THEIR FRIENDS USE DRUGS? The problem for parents is that they want to believe that their kids are not into drugs. How to find out if their friends are drug users is an even bigger problem. The police are likely to know what kids in the community are into drugs, but they are unlikely to give this information to an inquiring parent for fear of facing a possible law suit. The school authorities probably know of, or suspect certain individuals or groups of involvement with drugs, but they will not reveal this information out of privacy concerns, as well as a fear of law suits. Church attendance by their friends does not guarantee abstinence from drug use, nor does being the son or daughter of the church's pastor. Graduation from a public school's DARE (Drug Abuse Resistance Education) program, which police officers teach, has minimal effect on students by the time they enter high school. Participation in Chuck Norris' KICK START program, which is offered in 37 Texas schools, does not guarantee that a student will stay drug free once he leaves the program. It all depends on who a kid associates with. Often, the only way to find out who their kids are running around with, is to contact a former close friend and findout why they broke up.

SUSPECTED DRUG USE. For those parents who refuse to suspect their kids of using drugs, it will be too late by the time they recognize it. Good grades in school do not equate to abstinence, but an unexplained drop in grades could indicate drug use. Changes in basic habits, such as tidyness to sloppyness, or loss of interest in favorite activities may be indicators of involvement with drugs. If the kid is hyper-active he may be using cocaine or methamphetamines, and if he is unusally lethargic he may be using heroin or some other narcotic. If parents suspect the use of drugs, questioning the kid is going to produce only a string of strong denials. An open and trusting relationship between parents and their children is, of course, desirable and can prevent involvement with drugs. However, once that trust has been compromised and drug use is suspected, the only alternative is for parents to conduct frequent and thorough surreptitious searches of their child's room and belongings. It is important to know that drug hiding places are limited only by the user's imagination. Searches of a drug user's room and belongings will inevitably turn up drug residue, drugs, or drug paraphanalia.

Social workers and mental health professionals strongly oppose searches by parents, claiming that these will destroy any trust between parents and their children, That's a lot of baloney. Searches for drugs are no different than searching sites on the child's computer for sexually explicit messages, something child advocates recommend to protect children from sexual predators. Most teenagers will push the envelope to see what they can get away with, whether it is sneaking out in the middle ot the night to be with a boyfriend or girlfriend, skipping school, driving at dangerous speeds, looking up porn sites on the computer, getting on the internet to exchange sexually explicit messages, or worse yet, arranging sexual liaisons with strangers.. And, we are not necessarily talking about bad kids.

WHY DO KIDS GET INVOLVED WITH DRUGS? It could be peer pressure. It could be looking for a forbidden thrill. Occasionally, but rarely, drug use may result from an unhappy home life. During the Vietnam War, drug use by young people was a way of demonstrating their defiance of the "establishment," The rallying cry then was, "Alcohol is your drug, marijuana is ours." With prolonged drug use, addiction may result, and if that happens, breaking the habit will become very difficult.

MENTAL HEALTH PROFESSIONALS. Many psychiatrists and clinical psychologists, using their pscho-babble, unwittingly or diliberately, give their patients excuses for bad behaior, which is exactly what drug use is. Dr. Feelgood will say, "You're a drug user because your mama looked backwards in the mirror while she was pregnant." Dr. Moonbeam will say, "You're an axe murderer because your daddy took away your rubber ducky while you were in the bathtub." William Glasser, the psychiatrist who founded the practice referred to as Reality Therapy, was less interested in what happened to his patients while they were still sucking their thumbs, than in their present behavior. "You are in jail because you are a prostitute." "You are in prison because you are a crook." "You are on probation because you smoked pot." He made it clear to his patients that their criminal behavior was not the result of having experienced some traumatic event during early childhood. Dr. Glasser insisted on dealing with the here and now, and on getting his patients to take personal responsibility for their actions, thereby motivating many of them to modify their behavior. Regretably, most psychiatrists dismissed his methods and openly belittled both Glasser and the practice of Reality Therapy.

MARIJUANA. Speaking of marijuana, it is a big mistake to downplay the seriousness of this drug. Marijuana can be addictive, but worse yet, it is a GATEWAY DRUG - almost all pill-poppers, cocaine (or crack) users, methamphetamine users, and heroin addicts started out on marijuana. For that reason, the use of Marijuana should NOT be legalized, and its users, when caught, should be made to experience some jail time. 10 - 30 days in jail will take away the pleasure of smoking pot from the pleasure seeking pot smokers. Parents must emphasize to their kids that bad behavior can have serious consequences.

HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE. How did America get so involved in the illicit use of drugs? It came about hand-in-glove with the Vietmam anti-war movement. Before the Vietnam War, illicit drug consumption was largely confined to the use of marijuana and heroin by Mexican-Americans, heroin by African-Americans, and marijuana and cocaine among artists, musicians and Hollywood celebrities. Because our Anglo-Saxon majority had little concern for racial and ethnic minorities, Mexicans and blacks received harsh prison sentences when caught holding drugs. That was before the middle and upper class spoiled brats, who were protesting against the Vietnam War on our college and university campuses, started using drugs as an additional means of defying the hated establishment. The use of drugs was often a group activity, thus giving its members the courage to confront the police during college sit-ins and off-campus protests. When the sons and daughters from middle and upper class families began to be arrested on drug charges, their prominent and influential parents became alarmed because their "good kids" would be unable to become doctors and lawyers with an arrest or prison record.

ESTABLISHING THE DRUG CULTURE. It did not take long for sympathetic judges to show leniency to drug users from "good families", thus inadverdently encouraging and increasing the use of drugs. Congress and state legislatures quickly passed new laws which reduced the penalties for drug violations. This rush to spare good white kids from having to serve prison time also eliminated some of the harsh sentences that had been meeted out to Mexicans and African-Americans. Then the psychiatrists did their part by insisting that the use of drugs was a mental health problem and and not a criminal matter, and by advocating the decriminalization of drug possession and use. Insurance companies were forced to cover addiction treatment, thus driving up health insurance costs. The counter culture of the Vietnam era has left the United States with the highest rate of illicit drug consumption of any country in the world. To the "stoned generation", thank you so much for screwing up the youths of our country with the drug culture to which you gave birth. Say what? Oh, your children are now into drugs. Tough! What goes around, comes around. You, rather than your kids, deserve to suffer from the problems you created. You never learned that AS YE SOW, SO SHALL YE REAP.

THE SIREN SONG. Why do pot smokers progess to the use of other drugs? Once the use of marijuana, or any other drug, becomes prosaic, the user will naturally seek out a more potent drug. The siren song of pleasure producing substances is so overwhelming, that substance abusers are sucked deeper and deeper into the drug culture, once prolonged use has taken effect. Addiction is both physical and psychological. When a heroin addict goes to prison, his physical addiction will soon be terminated. However, his psychological addiction will continue for years. That is why a heroin addict who has been released after ten years in prison, starts using heroin again as soon as he can reconnect with addicts on the outside. What is it about drugs that is so appealing? I have interviewed hundreds of heroin addicts on why they use and continue to use this substance in the face of numerous arrests, unpleasant physical withdrawals, imprisonment, and alienation from their families. In almost every instance, the answer was similar to this: "I USE IT BECAUSE I LIKE IT. IT GIVES ME A GREAT FEELING." No psycho-babble there.

One heroin addict, who I interviewed, came from a very wealthy family in Palm Springs, California. This is what he told me: "When I'm high, a cop can hassle me and it don't bother me. A car can splash mud all over my best threads and it don't bother me. My old lady can nag the hell out of me and it don't bother me. My kids can scream their heads off and it don't bother me. I really feel great." What did this man get from that great feeling? His multi-millionaire parents disinherited him, his wife divorced him and obtained a court order prohibiting him from seeing his two children, he was in and out of jail or prison, and he could only obtain menial work when not incarcerated. IT IS IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT HEROIN USERS ARE NOT THAT DIFFERENT FROM THE USERS OF OTHER DRUGS. Substance abusers really like whatever drugs they are using.

ADDICTION TREATMENT: There are now thousands of drug abuse clinics and programs, some of which are effective. With the majority of clinics, treatment failures are common and their patients relapse soon after leaving the program. Most discharge their patients just as soon as their insurance benefits have maxed out. The Betty Ford clinic in California is excellent, but few can afford what it costs to enter this program. In order for treatment to be successful, the addict must be highly motivated to stop using drugs. Doctors have a very high rate of addiction, They are highly motivated because their addiction can cost them everything they have invested after eight or more years of medical schooling, internship, and residency requirements, and after years of building up a practice. Treatment is a hit and miss proposition and may involve frequent relapses over a period of years.

With all the problems associated with drug abuse and with the rate of treatment failures, it is extremely important for parents to know who their children are associating with. Drug addiction is a disease of association. By keeping your kids from running around with drug users you will be keeping them from using illicit drugs and from becoming drug addicts.