Wednesday, January 31, 2007


Great news!!! CBS has axed its reality show ARMED AND FAMOUS after airing only four episodes. The show, which featured some half-ass celebrities playing "real" cops in Muncie. Indiana, had so few viewers that CBS was forced to pull the plug on this farce. Thank God!!!

Now Erik Estrada can go back to watching himself on videos of his 70's cop show ChiPs. LaToya Jackson can go back to exposing her breast or whatever else she does best. Of course, she could play cop to brother Michael and keep him from molesting any more young boys now that he is back in this country. Jason "Wee Man" Acuna can stop making a jackass of himself as a dwarf cop and go back full-time to his day job on the MTV show Jackass.

Muncie Police Chief Joe Winkle can now stop worrying about Estrada's temper and obscene language. He can be thankful that he is no longer involved in a denigration of law enforcement. Now that he doesn't have to waste anymore time with this show, Winkle should sit down and figure out how he can best apologize to the law enforcement community for helping to belittle police officers.

I hope that CBS lost a ton of money for its insulting embarrassment of the police service. It looks like America's television viewing audience is not quite as stupid as I thought. By omission, they've killed and buried this show. May it rest in peace. Hallelujah!!!

Sunday, January 28, 2007


Hillary Clinton and other Democrat presidential hopefuls have been sucking up to the Reverend Al Sharpton. So have a number of media personalities. And, of course, so has Hollywood. The suck-ups brush aside Sharpton's role in the Tawana Brawley hoax, in the Crown Heights riot, and in the Freddie's Fashion Mart massacre, three dark chapters in American race relations.

On a Thanksgiving weekend in 1987, Tawana Brawley, a 15 year old black girl, was found curled up inside a garbage bag in a small Hudson Valley town. She was smeared with feces and the words "nigger," "KKK" and "bitch" were scrawled on her body. She claimed to have been abducted, beaten, and sexuallly assaulted for four days by six white law enforcement racists.

Needless to say, this case drew immediate world-wide media attention. Understandably, the black community throughout the United States was outraged. Sharpton and two black attorneys, Alton Maddox and Vernon Mason, assumed the mantle as Bawley's advisors. Sharpton orchrestated the whole sordid affair, thereby fanning the flames of black anger. Sharpton's role in this case made him an instant leader among black activists.

One cop and a prosecutor were identified as having participated in the abduction and sexual assault. So much abuse was heaped on the accused that it ruined the prosecutor's career and led the police officer to commit suicide. However, a lengthy grand jury investigation found all of the allegations to be a hoax. Subsequently, an in-depth investigation by six New York Times reporters also determined that the allegations were a hoax committed by Brawley to hide the fact from her mother that she had run off with a boyfriend.

The falsely accused prosecutor sued Sharpton, Maddox and Mason, winning a monetary judgement against all three. Maddox and Mason were eventually disbarred for unethical conduct. Sharpton has never apologized for his responsibility in the officer's suicide and in the porsecutor's ruined career. In fact, to this day Sharpton continues to insist that the Brawley scandal was not a hoax.

In 1991, Sharpton also helped fan the flames of black anger against Jews in the Crown Heights section of Brooklyn. A Jewish driver in a police escorted procession, which was returning from a cemetary, collided with another vehicle at an intersection. His car veered onto the sidewalk where it struck two seven year old black children, one of whom died. Some bystanders charged that the driver was speeding and ran a red light. A private Jewish ambulance, which had arrived at the scene, was ordered by the police to take the Jewish driver away. The ambulance attendants were also ordered not to attend to the two injured black children because a city ambulance had already been summoned.

Blacks were outraged, feeling that a Jew had been afforded favorable treatment at the expense of the injured children. There had long been tensions between Jews and blacks in the Crown Heights neighborhood. Sharpton's rantings and ravings over the incident were instrumental in causing a riot which lasted for four days. The rallying cry of blacks was "Get the Jews" and a Jewish seminary student was stabbed to death. Because the rioting was mishandled by the police, Lee Brown, New York's black police commissioner, lost his job and David Dinkins, the city's first black mayor, was defeated by Rudy Giuliani in his bid for another term in office.

