JUDICIAL WHORES - IT'S TIME TO CHANGE THE METHOD OF HIRING EXPERT WITNESSES

Expert witnesses in criminal trials are one of the best examples of the inequality in our criminal justice system. Criminal defendants who can afford to hire the best attorneys that money can buy can also afford to hire the best expert witnesses that money can buy. The vast majority of criminal defendants can neither afford a good attorney, nor an expert witness. In many instancs, the poor are flushed down the criminal justice system's toilet. In jurisdictions that fund a Public Defender system, the poor are likely to get a better defense than in a system of court appointed attorneys.

In cases where an expert witness could be helpful to a defendant, the Public Defender's office may not always have enough funds to obtain expert testimony. Except in capital cases, court appointed attorneys are notorious for providing only the most minimal defense allowed under the law. More often than not, they encourage their clients to accept a plea bargain, not because that is best for their client, but so they can get another appointment sooner. Worse yet, many court appointed attorneys are so inept that the only way these BOTTOM FEEDERS can make a living as lawyers is to hustle for such appointments.

Expert witnesses, in both criminal and civil trials, are often referred to as "Hired Guns" because they usually hire themselves out to the highest bidder in our adverserial judicial system. I prefer to call them JUDICIAL WHORES, because that is what they are. For criminal cases, there are established lists of experts who will testify favorably for the prosecution and lists of those who will testify favorably for the defemse. Of course, there are those who will testify for either side, depending on who offeres them the most money. These judicial whores do not come cheap, with many commanding more than $400 per hour, including research and preparation time in addition to time on the witness stand, plus all of their travel, lodging, and meal expenses.

There are many kinds of expert witnesses for both criminal and civil cases. Just to name a few, there are those in medicine, structural engineering, accident reconstruction, chemistry, physics, income loss, long-term care, etc.. In medicine alone, there are experts for every specialty, such as forensic pathologists, surgeons, Ob-Gyn physicans, neurologists, orthopedists, plastic surgeons, and of course, psychiatrists. In the O. J. Simpson trial, there was contradictory testimony given by prominent forensic pathologists and by prominent forensic scientists, depending on whether they were paid by the prosecution or by the defense.

The psychiatrists, as well as psychologists, are the worst of the judicial whores, testifying for the prosecution that the defendant is sane or testifying for the defense that he is insane. If medicine is an art, then PSYCHIATRY IS A FANTASY. When Sirhan Sirhan was tried for the 1968 assassination of Robert F. Kennedy, there was so much conflicting testimony by the psychiatric experts, that the jury wanted it entered into the trial record that they were thoroughly disgusted by it and considered it absolutely worthless.

The Andrea Yates case is another example ot the psychiatric shenanigans perpetrated by these judical whores. During the first trial the defense presented several psychiatrists and psychologists, all of whom testified that Yates did not know right from wrong, the Texas standard for insanity, when she drowned her five children in a bathtub. The prosecution relied mostly on the testimony of Park Dietz, a California-based psychiatrist who has not practiced psychiatry for 25 years and who earns his living strictly by testifying as an expert witness for prosecutors. Dr. Dietz has testified for the prosecution in the trials of John Hinckley (for attempting to assassinate President Reagan), "Unabomber" Ted Kaczynski, and serial killer Jeffrey Dahmer, as well as in many other headline-making trials.

In the first Yates trial, Dr. Dietz testfied that Andrea got the idea for killing her children, and how to get away with it, by watching a TV episode of "Law and Order" in which a mother was found not guilty by reason of insanity after drowning her children. The only problem with that testimony was that there never was any such episode. Because of Dr. Dietz's false testimony, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals overturned her conviction and ordered a new trial. In the second trial, Dr. Dietz again testified that Yates knew that killing her children was wrong, contrary to the testimony given by the defendant's mental health experts. Ironically, in between the two Yates trials, Dr. Dietz testified at the trial of a nearly identical case in Northeast Texas.

In May 2003, Deanna Laney bludgeoned her children with a stone, killing her six and eight year old sons and critically injuring her 14 year old son. Both Yates and Laney had a long history of psychotic episodes prior to the killings. Both reported the killings to the police by calling "911." The only differences in the two cases were the method of killing and that Yates claimed the Devil told her to do it, while Laney claimed that God told her to do it. The Smith County District Attorney, knowing in advance how Dr. Dietz would testify, nevertheless called him to the witness stand where he testified that Laney was "crazy" because she did not know right from wrong. Apparently, Dr. Dietz believes you are sane if the Devil tells you to kill your children, but you are crazy if God tells you to do it.

In both Yates trials the prosecutors, unlike the District Attorney in Smith County, were hell-bent on obtaining a death sentence in the first trial and a life sentence in the second trial. (Since she was sentenced to life in the first trial, the prosecution was barred from seeking the death penalty in the second one.) In the second trial the prosecution again relied on Dr. Dietz's expert testimony, as well as that of Dr. Michael Weiner, a psychiatrist from New York. Dr Dietz was paid a total of $142,000 for his testimony in both trials.

It is alleged that Dr. Weiner first approached the defense and offered to testify that Yates was insane. When the defense refused to meet his price, he turned around and offered his services to the prosecution. Unaware of his overtures to the defense, the prosecution called Dr. Weiner to the stand where he testified that Yates knew the drownings were wrong and that she was motivated to kill the children by her selfish needs. If, as alleged, he solicited both sides in the Yates case, offering each the testimony he believed they wanted, Dr. Weiner is a shoo-in to win the RED LANTERN, my award for the JUDICIAL WHORE OF THE YEAR. Dr Weiner and his consulting firm were paid $242,966.74 for their work in the second trial.

Is there a way that we can level the playing field between the rich and the poor in our criminal justice system? One way would be to establish a Public Defender's office in every judicial jurisdiction, thereby eliminating the court appointed "bottom feeders." A Public Defender's office, like those in several states and that with the federal government, is funded in the same way as a District Attorney's office. Thus, the Public Defender's office would be staffed with conscientious attorneys and investigators, and be funded to hire expert witnesses which, except for capital cases, are not likely to be available for the defense of indigents under a system of court appointed attorneys.

In order to provide real equality in the criminal justice system, it is just as important to eliminate the present system of hiring expert witnesses. The state legislatures should pass a law to establish a STATE POOL of distinguished experts who are willing to serve if needed in criminal trials. This pool would be chosen by a commission appointed by the Governor, consisting of the Attorney General, a State Senator, a State Representative, a judge, a District Attorney, and a Public Defender or prominent defense attorney. The expert witnesses in the pool would be put on a generous annual retainer funded by the state. Their expenses for travel, lodging, and meals would be paid for by the court wherein they testified. They would receive no other compensation for testifying. Neither the prosecution nor the defense would be allowed to use their own expert witnesses.

With such a pool in place, if the judge trying a criminal case has been convinced that an outside expert witness is needed to interpret crime scene evidence and police laboratory analyses, he would select only one expert from each specialty, subject to the approval of both the prosecutor and the defense attorney. The jury would be advised that the court has determined that the case requires the services of an expert witness and that the expert is testifying for the court, and not for the prosecution or for the defense. This system would not only level the playing field, but it would free a jury of having to decide which contradictory expert testimony is correct, as is the case with the current "hired gun" system.

The jury in a criminal case should never be placed in the position of having to decide whether a defendant was sane or insane, based on the contradictory testimony given by mental health experts who were hired by each side in the trial. Nor should a jury of lay persons be subjected to conflicting scientific and technical testimony from experts paid by one side or the other. In criminal cases, equal justice for all would best be served by providing the poor with good attorneys and by eliminating the current practice of hiring the best experts that money can buy. It is high time for us to throw the Judicial Whores out of the Criminal Justice system.

ISRAEL - DOOMED TO DISAPPEAR OFF THE MAP

Israel, a flyspeck on the global map. is slightly smaller than the State of New Jersey. It has a population of 7.1 million living within its pre-1967 borders of 8,550 square miles. Its "gooseneck," which borders the occupied West Bank and includes Tel Aviv (Israel's largest city), is less than nine miles wide. With the Mediterranean on one side, Israel is surrounded on three sides by hundreds-of-millions of Muslims who dream of pushing Israel and its Jews into the sea. The two largest Muslim sects, Sunni and Shiite, hate and kill each other, but both are united in their hatred of Jews and of Israel, which they prefer to call "The Zionist Entity."

Israel's war with Hezbollah in Lebanon has shown that the State of Israel is very vulnerable to destructive attacks. During the "Six Day War" of 1967, Israel's army defeated the combined armies of Egypt, Syria, Jordan and other Arab countries. Since then, Israel's military has been considered one of the best in the world for fighting a conventional war. However, Hezbollah - the Army of God - is a guerrilla force, not a conventional army. (The political wing of Hezbollah is the Party of God.) As we have learned from Viet Nam and from Iraq, you cannot defeat a guerrilla force by conventional war tactics. Guerrillas do not maintain definitive battle lines and they have the ablility to meld in and out of the local civilian population. Civilian casualties cannot be avoided whenever a military force engages in battle with a guerrilla group.

Hezbollah, a Shiite militia which was formed in the early 1980s, is highly disciplined, well trained, and well armed with anti-personnel and anti-tank weapons. During the 18 years that Israel occupied a 15-mile deep buffer zone in Southern Lebanon, Hezbollah was able to fight a war of attrition which resulted in Israel's withdrawal from that country in 2000. Because Lebanon's army is laughable, Hezbollah has been able to establish a state-within-a-state in Southern Lebanon, with its leadership ensconced in Southern Beirut. It has been funded by Iran and supplied with weapons by Iran and Syria. Israel's air force has destroyed much of Lebanon's infrastructure in an attempt to weaken Hezbollah. However, these air attacks cannot, by themselves, defeat Hezbollah. A full-scale invasion of Lebanon will be needed to defeat the Army of God, but the United Nations, the European Union, and the United States will not allow that.

