Search the Site
Books By Author
Great Sites to Follow
- Call reporting missing 6-year-old came from mother's boyfriend - KCRA Sacramento...
- How police body cameras affect citizen rights - USA TODAY...
- 5 FAQs about body cameras and your privacy - News10.net...
- METRICH drug raid targets 40 wanted on indictments - Mansfield News Journal...
- Secret use of StingRay technology by St. Louis police faces challenge - GOPUSA...
- Krauthammer’s Deception: Undermining America
- Why Did Ortiz Target Attorney Flaherty?
- US Attorney Carmen Ortiz’s Outrageous Indictment of Attorney For Telling Person Not To Return FBI Phone Call
- One Bullet Away: Boston’s Potential for a Long, Hot, Bloody Summer
- Waiting for the Suckers: “Drop Arms! Drop Arms! The Americans Are Coming!”
- May 2015
- April 2015
- March 2015
- February 2015
- January 2015
- December 2014
- November 2014
- October 2014
- September 2014
- August 2014
- July 2014
- June 2014
- May 2014
- April 2014
- March 2014
- February 2014
- January 2014
- December 2013
- November 2013
- October 2013
- September 2013
- August 2013
- July 2013
- June 2013
- May 2013
- April 2013
- March 2013
- February 2013
- January 2013
- December 2012
- November 2012
- October 2012
- September 2012
- August 2012
- July 2012
- June 2012
Category Archives: Uncategorized
Charles Krauthammer is not dumb. When he distorts the dimensions of the problems in Iraq he is being disingenuous by doing a disservice to America in order to continue his advocacy of our country taking a road that will cause us immensely more harm and heartache. In his recent column in the Washington Post, the Fox News’s Krauthammer who continually hammers away at President Obama’s policy from his perch atop the neo-conservative fantasy pole deliberately distorts and confuses facts.
Read his article and see how he changes a problem with the Islamic State (IS) into a problem with Iran. Keep in mind when reading Krauthammer that he is a big Netanyahu fan. He always anxiously advocates attacking Iran. It is a wonder the man can face the public without blushing. Apparently he has no shame at all or is of the firm belief that America is made up of a confederacy of dunces unable to detect an absurd position.
In his recent column titled: “You Want Hypotheticals? Here’s One” he starts his column off with these sentences. “Ramadi falls. The Iraqi army flees. The great 60-nation anti-Islamic State coalition so grandly proclaimed by the Obama administration is nowhere to be seen.” You would believe he is going to talk about the Islamic State (IS) that recently had success in some battles. You would be wrong.
He goes on to tell us that under President Bush our invasion of Iraq resulted in a victory. To support that he quotes a 2011 statement by President Obama three years after he was in office that: “We are leaving behind a sovereign, stable and self-reliant Iraq, with a representative government that was elected by its people.”
The decision by U.S. Attorney Carmen Ortiz to go after Massachusetts attorney Tim Flaherty is so unusual that the question that all should be asking is why did she target him? I ask that because what Flaherty had done prior to Ortiz and the FBI getting involved was something that most criminal attorneys have often done. They contact the victim of an assault and battery and try to work out a situation (called an accord and satisfaction in Massachusetts) where the victim of the crime receives some payment for his injury and the attorney’s client avoids getting a criminal record for the act.
In today’s Boston Herald criminal defense attorney Terrence Kennedy, a and current member of the Governor’s Council, said: “I’ve done this countless times. He may have chosen his words poorly, but this is a good, honest lawyer”
In the Flaherty case there was no federal crime until Ortiz came along with FBI agents and decided to manufacture one. That’s right, there wasn’t even a state crime as I just explained. To pick one lawyer who did what other criminal defense lawyers do on a daily basis is to target that lawyer.
Here is the crime that Ortiz is using to try to ruin Flaherty’s criminal career and life. The one count indictment reads: “corruptly persuade . . . with intent to hinder, delay and prevent the communication to a law enforcement officer of the United States of information. . .” Flaherty told the person who had accepted $2,500 from him in exchange for not going forward with his complaint not to call back an FBI agent who had left a message that he wanted to talk to him.