In 1995, a landlord in Harlem tried to evict one of his tenants, a black music store owner, in order to expand his adjoining business. Sharpton organized a demonstration against the landlord, denouncing him as a "white interloper." Sharpton's inflammatory race-baiting rhetoric provoked one of his followers to take a gun into Freddie's Fashion Mart and slaughter seven customers before committing suicide.

Sharpton and Jesse Jackson both feed off the culture of victimology which pervades the black community. It is sad that blacks look to these two charlatans for leadership when there are so many other prominent blacks without a checkered past. Democrats used to court Jackson, but his star has been fading. Now they slobber all over Sharpton. Media personalities, like Chris Matthews and Tucker Carlson, suck up to Sharpton almost daily. Hollywood, not to be outdone, invites him to attend the Academy Awards. Sharpton is a frequent guest on the Leno and Letterman shows and has hosted Saturday Night Live.

I've always liked Tucker Carlson and it sickens me that he seems to worship Sharpton. Hillary Clinton already has a lock on the black vote, yet she, nevertheless, sucks up to Sharpton. We are a nation of forgiving people, but should we brush aside Sharpton's sordid history and forgive him for his part in the Tawana Brawley hoax, in the Crown Hights riot, and in the Freddie's Fashion Mart massacre? Shame on Clinton and her fellow presidential hopefuls. Shame on Matthews, Carlson, and the other media personalities who suck up to Sharpton. Shame on Hollywood for giving Sharpton star power. Above all, shame on us for letting those candidates, those media personalities, and Hollywood get away with it.

Friday, January 26, 2007


Recently I published blogs entitled THE BLACK PANTHER LEGACY (December 1, 2006) and OFFICIAL OPRESSION: THE DUKE UNIVERSITY RAPE CASE (January 15, 2007). This week, there have been some new developments concerning the Panthers and the Duke rape case.

In the Black Panther blog I stated that "Panthers also committed a number of deadly attacks against unsuspecting police officers." I am sure that those who consider the Panthers to be folk heroes do not believe that statement nor do they believe what I said about the free breakfast program coloring book. Hey - Wake up and smell the roses!

This week, eight black men were arrested for the 1971 slaying of a San Francisco police sergeant. A ninth former Panther is also charged in this case and is still being sought. Seven of those arressted were former members of the Black Liberation Army, a branch of the Black Panther Party for Self Defense. According to the authorities, the slaying of Sgt. John V. Young was part of the BLA's "five-year campaign to kill law enforcemnt officers in San Francisco and New York."

The Panther BLA attacks against the police were carried out between 1968 and 1973, and included the slaying of two New York City police officers and the bombing of a San Francisco police funeral. Why did it take 35 years for these thugs to be arrested? According to the San Francisco Police Department, the investigation of these attacks was reopened in 1999 after "advances in forensic science led to the discovery of new evidence."

All of those charged are in their 50s and 60s. Stuart Hanlon, a lawyer for one of the arrestees, claims "There's a law enforcement attitude that they hate these people, the Panthers. Now they're going after old men." Damn right, we hate the Panthers and for good reason. And good for SFPD in bringing about the arrest of these cold blooded cop killers.

In the Duke rape blog I wrote that "The State Bar is also investigating his withholding of exculpatory DNA evidence." This week the North Carolina State Bar filed charges against District Attorney Mike Nifong for withholding favorable DNA evidence from defendants in the Duke lacrosse case and for repeatedly lying about it to judges and the State Bar. These charges are far more serious than the previous charges of making inflammatory public statements to reporters and misrepresenting the facts in the case.

Nifong's case against three Duke lacrosse players started to fall apart from its very beginning. The North Carolina State Bureau of Investigation could not find semen, blood or saliva on the accuser's underwear or on swabs taken from her vagina. Nifong then received the court's permission to go to a private DNA lab for more sophisticated testing. DNA Security of Burlington found DNA from AT LEAST four unidentified men. Not a single cell was found from any of the lacrosse players, all of whom had submitted DNA samples.

