Martha Coakley’s Brazen Violation Of The Civil Rights Act

Newsflash: the Civil Rights Act actually protects some groups that the left despise.

Oh, well.  Civil Rights, Cybil bites.  Who cares about the civil rights of religious people?

Martha Coakley apparently hates Catholics, unless they happen to be pedophile priests, in which case they’re okay.

Democrats can easily screw over any class of people they don’t like (like white men, rich people, non-union workers, religious people, and babies for starters).  Because their view is that government giveth rights, and government can taketh away rights whenever it wants.

The following YouTube clip is shocking audio of Massachusetts Attorney General and U.S. Senate candidate, Martha Coakley, arrogantly informing Catholics (and, by extension, other Christian believers who might wish to exercise their religious rights of conscience), “You can have religious freedom, you probably shouldn’t work in the emergency room.”

Attorney General Coakley, with all due respect to her office, is wrong. Her statement mischaracterizes the law and, if applied, would amount to unlawful religious discrimination. Religious freedom means much more than believers merely being free to voluntarily segregate themselves from certain professions (especially the caring professions which are so often reflective of the very essence of religious faith).

Under Title VII of the U.S. Civil Rights Act, employers are prohibited from discriminating against individuals because of their religion in hiring, firing and other terms and conditions of employment. This means employers cannot treat you any less favorably because of your religious beliefs or practices, nor can they force you to stop participating in religious activities as a condition of your employment. And this means emergency rooms cannot discriminate against practicing Catholics or others who hold religious values.

That’s okay.  Martha Coakely has already vowed to ignore the Constitution and vote for a profoundly unconstitutional ObamaCare boondoggle that forces Americans to purchase insurance whether they want to or not in a blatant expansion of raw government power.  Why should she worry about an insignificant little detail like the Civil Rights Act?

Or maybe she’s going to tell us that she didn’t SEE the violations of the Civil Rights Act and the Constitution, the way she lyingly claimed she didn’t see her goon violating the civil rights of a reporter who tried to ask her a question about her being in bed with health care lobbyists.

Advertisements

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

23 Responses to “Martha Coakley’s Brazen Violation Of The Civil Rights Act”

  1. Disciple Says:

    Good grief! :O The act of violence by her goon was bad enough. She was standing right there. I haven’t heard her apologize for it yet. Did she?

    But this! Good Lord! How many Catholic hospitals are there in the U.S.? In the world? How many emergency rooms in those hospitals? How many Catholic doctors and nurses are there?

    And what the heck is “emergency contraception”?! What a crock!!!

  2. Michael Eden Says:

    I completely agree with you.

    But I would add that there are tens of thousands of non-Catholic Christians at LEAST who would also find themselves in the same boat.

    Think of the massive harm this exodus of medical professionals would have on the health industry – which ALREADY doesn’t have enough doctors to sustain our health care system as it is.

    For the record “emergency contraception” refers to abortifacients that kill a newly created human being. It’s just abortion at the earliest possible time.

    And no, Coakley never apologized. She merely lied, and pretended that she didn’t see her goon thuggishly intimidate and then injure a reporter (even though she CLEARLY did).

  3. Disciple Says:

    Yeah, this is getting to be a scary situation. And I know that there are thousands of committed pro-life folks who are not Catholic. It’s just that we can’t go against the pro-life teachings of the Church without committing serious and grave sin. We can actually be excommunicated for procuring or performing or cooperating in a material manner with an abortion, just one. Automatic excommunication. The erosion of our conscience clauses is terrible enough for anyone to face. But as a Catholic, it’s particularly awful because it forces us to choose between the State and our Church. We understand these to be the teachings of Christ, either directly or indirectly, as the Holy Spirit guides the Church along through the ages. So how can we disobey or disagree without committing serious and grave, if not mortal, sin?

    Plus we’ve been in the charity and hospital biz for a long, long time. That the State would now target these aspects of the Church’s ministry to humanity seems to me really perverse.

