The MassResistance blog began in early 2005 with a Massachusetts focus on judicial tyranny, same-sex "marriage", and LGBT activism in our schools. We broadened our focus to national-level threats to our Judeo-Christian heritage, the Culture of Life, and free speech. In 2006, Article 8 Alliance adopted the name "MassResistance" for its organization.
CAUTION: R-rated subject matter.
C. J. Doyle, Executive Director of the Catholic Action League of Massachusetts, sent this letter to The Pilot (Archdiocese of Boston newspaper), regarding Scott Brown's election:
January 25, 2010
Letter to the Editor
While pro-life Catholics may justly celebrate the defeat of a pro-abortion extremist in the special U.S. Senate election held on January 19th, The Pilot story on Scott Brown's victory conveyed the impression that I believe Senator-elect Brown is in accord with Church teaching on the sanctity of innocent human life. I don't and he isn't ("Many Catholics react favorably to Brown's election," 1/22/10).
Brown supports Roe v. Wade, and as a legislator has voted for buffer zones, emergency contraception and Commonwealth Care, which includes state funding of abortions, sterilizations and birth control. The best we can expect from Senator Brown is that he will support restrictions on abortion, limitations on abortion funding, and conscience clause protections.
The longstanding and bipartisan tradition in Massachusetts politics however, is for those seeking office to accept the votes, endorsements and contributions of social conservatives during an election, and then move leftward after the election.
In Scott Brown's case, he didn't wait for election day to tell the Boston Herald that he now considers same-sex marriage in the Commonwealth to be "settled law."
Romneyite advisors Peter Flaherty and Eric Fehrnstrom (Boston Globe, 1-23-10)
Please, Senator-Elect Brown: Remember who elected you. It wasn’t the mushy middle, personified by RINO Senator McCain and former Mass. Governors Mitt Romney and Bill Weld. Their compromising approach is the problem, not the solution!
Pay attention: In the afterglow of the Massachusetts Miracle, there are flickers of peril for The Right. I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but like Paul Revere’s midnight-message, consider this warning “a cry of defiance, and not of fear.” Conservatives have worked hard over the past year to rebuild after Big Government Republican John McCain’s defeat. But McCain isn’t going gently into that good night. … While he runs to the right to protect his seat, McCain’s political machine is working across the country to install liberal and establishment Republicans to secure his legacy.
McCain and other RINOs have their hands all over Scott Brown as he tries to find his footing in D.C. Let’s hope they are not able to co-opt Brown.
Our email alert (“Say it ain't so! As race gets tighter Republican Scott Brown's veering to the left,” Jan. 8) received a lot of negative response from our supporters who just didn’t want to believe that Scott Brown might be moving to the left. We linked to a Boston Herald article, “Scott Brown vows to work with Dems” (Jan. 7):
Brown . . . said he wants to play the part of a swing vote, sought after by both sides of the aisle. "I give you my word. What's the Republican Party gonna do to me? They haven't really done much for me now," he said. "So all of a sudden I'm obligated to them? I don't owe them anything. " . . . "If I go down there, I'll be the 41st (Republican) senator," he said. "The Democrats have to come to me and say, 'Scott, we know you're an independent guy, can we have you on this issue?'" "That's a great position to be in, he added. …
Brown continued to paint himself as a social moderate who is tight-fisted with taxpayer dollars and hawkish on national security. …
Brown ducked the label “pro-choice” while saying abortion should be a woman’s personal choice. In the next breath, he said he would vote to confirm a U.S. Supreme Court justice who opposed Roe v. Wade - but added he would have supported Justice Sonia Sotomayor.
Yesterday morning I would have called Scott Brown a social conservative. By the time he finished an hour with Herald editors yesterday afternoon, he was calling himself a “social moderate.” Yet he sounded like a social liberal. Gay marriage, which he once wanted to put up for a referendum? “This is settled law” in Massachusetts, he said. “People have moved on.” …
Pro-choice or pro-life? Brown, who’s repeatedly pushed for abortion restrictions and has the support of Massachusetts Citizens for Life, said he doesn’t like those “labels.” Pressed, he agreed the “choice” should be between a woman and her doctor - the very definition of pro-choice. …
Forget morphing into JFK, as Brown does in his ads. He’s morphing into Weld-lite.
It was bad enough seeing former Governors Weld and Cellucci (RINOs extraordinaire) campaigning with Brown, and Romney emerging from backstage at the election night celebration. Now we see the above photo in yesterday’s Boston Globe, showing Brown flanked by Romneyites Peter Flaherty and Eric Fehrnstrom, as he visited the Capitol on Thursday.