Despite repeated requests by the defense, Nifong hid the DNA test results and lied to the court about their availability on five occasiions from May to September. Nifong told the State Bar that he withheld the test results because he was concerned about violating the privacy rights of the lacrosse players. The State Bar recognized this crock of shit for what it was - "knowingly false."

Here is what Joseph Kennedy, a law professor at the University of North Carolina, had to say about the charges against Nifong. "Lying is really at the top of the list in terms of things lawyers just can't do. And then lying about something as important as evidence suggesting innocence in a serious case, it just doesn't get any worse than that."

For personal gain, Nifong pursued this case with reckless abandonment on the word of a slut, despite evidence to the contrary. His phony claim of withholding DNA evidence to protect the privacy rights of the lacrosse players just doesn't hold any water. All of the players would have been tickled pink had there been a public disclosure that the DNA testing did not find a single cell from any of the team members. If Nifong is not disbarred, then there is no justice in this world.

Wednesday, January 24, 2007


Sally Lieber, a member of the California State Assembly, is introducing a bill which would outlaw the spanking of any child under the age of three. Such spanking would be a misdemeanor which, under California law, would subject an offender to a jail term of up to one year and/or a fine of up to $1,000. Needless to say, her proposed bill has already generated considerable controversy.

One one side you have the anti-corporal punishment crowd which claims that spanking teaches children that violence is an acceptable method of settling matters. The "violence begets violence" bunch is salivating over the possible passage of this law. At the same time, they are complaining that the bill does not go far enough because it does not outlaw corporal punishment altogether.

On the other side you have those who believe that corporal punishment, both at home and in the schools, is an effective means of disciplining unruly children. They are worried that this is just the first step in outlawing corporal punishment for children of all ages. Some civil libertarians object to this bill on the grounds that a law making it a crime to spank a child is an intrusion into the privacy rights of parents.

Lieber's bill will probably be passed by the California state legislature, especially since it will apply only to children under the age of three. I don't have a problem with such a bill, although I too am worried that this is just the first salvo in an attempt to outlaw corporal punishment altogether. Several states have already outlawed corporal punishment for all children.

If you read my blog, IT'S TOUGH TO BE A COP'S KID (December 23, 2006), you know that I favor the use of corporal punishment, as long as it's not administered in the heat of anger. I just can't buy into the anti-corporal punishment psycho babble put forth by childless child psychologists. When I was a cop, I came across a good number of really messed up kids who had a psychologist or a psychiatrist for a parent. The "never spank your child" bunch quite simply represents the pacifist segment of our society.

Why don't I object to Sally Lieber's bill? As a sensible psychiatrist put it, children under three are incapable of differentiating between right and wrong. They will not know why they are being spanked because they have not yet developed the language skills needed to understand why they are being punished. All that they will know is that spanking hurts. This psychiatrist advises parents to remove the child away from the object of his misbehavior or to take the object away from him. That's not psycho babble.

Anyhow, if Lieber's bill becomes law, it will be just about toothless. How can that law be enforced? Is a one or two year old child going to make a complaint with the authorities? If the spanking is not severe, will one spouse rat out the other? Hardly anyone will be jailed. What it boils down to is that this bill is a bit of feel-good legislation for those who are opposed to corporal punishment.

Sunday, January 21, 2007


Global warming is a worthy subject much discussed in recent times. Those who believe that global warning poses a serious threat to the survival of all living things say that the chief culprits are the emissions of carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping "greenhouse" gases from automobiles and industrial plants. Former Vice President Al Gore produced AN INCONVENIENT TRUTH, a film on global warming which will probably receive an Academy Award nomination on Tuesday for best documentary. Also on Tuesday, trying to turn attention away from Iraq, President Bush is expected to make global warming a cornerstone of his STATE OF THE UNION address.

How serious is global warming? Not all scientist agree. Some believe that we are merely experiencing a cyclical climate change. While most scientists agree that global warming is a serious problem, many do not believe it is as serious as Al Gore has made it out to be in his documentary. President Bush appears to be jumping on the anti-global warming bandwagon only in an attempt to reverse his sinking popularity. The Bush administration has never before been evironmentally friendly.