    All Christians should be able to refuse to commit immoral acts. I see us headed down a dark and dreary road, Michael…

    The road to Nuremberg.

  4. Michael Eden Says:

    You make a good point regarding excommunication.

    I wish Protestants were more serious about the idea that belonging to a church is a privilege, not a right.

    I also am always glad to hear of a bishop being willing to actually USE excommunication to enforce Catholic doctrine. Sadly this is done so rarely it is unreal.

    Ted Kennedy is in the news, and he is an example of a hard-core abortionist who was never excommunicated. Nancy Pelosi is another Catholic who embraces IN-YOUR-FACE abortion stands, but remains part of the Catholic church in good standing.

    You’ll likely like this article on the reaction against one of Nancy Pelosi’s utterly heretical statements. But she wasn’t excommunicated for it, as she should have been.

    I would point out that Protestant Christians have been quite huge in the charity and hospital biz, as well. I don’t think either branch of the Church should be claiming credit to the exclusion of the other.

    You are spot-on in your last paragraph. We need to stand up stronger and bolder than ever before. We need to follow an “onward Christian soldier” philosophy.

    And we need to rise up together as ONE Body.

    Christian unity does not mean that we don’t have major doctrinal differences. What it means is that that which we have in common – salvation in the Divine Person of Jesus Christ – should be enough to keep us moving forward as one.

  5. Disciple Says:

    I agree on the unity being necessary. I think you may be seeing a smugness in my comments that simply isn’t there. I do not claim these things as if other faith communities had no claim. I simply pointed out that we’ve been doing this a long time and for the State to expect us to suddenly back out is mind boggling.

  6. Disciple Says:

    And for the record, an abortionist is one who performs an abortion, usually. Pelosi is on her way to excommunication. Automatic does not generally mean instantaneous. Contrary to the popular notion, the Church does not take this step quickly. She prefers to work with the person and prays that the person will change his or her mind and see the light. We’re talking about souls here and the Church wants foremost that the person receive grace and understanding and light and be in communion with her. She wants the soul to be saved more than she wants to kick the soul out of the fold. Excommunication generally is only a last resort after much much much prayer and talking and writing and pleading and teaching. She is our Mother, after all, and like any good mother, she is solicitous for her children.

  7. Michael Eden Says:

    I’m glad for the “no smugness here” declaration.

    The reason I’m so firm in making the point is that I don’t want either Catholics OR Protestants to see what Coakley said as only having to do with “being Catholic.” Because it’s NOT Catholic, unless you mean “catholic” with the small ‘c’ that means the universal Christian Church.

    We need to unite around this and drive Martha Coakley and her anti-Christian and frankly anti-American view back to where it belongs.

    Protestants and Catholics alike need to see this as a threat to themselves and a threat to their faith and FIGHT.

    You are certainly right about the sheer mind-bogglingness of this depraved religious bigotry.

    As I point out in my article, it IS bigotry, and it IS in outright defiance of the Civil Rights Act.

  8. Michael Eden Says:

    Nevertheless,

    I wish there was a LOT more “excommunicatin'” going on.

    Protestant denominations usually allow each individual church to handle its own version of excommunication, as opposed to handling it at the denominational level. This is fine, and has certain advantages.

    But too often, people who desperately need to be thrown out of the church (whatever denomination) aren’t.

    Catholics often get nailed for not excommunicating Hitler. I think, in hindsight, we can both agree that Hitler wasn’t much of a Catholic. He should have been tossed on his ear, but the Catholic church took a weak, political position and tried to influence him.

    The Protestants are just as bad about their bad apples. Which is one of the reasons that both branches of the Church have been so publicly undermined.

    I remember when I was a kid, my parents had to show letters of recommendation to show that they were believers in good standing with their former church to be accepted for membership by their new church when they moved. And boy, do those days ever seem to be gone when marketing replaces everything.