US Attorney Carmen Ortiz’s Outrageous Indictment of Attorney For Telling Person Not To Return FBI Phone Call
Yesterday afternoon I got a call asking me if I heard what happened to Timmy. I figured I had better find out. I Googled the name Timothy Flaherty. The media headline read: “Attorney Pleads Not Guilty in Witness Tampering Case.” Later in the day the front page of the paper had the gross falsehood: “Attorney is said to have bribed victim not to testify.”
Carmen Ortiz had indicted Flaherty for one count of witness tampering. His indictment read that he “did knowingly corruptly persuade the victim, and attempt to do so, with intent to hinder, delay and prevent the communication to a law enforcement officer of the United States of information related to the commission and possible commission of a federal offense, that is, 18 U.S.C. s. 249.”
18 U.S.C. s. 249 is the “Hate crime acts.”
Flaherty represented a client who “is alleged to have assaulted the victim and yelled, “You little Muslim . . . you f***in terrorist.” This could be a hate crime according to the indictment. Section 249 reads: “Whoever willfully causes bodily injury to any person . . . because of the actual or perceived race, color, religion, or national origin of any person— shall be imprisoned not more than 10 years, fine . . . “
Now here is what you have to know. Flaherty’s crime is he told a person (the victim) not to call back an FBI agent who wanted to talk to him. For that he can be imprisoned up to twenty years, fined and lose his right to practice law. The evidence against him was gained by the FBI putting the person up to making a telephone call from its office which conversation it structured and recorded and so as to entrap him. It is a clear case where the FBI tried to manufacture a crime.
Edgar Hoover had two great fears: the blacks and the Reds. In his mind those were the only forces that could threaten the America he knew and loved. Nothing he envisioned would be of greater danger to America than those two uniting.
Hoover was born 30 years after the Civil War ended. That war was fought over the issue of slavery. Some suggest it was a state’s rights war. That was just another way of saying the people in some states believed they had a right to enslave those of another race.
The blacks who were slaves were emancipated during that war; the period of Reconstruction took place for ten years afterward during which the blacks rights were protected; but when that period ended the era of Jim Crow came into existence.
It was in full bloom when Hoover was born and grew up in Washington, D.C. The courts sat back and let it thrive. It would continue in existence up until the 1960s when the Civil Rights movement took place. The fire on the street showed the validity of Hoover’s fears.
It was during the 1960s and into the 1970s that blacks not only protested peacefully but also engaged in forms of violence. It was also during that time that Hoover instituted an FBI program called COINTELPRO which was aimed to bring about dissension among various black groups by pulling off what are commonly referred to as dirty tricks. It was also Hoover’s fear of the Black/Communist connection that had him hot on the trail of Martin Luther King because of King’s association with two people known to be communists or sympathetic to them.
Not so long time ago the biggest and baddest Army in the world came from Britain. It had colonies all over the world. The people in one of them were not happy being ruled by Britain so they took up arms against this mighty force and forced the British to give them their freedom. Their war began with the cry: “to arms, to arms, the Redcoats are coming.”
Today in far off Iraq you hear the opposite type of call because the people in that country do not want to fight for their liberty. They want someone else to do it. I wonder if the American revolutionaries had some bigger nation to fight for them would they have fought for themselves. Would the liberty and freedom and rights we have today exist had we been established as a country by some foreign force? Would they have known how expensive freedom is and what laws were necessary to institute to protect it?
A recent newspaper reported after the fall of Ramadi in Iraq that: “The White House said Vice President Joe Biden called Iraqi Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi on Friday to reaffirm U.S. support in light of the attacks on Ramadi. It said Biden promised expedited security help, including delivery of shoulder-fired rockets and other heavy weaponry to counter IS car bombs.”
Was there some reason to think Abadi did not know that with our 3,000 plus boots on the ground and our daily air support that we were not supporting him? Why is it we are always groveling to these foreign leaders who would not be in office without out support? Should not the White House have reported that Biden called Abadi and told him to put a little fight into his army of 270,000 men and 500,000 reserves or we are pulling out our support and letting him make a go of it on his own. Seriously, isn’t it time Iraq start saving itself.
This day was originally established to honor those who died while wearing the uniform of our country. It slowly seems to be changing into a day to honor not only those but all who wore the uniform of our country and who are no longer among the living. A couple of years back all 55,000 graves at Otis Air Base had flags put on them for Memorial Day even though most buried there did not die in the service. I see the same is happening in other places in the country. That is supposed to be done on Veteran’s Day.
