Posted by
Vansword on Sunday, January 17, 2010 2:52:23 PM
When Robert Fulton introduced his steam engine in 1798, it was dubbed "Fulton's Folly". People were certain that it would be a disastrous failure. Massachusetts' Democratic senatorial hopeful, Martha Coakley may not be trying to reinvent the wheel, but her history of decisions in the state's political arena may well prove to be her own folly.
Two particular cases are worth scrutinizing to ascertain Coakley's fitness for the role of U.S. senator. The first involves the case of Gerald Amirault. In the height of the daycare scares and prosecutions across America in the early '80s, Amirault, his mother and sister, were convicted of committing a host of bizarre sexual perversions on young children left in their care. The preponderance of evidence arose from the children being coaxed by therapists and prosecutors to reveal the details they wanted to hear.
There was absolutely no physical evidence of abuse, no witnesses to said abuse, no unusual behavior in the supposedly abused children, and, most importantly, not one allegation of abuse by any of the children until they were coached by therapists -coached into revealing such outrageous stories as robot clowns, magic rooms, and 2 foot butcher knives. Terrified parents swept up into the nationwide daycare hysteria fanned the flames for the prosecution. The Amiraults had run Fells Acre Day School for 18 years; scores of well-adjusted young alumni passed through their doors.
In 1987 Violet and Cheryl Amirault were given sentences of eight to twenty-they were both paroled in eight. Mr. Amirault, however, received a 30-40 yr sentence in 1986. By 2001, it became apparent to government officials that an innocent man had been imprisoned because of fabricated evidence. Gov. Jane Swift was on the verge of pardoning Gerald Amirault when she was approached by Martha Coakley who was running for Massachusetts Attorney General. Coakley convinced Swift that it was in the best interest of the people of the state for Amirault to remain in jail.
But her primary reason for wanting him to remain there was even more obvious: she told the governor that keeping him in prison would make her appear tougher on crime-she wanted the good people of Massachusetts to see that she was "for the children". Coakley apparently had no qualms about using a wrongly imprisoned man to further her political career! Gerald Amirault was forced to sit in prison for three more years until he was finally pardoned!
Coakley has tried to portray herself as someone who is an advocate for children. Yet, in another instance involving Keith Winfield, the man accused of the most heinous crime of raping his two yr old niece with a hot curling iron, Coakley as the District Attorney in Middlesex County,and in charge of the grand jury, did not actively pursue an indictment against him. He was released. Only after the poor little girls' parents filed a criminal complaint did Coakley pursue an indictment ten months after the attack.(the toddler spent an entire month in the hospital recovering from her extensive injuries!).
Even after an indictment, Coakley had Winfield released on his own recognizance with no bail. He was free until 2007 when a new District Attorney brought Winfield to trial where he was found guilty on all charges: two counts of rape of a child with force, one count of indecent assault and battery on a child under 14, and assault and battery with a dangerous weapon causing serious bodily injury. No thanks to Martha Coakley that such a beast of a man was finally removed as a threat to society!
Coakley has been lambasted with good reason for this oh-so-huge miscarriage of justice. Behind the scenes of this story though may lie the real reason for her failure to do the right thing. Keith Winfield, the perpretrator of the horrific crime, was a police officer whose father was reportedly a powerful labor union leader. Could Martha Coakley have been more concerned with mollifying labor unions than with the terrible ordeal of a two year old girl who was most likely scarred physically and emotionally for life? As a U.S. senator, what kind of other deals would she be willing to vote for to satisfy Big Labor? How many other lives would she be willing to scar in the name of the progressive ideology she espouses with all the fervor of her massive ambition?
The circumstances of the above cases paints a portrait of Martha Coakley that is disturbing to the minds of individuals who love both liberty and the law. Do the citizens of Massachusetts really want to elect a woman with a heart such as hers? The thoughts of an innocent man wasting precious days of his life in a prison were not sufficient to overrule her driving ambition. The thoughts of the horrors that a two yr old girl endured at the hands of a truly sick individual were not enough for her to use her power of office to seek a swift judgment.
Other details about Martha Coakley have recently surfaced in the news. Americans viewed a picture of Martha Coakley standing beside a campaign aide who was pushing a conservative reporter to the ground. Coakley claims she didn't see it. Her eyes appeared to be open so, unless that ruthless ambition had also literally blinded her, her claim is in serious doubt.
Her brazenly dismissive comments to those Roman Catholics who work in emergency rooms and are against giving the morning-after pill have also been made public. She made remarks to the effect that the pills were legal so maybe those offended by them should work somewhere else. Add to this a letter she penned several years ago in which she expresses being in favor of partial-birth abortions(a procedure in which the fetus is partially out of the birth canal with only the head remaining inside; the contents of the brain are then sucked out). None of this should come as a surprise from a woman who supports the radical feminist agenda of NARAL where the rights of all women to do whatever they want always supercedes the rights to life of such minor inconveniences as unborn children!
Does this woman even realize the religious beliefs of many of her constitutents? The fact that Coakley might be out of touch with one of the largest Roman Catholic populations in the United States should be a definite eye-opener.
The Martha Coakley that has been revealed in her campaign for the U.S. Senate seat from that bluest of states, Massachusetts, should be enough to make her potential constituents see red. Do the people of Massachusetts want such a woman representing them in the halls of Congress? Given her history, do they really believe she would look out for their best interests?
Is a woman with such a political history-a woman with ambitions so limitless that the circumstances of other human beings is of small consequence, the senatorial candidate the people of her state deserve? Is Martha Coakley fit to lead her state as the entire country fights for its survival as a constitutional republic? When the citizens of Massachusetts give ample consideration to the facts, that answer should be a resounding, no!!