    I personally think that if the Catholic church was going to excommunicate Pelosi for her abortion views, it would have done so long, long ago. And if they wait until after she is no longer House Speaker to excommunicate her, that would be a bad in its own way (i.e., we only tossed her out when she lost power and no longer mattered; whereas when she was doing massive damage as Speaker, we kept her in place).

    In the early church, following the terrible persecutions that began to take place between the 1st and 4th centuries, there was a debate between those who wanted to throw out those who had completely crumbled to persecution, and those who wanted to restore them. Today, we allow anybody and anything, and it undermines us.

  9. Disciple Says:

    It would be helpful sometimes I think if we could hear each other and see each other and talk face to face, heart to heart. Remember, I grew up Methodist. I was then a New Ager. Then a Buddhist. Only the last 13 years have I been Catholic. I don’t think we’re the only ones with truth. Far from it. The Church teaches there is truth all around us. Protestants and Catholics are related. I consider you to be my brother in Christ. We share the same Father and that makes us brothers. Well, brother and sister. ;)

    Yes, we do need to stand together. We are Christian soldiers. I am standing right beside you in this battle. Don’t forget that, please, don’t think I’m being all “I’m Catholic and you’re not.” That kind of stuff has always gotten on my nerves. I’ve faced a lot of the opposite bigotry here in the South over the years. And I certainly am not engaging in that bigotry against you or any other Protestants.

  10. Disciple Says:

    Good thing you’re not a bishop! ;)

    Excommunication is rare. When it does happen, it may be after 15 years or more of the Church working with the person. She prefers to err on the side of…mercy.

  11. Disciple Says:

    Okay, I’ve finished downloading tonight’s podcasts and I’m tired of sitting out here in the parking lot using my laptop in the car. I need food and I need to get home and get some sleep. Tomorrow is the big day, the March for Life here in Bham. Have a good night, Michael. And rest assured, I’m on your side. I hope you’ll get to take part in the March for Life in your town soon too. I hope to get to go to Washington next week. We’ll see.

    Talk with you more later, God willin’. Peace be with you.

  12. Michael Eden Says:

    Good thing you’re not a bishop! ;)

    I’ll take that in the spirit intended. And you’re probably right, even in seriousness. I’m not one who thinks the world would be a better place if only I ran it!

    But I still maintain that the Catholic church would be far stronger if it DID excommunicate more.

    The issue that prompted our discussion – homosexuality – is itself a case in point. In particular, the related issue of “pedophile priests” is a case in point.

    If the Catholic church had excommunicated these molesting priests instead of just moving them around to other parishes where they molested again (and in some cases again and again), think of the pain, heartache, and loss that could have been prevented.

  13. Michael Eden Says:

    That is good to hear. And, for what it’s worth, I have never gotten a sense that you are an arrogant or nasty person.

    Anything but. I enjoy our “conversations.”

    Still, it is occasionally important to realize messages you may be unconsciously projecting.

    Btw, this is the first time I realize that you were a “SISTER.” I hadn’t realized that.

    In a way, I suppose it’s good that I’m not Catholic, and your not Protestant, because otherwise we might be arguing, “I’m more Catholic than you are,” or vice versa.

    I can honestly say I’ve met some magnificent Catholics, and some truly lousy ones. And I don’t doubt you’ve had the same experience with Protestants.

    Ultimately, it is Christ, and Christ alone, that enables any of us to be “Christians.” And when we think of ourselves as soldiers of Christ, as opposed to soldiers of our denominational affiliation, we will always be stronger.

  14. Michael Eden Says:

    So you’re in Alabama, huh? I’m in southern California. A little earlier hear than there.

    I will pray for you and for the March for Life in Birmingham tomorrow. And I’ll include in my prayer that you are able to get to Washington. I will most definitely be on your side when you march in your stand for life.

    Btw, one of the things we can both have in common is the universal councils of the Christian Church. Here’s a link that’s from a Catholic site.