The Bush administration has done little to clean up industrial pollution. The administration seems to believe that forcing industry to employ more anti-pollution measures would be so costly that many plants would be shut down and rebuilt in countries which have few, if any pollution standards. Instead, the President has called on the American people to conserve energy and for the country to become less energy dependant on fossil fuels as a means of cleaning up the environment.

Many proposals have been put forth on ways to stop global warming. If all of these measures were adopted by this country, would that reduce global warming? If tomorrow this country were to become completely pollution free, would that actually reverse global warming? The answer is "no." Third world countries and emerging nations are responsible for far more pollution than that emitted by the United States. Fossil fuel emissions from Mexico drift across our borders more unimpeded than illegal aliens.

Third world countries are not concerned about pollution. These poor countries are only interested in acquiring economic wealth and are not about to require any costly anti-pollution measures which might discourage new industries from coming. The emerging nations of China and India are going to produce ever increasing amounts of pollutants. China and India are experiencing a huge demand for more and more automobiles and they are going to have to build a large number of dirty coal burning power plants to meet their energy needs.

America should do everything it can to conserve energy and to reduce, if not eliminate, its dependance on fossil fuels. But, it is a pipe dream for us to believe that if we eliminated our automobile and industrial emissions, global warming would actually be reversed.

Monday, January 15, 2007


When a police officer has sex with a woman he has stopped for a traffic violation, or arrested for a misdemeanor, in return for not issuing her a citation or for not taking her to jail, he has used his police powers to commit the crime of official oppression. When a prosecutor uses his powers to indict a suspect on flimsy evidence for the purpose of political gain, is he any less guilty of official oppression?

Last March, a 28 year old single mother of three alleged that three Duke University lacrosse players gang raped her at an off-campus house where she and another woman were paid to perform as strippers during a team party. The national media jumped on this case like a tiger on its prey: A poor black woman, forced to work as a stripper to provide for her children and her tuition at North Carolina Central University, was sexually ravaged by a bunch of rich white kids from one of the nation's premier universities. Latent racial tensions quickly surfaced in Durham, Chapel Hill and Raleigh, North Carolina.

When black activists and their academic supporters demanded immediate action, a rush to judgement was set in motion. Without awaiting an investigation, 88 politically correct Duke professors took out a newspaper ad condemning the lacrosse players and demanding that they confess. Duke University fired the lacrosse coach, cancelled the rest of the lacrosse schedule, and disbanded the team, eventually expelling the accused from school. Mike Nifong, the local district attorney, who was beginning to campaign for re-election to office, took full advantage of these circumstances. What he did in this case made him the poster boy for all malicious prosecutors out to enhance their reputations at the expense of justice.

The "victim," who was intoxicated claimed that three men at the party had dragged her into a bathroom where they took turns beating, raping and sodomizing her, both with penile penetration and penetration by foreign objects. A hospital examination indicated signs of sexual intercourse, but little else to back up the allegations. The "victim" changed her account on several occasions during the initial stages of the investigation. She could not identify her alleged attackers until she was finally shown a photo lineup only of Duke lacrosse players.

The three players she eventually identified were immediately arrested. Nifong held several press conferences during which he practically tried the three suspects in public. He called them "hooligans" and declared that DNA testing would prove the three guilty. His case soon started to fall apart. The other black stripper disputed the "victim's" allegations and claimed that after they left the house, the accuser wanted to return to the party because there was more money to be made. One of the suspects was seen making a distant ATM withdrawal during the time the alleged rape took place. DNA tests revealed the "victim" had sexual intercourse with several men, none of them members of the lacrosse team.

Despite all of these inconsistencies, Nifong obtained indictments against the three suspects for rape, kidnapping and sexual assault, and he continued to hold press conferences to support his case. He was re-elected to office, receiving the overwhelming majority of an energized black vote. The case continued to fall apart following the election. It was revealed that Nifong had requested that the DNA lab withhold the test results. The accuser continued to change her story and when she said there was no penile penetration, Nifong was forced to drop the rape charges. The kidnapping and sexual assault charges, however, remained in effect.