Until now, Israel had to worry only about attacks by Palestinian Shuhada (suicide bombers) and by very inaccurate homemade Palestinian Qassam rockets, as well as occasional Katyusha rocket attacks by Hezbollah. While one Shahid (suicide bomber) can kill scores of innocent civilians, the Qassams and Katyushas cannot do that. They are short-range unguided missles without any accuracy and often fall harmlessly in areas unoccupied by civilians. They have no military value and their sole purpose is to terrorize the civilian population. Now, however, Hezbollah has been able to expose Israel's soft underbelly - an easy missle target with a population quick to panic and with its superior military forces failing to defeat a guerrilla militia.

During the first twelve days of Israel's war with Hezbollah, the guerrillas have been able to fire some 2,000 rockets, mostly Katyushas, into Israel. However, Hezbollah has also fired a number of mid-range Iranian FAJR-3 military missles which have been able to strike as far south as Haifa (Israel's third largest city) and Nazareth, both over 20 miles from the Lebanese border. While these rocket attacks have killed only around 35 civilians (during the first twelve days), they have created panic throughout Northern Israel, with some 300,000 plus Israelis fleeing to other parts of the country. The Israeli air force has been unable to destroy Hezbollah's mobile rocket launchers. Fortunately for Israel, Hezbollah does not appear to have any sophisticated guided missles and so, for now, it is immune from attacks by missles capable of causing severe damage and a high number of casualties.

Now, to the "Road Map to Peace," the plan for two states living side by side - Israel and Palestine - which was cooked up by the European Union, Russia, and the United States. This is really a "Road Map to the Destruction of Israel." That plan will serve only as a rest stop on the road to Israel's annihilation. Once a Palestinian state has been established, it will not be long before guided missles will find their way into that state. Those people, including "experts" on the MIddle East, who believe that "moderate" Muslims are willing to live in peace with Israel, are dreaming. Let's not forget that the Palestinians consider Israeli Jews to be living on land stolen from them. And, several analysts have noted that the Islamists want to kill all Christians and all Jews, whereas the moderate Muslims only want to kill all the Jews.

Even if Israel eventually neutralizes Hezbollah, the fierce resistance it has been meeting while trying to uproot that Shiite militia, and Hezbollah's ability to continue with its rocket strikes on Haifa and other Jewish towns while battling Israel's powerful army, will only embolden the multitudes who are intent on destroying "The Zionist Entity." When a Palestinian state is firmly in place, tiny Israel will be vulnerable to missle attacks from three sides, and the Muslim dream of driving the hated Zionists into the sea will become a reality. In all likelyhood, by the end of the next decade there will be Islamic nuclear bombs and that development will neutralize Israel's nuclear arsenal. When Islamists finally launch a massive attack on Israel with powerful sophisticated missles, only military intervention by the United Sates and the European Union will be able to save the Jewish state, and that will never happen. Thus, there is a good chance that by mid-century, a doomed Israel will have been wiped off the map.

KEN LAY EULOGIZED AS A LYNCHED JESUS

Paraphrasing Shakespeare: "Friends, Houstonians, countrymen, lend me your ears. I come to praise Enron's Caesar, not to bury his good name." And so it went, when public luminaries and family members spoke during Ken Lay's recent Houston memorial service.

The most ludicrous eulogy was given by the Rev. Bill Lawson, pastor emeritus of Wheeler Avenue Baptist Chruch, one of Houston's largest black churches. It must be noted that Ken Lay has contributed significant amounts of money to Rev. Lawson's church and to a charitable organization which the good reverend founded. Also, Rev. Lawson was often seen at Ken Lay's side during his fraud trial and accompanied him to hear the jury's verdict. His frequent appearances with Ken Lay during the trial and the eulogy he presented can only be seen for what they were - paybacks to his patron saint.

What did Rev. Lawson say during his eulogy? Well, for one thing, he compared Ken Lay to Jesus, to President John F. Kennedy, and to the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., explaining that all had been villified during their lives only to be judged by History as great men. For another, he likened Ken Lay's trial to the lynching of James Byrd, the black victim of white racist thugs who tied him to their vehicle, drove off, and dragged him to his death. The good reverend said, "Ken Lay was neither black nor poor, as James Byrd was, but I'm angry because Ken was the victim of a lynching." During several subsequent television appearances, he explained that Lay was lynched because the trial judge refused to grant him a change of venue, refused to separate his trial from that of Jeff Skilling, and refused his lawyers' requests for more trial preparation time.

I'll say this for Rev. Lawson. By comparing them to Ken Lay, he trashed Jesus, JFK and MLK, demoting them from saints to crooks with a single stroke of the brush. As for the "lynching," Rev. Lawson should know better. James Byrd did not hire the best defense lawyers that money could buy, and he never received a jury trial. Lynching, which constitutes punishment absent of a trial, has a long history in Ameirca. In our early history many people were "tarred and feathered" for what was considered unacceptable behavior. In the Old Wild West, many miscreants were whipped or hanged without benefit of trial, or after a quick trial by a "kangaroo court." And, during the years from the Civil War to Dr. King's assassination, many blacks were beaten to death, shot, or hanged by white mobs, sometimes for crimes, but more often for the most innocuous of perceived offenses. Thus, by any conceivable measure, Ken Lay was not the victim of a lynching.

Ken Lay was a good man who turned bad. Consumed by greed, Enron's Caesar was instrumental in wiping out the life savings of his loyal employees, while defrauding Enron's investors out of 65 billion dollars. He touted Enron's stock to his employees and other investors, even after the impending collapse of Enron became apparent, while enriching himself by dumping his shares. Neither history nor Rev. Lawson will resurrect his reputation as a good man. Ken Lay's legacy will be that of a greedy corporate crook who was defiant and unrepentant to the bitter end. Sorry, Rev. Lawson, but there will be no second coming of your patron saint Ken's honorable reputation.

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND PARANOIA - INTERNATIONAL TERRORISTS ARE TARGETING ICE CREAM PARLORS IN INDIANA

The Department of Homeland Security has released a database which lists more than 77,000 potential terrorist targets in the United States, including ice cream parlors, popcorn factories, children's petting zoos, and flea markets. Indiana is listed as the state with the most terrorist targets - 8,591 - as compared to New York with 5,687 and California with 3,212. Have the bureaucrats at Homeland Security lost their minds? Or, are these PARASITES ON THE PUBLIC PAYROLL merely trying to justify their jobs by coming up with this ridiculous list? Ice Cream parlors? Indiana with the most targets? Incredible! Come on - they've got to be kiddidng. If these people really believe that every gathering place for a handful of people is a target for international terrorism, they have got to be paranoid.

Most terrorism analysts agree that the primary objectives of internatioal terrorists are to disrupt the financial community of the United States in order to cripple, if not destroy our economy, and to disrupt the ability of our government to function. That is why the World Trade Center was attacked, not once, but twice. The 9/11 attack on the WTC was an attack on the financial center of the United States and, in addition to killing 3,000 innocent peoiple, it did cause great harm to our economy. The recent uncovered plot to destroy the tunnels between New York and New Jersey was clearly designed as another attack on this coujntry's financial center and, had it been carried out, would have created further economic havoc throughout the United States. The 9/11 attack on the Pentagon and the failed attack on Congress or the White House were clearly designed to disrupt the governance of our country. And recently, seventeen Muslim terrorists in Canada were arrested while planning to disrupt its government by blowing up Parliament and by beheading the Prime Minister.

The recent bombing of trains in Bombay was also designed to disrupt India's economy and, because that city is one of India's financial centers, it succeeded in its objective. The bombing of trains in Madrid and London had the same objective and succeeded in disrupting the economies of Spain and Britain. While civilian casualties may terrorize and demoralize people, a secondary objective of the bombings, they are seen only as collateral damage in the effort to destabalize the economy and government of the target nation. The bombing of ice cream parlors, popcorn factories, petting zoos, and flea markets will in no way achieve the objectives of internatioal terrorism. I'll probably catch a lot of flack for saying this, but if terrorists blew up the whole state of Indiana, it would not cause nearly as much harm to our econmy as did the 9/11 attacks on the WTC.

The Department of Homeland Security was formed to correct the pre-9/11 lack of cooperation between competing agencies by placing the CIA, the FBI and all other federal law enforcement agencies, the Coast Guard, and FEMA under one umbrella. It is just another feel-good government agency with a huge bureaucracy. It buried FEMA within its bowels to the extend that FEMA was ineffective in dealing with Hurricane Katrina and Hurricane Rita. While FEMA's former director, Michael Brown, was scapegoated for the Katrina debacle, the fault was really that of the Homeland Security administration.

The database of more than 77,000 targets was the determining factor in allocating the hundreds-of-millions of dollars in anti-terrorism funds to the states and cities of our country. Thus, Indiana received a disproportionate amount of funding, as did several cities in the Midwest, while New York and the District of Columbia lost 40 percent of their funding, and funds for other primary target sites were also reduced. One target was listed as an unamed "Beach at End of a Street." Wow ! Those bureaucrats have really earned their money. Some Arkansas hillbilly's outhouse seems to be the only target left off their list. If they actually believe that those listed are all potential targets, including that beach at the end of the street, then they have truly taken leave of their senses and we ought to rename that part of the President's Cabinet, the DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND PARANOIA.

KEN LAY: DID HE CHEAT JUSTICE BY HIS DEATH?

Now, people are complaining that justice has been cheated by the death of Ken Lay because his conviction will be vacated and he will not be going to prison. Furthermore, his death has brought the conspiracy nuts out ot the woodwork. Some believe that he really did not die and that he used his wealth to fake his death and have another body substituted for his. Others believe that he committed suicide by ingesting some drugs to bring on a fatal heart attack, thereby preventing the government from seizing his wealth so that it would be preserved for his family. And then, there are those who believe he was murdered.