    These are the things that we can agree upon, and unite around.

  15. Disciple Says:

    Whew! I’m glad we can unite around something! I was beginning to feel a bit besieged on another post. ;) I’m not sure how I got myself into that one, because I didn’t intend to.

    Now as to the talk about pedophile priests and temptation and sin…I’ve been thinking about that since last night and I have some thoughts to share about it.

    1) The media loves to attack the Catholic Church. I know personally of cases of pedophilia in other faith communities that were hushed up and I rarely ever hear anything about anything like that in these communities, not because it doesn’t happen but because no one likes to hate them enough to hear about it. Pedophile priests exist. But their number is exaggerated by the media just like they exaggerate the amount of violence perpetrated against the pro-choice community and try to say that the pro-life movement is responsible for it.

    2) Here’s a link to an article at USAToday talking about pedophilia and how it is found in every environment and every walk of life. The Catholic Church does not seem to have a monopoly on this horrible problem. One thing seems certain: the main perpetrators are men.

    3) The devil is always waiting for us, crouching at our door, waiting to devour us. He is always sending temptations our way. It’s his job. As long as we turn these thoughts away and don’t entertain them and do ask the Lord for help and protection, we are not guilty of these thoughts. The devil is. If, however, we accept them and give consent of the will to them, we are guilty of sin. I think this is what Jesus was talking about when He said that if we look upon someone with lust in our hearts, we already sin. If we keep thinking these thoughts without turning away from them and toward the Lord, then we are only perhaps a step away from performing the physical act and committing further sin.

    Does that make any sense?

  16. Michael Eden Says:

    There are things we can certainly agree on. The trick is to agree to disagree about some things, and focus on the other things.

    I DID pray for you personally, and for your Pro Life march. And I will continue to pray that you are able to go to Washington. The dignity of life is one of the many things we can agree upon and unite around.

    That said, whenever anyone comments on one of my articles and says that I’m wrong, I’ll defend why what I’m saying is right. That’s the way I roll. And when someone has the case and proves their position, I’m willing to acknowledge when I’m wrong.

    I’ll go right to your point 2). Ever since the American Psychological Association chose the path of political correctness over science and changed their stance such that homosexuality is decreed to no longer be a form of deviant behavior in 1973, they had to then make a distinction between “pedophilia” and “homosexuality.” Otherwise, you see, the fact that nearly half of the children molested are boys (with the molesters being MEN) would really look bad for homosexuals. And we just can’t have homosexuals looking bad.

    I take the Bible’s side. Homosexuality is bad. It’s really, really bad. The politically correct doctrine that pedophilia isn’t related to homosexuality is utterly bogus. When two people with “outies” or two people with “innies” engage in sex acts, it’s homosexual. And all of the pseudo-psychology mumbo-jumbo in the world can’t change that simple fact. A billion psychologists can say, “But look at my pretty framed degree on my ego wall.” Like I care.

    It’s one thing to protect your church; quite another to protect it right or wrong; and quite another yet to protect it when it is CLEARLY wrong.

    And when it comes to molesting priests (and let’s get away from the PC term “pedophilia” and simply talk about grown men having sex with underage kids), the Catholic Church is simply way guilty. And it isn’t just the media. And I’ve provided a whopping load of articles in my previous comments.

    A lot of the kids that are being molested by priests are in their teens. And that’s no longer classified as “pedophilia.” But it is still way wrong, and it is clearly still homosexual sex when it involves a priest and a boy.

    One can either attempt to address what is clearly a massive problem (FIFTY PERCENT OF YOUR PRIESTS ARE HOMOSEXUALS!!!!!!!); (the Catholic church has paid more than $2.6 BILLION DOLLARS to settle claims for child abuse) or you can hide from it. And it appears rather clear that you are choosing to hide from it.

    I don’t mean to be mean, Disciple. But I am pointing out the crystal-clear facts.