MassResistance alerts constitutional patriots across America who supported Scott Brown: Keep him honest! Beware the bad influence of McCain and Romney! We didn’t work this hard to see another “moderate” Republican in the Senate.
Obviously we’re happy that Scott Brown has been elected. We had to stop Coakley and slow down Obama's killer agenda. We’re hoping for the best from Brown.
But we are bothered by his alliance with RINOs Mitt Romney and John McCain. His campaign was run by Romneyites. Eric Fehrnstrom and Peter Flaherty were at Brown’s side every minute during his visit to D.C. on Thursday. Will they all pull him to the left? We want to hear more talk about the Constitution and less about "what's good for his state."
Scott Brown with new mentor, John McCain [Washington Post photo].
In the wake of Mr. Brown’s victory I see a lot of Conservatives acting little better than giddy and foolish Democrats did upon the accession of Barack Obama to the left right hand of Nancy Pelosi Almighty. Many of my fellow patriots on the right and correct side of the isle have a lot of good things to say about Scott Brown and his successful election bid for one of Massachusetts’ Senate seats. But at times they are downright deifying this man as the savior of our Republic. …
Questions, questions everywhere - and all have yet to be answered.
Will Mr. Brown, now Senator Brown, have the courage to do the things that a true conservative would once he takes his place in the Senate? Will he embrace the Constitution and vote against all laws that, while they might be good for his State, violate that document’s limited mandates of power? Will he have the cojones to vote against any and every bill that comes before the Senate which contains one iota of unconstitutionality snuck into it by wicked people seeking power over our liberty? Will he have the fortitude to stand before his colleagues in the well of the Senate and chastise those who propose powers to our government which are strictly forbidden and do so regardless of party? Will he turn his nose up at spending more than the government takes in and reject burdening our children with obscene debts to lubricate the votes of special interests and a minority of Americans? Will he exhibit the courage needed to start paring back and proposing cuts or outright elimination of unconstitutional programs already on the books? Will he reject the fallacy of bipartisanship when such a tactic requires compromises to limited government?
Or will Mr. Brown be what really passes for a “conservative” in Washington and the Republican Party? Will he simply oppose the most egregious of new usurpations of liberty and only when the American people speak up loudly enough for him to take notice while he helps to pass ones of a lesser nature that he thinks we will not find out about or later object to? Will he cast his vote in favor of yearly budgets that cannot be paid for like so many of his colleagues do? …
When these questions are answered I will pass judgment on Scott Brown as a Senator, as a Republican and as a conservative. When he shows me that he is worthy of praise, only then shall I give it to him. …
Rally on Littleton Common for Scott Brown, Monday, January 18, 2010, 4:00 p.m.
This guy really has a great rapport with the people. He's genuine. Despite horrible weather conditions (and no nearby parking), there were 200-300 supporters there to greet Scott as he wound down his day of campaigning. Terrific enthusiasm! If he doesn't win in a landslide, it could only be due to unprecedented election fraud.
We were at Northeastern University in the hours before Obama's appearance at the Martha Coakley “rally” in Boston today. The people who were lined up waiting to go in appeared comatose as they awaited their messiah. Few Coakley signs were seen, and no enthusiasm was felt. The Brown supporters who turned out, by contrast, were really psyched and fun to talk to. Three cheers for the Northeastern University Republican Club who had an energetic group. We also met lots of people from all over, including a new American citizen from Argentina, and a fellow from Texas who came to help us out!
The ultra-leftist Huffington Post thinks Scott Brown is a bad guy … for opposing taxpayer-funded sex-change procedures demanded by a convicted murderer.
According to the Huffington Post, it’s bad enough Brown opposes homosexual “marriage” -- but then they go on to list this as another of his bad deeds:
“The two-time incumbent [Brown] took a firm stance on opposing the request of a convicted murderer for a sex-change operation.”
Huff Post brands this "engaging in the culture wars," and that's a no-no. (They want conservatives to just shut up.) But Brown was courageous enough to stand up against the leftist trans madness fad and debated this issue on New England Cable News (7/16/07) with a trans activist from the International Foundation for Gender Education. (Unfortunately, the video has been taken down.)
The murderer in question is Robert Kosilek, who has demanded his transgender treatments in court -- dressed as a woman.
Convicted wife murderer, Robert Kosilek [AP photo]
Scott Brown was simply displaying common sense. It’s Martha Coakley who’s out of the mainstream. And if she gets her hands on health care legislation, you can be certain she’ll ensure transgender procedures are covered under all government-approved insurance plans.
“No discrimination on the basis of gender identity or expression!”