The way it is going it will soon become a day to remember all who have died whether they served in our nation’s armed forces or not. I went to my parents grave the other day and saw someone had put a flag on it. Neither of them served in uniform.
I suppose that will be the natural progress of a day in a country where those who wear the uniform are from around only 1% of our nation and I am not talking about the upper 1%. This means that unless the meaning of the day is changed 99% of the people will have nothing to remember.
How few of us are affected by military deaths since the draft was abolished in 1973? It is not that we have entered into an era of peace; for truth be told we are constantly warring. We have had more than a decade of war in two countries that has claimed the lives of some 6,861 Americans. How many of us know one of them?
Halifax, MA is one of six places in the United States with that name. Kentucky, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Vermont and Virginia also have towns or boroughs so named. This suggests they were settle by people from England. No one had sufficient emotional attachment to the name to carry it westward beyond the Appalachians.
Our Halifax has the largest population of those others in the United States with 7,500 people. It was named after the town of Halifax in West Yorkshire, England, unlike the more famous Halifax in Nova Scotia that was named after the Earl of Halifax who founded it.
The Earl achieved fame by authorizing a general warrant in 1763 (our Bill of Rights outlawed these type warrants even though under the Patriot Act they have come back into favor) which resulted in the arrest of John Wilkes and many others. Wilkes, a radical Member of Parliament, was a distant relative of noted British Shakespearean actor Junius Brutus Booth (who happens to share the same birth day as me). He left England (and his wife and child) at the age 25 with Mary Ann Holmes (no relation to Carmel) who was described as a “flower girl.” They settled in Bel Air, Maryland. Their ninth child would be named after John Wilkes.
Our Halifax early on was proposed as a place where a canal connecting Massachusetts Bay with Buzzards Bay should run through. Those plans amounted to very little. That canal would be located further to the south of Plymouth and called the Cape Cod Canal. Had it gone through Halifax it may have been named the Halifax Canal.
Stephen J. Flemmi was sentenced on January 27, 2004. He had been charged with several murders among them the murder of two young women with whom he had sexual relations; one was his step daughter and the other a young, attractive woman who was his girlfriend from the time she was 17 years old. He murdered his step daughter because as a result of his abuse of her as a young girl she could not confront life other than blotting out the memory of it through the use of drugs and becoming a sexual victim who was embarrassing him; he murdered his girlfriend because she wanted to have a better life than being abused by a criminal having found another man who she fell in love with and was leaving to join him. The girlfriend’s sister probably also became a victim on him.
According to the Clerk’s Notes here is his sentence:
Counts 1sss and 2sss: LIFE. Counts 3sss, 5sss, 27sss and 28sss: 240 months to be served. Counts 29sss, 31sss, 32sss, 33sss, 41sss and 44sss: 120 months to be served. Counts 30sss and 47sss: 60 months to be served, all to be served concurrently. (As you know when a sentence is served concurrently it doesn’t amount to anything.)
Count 36sss: 60 months to be served; Count 37sss: 120 months to be served; Count 38sss: 360 months to be served, concurrently to each other and consecutively to terms imposed on Counts 1-3, 5, 27-33, 41, 44 and 47.
Supervised Release for 5 years on Counts 1 and 2, and 3 years on Counts 3, 5, 27-33, 41, 44 and 47, all such terms to run concurrently. Special Conditions of Supervised Release: 1. deft. shall not purchase or possess a firearm or any other dangerous weapon; 2. deft. shall pay a Special Assessment of $1550. Court enters Order of Forfeiture previously entered by the Court as part of the criminal judgment. AUSA’s Wyshak, Kelly and Owyang were present for the Government (my emphasis)
Mitt Romney stepped into the ring in a boxing match for charity last week against former heavy weight champion Evander Holyfield. The faux fight was enjoyed by all. Later a small group gathered in a motel room down the street and sat around having a few beers in the normally dry Salt Lake City. As the night closed in on day the assembled started signing to the Nina Simone’s tune of “Come on back, Jack” :
Come on back Mitt
Hey Mitt, come on, come on back
Come on back Mitt
Hey Mitt, come on, come on back
When you told us you were through
We decided we’d move on
Now we’ve seen the new crew
We know that we were wrong
Come on back Mitt
Hey Mitt, come on, come on back
Come on back Mitt
Hey Mitt, come on, come on back
The group broke up later that night but the song sung in fun told of an anguish facing many in the Republican party. They recognize that the only person in their party with the gravitas and experience to beat Hillary Clinton is Mitt. The vast field of contenders are no more than pretenders. Mitt is the only heavy weight contender. Look for the pressure to grow on Mitt to get back into the race.