To begin with, Ken Lay's death has not cheated justice. Ken Lay has been a pillar of his community. He had been involved in a number of notable civic activities and has made many generous contributions to various charitable organizations. He appeared to be sincere in the practice of his religious faith. He was a loving family man - a husband, a father and a grandfather - and he was loved by his family. But all of his love and good works will be offset by his legacy as a GREEDY CORPORATE CROOK who brought about the demise of Enron, wiped out the life savings of Enron's employees, and defrauded Enron's investors out of 65 billion dollars.

Ken Lay is an example of a good person being consumed by greed. It happens all too often. There have been too many instances of corporate corruption in recent years. In some ways, our government encourages wrongdoing by corporations. There are loopholes in our tax codes which allow corporations and wealthy individuals to avoid paying their fair share of taxes. By establishing bogus headquarters in foreign countries with extremely low tax rates, American corporations are able to legally evade billions of dollars in federal and state taxes.

With Ken Lay's history of heart disease, Enron's downfall, the long criminal trial, the guilty verdict, the numerous civil lawsuits, and the prospect of facing the rest of his life in prison, all together probably piled up enough stress to bring on his fatal heart attack. Ken Lay's uncharacteristic arrogant and angry demeanor on the witness stand was indicative of a deeply troubled stressed-out man. He brought all this stress on himself. He has been utterly disgraced and now he is dead.

Even Ken Lay's one-third of a page gushy glorifying obituary in the Houston Chronicle, which detailed his family, education, military and government service history, his good civic, culturual and charitable deeds, and his family's love for each other, all sprinkled with references to his Christian faith and a certainty that he has joined his Lord in Heaven, cannot restore his ruined reputation as it was designed to do, and led only to laughter or derision by all but his friends and family. Ken Lay paid the ultimate price and it would be preposterous to say that, by his death, he has managed to cheat justice.

GOD BLESS AMERICA - LOVE IT OR LEAVE IT !

As we celebrate this Fourth of July, our Independence Day and 230th birthday, it is a good time to reflect on how fortunate we are to live in such a great country with its freedoms and opportunities, and to never take these for granted. Back in the '60s, when we had a bunch of scruffy hippies and left-wing academics praising and supporting the North Vietnamese, those of us loyal to the United States coined the phrase LOVE IT OR LEAVE IT. That phrase quickly became politically incorrect.

Yesterday (July 3rd), Tucker Carlson, host of THE SITUATION on MSNBC, revived the phrase LOVE IT OR LEAVE IT. He was critical of those people in this country who constantly express their hatred for the United States and suggested they pack up and leave. To that I say AMEN !

For 23 years, until I retired in 1993, I had the unpleasant experience of having to teach at a good college with several avowed Marxist professors on its faculty who constantly berated our government and our free market economic system. These Marxists had, and still have a controlling influence over the college's administration. They have been successdul in electing their choice of candidates to the college's Board of Trustees with the help of the local labor unions. They try to INDOCTRINATE students by teaching them WHAT TO THINK, rather than educate students by teaching them how to think. They pervert the content of courses in American History, United States Government, Sociology, and Economics, by teaching their students that America exploits its workers, oppresses the masses, designs its foreign policy in order to enrich our oil companies and other conglomerates, and sponsors FACIST Israel's state terrorism against the Palestinians and other Arabs. They insist that America is an imperialistic and terrorist nation reponsible for millions of deaths in the Middle East and other parts of the world, and that we have only OURSELVES TO BLAME for the "9/11" attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.

The problem is that we have subversive Marxist and other ultra-leftist academics on most college and university faculties throughout this country. who constantly express their hatred for America to highly impressionable students. They resort to half-truths, inaccuracies, distortions, deliberate omissions of opposing facts, and cite only "authorities" favoring their viewpoints to the exclusion of those holding opposite viewpoints. They try to undermine support for our government by destroying patriotism and pride in our coudntry. These professors are guilty of intellectual deceit and dishonesty, and they are DISLOYAL if they refuse to pledge allegiance to our flag and country. The poisoning of young minds by this subversive "Fifth Column" of Marxist and other ultra-leftist academics constitutes a greater threat to the United States than international terrorism.

I would not object if colleges offered courses entitled "Corrupt Exploitative Capitalism," or "The Marvelous Workers Paradise of Marxism," or "Glorious Godless Communism," or "American Imperialism and Terrorism," or even "Evil Oppressive American History," because then students would know in advance what kind of courses they were enrolling in. However, colleges and universities do not have the guts to offer such entitled courses. Instead, they allow the Marxists and other ultra-leftists on their faculties to pervert the content of courses they teach which are required of all students seeking a degree, and they protect these subversives by proclaiming that, under the Principle of Academic Freedom, they have the right to do so. THAT IS PURE UNADULTERATED HOGWASH ! Those principles CLEARLY PROHIBIT professors from advocating a particular agenda.

Despite our history of slavery and discrimination against minorities, the corrupting influence of powerful special interest lobbyists, and the recent scandals of collusion between corrupt corporations and their crooked outside accountants, bankers and lawyers, this is still the greatest country in the world. The critics of capitalism conveniently overlook the fact that corruption has been endemic in every communist "workers paradise." We, and that includes Marxist academics, are free to criticize our government and its policies. We enjoy a free press. We are free to practice the religiion of our choice. While not everyone is wealthy, this is really the land of opportunity. The poor in this country are wealthy when compared to most of the people who live in Third World countries. That is why so many people throughout the world want to immigrate to America. And, what about the workers paradise? Well, there are only five communist countries remaining in the world - Cuba, China, Vietnam, Laos, and North Korea - and both China and Vietnam have started moving toward a free market economy.

As a grateful immigrant, a proud naturalized citizen, and a patriotic WWII veteran, I have an abiding love for this country. To those who have nothing good to say about this country and who express their hatred for the United States, I say GOD BLESS AMERICA - LOVE IT OR LEAVE IT !

LIMBAUGH'S DITTOHEADS IN SERIOUS NEED OF HELP

Hey, Dittoheads! Now is the time for "you people" to admit yourselves to a hospital for a long overdue treatment of your Limbaugh addiction. When are you going to wake up and realize that you have been conned by your hero, that pompous buffoon of a blowhard? Considering his oxycontin and Viagra escapades, you are really in need of help if you continue to believe in that clown.

Dittoheads are like professional wrestling fans. I used to live in the same Times Square area hotel where pro wrestlers stayed while in New York. The hotel had a small gym where I watched them rehearse for their coming matches. There is no way anyone will ever convince rabid pro wrestling fans that the matches in their favorite sport are nothing more than well rehearsed theater, starring very good athletic actors who, on occasion, may experience a real, but accidental injury. Likewise, there is no way anyone will ever convince Limbaugh's rabid fans that their hero's broadcasts are really nothing more than theater, starring a good four-flushing phony actor.

Let's start with the latest episode, in which he was detained at the Palm Beach International Airport when he was found in possession of Viagra pills without a prescription. He laughs it off by saying that "I got my blue M&Ms at the Clinton Library gift shop." Ha, ha, ha! But, that's really no laughing matter. While Rush Limbaugh may not have violated any Florida laws, the laws in many states make it a crime to be in posession of prescription drugs which have been prescribed to another patient and they make it a crime for a doctor to facilitate such prescriptions. Most certainly, the possession of Viagra in another patient's name and a doctor's complicity in this scam constitute unethical behavior, even though those acts are not illegal in Florida.

Now lets go back to the oxycontin episode. Oxycontin, a controlled substance, is a powerful narcotic which is known on the streets as "hillbilly heroin." Limbaugh, who claims to have been addicted to this drug for years, was initially prescribed oxycontin to treat a recurring pain problem. However, once he became addicted, he started committing "doctor shopping" felonies by fraudulently obtaining amounts of oxycontin and other narcotics far in excess of that which would be prescribed to treat his pain problem. Limbaugh, who was arrested and charged with several felonies, avoided a trial by accepting placement in a pretrial diversion program, which requires him to adhere to a number of conditions, including the completion of a drug addict treatment program. If he successfully completes the terms of his pretrial diversion program, the felony charges will be dismissed.

I don't have a problem with Limbaugh being placed in a non-punitive pretrial diversion program and I do wish him well in any effort he makes to overcome his drug addiction. What I do have a problem with is that this strong law and order advocate obviously believes that laws exist for everyone but Rush Limbaugh, and that he considers himself to be above the law.

For a long time I enjoyed listening to Limbaugh on the radio. However, after a while I discovered that he often played loose with the facts. Because many of his factual presentations were simply incorrect, I tuned him out and thereby, thankfully, avoided becoming a Dittohead Limbaugh addict. It makes just as much sense, if not more, to listen to that foul-mouthed, but non-pretentious shock-jock, Howard Stern. Shame on the Republicans for pandering to Limbaugh's legions by continuing to invite this charlatan to address their conferences. If "Roach Limburger" (oops, my mistake) is representative of conservatives, then I will have to call myself - ugh, God forbid - a liberal.

As for the Dittoheads, "you people" better seek treatment for your Limbaugh addiction before it is too late. If "you people" still believe in this loud-mouthed jerk, you obviously don't know it, but some of you are very stupid, while most of you are sick and in serious need of help!

MILITANT MUSLIMS: EXTREMISTS OR TRUE BELIEVERS?

So, the Canadian authorities have arrested seventeen homegrown terrorists, intent on blowing up several landmarks in Ontario Province, including Parliament and other government buildings in Ottawa, beheading the Prime Minister, random shootings of innocent people, and other acts of terror. During a sting operation, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) provided them with three tons of ammonium nitrate, a fertilizer which when mixed with diesel fuel forms a very powerful explosive. This amount was three times what was used in 1995 to blow up the federal building in Oklahoma City, killing 168 people. They had also accumulated a large cache of weapons. Those arrested, twelve mostly young adults and five minors, all militant Muslims from middle class Canadian Muslim families, had also established a terrorist training camp which was attended by at least two Americans, Muslims attending college in Georgia.