Finally, the North Carolina State Bar had had enough. It filed ethics charges against Nifong for making prejudicial comments to the news media. The State Bar is also investigating his withholding of exculpatory DNA evidence. The North Carolina Conference of District Attorneys then called on Nifong to recuse himself from the case. Last week, Nifong withdrew from the case, claiming a conflict of interest because of the State Bar charges. The North Carolina Attorney General's office took over the case.

Although it looks like the lacrosse players may have been falsely accused, I don't have a lot of sympathy for these jerks. A bunch of white drunk athletes partying with a couple of black strippers is just asking for trouble. However, I do feel for the parents of the accused who, as victims of Nifong's personsl ambitions, have been subjected to considerable pain and enormous legal bills.

The accuser should face criminal charges if, for whatever reason, she deliberately lied about what happened at the party. As for the real rapist (of justice) in this case, Nifong ought to be tarred and feathered, and ridden out of town on a rail. I hope he will be disbarred, charged with official oppression, and sued for malicious prosecution. Then, justice will have been served.

Sunday, January 07, 2007


It was bound to happen sooner or later. Give someone some authority who's never had any and watch it go to his head. Erik Estrada, 57 years old and paunchy, lost his cool during the filming of a domestic disturbance arrest for CBS TV's forthcoming "reality" series, ARMED AND FAMOUS. Estrada, a star in the 70's cop show ChiPs, got into an obscenity-filled shouting match with Randall Sims, 53, of Muncie, Indiana.

Sims was arrested and cuffed after suffering a stab wound in the leg during a domestic dispute. After Sims was placed in an ambulance, Estrada was asked to enter the ambulance and remove the handcuffs. While in the amublance, Estrada took offense when Sims mistakingly called him Emilio Estevez. Estevez, who has no connection to the CBS show, is another actor and the son of actor Martin Sheen.

It seems that while both were in the ambulance, Sims made some reference to his successful attempt in getting a Muncie street renamed after Martin Luther King and, while addressing Estrada as Estevez, told him he knew nothing about Dr. King. Sims also said he did not want to be shown on television and complained that Estrada had only been in Muncie for "two days." Estrada became enraged and an obscenity-filled shouting match erupted between the two antagonists. Estrada shouted that he had been in Muncie for six weeks and that he grew up in Spanish Harlem, a Manhattan neighborhood mentioned by King in one of his speeches.

Later, Muncie Police Chief Joe Winkle counseled Estrada about his behavior. Winkle told Estrada that cops encounter antagonism all the time and that a professional officer is expected to disregard any untoward remarks directed his way.

What's next on this farcical "reality" show? If a drunk starts yapping at La Toya Jackson, is she going to whip out her breast, a la the 2005 Super Bowl, and smack him in the mouth with it? Is "Wee Man" going to get pissed off during an encounter and stand up to bite some guy in the balls? One thing is certain - CBS will never air Estrada's dangerous foul mouthed tirade on its show.

Saturday, January 06, 2007


Lately, a lot has been written on how many people in this country are serving time in prison for possessing small amounts of drugs and how many people have been released from death rows because serious post-trial questions arose about their conviction of capital murder. It should be noted that those putting forth these positions do so with misleading information because they have hidden agendas.

It is true that the prisons are full of inmates who were convicted for possession of illicit drugs. But, these people were not arrested for possessing three or four joints of marijuana or a couple of crack cocaine rocks. They were arrested for selling drugs or apprehended with a quantity of drugs large enough to constitute possession with intent to manufacture, distribute or sell. Because of plea bargaining, the original charges we reduced to possession.

The death penalty was reinstated 30 years ago. Since then, 123 people have been released from death rows because of prosecutorial misconduct, an inadequate defense, or DNA testing results. Of those released, 14 were cleared by DNA testing. Most of the other 109 were released because they received an inadequate defense. Are those who received an inadequate defense innocent of a capital offense? Possibly a few, but most of them killed someone in cold blood.