    The Catholic church has a particular view of “temptation” and a particular view of homosexuality. And as a result you have the world’s largest homosexual subculture. You find me another occupation (other than “gay prostitute) that has a higher percentage rate of homosexuality than the Catholic priesthood.

    And as a result we see all kinds of horror going on inside the Catholic church. And to make it even worse, there are literally thousands of cases of gay priests who molested kids, and then got sent to other parishes to molest more kids.

    And no, it’s NOT the media’s fault. It’s the fault of a terribly flawed theology about the nature of temptation and the nature of human sexuality.

    When it comes to child molestation, and when it comes to suppressing the evidence, the Catholic church has been in a class by itself. And the only way that’s ever going to change is if the Catholic church realizes that 1) it has a major problem; 2) why it has a major problem; and 3) the courage to abandon flawed tradition and deal with reality in a moral manner.

    And if your determination to protect the Catholic church, you’re demonstrating that you’re not even to 1) yet.

    So, no, I can’t say that it makes any sense at all.

    Again, I apologize for saying harsh things, but these harsh things are the truth – and I’m about the truth, rather than covering up for some organization (whether that organization is Christian or otherwise).

  17. Disciple Says:

    Excuse me, fifty percent of our priests are homosexuals? That is a lie. Even the article you linked to doesn’t say that. It says (and I don’t know where their figure comes from) that the “estimates” range from 10% to 58%. That’s quite a range, isn’t it? Rather like pulling numbers out of one’s hat.

    I am not determined to protect the Church. She doesn’t need my protection. The Lord Himself said He would protect her and I’ll leave that to Him. Point #3 I made was about our conversation about sin and temptation in general. You didn’t respond to it. I take that to mean that you are enjoying hurling insults at the Church. May God forgive you. I am taking my leave of you now. Peace be with you, Michael.

  18. Michael Eden Says:

    The article is referencing a number of different studies, which draw different conclusions.

    However, it is NOT a lie. Had you read on, you would have seen documentation such as this:

    “Father Donald Cozzens wrote that several studies have concluded that about 50% of priests and seminarians are gay.”

    So while you are free to go with the studies that say 10%, I am every bit as free to go with the studies that say 50%. Or the studies that say 58%.

    I also cited other articles that revealed the details of other studies in our comments, with links. So I am quite clearly not telling any lies.

    For the record, the reason there is a range is that some studies are simply better than others. A “range” when referring to different studies is nothing even close to “pulling a number out of a hat.”

    That’s kind of like saying that if some people conclude the earth is round, and others conclude that the earth is flat, and there is a divergence, then neither view must be correct.

    There have been a number of polls as to the Massachusetts Senate election. You state that they all just pulled numbers out of a hat, because there are different polls with different results. But you will be proven wrong after this Tuesday, when one particular candidate wins by one particular margin, and proves that one particular poll/survey had correct methodology.

    I notice by your continuation to call the Catholic church “the Church” that you have counted me out of “the Church.” And that you therefore appear to have clearly concluded that the Catholic church is “the Church” and no one is saved unless they believe your particular iteration of the doctrine of men. May God forgive you for that. It was a wicked view that led to the Inquisition and a lot of ugly things.

    For what it’s worth, the Lord never said He would protect the Catholic church anymore than He said He would protect the Baptist General Conference.

    I’ll go back and look at your point three, and see what you have. Frankly, I weary of having to explain the same things to you again and again.

    I wish you peace, and pray that you can go to Washington for the Pro Life march.

  19. Michael Eden Says:

    Okay, I read your 3).

    I have to point out that you never bothered to respond to many of the arguments that I made describing homosexuality as brokenness; for pointing out that the temptation to do certain things is far worse than the temptation to do other things; or for asking you to explain how someone who had the temptation not to torture-rape an infant was fine if he had the thought to do so but resisted the temptation.

    You never responded to any of those arguments, and those were just the ones I could think of off the top of my head.