I and many others did not vote for Romney last time. The reason is he was too close to Netanyahu and Adelson who want to hire American troops to attack Iran. We are tired of wars in the Middle East. We hoped Obama would keep us out of that trap. We were right.
Obama has put Iran on track to doing away with its nuclear weapon program; if he succeeds, then the reason for the U.S. to attack Iran is gone with the wind no matter what other reasons are conjured up to urge us to do so. I don’t expect any president will want to enter another war like we did in Iraq because we disliked the leadership of a country.
Taking that factor off the table makes Romney a more desirable candidate for us. I say that because I’m anxious not to have the White House taken over by scoundrels which I suggest will be the case if Mitt does not run. We know the Hill-Billy team. I’m tired of their ethically challenged approach to politics with destroyed emails and huge contributions to their projects that just happen to coincide with government favors being advanced to the contributors. It is very hard to think of four more years of the Clintons in control of the cookie jar. We need a scandal free candidate untainted by past associations who can be trusted to run a clean business as Romney has proven he can do. We do not need a president who will hand out assortment of goodies to contributors in the form of pardons as she leaves office; or one that will take all the furniture with them when they leave.
Here’s one thing I can guarantee you, the American people are not going to buy another Bush. Especially one who is mired in the same group of foreign policy types who brought us the Iraq war. Can you imagine anyone of sound mind saying that he will be relying on Wolfowitz for foreign policy advice? Well that’s what Jeb has told us so even those who abhor the thought of the Hill-Billy duet will find it less problematic to vote for them rather than bringing back the ghosts of Iraq past.
Here’s the rest of the Republican field. Tell me if you would feel comfortable voting for any one of them: Ted Cruz and Rand Paul; Marco Rubio and Ben Carson; Carly Fiorina and Mike Huckabee; Scott Walker and Chris Christie; the two Ricks, Santorum and Perry; Lindsey Graham and Bobby Jinndal. Seriously, the reason there are so many is that none is a serious candidate. Pick one, nominate him or her, and send the person to the slaughter. Not one of them can measure up to Mitt.
I know Mitt has lost twice but didn’t Lincoln take a few beatings before he won. Here’s the big reason Mitt is needed. The Supreme Court will have two or more seats opening up over the next few years. Put Hillary in and she’ll fill those seats with the same type of progressives that Bill Clinton put in. He put in Ruth Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer both deeply mired in the liberal ideology along with two other judges (Obama’s Sotomayor and Kagan).
These are dangerous times for America. Hillary will change America for the worse; Mitt will keep it from losing its greatness. “Come on back, Mitt!”
There are not many public parks on Columbus Avenue in the South End for the working folk in that neighborhood to use. As far as I can tell there is one. It is the William E. Carter Playground, pictured here.
I stand corrected. The people used to have this park. Unfortunately for them, it is being turned over to Northeastern University. As far as the city is concerned the people in the neighborhood can be damned.
In Boston’s Open Space Plan 2002 – 2006 Carter was described as one of the four facilities in the South End that: “are experiencing heavy use and maintenance demands. The dramatic rise in the popularity of soccer and the continued keen interest in baseball puts additional pressure on these facilities. Carter experiences added pressure from the Northeastern University student population.”
The reason why the public loses the park is that it is described as being “rundown” and “it often fills with puddles when the weather is rainy.” That’s seems to perfectly describe the city parks that I played ball on which never seemed to bother me or my friends. In my book it is not much of a reason to deprive a neighborhood of a park.
Northeastern is going to shut the park down for a year, renovate it and when it opens it is allegedly going to share the park with the neighborhood people. Kathy Spiegelman, a Northeastern vice president according to the article: “explained there was little overlap between the times Northeastern groups typically need the facilities and when outside leagues want access.”