THE PEOPLE'S SEAT: Scott Brown at Littleton Rally, Jan. 18

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.

Photos: Scott Brown vs. Coakley-Obamabots: Boston Rally Jan. 17

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!

 FEEBLE:

Coakley’s Support of “Transgender Rights” Would Force Taxpayers to Fund Murderer’s Trans Procedures

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 convicted murderer’s demands have been supported by a prominent transgender activist (and Massachusetts voter) “Nancy” Nangeroni, who testified alongside Martha Coakley for the “Transgender Rights” bill in Massachusetts last July. The transgender rights bill would mandate coverage for exactly such insane procedures.

 

Attorney General Martha Coakley testifying in favor of “Transgender Rights” Bill H1728.  Nancy Nangeroni (right), trans activist, looks on. [MassResistance photos]

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!”

USA Today, “Transgendered inmates push for state-funded sex-change surgery” (8/19/2006):

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.

See also CBS/AP, “Cross-Dressing Killer Robert Kosilek Wants You To Pay For Hair-Removal Treatments Behind Bars” (11/23/09).

Martha Coakley Dedicated to "Transgender Rights"

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...)

Corrupt ACORN Graded Coakley A+

Martha Coakley received an A+ rating from the corrupt, “criminal enterprise” ACORN for her work “fighting foreclosures” in 2008. She was one of only six AG’s to get that high grade. Coakley issued a press release (dated 6-12-08):

“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 Thinker reported in 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?

That brings us to the importance of ACORN's first scorecard of attorneys general, issued in 2008, "Attorneys General Take Action: Real Leadership in Fighting Foreclosures." The 18-page report and scorecard describes attorneys' general active involvement with ACORN's policy goals on housing.

See also Fitzgibbons’ recent piece, Will Massachusetts send ACORN flunky Coakley to replace Ted Kennedy? (Jan. 14):

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.

Sexual Radical Newspaper Bay Windows Endorses Coakley

An expected endorsement for Martha Coakley from Bay Windows -- the same newspaper that ran a story after Pope John Paul II's death entitled "Requiem for the Pope's Penis," and reviews praising gay brotherly incest and lesbian sodomy. And don't forget their transgender advocacy. (Martha hasn't.)




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. ...


Here's Coakley at 5th anniversary celebration for
"gay marriage" in Massachusetts, May 2009:

Martha Coakley Was Keynote Speaker at Lesbian Gay Bar Assoc. Fundraiser

As Attorney General, Martha Coakley had no problem helping the radical Massachusetts Lesbian Gay Bar Association raise money. She was keynote speaker at their May 2007 fundraising dinner.

MLGBA luminaries.

See her speech here. Excerpts:

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".

Martha Coakley Has Moved to Left on "Transgender Rights"

Is it possible that anyone as radical as Martha Coakley could have moved to the left recently? We have found one example of this...

Men dressed as women lobby for their "rights" at the Mass. State House. 

Martha Coakley is now with them!  [Photo: MassResistance.]

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. 

Coakley is a very tough lady, and not easily intimidated by 6’3” guys in skirts sharing the women’s restroom, or “phallic women” sharing their locker room.

Men dressed as women at "transgender rights" lobby day at State House, April 2009. [Photo: MassResistance.]

From the homosexual news source, Edge Boston (3-7-08):

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.]

Union Guys for Scott Brown

On the Tom and Todd show this morning (WRKO AM680), Bill Hudak (Republican candidate for Mass. Sixth Congressional Dist., North Shore) called in with a great anecdote on the Brown-Coakley debate last night.

He said that the union guys were out in force outside the building with big 4' x 8' Coakley signs. As Scott Brown arrived at the building, he went over and greeted the guys. Hudak overheard them tell Brown, "We're voting for you. We just got paid $50 to hold the signs."

When Coakley arrived, in typical arrogant liberal style, she walked right by the guys holding her signs without a word of acknowledgement.

May the best man win.

UPDATE 1-13-10: Videos confirming this anecdote at FlemingandHayes blog. 

More on the Phony Boston Globe Poll

Martha Coakley up by 15 points (says the Boston Globe)? Doesn't seem right to this Massachusetts resident. Also, the Boston Herald is supposedly going to release a poll showing Coakley only 1 point ahead. Here's more on the polls from Legal Insurrection blog [excerpt]:

Globe Poll An Outlier

Obama wins New Hampshire primary in a landslide!

That was the prediction of the University of New Hampshire Survey Center and most other pollsters prior to the primary. In fact, Hillary Clinton won the primary, causing much hand wringing. This shows us that we need to be cautious with polling data. It is just part of the picture.

The UNH poll released this morning by The Boston Globe, showing a safe 15% lead by Coakley among likely voters, does not ring true to me. UNH started polling on January 2 and finished January 6. Rasmussen, which polled during that same time period, showed Coakley up by 9% among likely voters but only 2% among definite voters. PPP polled more recently and showed Brown up by 1%. The Boston Herald is to release a poll which reportedly will show Coakley with a 1% lead among likely voters.