    So I very much dislike the hoity-toitiness of your attitude when you say, “Point #3 I made was about our conversation about sin and temptation in general. You didn’t respond to it.” Particularly when I see the sentence you then chose to post after that.

    I’m basically willing to agree with the gist of your point 3. Yes, to have a momentary fleeting thought occur, and then to resist it and pray for the Lord’s forgiveness and strength is clearly better than to fixate on a sin.

    But the fact that one thing is less bad than another thing doesn’t mean that the first thing isn’t sin.

    Further, Jesus said:

    “But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.”

    I see no reason to conclude that Jesus MEANT to say, “If anyone looks at a woman lustfully – but only for a little bit – has NOT already committed adultery with her in his heart.”

    I don’t see Jesus breaking it up into degrees, and then excusing one degree versus another, as you do.
    And even if I were to give you the benefit of the doubt (which you should understand from the above I don’t), I have to ask you whether you think your “fleeting just for a second thought” thing is the case with homosexuals. That they just had one single fleeting thought in their minds, and resisted it, and prayed for forgiveness, and then it was gone. Hate to burst your bubble, but that in no way describes a homosexual, whose thinking is so fixated on homosexuality that thinks of himself as a “homosexual’ rather than as a heterosexual who for some utterly bizarre reason once or twice had a homoerotic thought. You are talking about someone who is committed to a longterm pattern of thought that the Lord condemns.

    Before I leave, you accused me of “attacking THE Church.”
    Okay, I read your 3).

    I have to point out that you never bothered to respond to many of the arguments that I made describing homosexuality as brokenness, for pointing out that the temptation to do certain things is far worse than the temptation to do other things, or for asking you to explain how someone who had the temptation not to torture-rape an infant was fine if he had the thought to do so but resisted the temptation.

    So I very much dislike the hoity-toitiness of your attitude when you say, “Point #3 I made was about our conversation about sin and temptation in general. You didn’t respond to it.”

    I’m basically willing to agree with the gist of your point 3. Yes, to have a momentary fleeting thought occur, and then to resist it and pray for the Lord’s forgiveness and strength is clearly better than to fixate on a sin.

    But the fact that one thing is less bad than another thing doesn’t mean that the first thing isn’t sin.

    Further, Jesus said:

    “But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.”

    I see no reason to conclude that Jesus MEANT to say, “If anyone looks at a woman lustfully – but only for a little bit – has NOT already committed adultery with her in his heart.”

    I don’t see Jesus breaking it up into degrees, and then excusing one degree versus another, as you do.
    And even if I were to give you the benefit of the doubt (which you should understand from the above I don’t), I have to ask you whether you think your “fleeting just for a second thought” thing is the case with homosexuals. That they just had one single fleeting thought in their minds, and resisted it, and prayed for forgiveness, and then it was gone. Hate to burst your bubble, but that in no way describes a homosexual, whose thinking is so fixated on homosexuality that thinks of himself as a “homosexual’ rather than as a heterosexual who for some utterly bizarre reason once or twice had a homoerotic thought. You are talking about someone who is committed to a longterm pattern of thought that the Lord condemns.

    Before I leave, you accused me of “attacking THE Church,” and of being so hateful to the Body of Christ that I literally enjoy doing so.

    I take that to mean that you are enjoying hurling insults at the Church. May God forgive you.

    I have quite a few articles on my site that refer to the Catholic church, and never “attack” it in any of them. I DO attack your despicable terminology which holds that the Catholic church is “THE Church” and I am therefore outside of the Body of Christ.

    I repeatedly tried to correct you. But you would not. May God forgive YOU.

    What has happened is that you have repeatedly attempted to impose your Catholic view upon my site, and then you don’t like it when I respond with my Protestant view.

    You were the one who chose to interject your Catholicism into the discussion about homosexuality and homosexual “temptation.” And then after doing so you’re offended for my pointing out the Catholic church’s own documented history? Seriously?