The politically correct crowd has already come out with their mantra that 99.99 percent of all Muslims in Canada and the United States are good law abiding citizens who are opposed to all forms of terrorism. What a crock! One cannot lump all Muslims into one group anymore than you can lump all Christians or all Jews into one group.

There are many Christian denominations, ranging all the way from The Assemblies of God and the Pentecostal evangelicals, who interpret the bible literally, to ultra-liberal Unitarians. In between you have what the media refers to as "mainstream Christians" and which I call "convenience Christians" (Catholics excepted), whose followers interpret the bible to suit their spiritual needs as members of a secular society. And, in each denomination there are backsliders like those who go to church every Sunday, but get drunk during the week or cheat on their spouses, and those Catholics who are "pro-choice" instead of "pro-life," or who engage in sex for pleasure instead of only for procreation, and who do not go to confession. Who then are the true believers among Christians? That dpends on who you ask, as each group would insist that they are the true believers.

Among Jews, there are three denominations - Orthodox, Conservative, and Reform. Orthodox Jews are fundamentalists who live according to the scriptures in the Talmud and the Torah, keeping strict kosher households, practicing daily prayer rituals and the required woship in synagogues, and obeying mandatory restrictions on their activities during the sabbbath and during religious holidays. All prayers and religious ceremonies are conducted strictly in Hebrew. Orthodox men cannot shave and must cover their heads at all times, while ultra-Orthodox Jews also wear a distinctive style of clothing. Orthodox women are subserviant to Orthodox men and must worship in a segregated section of the synagogue. Orthodox Jews are required to observe a total of 613 such commandments.

The Conservative movement started in Western Europe because many Jews wanted a more liberal lifestyle than the one required of Orthodox Jews. Reform Judaism was founded in the United States by Jews who wanted to assimilate into American society. Reform Jews do not keep kosher and the men do not cover their heads during worship. While some prayers are conducted in Hebrew, most worship takes place in the language of the host country. Women can become rabbis. Most Jews in the United States belong to Reform congregations. Orthodox Jews do not recognize or tolerate the Conservative and Reform movements, and they sneer at Reform Jews by calling them "Christians without Christ." I prefer to think of Reform Jews as "pick and choose Jews" because they pick and choose only enough beliefs of the jewish faith which will allow them to maintain a jewish identity. Among Reform Jews, interfaith marriages with Christians have led to a steady decline in the number of those who identify themselves as Jews. Who among Jews are the true believers? That is an easy question, and the answer is: Orthodox Jews.

Among Muslims, there are also a number of different sects. Because of the strife in Iraq, Westerners know that two of those sects are the Shiites and Sunnis. Wahhabis (Muwahhids), the most fundamental Islamists, adhere to a literal interpretation of the Quran and require strict obedience to Sharia (Islamic religious law). Women are subserviant to men and their lives are severely restricted. The puritanical Wahhabis believe that Muslims who have embraced Western culture are infidels and they have established Madrassahs (religious schools) throughout the world. The Taliban in Afghanistan are students of Madrassahs. Textbooks issued by the Saudis, who are Wahhabis, to boys enrolled in Saudi Arabia's government schools, refer to Christians and Jews as enemies of Muslims, equate Christians to swine and Jews to apes, and urge the faithful to spread the faith by waging jihad (holy war) against Christians and Jews..

Whenever there is an Islamic act of terrorism, there is always a rush to describe militant Muslims as a small number of radicals or extremists who have misinterpreted and perverted the teachings of the Quran. Nothing could be further from the truth. There are a number of passages in the Quran advocating the forced conversion of infidels throughout the world and which call for "death to the infidels," particularly those considered enemies of Islam. Those who die while engaged in a jihad are rewarded with martyrdom, which gives them a special place in paradise where each martyr will be gratified by 72 virgins.

Most Muslims in the world live in abject poverty and ignorance, obtaining what little education is available in Madrassahs. These followers of Islam are thus more likely to belong to fundamentalist militant Muslim sects, those which Westerners keep calling radical, extreme, and terrorist. In fact, what these religious zealots are doing in waging jihad is following the teachings of the Prophet Muhammad and the Quran. Most Muslims in the United States, Canada and Europe are part of the well-educated middle class, and even though they may pray five times each day on their prayer rugs while facing toward Mecca, they have embraced modern ways and do not adhere to the fundamentalism of the masses which constitute their ignorant impoverished Islamic brethren. Nevertheless, as was the case with the " Toronto Seventeen," any number of middle class youths may be drawn to militant Muslim fundamentalism through worshiping in Islamist mosques, attending Madrassahs run by Wahhabi clerics, and by visiting any of the many websites run by Imams preaching hatred of and advocating jihad against the enemies of Islam, infidels who follow the ways of Western civilization.

Muhammad commanded the faithful to spread Islam "by the sword." At this time, Islamists are waging jihads in the Caucasus, Thailand, Nepal, the Philippines, Afghanistan, the Middle East, and several African nations. How did Islam spread from Arabia throughout North and Sub-Sahara Africa, the Middle East, the Balkans, the Caucasus and other parts of the former Soviet Union, parts of China, Turkey, Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Southeast Asia, Indonesia and the Philippines? Islamists did it through bloody conquests, slaughtering those infidels who resisted conversion to Islam. Now, some will say that Christians did the same thing in Latin America. That is not true. The Spanish and Portuguese explorers set out to conquer and colonize the New World, not to Christianize it. They killed Indians only when they met armed resistance. The Conquistadors were always accompanied by priests who established missions and converted the indigenous people to Catholicism by peaceful means. However, it should be noted that the eight Crusades (1096 - 1270) were Christianity's version of jihad and the Spanish Inquisition (beginning in 1478) was its version of death to the infidels (Muslims and Jews).

We are always quick to label those we don't like. We called Lybia's Muammar Gaddafi and North Korea's Kim Jong Il and his father Kim Il-sung crazy, and we call jihadists extremists. While we see jihadists as terrorists, most Muslims view them as holy warriors. We see Palestinian suicide bombers as terrorists, but Muslims view them as freedom fighters. We consider most Muslims who live in America as moderates, while Islamists view all Muslims who have adopted the lifestyle of Western culture as extremists. This begs the question - in Islam, who are the true believers? This is also an easy question, and the answeer is: Fundamentalist militant Muslims who live according to the literal interpretation of the Quran, who demand strict enforcement of Sharia, and who wage jihad against Western culture.

OH, SAY, CAN YOU SEE, BY THE DAWN'S EARLY LIGHT, MEXICANS SNEAKING ACROSS THE BORDER, AN INCOMING TIDE

The day is breeaking, do you see it?
In the light of the dawn?
What we so acclaimed at nightfall?
Its stars, its stripes, flew yesterday
In the fierce battle in a sign of victory,
The glow of battle, in step with liberty
At night they said: "it's being defended!"

Oh say! The voice of your starry beauty
is still unfolding
Over the land of the free
The sacred flag?

Some of you may recognize the above lines as the English translation of Verse 1 and the Chorus of NUESTRO HIMNO (Our Anthem), the latest Spanish version of our national anthem. This mangled STAR SPANGLED BANNER should be seen as a deliberate affront to our nation and to those who fought and died under the flag of the United States of America in battles at Gettysburg, Argonne, Normandie, Iwo Jima, in Korea, Vietnam, and Iraq.

There is nothing wrong in translating our national anthem into other languages as long as the translation is as close as possible to the lyrics in our STAR SPANGLED BANNER. In fact, on various occasions over the years, our anthem has been translated into German, Latin, Spanish, and even Yiddish, but in each of those instances the lyrics of Francis Scott Key were translated as closely as possible. NUESTRO HIMNO, on the other hand, is nothing but a mangled desecration of THE STAR BANGLED BANNER which points out a big problem - THERE ARE MILLIONS OF PEOPLE IN OUR NATION WHO CANNOT OR WILL NOT SPEAK ENGLISH, AND WHOSE ALLEGIANCE IS TO AND WILL REMAIN WITH THE COUNTRY OF THEIR ORIGIN. There's a joke going around now which goes something like this: A recent poll of Americans on immigration shows that 4% had no opinion, 43% say that illegal immigration is a serious problem, and 53% say "no comprende, no hable ingles."

The Senate was considering a bill making English the official language of the United States. This bill would also have prohibited the printing of government materials, including voting ballots, in a foreign language, and it would have ended the funding for bilingual education. When the political correctness critics and Senator Harry Reid, the Democrats' minority leader, made the ridiculous assertion that this proposed legislation was racist, an amendment watered it down by declaring English to be the "common and unifying language of America," and by leaving in place bilingual ballots and bilingual education. Hell, we already know that English is our common and unifying language. George Will, the respected conservative columnist, argues against bilingual ballots because Americans expect that those who seek citizenship "can read the nation's founding documents (the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution) and laws, and can comprehend the political discourse (in English) that precedes the casting of ballots."

Tucker Carlson, an MSNBC commentator, believes that in our culture only the English language holds our nation together, not race, religion or nationality. He points to the divisiveness and separation movements in Canada and Belgium, where two or more languages are officially recognized. While most estimates put the number of illegals in this country at 11 million, I agree with those who believe the number is closer to 20 million. The overwhelming majority of those are Latinos, but there are also an unknown number of illegals from Asia, Eastern Europe, Africa and the West Indies in this country. It is my opinion that the massive influx of Mexicans and Central Americans across our southern border constitutes the greatest threat to the unity of the United States since the Civil War. If this tide of illegal immigration continues, Spanish will be the language spoken by a majority of people in Texas, New Mexico, Arizona and Southern California. When that happens, the United States will experience the same separation movement in those states as in Canada, where many people in the French speaking provinces want to secede from that nation's English speaking provinces.

The key to illegal immigration is JOBS and if we stopped employing illegals, they would stop coming. But, let's be honest. BIENVENIDOS A LOS ESTADOS UNIDOS ! While we say we are against illegal immigration and resent anyone speaking in a foreign language around us, we love to hire illegals as domestics, to do our yard work, pick our fruits and vegetables, for construction work, to pick up our trash, work in our restaurants, and for many other kinds of unskilled, semi-skilled and even skilled work. Why? Because these folks provide us with a source of CHEAP LABOR. So, is it going to be HOLA or ADIOS? Hola - A number of our cities, including conservative Dallas, have proclaimed themselves to be SAFETY ZONES for illegal immigrants, while many cities have established and are funding day labor shelters for illegals, and their police are under orders NOT TO ENFORCE our immigration laws. Hola - With all federal immigration detention facilities full, most illegals apprehended by the Border Patrol are processed and, upon THEIR PROMISE to appear for a deportation hearing at a later date, ARE RELEASED, never to be seen again. No adios - There is no way that we can, or even want to, deport several million hard working people who provide us with cheap labor. No adios - Most Americans, even the jobless, will not do manual labor, so Manuel, por favor stay, gracias amigo! Ron Reagan, another MSNBC commentator and son of the late President Ronald Reagan, states that as long as we have a THIRD WORLD COUNTRY (MEXICO) ON OUR BORDER and we are willing to hire its citizens, they will keep sneaking across the border, seeking a better way of life for themselves or for their loved ones back home, no matter what kind of fences or walls we may put in place to keep them out. And for its part, Mexico strongly opposes any kind of border barrier, undoubtably because once in the U.S., the illegals will join their compatriots in sending billions of dollars back to their homeland.

Before you get the wrong idea, let me make it crystal clear that I am not against immigration. This country is made up of immigrants and their descendants. My parents and I came to the United States from Germany in 1936. I was placed in the first grade in school, instead of in the fourth grade, because I could not speak any English. There was no bilingual education, but I picked up enough English in a few months so that I was advanced to the grade for my age group. My father, a professional manager in Germany, operated an elevator in a New York office building until he learned enough English to obtain a better paying job. Right after Pearl Harbor, my father, who had been wounded while fighting with the German army during WWI, tried to enlist in the United States army, but he was rejected because of his age. We obtained our citizenship in 1943 and ten months later, on my 17th birthday, I enlisted in the army. I served in the Pacific where my unit included a number of non-citizens, most of them from Mexico, who had entered this country legally, spoke English, and volunteered to fight with our armed forces. Immigrants from all over the world, including those from Mexico and Central America, have made major contributions to this country in the fields of medicine, science, education, and business, and many have given their lives while serving in our armed forces. For these reasons, I believe that it is downright UN-AMERICAN to be against immigration. But, I am opposed to immigration of people who come here by sneaking across the border, who continue to maintain allegiance to the country of their origin, and if left unchecked, will establish their native tongue as the predominant language in America's southern border states.

Now that we have millions of Spanish speaking illegals in this country, it is not surprising that this group, backed by the established Latino community, has a lot of clout. Their numbers have led to the watering down of the English-only amendment to a meaningless reaffirmation proposal in the Senate. Cities with a large population of illegals have built day labor shelters for them and have prohibited the police from enforcing any immigration laws. When the San Jose major league soccer team relocated to Houston, it was renamed Houston 1836. April 21, 1836, happens to be the date on which a small force of Texans won their independence by defeating the Mexican army in the Battle of San Jacinto. While the team insisted that "1836" referred to the year that Houston was founded, the city's Mexican community was so offended that the name of the team was changed to Houston Dynamo.

It is obvious that, by and large, the Spanish speaking community's allegiance is to Mexico, not to the United States. For many, U. S. citizinship is merely a means for remaining in this country. The public celebration of Cinco de Mayo in this country is a display of their true allegiance. They have mangled the Star Spangled Banner by completly changing Francis Scott Key's lyrics. Their title, Nuestro Himno, suggests that it is their anthem, not the anthem of the United States. And, with "The sacred flag?" might they really be referring to the flag of Mexico?

THE SON OF CHAPPAQUIDDICK TED SAGA: SHAME ON THE CAPITOL POLICE

Here we go again. Another royal screwup by the Capitol Police. You'd think they would have learned from Congresswoman McKinney's slugfest, that there are certain types of misbehavior by members of Congress that require an immediate arrest.

America's beloved Kennedy family has been beset with a number of tragedies. Joe Kennedy, President Kennedy's older brother, was killed in combat during World War II. President Kennedy and his brother Robert were both assassinated. President Kennedy's son "John John" was killed a few years ago in a plane crash. The family has also had a long history of irresponsible misbehavior. Several of the younger Kennedy men have been involved in the use of heroin, cocaine, and drunkeness. Then there was the infamous case in 1969, when Chappaquiddick Ted drove off a bridge, bailed out of the sinking car, leaving Mary Jo Kopechne behind to drown.

Now we have Congressman Patrick Kennedy, the son of Chappaquiddick Ted, nearly colliding with a Capitol Police patrol car before crashing his Mustang convertible into a concrete security barrier near the capitol. He admitted being under the influence of Ambien, a sleeping pill, and Phenergen, an anti-nausea drug. He denied having consumed any alcohol, although the officers at the scene detected the odor of an alcoholic beverage on his breath, and a hostess at the Hawk 'n' Dove, a popular bar near the capitol, claimed that he was drinking there earlier. In any event, it is unlawful to drive under the influence of prescription drugs. The accident occurred between 2:45 and 3:00 A.M. on May 4th. He claimed he was on his way to Congress where he was needed for a vote, although the House of Representatives had adjourned about three hours earlier.

Supervising officers who came to the scene instructed the first officers NOT TO CONDUCT A FIELD SOBRIETY TEST and ordered them to leave the scene. The "watch commander" then had the supervisors drive the stoned congressman to his home. He was cited for three minor traffic violations. Kennedy insists that he did not ask the officers for any special treatment, while - Whoa, get this! - claiming that he did not remember anything about the accident. So, how can he insist that he did not ask for any favorable treatment when he cannot remember anything? This incident would never have come to the public's attention, except that the Fraternal Order of Police, the union represnting the Capitol Police, registered a complaint with the police administration. As a result of that complaint and the attendant publicity, the watch commander was "reassigned." WHOPEE!!!

Without considering Congressman Kennedy's history of alcohol abuse, cocaine use, assaulting a Los Angeles airport security checkpoint official, and other questionable acts, and not withstanding that he has now checked himself into the Mayo Clinic's drug addict treatment program, did this latest incident warrant his being taken home instead of being jailed? Most definitely not. I have no problem with officers taking a drunk driver home, especially if he has been caught only a few blocks away. I have done so a number of times myself, but never when the driver had caused an accident. And, if a drunk would have come close to hitting my police car, he would have gone to jail, even if that happened in front of his house.

It is obvious that as soon as the supervising officers recognized this "spaced out" congressman as a Kennedy, they did not want him arrested. Would John Q. Public have been given a ride home under the same circumstances? No way. He would have been given a field sobriety test and taken to jail forthwith. Which brings us back to Congresswoman McKinney's assault. Would John Q. Public have been allowed to pass on past the security checkpoint after slugging the officer on duty there? No way. He would have been jumped on by several officers and taken to jail forthwith, possibly requiring some subsequent reconstructive facial surgery.

While members of Congress do have some immunity from arrest while attending and going to and from Congress, there are some exceptions, one of which is a breach of the peace. McKinneys slugfest and Kennedy's crash into an anti-terrorist barrier, both fall under the breach of peace exception. Both should have been arrested immediately. No member of Congress and no Kennedy should be above the law. The Capitol Police look like a bunch of keystone cops from a dysfunctional organization. In this case, we now know what the slogan TO PROTECT AND SERVE really means - DON'T DISGRACE HIM, KEEP IT A SECRET, AND TAKE HIM HOME. Shame on them for dishonoring themselves and for fueling the disrespect many in this country have for law enforcement.

EPILOG: On June 13,2006, Kennedy pleaded guilty to driving under the influence of prescription drugs. In a plea bargain that avoids time in jail, he was placed on one year of probation, ordered to attend Alcoholics Anonymous meetings, and to contribute $350 (WOW !!!) - $100 to a crime victims fund and $250 to the Boys' and Girls' Club of Greater Washington, D.C..

BANG - OUCH!!!: MODERN KEYSTONE COP SHOOTS SELF WITH "EMPTY" GUN WHLE DEMONSTRATING GUN SAFETY TO A YOUTH GROUP

In April, 2004, a Drug Enforcement Agent was giving a "drug education presentation" to a group of Orlando, Florida youths and their parents. During the presentation, for one reason or another, he changed the subject from drugs to gun safety. Taking and holding up one of several guns he had brought along, he described it as a Glock .40 and stated, "You see, this is an UNLOADED gun." Following that, he told everyone, "I'm the only one in this room PROFESSIONAL enough, that I know of, to carry this Glock .40," Then he lowered the gun and - BANG - shot himself in the foot. (Some reports said he shot himself in the thigh.) Accordingly, he is well qualified to receive my MODERN KEYSTONE COP award.

This month, the agent filed a federal lawsuit against the United States of America, claiming that the DEA had defamed him by releasing a video tape of the incident over the internet. The complaint states that prior to becoming a DEA agent (in 1990), he "was a hghly repected football player for Florida State University and played professional football for both the Tampa Bay Buccaneers and the Tampa Bay Bandits. (His mame) was subsequently a Corrections Officer at Polk Correctional Institution, a Florida State Prison, and a Deputy Sheriff with the Hillsborough County Sheriff's Office in Tampa, Florida." He complains that the realease of the video tape had made him a laughingstock and had crippled a promising career.

The video, which had been shot by an audience member, was given to the DEA, which used it as a training tool before someone released it over the internet. The agent received a five day suspension for the incident and was no longer allowed to work as an undercover officer. Many internet users think that the agent should have received the DUMB COP OF THE YEAR award. The incident has received wide coverage by the mainstream media since the filing of the lawsuit.

Whatever possessed this DEA agent to change the subject from drugs to gun safety? I think I know why. During my law enforcement career, I gave a number of school presentations on drug problems, most of them in high schools. Some were given in middle schools and a few in elementary schools. Even though the students seemed to pay close attention during the drug presentations, inevitably, the first question during the question and answer part would be, "Are you carrying a gun?" Then someone would say, "Let's see it." Other students would always ask, "Have you ever shot anyone?" or "How many people have you shot?" The same questions always popped up regardless of the age group being addressed or where the school was located. My response would always be that I was there to talk and answer questions about drugs, not about guns or shooting people. Did I ever even consider removing my weapon from its holster under those circumstances? Absolutely not!

I suspect that the DEA agent was confronted with the same questions and responded by switching the subject to guns, thus falling into the trap of displaying his weapon(s), something he should never have considered doing in front of a room full of children. He told his audience that the gun was "unloaded." While he may have removed the clip fom his Glock, he obviously did not clear the weapon to make sure there was no round in the chamber. Thus, BANG - OUCH, another idiot shot with an "empty" gun and humiliated by his own stupidity. Fortunately, no one in the audience got shot. Perhaps, anticipating there would be questions about guns, he brought several weapons, indicating it may have been his intention all along, to talk about guns. He should have known that the only time police firearms can be safely displayed to a group of school children is when they participate in an organized and supervised visit to a police facility.

The agent made a point that he had 21 years of law enforcement experience. Well, some people have 21 years of experience, while others have only one year of experience repeated 20 times. With respect to guns, this DEA agent would appear to fall within the latter category. I have seen the video and it is sort of hilarious to watch him make his "professional" statement, then to hear a loud bang and see him hopping around like a chicken. Amazingly, despite his wound, he continued on with his gun safety presentation until he was ushered out of the room by those in charge of the youth group because he apparently frightened the audience when he grabbed a military assault rifle and shouted above the resulting clamor, "Hey, its empty, its an empty weapon." In any event, his federal law suit seems to have little, if any merit because he brought all this humiliation and ridicule on himself and was personally responsible for damaging his own career.

CRIMINAL JUSTICE SCHOOL HUMOR

During my 25 years of teaching Criminal Justice courses, there have been many occasions during which some of my students gave answers or made statements in class or on evaluatioms which gave me and my students a big laugh. Here are just five examples.

MODUS OPERANDI. During a Criminal Investigation class in which we were studying burglary investigations, I covered the not uncommon modus operandi of some burglars to defecate on the floor of the victim's residence. I asked one young lady, "How do you spell defecate?" Without a moment's hesitation she replied by spelling out, "S-H-I-T." Needless to say, that broke up the whole class, and it wiped out the remaining 10 minutes of the period. (Some years later, she was elected to a constable's position.)

TRAFFIC ENFORCEMENT. During a Human Relations class we were discussing when to issue a citation to a traffic violator, and when to give the violator a pass. My contention was (and still is) that when you give a ticket because the violator pissed you off with a bad attitude, your are not citing him for the violtaion, but rather for his attitude. I suggested that if an officer had considered giving the violator a break before talking to him, he should go ahead and give him a warning without writing a ticket, even if the violator mouthed off at the officer. One student, a police captain, agreed that from a human relations point, it was a good idea. However, he said that if a violator pissed him off he would not give him a break. When I asked why not, he replied, "Because IT SURE FEELS GOOD when you give that asshole a ticket." About half the students in that class were police officers, and all of them cheered at the captain's response. Most of the other students laughed, while I was left dumfounded.

CRASH COURSE IN PENOLOGY. During an Introduction to Criminal Justice class, one student told about the time he had been jailed on a misdemeanor charge. He was placed in a two-bunk cell which was already occupied by a "big fat Mexican." His cellmate was sitting on top of two mattresses on the lower bunk. The student said, "Sir, I think one of those mattresses is mine." His cellmate replied, "You got any money?" The student answered, "No, the cops took it all when they booked me." His cellmate then asked, "You got any cigarettes?" The student answered, "No, I don't smoke." The cellmate then said, "YOU AINT GOT NO MATTRESS." While the student was dead serious, most of the class laughed at his predicament. (Actually, his story presented the class with a good illustration of life behind bars, where the strong prey on the weak.)

EVALUATION OF INSTRUCTOR. At the end of a police academy, the trainees were given an evaluation form for each instructor. The form had seven catagories, each to be evaluated by a sliding scale number. There was also a blank space where the trainee could comment on what he LIKED most about the instructor and another space for what he DISLIKED most about the instructor. A final blank was for additional comments. I had conducted a number of classes during the academy. One trainee who turned in the evaluation form on me, did not mark any of the sliding scale catagories, nor did he fill in the "like" and "dislike" blanks. However, in the "additional comments" blank he wrote, "YOU CAN'T MAKE CHICKEN SALAD OUT OF CHICKEN SHIT." To top it off, he underlined "chicken shit." (That evaluation has been framed and occupies a prominent space on my office wall.)

SAY WHAT? I went to study another college's criminal justice program which was directed by an old friend of mine. He asked me to attend one of his seminars. After he introduced me to the 100 or so students, he told them, "Recently we've both switched to oral sex." There were a lot of very audible gasps. Then he went on, "At our age, all we can do is talk about it."

ZAPPED BY DICK IN THE BOX. Every regional Police Academy has a special graduation ceremony. These affairs are usually attended by police administrators from all the agencies whose cadets are graduating, by city and county officials, by one or more chaplains, and by the parents, spouses, children, and other family members of the graduates. The cadets usually present the academy staff with laudatory plaques and other gifts. While I was in the middle of conducting one of these ceremonies, the class president approached the podium and gave me a gift-wrapped present. All the cadets yelled for me to open it right then and there. I unwrapped the box, lifted the lid, and like a Jack-in-the-box, up popped a life-sized plastic PENIS. The audience reaction ranged all the way from hysterical laughter to absolute silence, accompanied by frigid stares and glares. (Later, someone told me that I looked like I was going to die, and I almost did.)

KAPOW --- DON'T TOUCH ME, YOU RACIST COP!

On March 29, 2006, a confrontation took place in the nation's capitol between an African-American Congresswoman and a white officer of the Captiol Police Department which brought into question the behavior of the Congresswoman and the motive of the police officer.

WHAT HAPPENED? Members of Congress are permitted to bypass metal detectors upon entering Congress or any of the congressional office buildings. To help the Capitol Police identify them, they are given a lapel pin to wear. On the day in question, Rep. Cynthia McKinney, D-Ga., an African-American, was not wearing her pin, and she had just recently changed her hairdo from cornrows to a curly brown afro. A white Capitol Hill police officer, who was working the security checkpoint at a congressional office building entrance, failed to recognize her. (Is it realistic to expect an officer to recognize each and everyone of the 435 House members and 100 Senators whenever they pass by a checkpoint?) When McKinney bypassed the checkpoint, the officer ordered her three times to stop. Each time she ignored his lawful orders. In order to stop Rep. Mckinney, the officer grabbed her by the shoulder. She spun around and - KAPOW! - slugged him in the chest with her cell phone.

McKINNEY'S PUBLIC STANCE(S). The assault on the officer quickly gained a lot of media attention. In her first press conference, flanked by Hollywood limouzine liberals Danny Glover and Harry Belafonte, McKinney claimed she was a victim of racial profiling by a white police officer. She also claimed that he touched her "inappropriately." When it was suggested during a subsequent press conference that an apology might be in order, she stated that she would not apologize and that instead, she and her lawyers were considering filing a civil action against the officer. By April 5th, when word leaked out that the assault would be taken up by a grand jury, she downplayed the incident by stating that, "This has become much ado about hairdo." On April 6th, under pressure from her fellow Democrats, she changed her tune by claiming that the whole affair was just a MISUNDERSTANDING and stating, "I am sorry that this misunderstanding happened at all, and I regret its escalation. And I apologize."

PLAYING THE RACE CARD. On a number of occasions, since she was elected to Congress in 1992, McKinney has complained about having to deal with WHITE Capitol Police officers. She claimed there was a pattern of making it difficult for black members of Congress to pass through security checkpoints. Once, she claimed that former Vice President Al Gore had a low "Negro tolerance level." In 2002, she blamed jews for the loss of her Congressional seat, claiming that they poured money into her black opponent's campaign because she had sided with the Palestinians against Israel. Her father, Billy McKinney, blamed the defeat on a jewish plot and stated that, "Jews bought everybody, that's (spelling out) J-E-W-S." (She regained her seat in 2004.) She has also associated herself with a group of WACKOS who claim that President Bush and the Defense Department are developing a RACIALLY SELECTIVE weapon of mass destruction, and with those who allege that ETHNIC CLEANSING was behind the government's slow response to Hurricane Katrina.

INAPPROPRIATE TOUCHING. What inappropriate touching was committed by the officer? Did he grab McKinney's ass? No. Did he grab her tits? No. Did he snatch her by the crotch? No. He did the only thing he could have done when she continued to ignore his orders to stop, and that was to grab her either by the arm or, in this case, by the shoulder. In fact, the only inappropriate touching committed in this case was when McKinney struck the officer with her cell phone.

McKINNEY'S MISUNDERSTANDINGS. McKinney does not seem to understand that one has to obey the lawful order of a police officer. She does not seem to understand that when you ignore the lawful orders of an officer, he has the right to restrain you physically, and it does not matter whether the officer is white and the person is black, or if the officer is black and the person is white. She does not seem to understand that you do not have the right to attack a police officer and that when you do it, you are committing a serious criminal offense. She probably does not understand that even the President of the United States does not have a right to strike a police officer.

MISUNDERSTANDINGS BY THE POLICE. The police officer in this case does not seem to understand that the instant a person strikes an officer in the performance of his duty, that person must be arrested and taken to jail forthwith! In a bygone police era, the person who assaulted an officer, instantly became a candidate for reconstructive facial surgery. If it is the policy of the Capitol Police not to arrest a member of Congress until an investigation has been completed, they do not seem to understand that the high and mighty are not exempt from any action that would be taken against an ordinary citizen when an officer is assaulted in the performance of his duty.

THE APPROPRIATE RESOLUTION. In order to send a crystal clear message that even a member of Congress cannot "kapow" a cop, the grand jury must indict Congresswoman McKinney for assaulting a police officer in the performance of his duty. Then, a petit jury can convict her and a judge can sentnce her to serve a minimum of 30 days in jail, followed by at least three years of SUPERVISED probation. While in jail, she can commiserate with her fellow jail birds, all of them having been inappropriately touched by the arresting officers, as she understands it. Will McKinney serve any time in jail? Don't hold your breath.

EPILOG: On June 16, 2006, the Justice Department announced that a grand jury had refused to indict McKinney. Once again justice has been denied. Grand juries in the District of Columbia tend to be predominantly black and McKinney had alleged she was a victim of bias and racial profiling.

IF YOU'RE GOING TO FLY THE MEXICAN FLAG, FLY IT IN MEXICO!

Protesters throughout the United States have been demonstrating against a bill passed by the House of Representatives which would make felons out of illegal immigrants and those who would offer them the kind of assistance that would enable them to remain in this country. These demonstrations have been the largest since the Vietnam War era. In Lost Angeles alone, some 500,000 demonstrators turned out. Most of the demonstrators were Latinos, including both citizens and illegals. In some cities, most of the demonstrators were Latino public school stutents. In many of those demonstrations, a few protesters carried American flags. Many demonstrators carried the flag of Mexico.

The media keeps referring to the illegals as "undocumented workers", a rather innocuous term. Political correctness aside, let;s call undocumented workers what they really are - ILLEGAL ALIENS. They entered this country illegally and remain here illegally. The overwhelming majority are Latinos, most having come from Mexico, with some coming from Honduras and other Central American countries. Most estimates put the number of illegals at 12 million, while other estimates put the number at 20 million or more. Whatever the number, they are here to stay.

No matter what laws are passed, there is no way we could throw millions of people in jail, nor could we ever deport that many. Every year, while we continue to debate the immigration problem, several hundred thousand additonal Latinos sneak into this country. A viable solution, short of amnesty, does not appear to be in sight. Before we worrry about the illegals that are already here, we need to put a stop to the continuing influx of new arrivals. A high wall/fence running the length of our 700 mile boundary with Mexico seems to offer the best way to reduce the flow of illegals across our southern border. In Israel, such a wall/fence has all but eliminated suicide bombings by Palestinians.

Most of the illegals come here in search of work. They provide cheap labor for American farmers and businesses, and for private families in need of domestic help. They are hard working folks and they send most of their earnings back to their families in Mexico and Central America. While illegals do contribute to the nation's economy, their presence has come at a high cost to American taxpayers. They pay sales taxes on their purchases, but most do not pay the other taxes that our citizens must pay. They usually do not receive any health insurance benefits. Our schools are forced to use expensive bilingual teaching programs.

The failure by illegals to pay taxes, their lack of health insurance, their inability to speak English, and the crimes some of them have committed, are factors which are very costly to our health care institutions, social services, public schools, and criminal justice system. The extra funds these institutions need to handle illegals have required substantial increases in local and state taxes. And, most illegals drive without the required automobile insurance, thus driving up our insurance rates.

In one respect, the Latino demonstrations are reminiscent of the Vietnam War protests during which many demonstrators carried the flag of North Vietnam, an in-your-face defiance of "the establishment." Those anti-war demonstrators clearly sided with this nation's enemy, North Vietnam. Were the anti-war demonstrators successful? You bet they were! They provided the enemy with hope for an eventual victory. The Viet Cong and the North Vietnamese were consistently defeated on the battlefield, suffering extremely high casualty rates throughout the war. Even the highly touted Tet offensive was a battlefield disaster in which we suffered higher than usual casualties, but in which the ranks of the Viet Cong and the North Vietnamese were thoroughly decimated. The war would probably have been over after the Tet offensive, and we would have been victorious, were it not for the anti-war demonstrations. The war was lost on the streets of the United States, not on the battlefields of Vietnam, because the North Vietnamese hung on, encouraged by the highly publicized protests, believing that the public would eventually tire of the war and the rising number of American casualties. And they were so right.

Will the Latino demonstators succeed in killing the House legislation? Probably, but not by waving the flag of a foreign nation in our faces. Whether the demonstrators who carried the Mexican flags were American citizens or illegal aliens is besides the point. Displaying the flag of Mexico is a clear sign that the allegiance of the flag waver is to Mexico, not to the United States, and that is very offensive to most Americans. What Mexican-Americans do in the privacy of their homes is their business, but waving the Mexican flag in public is akin to someone of German origin waving the swastika in public. The Confederate flag is expecially offensive to African-Americans, and when white supremacists display the Confederate flag and the Nazi flag in public, most other Americans take offense to these symbols of racism. And, when these hate groups include the American flag in their parades and rallies, as they usually do, that is also offensive, because they are against everything our flag stands for.

In Houston, almost all the Latino protesters were middle school and high school students who cut classes in order to demonstrate. A number of them carried Mexican flags and there were no American flags in sight. The principal of Reagan High School hoisted the Mexican flag on the school's flagpole, an obvious effort to pander to his mostly Latino students. Reacting to a public outcry, the school board "disciplined" the principal (without revealing what discipline he received) for his "mistake", while praising him as a "good educator." If he is an example of a good educator then it is no wonder that many Houston public school students cannot read, write, multiply, or divide.

According to the Houston Chronicle, Raul Ramos, a professor of Texas History at the University of Houston attempted to justify the public display of Mexican flags by stating: "Most students at Reagan High School have relatives or ancestors from Mexico. The flag represents Mexican heritage as much if not more than citizenship." These are the musings of another educated academic idiot. These students can honor their relatives, ancestors and heritage by displaying the Mexican flag in the privacy of their homes. Few Anglo visitors would be offended by such an expression of pride in their heritage. What Professor Ramos does'nt seem to fathom is that there are better ways of celebrating one's heritage when the public display of a foreign flag, other than one flying in front of an embassy, consulate, or the United Nations, is an affront to most citizens of the United States.

To all those demonstrators who waved the Mexican flag, please feel free to return to Mexico and proudly fly it there to your heart's content. If you're going to protest an unjust law in the United States and you want to carry a flag in the streets, by all means do so, but make sure that it's the American flag!

WAIT A MINUTE OFFICER, SHE'S GOT A DESIGNATED DRIVER

More than 2,200 people have been arrested inside bars during the past six months by agents of the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission (TABC). Drunken bar patrons were arrested for public intoxication. Employees of bars and restaurants licensed to sell alcoholic beverages were arrested for being drunk on the premises. Bar employees were arrested for selling alcoholic beverages to drunken customers, a serious violation of the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Code. These arrests were made in an attempt to reduce the state's drunk driving problem. Texas happens to have the nation's highest rate of DWI cases.

The way the NBC Today show, the NBC Nightly News, and most of the MSNBC news shows reacted to this story, you would think that a major violation of civil rights was being committed by the TABC agents for arresting drunks inside those bars. The news correspondents, who interviewd TABC spokespersons, implied that the arrests violated the right to privacy because they were being conducted on private property, They questioned why the arrests could not have been made once the drunks had exited the premises. The arrest of drunks, who had a sober designated driver present, was a major concern expressed by the correspondents.

TABC should be commended, rather than criticized, for cracking down on drunks inside drinking establishements, and for arresting those who continue to serve them alcoholic beverages. Because places that are licensed to serve alcoholic beverages are open to the general public, the laws of Texas and most other states recognize them as public places. Accordingly, bar patrons are legally excluded from any expectation of privacy. In Texas, all employees of licensed drinking establishments are required to attend a state-run training program which is designed to prevent the serving of alcoholic beverages to persons who appear to be intoxicated. Thus, there can be no excuse for drunks to be served in bars or restaurants.

How did the TABC agents make those arrests? Sometimes they were made by undercover officers, sometimes by agents conducting their routine bar checks. Actually, TABC has always arrested drunks in bars and those who served them. It is only the revelation that there have been more than 2,200 such arrests within the past six months that has led to this brouhaha.

And, how did those terrible TABC agents conduct those arrests? Well for starters, only those persons who appeared to be so drunk that they constituted a danger to themselves or others, were arrested. And, not every drunk was taken to jail. In some cases, they were cited for public intoxication and released to a reponsible party, such as a sober designated driver. Those who served the drunks were also arrested. Some would ask, why arrest - a citation is considered an arrest - those who did have a sober designated driver on the premises? Well, in order to make a case against those who serve drunks, there has to be a drunk that was served. The arrest for public intoxication is the proof needed to convict those bar employees. And, what about those cases when the arrest of bar employees resulted in the closure of a bar because there would be no one left in charge? That's just tough!

If there is any criticism to be made, it should be of the local police agencies which shy away from conducting routine bar checks. For some reason, political or otherwise, local agencies prefer to leave the enforcent of drinking violations in bars to TABC, the state agency. To compound the problem, many drinking establishments hire off-duty police officers for security. Since these officers are usually hired and paid directly by the proprietors, rather than by their own agency, they tend to enforce only "house rules" in order to keep their off-duty jobs. It should be embarrassing as hell for a local police agency to have TABC agents enter a bar and arrest several drunks, and those who served them, when local officers did nothing about obvious law violations committed in their presence.

When I was a California law enforcement officer in the 50's and 60's, my agency conducted frequent routine bar checks, arresting drunks inside and those who served them. Often, the bars had to close on those occasions because there would be no one left in charge. There were several reasons for those bar checks. Studies have shown that many cases of domestic violence, including murders, resulted when an intoxicated spouse returned home and a fight would ensue. Most bar brawls take place because patrons have been served too much. These drunken brawls often result in aggravated assaults and, not too infrequently, in killings. And, of course, many drunks leave bars and are involved in serious automobile accidenst, although at the time, DWIs were not our main concern - the possible violence was. Finally, the suppression of prostitution in bars was accomplished through the use of frequent routine bar checks.

Again, TABC is to be commended for arresting drunks in bars and for arresting those who serve them. On the other hand, local police agencies should be condemned for not making frequent routine bar checks, which would not only reduce DWIs, but would also prevent many acts of violence. Claiming a manpower shortage is no excuse for not conducting those bar checks.

Finally, proprietors of drinking establishments, who want off-duty officers for security, should pay the police ageny for those services, and not the officers. The officers would then be assigned to these off-duty jobs and paid for this extra work, by their own agency. In this way, the proprietor could not detrmine which officers to hire or fire, and the off-duty officers could enforce all laws in their assigned establishments, and not just "house rules." Arrests of drunks in bars and those who served them, whether by off-duty officers working security or by local and state officers making bar checks, will help to reduce the rate of DWIs, murders, and other violent crimes.

IS IT PROFESSIONAL COURTESY OR IS IT PROFESSIONAL IRRESPONSIBILITY?

To those of you in the police service, let me urge you to read this whole piece before you blow your top. If you do get pissed-off before you finish, stop a moment to cool-off, and then continue reading until you reach the end.

There is nothing that aggravates the public more than to see a speeding police car without its emergency lights or siren on, and the perception that an off-duty officer will not receive a citation when he is pulled over for a traffic violation. The public is not upset with a police emergeny run, even when the police car is driven at a highly dangerous speed. A motorist's worst nightmare is having a traffic collision with a police car. The public believes, rightly or wrongly, that a civilian will not be subjected to a fair and unbiased investigation of the accident. The public is also irritated by the perception that the police will give favorable treatment to the mayor or some other important public official, or to an influential member of the community.

Recently, the Houston Police Department gave chase to a Corvette which was weaving in and out of traffic, sometimes reaching speeds of over 100 mph. When the Corvette pulled over and stopped, the driver turned out to be an off-duty sheriff's deputy. The pursuing officers did not give the 12 year veteran deputy a ticket, although, to their credit, they did notify his supervisor. The media caused a brouhaha of sorts after some television reporters heard the police radio transmissions on the chase and arrived in time to observe the police letting that deputy go without giving him a ticket. Because of the media attention, the deputy cannot expect to avoid being disciplined by the sheriff's department.

If the driver of the corvette had been a 17 year old youth, would the officers have called his father and let him go without a ticket? If the driver had been an employee of Wal-Mart, would they have called his supervisor and let him go without a ticket? Of course not. A civilian would have been arrested in a hot New York minute for reckless driving and/or some other charges.

Officers claim that when they give breaks to off-duty officers for traffic violations or for some other offenses, they are merely showing "professional courtesy" to the transgressing officer. That type of professional courtsey may involve taking officers home who have been detained for public intoxication or for disorderly conduct. Sometimes it involves taking an officer home who has been stopped for drunk driving, although in that case they will often notify the officer's supervisor, especially if that officer is from another police agency. Often, such favors are also extended to the immediate family members of a police officer.

Professional courtesy? What is professional about an officer deliberately disregarding traffic laws in his police unit when he is not on an emergency call? What is professwional about not giving a traffic citation to an off-duty officer when a civilian would have been cited for the same offense? What is professional about taking a drunk driver home because he is an officer, when a civilian would have been jailed under the same circumstances? It is a professional courtesy when a doctor provides another doctor or his family with free medical services, or when a lawyer provides another lawyer with free legal services, but NOT when a doctor refuses to testify against another doctor or when a police officer lets another officer off for a law violation. However, an acceptable form of professional courtesy is the assistance provided by officers to the spouse and children of deceased or disabled comrades.

If officers believe that they will be given breaks when violating the law they are emboldened to behave irresponsibly. Professional courtesy, as the police see it, is really an act of professional irresponsibility or, in some cases, police misconduct. It is unethical and discriminatory to apply a double standard in disposing of law violations. whether committed by police officers or by civilians. There is, understandably, a strong bond in the police brotherhood, but in order to maintain the public's respect and support, the police must stop showing favoritism to their own, when they would not do so for civilians under the same circimstances. Professional courtesy, as defined for the police, should be limited to helping out the immediate family of a fallen or disabled officer, and to treating everyone with respect and courtesy whenever possible, absent of any police misconduct, and in a nondiscriminatory manner.

LET THERE BE NO MISTAKE! Police officers should have the discretion NOT to make arrests or issue citations for minor violations, but that decision should not be based on whether or not the offender is another officer. Letting someone off with a warning is often more appropriate than issuing a citation or making an arrest. Many officers will not issue a traffic citation to a civilian when they believe that he cannot afford the fine. Police officers in California refused to arrest or file charges against a desperate mother who burglarized a bakery to steal several loaves of bread, because she had no food for her three children. Instead, they persuaded the baker to keep providing the mother with day-old bread. However, the deputy with the corvette should have been cited, if not arrested for reckless driving.

The police should NOT claim they are practicing professional courtesy when they allow a fellow officer, who has broken a law, to go free. Once an officer buys into the professional courtesy mindset, he will feel inclined, if not compelled, to provide fellow officers favorable treatment in minor traffic accident investigations, in domestic disturbances, and in disorderly conduct incidents. And that mindset results in the ROUTINE PRACTICE of not issuing traffic citations to fellow officers. About the only off-duty officers who will then be ticketed are those deemed as "assholes" because they got pissed-off and were dumb enough to take their anger out on the officers who stopped them.

When a private citizen operates a motor vehicle within the speed limit, or at no more than 5 mph over the limit, he usually does so because he is afraid of getting a traffic ticket. When an off-duty police officer believes he can drive at excessive speeds with impunity, that is exactly what he is going to do.

THE LATEST ASSAULT ON THE DEATH PENALTY: THIS RED HERRING MAY HAVE LEGS

You've got to give them credit. The death penalty abolishionists are persistent. Now they've come up with a new idea - that lethal injection constitutes cruel and unusal punishment in that the condemned may suffer extreme pain while undergoing execution. It is amazing that it has taken them all these years to come up with that red herring, albeit a red herring that may have legs. These claims have stopped executions in Florida, Missouri, and California. In the Missouri case, even newly sworn-in U.S. Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito, a staunch conservative, voted to stay an execution on those grounds.

The Florida case is unusual, in that it was filed as a federal civil rights lawsuit, rather than as the traditional appeal of a criminal conviction, and should it succeed, such lawsuits will be filed for every pending execution. In this case, a bank robber who killed a police officer and wounded his partner, was granted a stay of execution by the U.S. Supreme Court while he was already in the death chamber, strapped to the gurney with IV tubes inserted, as the executioner awaited orders to start the flow of lethal drugs. His lawyers had argued that the lethal doses used by Florida can cause pain and thereby denied this cold blooded cop killer his civil rights to protection against cruel and unusual punishment.

In the California case, U.S. District Judge Jeremy Fogel was concerned that the condemned are not unconscious and may suffer extreme pain during executions. The San Francisco jurist ordered the State of California to change its lethal injection method of execution. He ordered the usual mix of injections replaced with a lethal dose of barbiturates to be administered by a physician. No physicians were willing to do this because they believed it would be a violation of their Hippocratic oath - to do no harm. The doctors' refusal to participate in an execution amounts to a moratorium on the death penalty in California.

Pardon me while I shed some crocodile tears for those who kill their victims in cold blood. God forbid that they should suffer any pain during executions. If it were up to me, I would bring back the electric chair. The condemned were scared shitless at the sight of "Old Sparky" and they probably experienced some extreme pain while they were getting fried. That method of execution definitely acted as a deterrent to murders.

The abolitionists, who are so concerned for the condemned, claim that they are not unconcerned for the victims and their families. Maybe so, but they are certainly not concerned for any future victims since abolition of the death penalty would eliminate the deterrent of executions.

Why do I believe that this latest claim is a red herring? Ten years ago, our veterinarian advised that it was time for Suki, our beloved 15 year old dog, to be put down. I held Suki in my arms, and while she looked at me with her trusting eyes, the vet gave her two injections. Then he said to me, "That's it, she's gone." It is still gut-wrenching for me to recall those final moments with Suki, but I feel it is important to do so in the context of this execution by injection controversy. While holding Suki, I did not detect the slightest twitching or any other indication whatsoever, that she was feeling any pain in her final seconds of life. She just went to sleep and I really did not realize that she was dead until the vet told me so. That is why I am convinced that the condemned do not feel any pain during their execution. On the other hand, Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens has noted that three veterinarians claim Florida's method of lethal injection would be "prohibited if done to dogs and cats." Hmmm, three veterinarians? That sounds like one of those old "three doctors say" ads.

Even if the condemned were to suffer some pain, it does not come anywhere near the pain suffered by their victims. It must be noted that the overwhelming majority of convicted murderers are not sentenced to death. Only those convicted of the most heinous killings are likely to receive the death penalty. So why are we so concerned about the possibility that they may suffer some pain during the final seconds of their lives? Unfortunately, it is not inconceivable that this latest assault on executions may eventually result in the abolition of the death penalty.

MORE MODERN KEYSTONE COPS

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.