Unfortunately, it is a fact that most defendants without the means to hire an attorney, do not receive an adequate defense. Their court appointed attorneys, the jetsam and flotsam of the legal profession, lack the competence and/or resources of attorneys hired by those who can afford them.

Attorneys who depend on court appointments for their livelyhood are more interested in securing as many appointments as possible than in providing their clients with a proper time-consuming defense. Justice demands that the best defense possible is available to every person charged with a crime. That calls for abolishing the court appointed attorney system and replacing it with a well staffed and funded public defender's office.

What about those hidden agendas? Those who say the prisons are full of people convicted of possessing small amounts of drugs want to see the possession of drugs, especially marijuana, decriminalized. Those who want to cast doubt on the guilt of death row inmates want to see the death penalty abolished. They deliberately try to mislead us into believing that the prisons are full of simple pot smokers, and that putting an innocent person to death is not a remote possibility.

Wednesday, January 03, 2007


On December 28, 2006, another milestone was reached in the Iraq war when the number American dead reached 3,000. Around 22,000 American soldiers have been wounded in the four years that this war has been fought. I don't mean to minimize the number of casualties, but I want to put them in perspective with some of our nation's other conflicts,

During the four years of our Civil War (1861 - 1865), 140,414 Union soldiers were killed in action and 281,881 were wounded. 74,524 Confederate soldiers were killed and a large number wounded, the total number being unknown.

During the Korean War (1950 - 1953), 36,568 American soldiers were killed and 103,284 were wounded. During the Vietnam War (1964 - 1975), 58,199 American soldiers died and 153,303 were wounded.

During the 36-day (February 19 - March 26, 1045) Battle of Iwo Jima, a small Pacific island 4.5 miles long and 2.5 miles wide, 6,891 U.S. Marines were killed and 18,070 were wounded. So, during one month on Iwo Jima, more than twice as many American soldiers were killed and almost as many were wounded, as were killed and wounded during the first four years of the war in Iraq.

Every soldier's death is a devastating tragedy to the fallen one's survivors and my heart goes out to the families of soldiers killed or wounded in Iraq. But, when you compare the number of soldiers killled and wounded during four years in Iraq with the number killed and wounded in other conflicts, we are talking about a relatively small number. And when you look at the casualties just in the Battle of Iwo Jima, a month-long fight for only 11 square miles of ground, the number of dead and wounded in Iraq pale by comparison.

With the Vietnam War, Americans developed a pacifist mind set. Wars will be tolerated only if victory is swift and certain with a neglibible number of casualties. We are a nation of wimpy whiners when wars drag on and casualties mount. But, you will only find a few among the families of our fallen heroes joining in opposition to the war in Iraq. Despite their loss and grief, most of these families continue to support the war.

Those who are horrified because we have reached a new milestone of 3,000 American dead in Iraq, completely disregard the fact that our soldiers are all volunteers. Our military exists to fight anywhere anytime there is a threat against the security of the United States or its national interests. Accordingly, its members may be placed in the position of having to kill or be killed. No one forced our soldiers to join up. It is totally irrelevant that their only reason for volunteering may have been to obtain education benefits.

The war in Iraq has become a millstone hanging around the necks of the Bush administration and the Republican party. Because of the war, the Democrats now control both houses of Congress. Their chances of winning the next presidential election improve as the war drags on and the casualties mount. The Bush administration has only itself to blame. It relied on faulty intelligence to get us into the war and it did not have a plan for the occupation of Iraq once the Iraqi army had been defeated.

In trying to cast off its millstone, the administration is left with few options. If it pulls out of Iraq prematurely, the rest of the world will see this as a defeat of the mighty United States and our global influence will be severely diminished. Such a defeat will leave the Mideast in chaos and embolden our enemies. To continue the war until we achieve a stable Middle East, we will have to keep a large number of troops in Iraq for years to come. Our nation of wimpy whiners will never tolerate a seemingly never ending war.