    I have quite a few articles on my site that refer to the Catholic church, and never “attack” it in any of them. Quite the contrary: I have repeatedly DEFENDED the Catholic church. And I strongly resent your harsh words about me.

    What has happened is that you have repeatedly attempted to impose your Catholic view upon my site, and then you don’t like it when I respond with my Protestant view. I would suggest that you either grow up and deal with my arguments rather than whining about being attacked even as you personally demonize me as being hateful, or you refrain from trying to push your Catholic theology knowing I’m going to respond.

    I let you know in advance that your personal attack on me crossed a line, and your next comment (if it ever comes) determines whether or not I decide to block you.

  20. greg Says:

    coakley is an enemy of America and all youth in this country… My God could Boston be so stupid and wreckless to vote someone like coakley into office.. There are 2 huge child molestation cases she botched..

    1, guy rapes 23 month old with curling iron, goes free.. arrests a guy for punching out an illegal alien child molester for touching a child in the bathroom.. coakley needs to be set up with a walk with george washington on the white house lawn.. George!!! we need you… there are too many politicians committing treason that are’nt getting the final walk on the white house lawn!!!! What the hell is wrong with this country?? liberals really piss me off to the point where I’d love to go to war with them.. liberal\commie bastards they are.. Die liberal scum!!!

  21. Michael Eden Says:

    Massachusetts has been stupid and ideologically blind for decades. And yet even THERE they are waking up to reality and turning on Obama.

    Coakley is a total disaster as anyone who has paid attention can see. Yeah, she mishandled those child molester cases big time – and continued to repeatedly mishandle them.

    She also insulted Fenway Park; she stupidly claimed that Red Sox hero Curt Schilling was a Yankee fan; she ran an immoral and false (and illegal) ad claiming that Scott Brown wanted to turn away every single rape victim from the hospital; she ran another illegal ad violating UPS’ copyright to turn “Brown” into a UPS employee and then asking “What can Brown deliver?” She just got caught using state resources and information for campaign purposes; she stood four feet away while her goon beat up a reporter, was photographed making direct eye contact with the incident, and then denied she’d seen any of it (video also shows her looking back and coming back during the assault).

    And this is the person who should represent Massachusetts? Really? You people are that much of a waste that you should have that kind of a turd representing you?

  22. Jesus Jones Says:

    Coakley is a Social Security Act Title IV whore. A family court lawyer of sorts working for the State Agency that runs Child Protective Services. These scum drain a family of its wealth, violates their rights (and their children’s rights), steals their children and for what……..$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$, control and because they can.
    That’s right, it’s all from Title IV of the Social Security Act.
    FASFA for adoptions.
    VAWA (not VA Spouse’s Act) for more kickbacks from the Feds.
    Child Support Enforcement garnishing gets 20% kickbacks to the local courts (no wonder there’s never a fair child support calculation and good men are on the run/marriage is down/divorce is ever-increasing).
    Ever wonder who paid for the gold & marble gilding our Family/Superior Courts and of course…the destruction of mainly men who are falsely accused in divorce so that the psycho self-made victim ex-wife-to-be can get all the assets and kids.
    These lawyers sit on the Board of Directors & run the domestic violence shelters in their county’s Bar Association and get to refer associate’s future clients to their social workers and lawyers as part of a circus that railroads men.
    Hell on Earth and her scorn – Coakley is a societal devil and your dumb-donkey fools in MA, despite acting logically once in the last 40+ years.
    You reap what you sew.

    J Jones

  23. Michael Eden Says:

    I don’t know how many men get falsely accused of abuse. Obviously, it happens.

    I personally believe any man who abuse either their wives or their children are slime. But any woman who would use such a vile lie to attack an innocent man is equally slime.

    I didn’t know that Coakely cut her teeth in the hard-core feminist pit bull trade. I’m not surprised.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: