Coakley, Obama and Brown, Oh My!
January 21st, 2010 by Ted Silberstein
The liberal Left depressed over Scott Brown’s victory in the Massachussetts election have now begun to categorize Brown’s supporters as mostly the jobless who will soon be saying to themselves “What did I do.” Talk about getting it backwards. I supported Scott Brown over Martha “Marsha” Coakley and I have a job. In fact I have what I consider to be a fairly respectable job as a police Lieutenant, in this career for 25 years. I would love to see the left provide facts or statistics to support their claim that most of Scott Brown’s supporters don’t have jobs. But that’s not as misguided as their belief that those who voted for Scott Brown should be saying “What did I do.” The fact is if Coakley had won, it would be those who supported and voted for her who would be saying ‘What did we do” when they learned of her history of corruption and flawed judgment. Let me school ya folks.
Coakley has quite a history. Back in 1984 the infamous Fells Acres daycare sexual abuse case led to the daycare sex abuse hysteria of the 1980’s. Fells Acres was the infamous case of alleged sexual abuse of children at what was then the highly respected family owned daycare run by the Amirault Family Massachussetts. The allegations included that one of the owners, the man plunged a butcher knife up into the rectum of a child, and the knife got stuck and he had to force it back out again. Another child was allegedly tied to a tree by one of the women and sodomized with a stick they called the “magic wand.” Guess what – no physical injury, ANY INJURY to either child. Listen to that again – a butcher knife stuck up into the rectum of a small child so far that it got stuck before being forcibly pulled out – NO INJURY or any physical evidence. I spent several years of my career as a detective investigating sex crimes against children, and for a child to have a butcher knife thrust into his rectum and twisted and pulled out and leave no injury whatsoever – read my lips: IMPOSSIBLE. Nevertheless, astoundingly the prosecution moved forward with the case based solely on the disjointed and coashed statements from young toddler children.
The Amiraults were sentenced to lengthy terms but the case began to utterly disintegrate on review. One of the harshest hanging judges in Massachussetts known for giving out long sentences stated even he never witnessed such flagrant prosecutorial misconduct in the courtroom, with every dirty trick in the book used by the prosecutor. The case was widely and overwhelmingly recognized to have been a classic case of witch hunting for the political advancement of the prosecutor, and the Parole Board voted 5-0 to commute the sentences of the Amiraults. But as the Attorney General, Coakley even knowing the case was a sham, in an effort to advance herself as a guardian of justice, worked harder than ever before to convince the governor the same guardian of justice agenda as Coakley, who was seeking re-election overruled the Parole Board and an innocent man remained jailed.
A letter to the editor of the Boston Herald by Margaret Hagen, a professor of psychology at Boston University and author of the book, Whores of the Court, sums up the case against Martha Coakley.
“The cynical manipulation by the Middlesex County prosecutor’s office of the child witnesses against Gerals Amirault, who are now young adults makes it depressingly clear that the office of prosecutor is intended by its occupants to serve their political ambitions and not the cause of justice. Martha Coakley and her cohorts and precursors know full well that children who were 3, 4 and 5 years old at the time of the Fells Acres trials some 15 years ago – 15 years filled with constant reasertions by prosecutors and parents of the validity of the original claims – do not, cannot and will not ever be able to have untainted memories of their experiences. Hauling these innocent young people out for a press conference was disgraceful.
These children were victims of politically ambitious and woefully ignorant prosecutors who chose to disregard the coercive interrogations by the inexperienced graduate student assigned to dig the “truth” out of the children, to ignore bizarre claims that defied all rationality (e.g. sodomy with lobsters and knives) and to close their eyes to the utter lack of substantiating physical evidence.”
In the time since the Fells Acres case and the malicious persecution and prosecution of the Amiraults we have seen many changes in the laws governing the way the police are allowed to obtain testimony from children and how that testimony can be used in court, and many of these laws come about specifically as a result of the prosecutorial misconduct by Coakley and prosecution team in that infamous landmark case. “Marsha, Marsha, Marsha.”
But that’s not the end to the Coakley story. Turn the clock ahead to 2005. A Massachussetts police officer Kieth Winfield sodomized a child with a curling iron. In this case physical evidence of injury to the child supported the arrest, but Coakley who disingenuously holds herself out to be tough on these crimes resisted seeking an indictment, and only eventually did so because of intense public outrage over the case. But despite this, Coakley still recommended Winfield be released on his own recognizance without the need to post bail. Thankfully, Coakley’s successor picked up the ball and won a conviction and two life terms for this deviant.
Why did Coakley resist doing her job to get Winfield convicted? Was Winfield’s father being a union representative with ties to Coakley’s campaign a factor? Does it matter? Is that who hard line Massachussetts Democrats want to be their Senator? This is the history of “Marsha, Marsha, Marsha” Coakley, and Kieth Olberman has the temerity to publicly label Scott Brown as the candidate who is “an irresponsible, homophobic, racist, reactionary, ex-nude model, teabagging supporter of violence against women? Huh?
And the left will have trouble swallowing this too, but this also wasn’t a party line vote. Republicans and probably most Democrats voted the way they always vote – no surprises, so that didn’t win the election. The Republican candidate won this one because Independents and even growing numbers of Democrats recognized Coakley for what she is, and in the larger picture because they are beginning to get more than a little uncomfortable with how much government is looking to take control of their lives, exactly what the founders of this country fought against.
For liberals to suggest that Republicans and conservatives with no jobs are the cause of this election outcome and every other problem is bazzarro world, up is down, day is night denial. We have always had the upper, middle and lower classes, but now we have slowly been adding the new and exponentially growing jobless Democrat feeding parasite class. The difference between jobless conservatives and jobless liberals of the parasite class: the conservatives who are jobless actually want to work. The Democratic Party plan is to provide the parasite class with everything they need to survive and be taken care of without having to do a thing for themselves which is what the parasite class wants. It’s a marriage made in heaven. And in return, the really ingenious part of the Democrat Party plan is that the Democratic Party gets a lifetime of indentured voting servitude from the parasite class who will be glad to oblige.
If the Democratic Party could remain in control long enough with enough consecutive presidential and congressional election victories, that plan might be more worrisome. Thankfully however, because the presidency and control of congress historically always reverts back to the other party after the sitting president leaves office, neither party retains control for longer than an 8 year stretch anymore, thus the Democrats probably could never hold power long enough for their plan to come to fruition. Nevertheless, the disturbing emerging Democrat fed parasite class has arrived. Where’s the Orkin Man when we need him?
Finally, the slickest liberal deflection tactic in reaction to Scott Brown’s victory came from Barak Obama with his assessment that the Massachusetts election was a result of voter anger over the last 2-8 years while managing to completely omit what has happened in this country in the LAST 12 MONTHS under presidential and congressional control of Democrats! Not to mention that for the last 8 years, make that 50 years, that Massachussetts seat in particular has been held by a Democrat. Trying to confuse everyone with confusion, what a clever ploy! Arrogantly insulting the intelligence of all of America has been Mr. Obama’s strategy from the moment he began his run for the White House, and this demonstrates that he intends to stay that course. Clearly he and the rest of his machine have failed to notice that his approval rating has plummeted farther and faster than any other president in history in his first year in office, and gathering speed with each passing day. But then arrogance does that.
Ted Silberstein
Florida Cop
Category: Politics | No Comments »
: Willy Loman ended up broke, alone, and defeated because he couldn’t lead anyone, anywhere, to anything — because he was too busy selling. Instead of buying in, Willy was selling out. Sound familiar? It should: striking deals that are riddled with pervasive conflicts of interest has become a hallmark of the Obama Presidency.