In Massachusetts, four of the 12 inmates diagnosed with gender identity disorder are receiving hormone shots.
Kosilek has been receiving hormone therapy since a federal judge ruled in 2002 that he was entitled to some treatment for gender identity disorder. Although Judge Mark Wolf did not order a specific treatment plan, he ruled that Kosilek had proven he has a serious medical condition that had not been adequately treated.
After Wolf's ruling, the corrections department allowed Kosilek to receive female hormones and laser hair removal. He was also given access to female undergarments and some makeup.
During testimony this spring in his second lawsuit, Kosilek said the female hormones and other treatments have not been enough to relieve his suffering and said he would likely commit suicide if he does not get the surgery.
Such talk infuriates state Sen. Scott Brown, who filed legislation seeking to ban sex-change operations for inmates in 1998. The legislation died in committee.
Brown points out that most private health insurers do not cover sex-change operations, and says taxpayers should not have to pay for such "elective" surgery for inmates.
"I just think it would be deemed a luxury for him to have that operation. He is in there because he murdered his wife," Brown said. "There are no luxuries that are supposed to be available."
But advocates for transgendered inmates say that in some cases, sex reassignment surgery is a medical necessity, not a luxury.
Attorney General Martha Coakley was the first to testify last July 14, 2009 at a packed State House hearing on the "Transgender Rights and Hate Crimes" bill, H1728. (She made time for it on her birthday, it was that important to her!) She seemed to feel right at home with the crossdressers and transsexuals she wants to force the rest of us to accept as normal. (And if you dare to object, you could be charged with a "hate crime" or unlawful discrimination!) Here are just a few photos from our report on that event. See if you can find Martha:
Soon, if Attorney General Coakley gets her way and H1728 is passed in Massachusetts, you will have no grounds for complaint if you have to share a public restroom or locker room with any of the big guys, or would-be guys, above. (And they get to choose whichever gender facility they feel like at any given moment...)
“I am honored to have received this recognition from ACORN,” said Attorney General Coakley. “As our office continues to fight predatory lending practices, it is important for local, state, and federal officials, as well as others to work together to try and provide relief and real solutions to individuals who face the threat of foreclosure.”
Mark J. Fitzgibbons at American Thinkerreportedin September (2009):
The position of state attorney general has become a particularly big feeder, and we see many national politicians who are former state AGs. This begs the question: where ACORN has been violating laws, was it doing so with the imprimatur if not outright assistance of Democrat attorneys general, who seek to curry favor with the Democratic establishment?
As attorney general, Ms. Coakley has been responsible for licensing all nonprofit organizations operating in her state, and overseeing the reporting and financial disclosures of those organizations. To the extent ACORN was operating in Massachusetts, it was doing so with the express approval of Ms. Coakley's office. Whatever ACORN's unlawful operations in Massachusetts may have been, Ms. Coakley had the authority and obligation to take actions to stop them.
Bay Windows: Coakley for Senate Wednesday Jan 13, 2010 Martha Coakley has earned your vote. During her tenure as Massachusetts Attorney General, she set an aggressive, pro-gay agenda. Each Attorney General can set her own course, and Coakley chose gay civil rights to distinguish her service. She has stepped forward and led the fight for LGBT equality on many fronts: marriage equality, transgender non-discrimination, appointed openly gay and lesbian staffers (most notably Maura Healey, chief of the Civil Rights Division), and aggressively prosecuted hate crimes. Her lawsuit challenging the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) has proven that she’s ready to take the national stage. ...
Access to civil marriage for gays and lesbians is the law of the Commonwealth. I applaud now, as I did at the time, the Supreme Judicial Court's decision in Goodridge. And as your Attorney General, charged with responsibility for upholding the law, I will do whatever I can to see that the rights of same-sex couples to marry is protected. I am also personally committed to that....
We also know that if the proposed [anti-gay marriage] amendment goes on the ballot, Massachusetts will spend the next year and a half besieged by anti-gay activists and will be the recipient of zealous rhetoric and invective from across the country. If that battle is necessary, you have my support....
We cannot allow hate to occupy any legal space in Massachusetts. We cannot legislate hate away, but we can hold those accountable who act upon it and that's why it is important to develop and implement effective civil rights programs in our schools....
I strongly encourage our legislators to defeat it [the marriage amendment] and to close the door once and for all on prejudice and unequal treatment.
She vowed to uphold the "law" and protect the "right" for gays and lesbians to "marry" -- this despite the fact that the legislature still has not changed the statutes to enable same-sex couples to "marry", as instructed by the Supreme Judicial Court in 2003! (See the homosexual lobby's pending bill here.) What "law" is Attorney General Coakley upholding?
She labeled those who oppose "gay marriage" prejudiced and hateful. She is also committed to "hate-crimes" laws and homosexual programs in the schools. And she won't forget "civil rights" for "bisexuals" and "transgenders".
If you believe in traditional values, Martha Coakley really despises you -- but labels you the "hater".
A few years back, Coakley didn’t see the need for the “Transgender Rights and Hate Crimes Bill” (H1728, formerly H1722) now pending in the Massachusetts legislature. (See our detailed study of the bill here.) By 2008, she decided to testify in its favor. Since the national GLBT lobby was then starting a huge push on the transgender issue, she apparently decided she had to join them publicly to continue to get their financial support.
Marc Solomon, the campaign director for MassEquality, one of the organizations leading the effort to pass H.B. 1722 [now H1728], praised Coakley’s leadership on the issue. "When Martha Coakley stands up for something, she fights for it and we are so proud and gratified to have her fighting for equality for transgender people in Massachusetts. It’s a sea change from where we’ve been in the past. It’s so great to have the attorney general - the lead civil rights spokesperson in Massachusetts - fighting on behalf of our community." …
Coakley’s stance continues her record of commitment to equal treatment for LGBT people under the law. She regularly expressed support for marriage equality on the stump during her 2006 campaign for attorney general, in addition to identifying same-sex domestic violence as an issue to which she as attorney general would be more responsive.
In May 2007, a month before the legislature was to take a decisive vote on an anti-gay marriage amendment, Coakley came out swinging against the measure during a speech to the Mass. Lesbian and Gay Bar Association. … [See Coakley’s entire speech here.]
Despite those strong stances, however, Coakley’s position on adding explicit protections for transgender people to the state’s civil rights laws was less comprehensive until now. Asked about including protections based on gender identity and expression in state law during a 2006 interview with Bay Windows, Coakley supported including such protections in the state’s hate crimes law but stopped short of endorsing the same changes to its anti-discrimination statute, stating that her own understanding of the law’s intent is that gender identity and expression were protected already. (A Massachusetts Superior Court judge has used statutory bans on discrimination based on gender and disability to rule in favor of a transgender woman who had been fired from her job when she began transitioning.)
"If we either had incidents that were unaddressed or a court decision that said it didn’t I would certainly be supportive of strengthening the statute if we needed to," Coakley said at the time. "I do know it’s hard to get statutory changes; it would take a while to do it. So I’m a big believer in unless it’s broken let’s work with it. And maybe we develop case law, we develop whatever it is we need to." [Emphasis added.]
… President Obama is under fire for moving too slowly to champion homosexual rights, in the view of leading voices on the left. The appointment of a “czar” like Kevin Jennings is one way in which President Obama can ensure the influence of homosexual-rights-activists in important places – like our nation’s public schools – without the president’s having to pass a law, or even hold a Congressional hearing, both of which might generate public attention and opposition. That Jennings’ influence in the Department of Education might promote the early or inappropriate sexualization of children is apparently not as important as what Jennings’ appointment might do in the way of smoothing relations between President Obama and the Human Rights Campaign.
In the case of the 2000 and 2001 sex education workshops sponsored in part by the Massachusetts state education establishment, the state partnered with GLSEN and with Planned Parenthood (known usually as the nations’ largest abortion provider), which provided the actual fisting “kits” available to participants. Both of these groups are clearly outside the “mainstream” of adults’ thinking and behavior about human sexuality and respect for human life and dignity. When states offer taxpayer dollars to private “partners” for carrying out state programs, the identity of these partners matters a lot.
Groups like Planned Parenthood, GLSEN, or another frequent government partner – SIECUS (Sexuality Information and Education Council of the U.S) -- have little in common with the average American’s beliefs about sexual morality. For such groups, the body is a tool, an object to be managed to maximize physical pleasure while minimizing disease and pregnancy. The materials they publish for adolescents can only be described as depressing and dehumanizing. Watchdog groups and citizens are vitally necessary in order to expose these groups, and the government programs and bureaucrats who would partner with them.
One of the outcomes of the current tempest over Kevin Jennings should be his ouster. But surely another should be a demand that the government get out and stay out of the business of instructing our children about human sexuality in ways that degrade them specifically as children, and also as human beings. [Emphasis added.]
A consultor to the Vatican's laity council is protesting U.S. President Barack Obama's chosen "safe schools czar," Kevin Jennings, due to his history of promoting homosexuality, especially to young people. … She expressed concern regarding recent revelations about the career history of Jennings …