The UNH-Globe poll is an outlier, by far. The three other polls show this as a single digit race among likely voters, with Brown's voters far more highly motivated. [Added] Even the UNH-Globe polls shows that among the voters who are listed as "extremely interested in election" it is an even race, at 47% each.

Scott Brown Up by 1 -- or Coakley Up by 15?

A new poll says Scott Brown is leading by 1%. This from Public Policy Polling:  

The Massachusetts Senate race is now a toss up. Buoyed by a huge advantage with independents and relative disinterest from Democratic voters in the state, Republican Scott Brown leads Martha Coakley 48-47. ["The Wall Street Journal ranked PPP as one of the top swing state pollsters in the country last year. (11-6-08 WSJ)"]

Brown leads 63-31 with independents and is winning 17% of the Democratic vote while Coakley receives only 6% support from GOP voters.  Both candidates are relatively popular, with 57% viewing Brown favorably to only 25% unfavorable and 50% with a positive opinion of Coakley to 42% negative. 

Here are more details on PPP's poll.

Dems caught with their pants down again? 

Coakley supporters on their way to her rally?

Why is the Boston Herald reporting on "No Pants Day" on the T, but not the new polls? All the Herald mentions is the number of Facebook friends (where Brown is way ahead).

Meanwhile, the Boston Globe reports its own poll shows Coakley up 15 points among likely voters.

Senate Candidate Martha Coakley OK with Fisting for Teens

Martha Coakley, Democrat U.S. Senate candidate for Kennedy's seat, 

flanked by SEIU thug-ettes. [Photo: SEIU]

Kevin Jennings and his organization GLSEN sponsored the obscene Fistgate Conference in 2000 at Tufts University in Medford, Massachusetts. There, they not only talked with children about fisting, anal beads, sadomasochism, and assorted perversions – they also invited groups to hand out their graphic and even frightening materials to young teens (who, of course, needed to know how a “phallic woman” puts on a condom, and other “safer sex” techniques for post-op transsexuals).

Why were Jennings and his cohorts not prosecuted for "crimes against chastity, morality, decency and good order" (MGL Ch. 272 -- which also still includes sodomy as "the abominable and detestable crime against nature")? Simply put, because those very concepts are now dead in Massachusetts. How about the rest of the country?

Jennings and GLSEN knew there was a loophole in the Massachusetts law that would protect them on the charge of disseminating materials harmful to minors. (See below.) But what about “enticing away a person for prostitution or sexual intercourse” and “inducing a person under 18 to have sexual intercourse”? (MGL Ch. 272, Sections 2 & 4.) No loopholes in those sections that we can see. Still, they got away with it. Law enforcement authorities seem to be on the side of the perverts here.

Then-District Attorney Martha Coakley (now Democrat candidate for Ted Kenney’s U.S. Senate seat!) didn’t even bother to respond to Parents’ Rights Coalition’s (now MassResistance) request for a criminal investigation after the 2000 GLSEN event. (Ann Coulter recently wrote of another Coakley outrage, which should disqualify her as a Senator.)

Since then, PRC/MassResistance has repeatedly filed a bill to remove the exemption for schools that allows them to disseminate such obscene materials (for “educational purpose”). Of course, this being Massachusetts, our bill keeps getting killed in committee.

And we all know that Kevin Jennings and GLSEN are all about “education”. GLSEN even had a contract with the Massachusetts Department of Education at the time to prove its bona fide status. (Yes, we can produce a document if MediaMatters cares to challenge this.)

The absurd Massachusetts statute reads:

CHAPTER 272. CRIMES AGAINST CHASTITY, MORALITY, DECENCY AND GOOD ORDER

Chapter 272: Section 28. Matter harmful to minors, dissemination; possession; defenses

Chapter 272: Section 28. Whoever disseminates to a minor any matter harmful to minors, as defined in section thirty-one, knowing it to be harmful to minors, or has in his possession any such matter with the intent to disseminate the same to minors, shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for not more than five years or in a jail or house of correction for not more than two and one-half years, or by a fine of not less than one thousand nor more than ten thousand dollars for the first offense, not less than five thousand nor more than twenty thousand dollars for the second offense, or not less than ten thousand nor more than thirty thousand dollars for the third and subsequent offenses, or by both such fine and imprisonment. A prosecution commenced under this section shall not be continued without a finding nor placed on file. It shall be a defense in any prosecution under this section that the defendant was in a parental or guardianship relationship with the minor. It shall also be a defense in any prosecution under this section if the evidence proves that the defendant was a bona fide school, museum or library, or was acting in the course of his employment as an employee of such organization or of a retail outlet affiliated with and serving the educational purpose of such organization.