North Dakota MassResistance: Resolution Against Obergefell Passes ND House!

 

North Dakota House of Representatives passes MassResistance’s resolution on “gay marriage.”

Calls on US Supreme Court to overturn outrageous 2015 Obergefell ruling.

“Gay” State Rep spoke out against it, but normalcy carried the day!

Goes to the Senate in early March.

February 26, 2025

 The lead sponsor, Rep. Bill Tveit (standing at right), gives a powerful pro-marriage speech before the full House of Representatives prior to the vote.

This week the North Dakota House of Representatives became the second state legislative body to go on record demanding the reversal of the Obergefell US Supreme Court ruling. On Monday, February 24, the resolution passed by 52-40. It followed a near-unanimous Judiciary committee vote,

Last month, the Idaho House of Representatives overwhelmingly approved its resolution by 46-24.

MassResistance’s push for state legislatures across the country to pass our resolutions urging the US Supreme Court to overturn the infamous 2015 Obergefell “gay marriage” ruling is gaining momentum! The ruling was a move by the activist SCOTUS Justices at the time to take away the rights of the states on this contentious issue and simply imposed false marriage on the entire nation. Justices Thomas and Alito have stated that this deeply flawed ruling – similar to Roe v Wade –should be revisited.

These resolutions are not legally binding. They simply urge the Supreme Court to revisit the Obergefell ruling. But they’re a powerful message coming from a state legislature.

Speeches from both sides during House debate

The North Dakota resolution is sponsored by seven state representatives and four state senators, so it already had some momentum. Two members spoke during the House debate, and both sides were heard. But the relative strengths of their arguments were clearly lopsided.

The lead sponsor, Rep. Bill Tveit, spoke first and covered all the bases. He began: “This is based on the laws of nature. It’s that simple.” He read from the Book of Genesis. He discussed Blackstone’s English law commentaries, the Declaration of Independence (“the Laws of Nature and Nature’s God”), and the Tenth Amendment to the US Constitution. He reminded the members that both the North Dakota Constitution and the North Dakota statutes specifically define marriage as consisting of one man and one woman.

He outlined how the Obergefell ruling was deeply flawed on constitutional grounds, and that the 5-4 decision included two Justices (Ginsburg and Kagan) who legally should have recused themselves because they had previously officiated at “gay weddings.” He concluded, “Marriage as a union has never been, is not, and never should be that of a same-sex couple.” It was a very compelling speech.

Next, Rep. Austin Foss, an “out” homosexual who is “married” to a man, stood up and spoke in opposition. He basically regurgitated several well-worn (and easily debunked) emotional mantras and LGBT “marriage” talking points.

He began: “I did not think that less than a year after I made my vows to the man I love that I would have to stand up in front of this body and fight for my rights to exist and be happy.” He talked about spousal benefits, hospital rights, end-of-life rights, and other “rights” being taken away by overturning “marriage equality.”

Then he got into religion. “I don't go into your church or your home and force you to relabel your relationship just because I don't agree with it. … You have every single right to believe that your Creator does not want me to be happy, that your Creator does not want me to love who I love. … But my God loves me for who I am. It’s a message that I’m not welcome here. It’s not Christian-like.”

In the end, it wasn’t a very effective speech for a group who are mostly Christians who had listened to similar LGBT whining for years.

 "Gay" State Rep tries to persuade the House members that same-sex "marriage" is normal and necessary. But it didn't fly with this crowd.

Next stop: the North Dakota Senate

The resolution will go to the Senate sometime in early March. We’re told that the Senate is more conservative (with fewer RINOs) than the House, so the margin of victory is expected to be even greater!

Moving forward across the country

Legislators in ten states are in the process of filing or moving forward similar MassResistance resolutions. We hope to have more exciting news soon. Not surprisingly, the liberal media (and particularly the LGBT media) is not taking it well.

There was one setback this week. On Monday, the resolution fell short of passing in the South Dakota House Judiciary Committee, its initial stop, so it’s done there for this year. It was a combination of having very little time to prepare and lobby, and cowardly Republicans who even ignored the fact that South Dakota had voted for a constitutional amendment preserving traditional marriage. But the sponsor is already preparing for next year.

Final thoughts

Another great victory!

We’ve been pleasantly surprised at the high level of enthusiasm we’re finding among conservative legislators on this issue. They get it – and they’ve been waiting for an opportunity like this fight back against this outrageous injustice perpetrated on society.

As we’ve said before, too many conservative groups focus on “soft” activism or “informing” people – and shy away from bold action. MassResistance is definitely different.

   

Please help us continue to do our uncompromising work!

Our successes depend on people like you.

Donate to MassResistance

Your support will make the difference!

John Birch Society: Post Roe v. Wade, Will Same-sex “Marriage” Be Back on the Ballot?

Post Roe v. Wade, Will Same-sex “Marriage” Be Back on the Ballot?

Though an ardent leftist, late Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg once conceded that Roe v. Wade was a badly settled decision. Then the abortion ruling finally was “unsettled” and “resettled” in 2022 with the Dobbs decision. Will the same process unfold with the Obergefell v. Hodges same-sex “marriage” opinion (2015) — only, with greater speed?

Pro-family group MassResistance (MR) apparently thinks so. The organization is optimistic because a same-sex “marriage” resolution it’s pushing has now been advanced in two state legislatures. The resolution — recognizing that, as with abortion, marriage is a state issue — requests that the Supreme Court overturn Obergefell.

MR certainly has support in this regard. For example, Justice Clarence Thomas has said that the 2015 opinion should be revisited. Chief Justice John Roberts also disagreed with the opinion — vehemently. It was so bad, he said in his dissent against Obergefell, that the Constitution actually “had nothing to do with it.” Late Justice Antonin Scalia concurred. He said the decision was egregious enough to move the Court “one step closer to being reminded of [its] impotence.”

Will the Court Remarry Constitutionalism?

As for the current faux (same-sex) marriage developments, MR wrote Wednesday that

North Dakota has become the second state to move our MassResistance “gay marriage” resolution forward in its legislature. Two weeks ago, the Idaho House of Representatives passed it overwhelmingly.

The North Dakota resolution is sponsored by 7 state representatives and 4 state senators. On Monday, February 17 the North Dakota House Judiciary Committee held a public hearing then overwhelmingly voted in favor by 11-1.

… MassResistance is pushing for state legislatures across the country to pass our resolutions urging the US Supreme Court to overturn its 2015 Obergefell “gay marriage” ruling. The ruling was a move by the activist SCOTUS Justices at the time to take away the rights of the states on this contentious issue.

The 5-4 Obergefell ruling stated that the 14th Amendment required that same-sex “marriage” be allowed by the states.

(Note: In reality, courts can’t “require” the other two governmental branches, whether federal or state, to do any such thing. As I wrote recently, judicial supremacy is a myth, and courts have no enforcement power.)

In truth, Obergefell should be revisited. And this isn’t just because, as Scalia also put it, it was not at all based “on law.” It also has no basis in reason.

A Matter of Rights — or Wrongs?

Now many, including the SCOTUS Obergefell majority, say the marriage issue is a matter of equal rights. Let’s consider this argument.

What if someone told you that homosexuals already have the right to marry — meaning, they have a right enter into a conjugal union with a member of the opposite sex — as that’s what marriage is? Of course, faux-marriage advocates will protest and dispute this definition. This brings us to the universally ignored crux of the matter:

The marriage debate is not about rights.

It is about definitions.

After all, how can you decide if there’s a right to a thing without first determining what that thing is?

Are the courts supposed to say “There is a right to we know not what”?

The marriage debate cannot be about rights. For no one — anywhere — disputes that all adult Americans have a right to “marry.” Some disagree, apparently, on what “marriage” is.

Yet if the courts aren’t going to use the definition operative in Western civilization (and beyond) for millennia, what are they supposed to do? Are a handful of judges qualified to redefine marriage?

Lib-Con Tag Team

Ironically, too, neither liberals nor conservatives help in this regard. Liberals might reject the time-tested marriage definition. But they never take pains to put forth their own hard, fast, unabashedly and consistently stated definition. One reason for this is interesting. Since definitions limit and exclude, to do so would render them guilty of precisely what they accuse traditionalists of: being exclusionary and discriminatory. They would lose their illusory high ground and a handy cudgel with which they hammer their opponents. So they want to have it both ways.

They want to claim, at least tacitly, that the right marriage definition is wrong. Yet they then also refuse to tell anyone what definition is right.

But if they don’t know what definition is right, how can they be so sure the traditional one is wrong?

And how are conservatives culpable? Not only do they consistently fail to make the above points, but they actually accuse the Left of “redefining” marriage. This gives leftists far too much credit because, again, they’ve made no real attempt at redefining marriage.

They are in the process of “undefining” it.

They do this by saying, essentially, that “marriage equality” means being allowed your own conception of marriage. Yet there can be as many conceptions as there are imaginations. And contrary to past claims, this does, in fact, undermine marriage. For if something can mean anything, it means nothing.

Mr. Marriage Has “Equal Rights”? What Are His Pronouns?

Some may now say there’s no need to redefine “traditional marriage” because faux marriage is an institution unto itself. But this does nothing to validate the constitutional equality argument. After all, the 14th Amendment — the basis for the Obergefell opinion — guarantees equality under the law to individuals.

Not institutions.

Were it otherwise, any institution a group could conjure up — including interspecies “marriage” — would have to enjoy governmental recognition.

So judges’ position should be simple: “The marriage issue concerns definitions, not rights. And no constitution empowers us to redefine marriage. Go talk to your state legislators.”

Yet that talk will now be problematic. Chances are decent that Obergefell will be overturned in the not-too-distant future. But overturning decades of sexual devolutionary conditioning is a different matter. As to this, national support for faux marriage was a mere 11 percent in 1988. Yet by 2004 it had more than doubled, rising to 25 percent. And today more than two-thirds of Americans support the pseudo-institution. Why, it enjoys majority support even in North Dakota and Idaho.

In other words, this is probably not the political hill to die on right now, with the current focus on draining the D.C. swamp. It does illustrate, however, how dark America’s moral swamp is and how, sadly, it extends far beyond the Beltway.

MassResistance Book Review: "Supreme Damage"

 

How flawed US Supreme Court rulings over the years damaged our country: Explained in a powerful book by a MassResistance supporter.

Book documents the shocking distortions of our constitution over the past 130 years.

Obergefell is just one of the latest of a long line!

February 23, 2025

 This book should be in every constitutional activist's library. Background: the Supreme Court members during the New Deal (1937).

We’re all familiar with the deeply flawed Roe v Wade (abortion) and Obergefell (same-sex “marriage”) rulings by the US Supreme Court. Both have had destructive effects on America.

The Roe decision was recently revisited by the Court and overturned. And as we’ve recently reported, several state legislatures are in the process of passing MassResistance resolutions urging the Court to revisit the Obergefell ruling.

In fact, over the past 130 years there have been numerous flawed Supreme Court rulings that distorted the clear meaning of the Constitution – and have greatly harmed society. Most of us are barely aware of these rulings – while their ill effects continue. 

Now you can learn about them in an important book now available.

Here is the alarming truth about too many Supreme Court cases over the years: They have abused precedent, contorted text, imported foreign law, nullified rights, played favorites, and played legislator. Many are products of the idea of a “living constitution” (that must be re-interpreted as society evolves).  Bad rulings sometimes involved judicial dishonesty or judicial imperialism.

Thurman Smith lives in Massachusetts and has been a friend of MassResistance for over twenty years. He has written a powerful and well-researched book, Supreme Damage, that describes these problematic rulings. He accomplishes this in only 210 pages, wonderfully understandable by the average reader.

This review of 17 badly-decided cases that are still affecting us demonstrates how the Court assumed powers not envisioned by the Founders, in turn diminishing the role of representative government, the federal structure, and individual liberty. This book should be in every serious constitutional activist’s library.

Here are the cases Smith reviews:

United States v. Won Kim Ark (1898)
Changed the meaning and purpose of the citizenship clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to rule that when citizens of other countries give birth in the US, their children are US citizens.

Plyler v. Doe (1982)
Retrofitted the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to rule that children in the country illegally (i.e., illegal aliens) are entitled to enroll in public schools.

Steward Machine Company v. Davis (1937)
Allowed the federal government to  bypass the Tenth Amendment and tax businesses to provide New Deal benefits.

Helvering v. Davis (1937)
As part of the New Deal, re-interpreted the “general welfare” clause to allow the federal government to further bypass the Tenth Amendment to allow welfare payments to individuals and politically-motivated spending for local and state projects.

West Coast Hotel v. Parrish (1937)
Ruled that states can create minimum wage laws, which quickly led to further laws essentially micro-managing how businesses operate.

United States v. Carolene Products Company (1938)
Allowed laws that would appear to violate due process and equal protection, if they have a “rational basis” for their purpose.

Wickard v. Filburn (1942)
Infinitely expanded the interstate commerce clause to allow federal control of goods that never leave a state. (Also became a basis for allowing Obamacare.)

Everson v. Board of Education (1947)
Expanded the meaning of the First Amendment to repress religious expression in the public sphere. Formalized the term "wall of separation."

Berman v. Parker (1954)
Allowed the government to use eminent domain to take and transfer private property to private real estate developers if it would generally benefit the area.

Kelo v. New London (2005)
Further expanded eminent domain confiscation of property given to private developers if the result would be increased tax revenues for the local government.

Bennis v. Michigan (1996)
Formalized civil asset forfeiture – the government confiscating property without charging a person with a crime, or any due process. (This is even used now in airports – confiscating large amounts of cash from travelers.)

Roe v. Wade (1973)
Created a constitutional “right” to abortion. (Overturned by the Dobbs ruling in 2022.)

Chevron U.S.A. v. Natural Resources Defense Council (1984)
A federal agency’s interpretation of an ambiguous law is considered to be the permissible and legal interpretation. (Overturned by Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo in 2024.)

Auer v. Robbins (1997)
A federal agency can legally interpret its own ambiguous regulations on the fly, rather than have courts decide these independently.

Lawrence v. Texas (2003)
Ruled that anti-sodomy laws are an unconstitutional “violation of privacy.” This decision was cited as precedent in Goodridge v. Massachusetts Dept. of Public Health (Massachusetts “gay marriage” ruling, 2003) and ultimately to the Obergefell case.

Obergefell v. Hodges (2015)
Ruled that banning same-sex marriage is unconstitutional.

National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius (2012)
Ruled that Obamacare constitutes “tax” and is therefore constitutional. (This reasoning was invented by Chief Justice Roberts. Even Obama himself never claimed it was a tax.)

You can buy the book on Amazon HERE for $9.99 paperback or $4.95 Kindle edition.

Final thoughts

In our Founders’ vision, the courts were meant to decide individual disputes between parties, or between a party and the government.

But the book Supreme Damage concludes: “The gravest error by the drafters of the Constitution may have been in not foreseeing that the Judiciary would slowly gain powers over the legislative and executive branches, as well as over powers properly belonging to the states. The Judiciary was never meant to be an all-powerful institution in which a handful of unelected lawyers in black robes have the final say over major public policy issues.”

   

Please help us continue to do our uncompromising work!

Our successes depend on people like you.

Donate to MassResistance

Your support will make the difference!

Desperation of the LA County Democratic Party

 Now, check this out.

The Democratic Party actually claims that they are "cleaning up a mess."

Seriously?

This is just sad!

Dear Arthur,

 

Have you ever experienced Imposter Syndrome?

I'll tell you who should... Kash Patel. RFK Jr. Tulsi Gabbard. Pete Hegseth.

Trump's cabinet appointments are insults to the American people who rely on the services and departments operated by these appointed officials. 

And, guess who is left cleaning up the mess they will so kindly make of our country?

WE ARE.

Every step that the Trump administration takes is pulling our society further back in time. The new cabinet members are going to make it worse, with their complete lack of qualifications, empathy, or common sense. 

I, for one, prefer my Health and Human Services Secretary to not have worms in his brain. And my Director of National Intelligence to NOT spread Russian propaganda.

I guess that's too much to ask from a Trump cabinet. Who are being paid OUR tax dollars. 

It is our job as Americans, and as Democrats to take note of injustice and take every action we can to stop it, and that is what we are doing here at LACDP.  But the work does not stop with us, it starts with YOU. Now more than ever, we must come together to fight the ongoing climate of hate in our country, fueled by these Republicans.

LACDP is fighting for our community. We are looking after our neighbors. Our focus is at the top level; we need YOUR help to change the policy that allows injustices like this to happen. 

We need all hands on deck to connect our community to their elected officials, and to help elect good leaders to local office to keep our community safe, healthy, and strong.

---

                              

 

 

In Solidarity,  

Shanna Ingalsbee

LACDP Corresponding Secretary 

Gen Segments Key Portion of Jubilee Debate--Commentary

 I am grateful to Jubilee Media for inviting me to this "Middle Ground" forum.

The comments on the original video were mostly hostile to my speaking the truth.

Gen, the moderator of the discussion, clipped a key part of the discussion in which I refused to call Dylan Mulvaney  a "she."

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/fNia5kdQSAM

I was so glad to see so many comments agreeing with me this time.

I have more hope for this country every day.

North Dakota MassResistance ON THE MOVE! Resolution Passes House Committee

 

In North Dakota Legislature: MassResistance “gay marriage” resolution passed by House Judiciary Committee after public hearing.

Another victory for common sense and normalcy over radical LGBT agenda.

Powerful backing: Resolution is sponsored by 7 state representatives and 4 state senators!

Conservatives dominate public hearing testimony. LGBT movement presents usual illogical arguments.

On to the full House vote this week!

February 19, 2025

 State Representative Bill Tveit, a key sponsor of the resolution, tells the House Judicial Committee why it should be passed. It sailed through by 11-1.

Common sense is marching forward!

North Dakota has become the second state to move our MassResistance “gay marriage” resolution forward in its legislature. Two weeks ago, the Idaho House of Representatives passed it overwhelmingly.

The North Dakota resolution is sponsored by 7 state representatives and 4 state senators, On Monday, February 17 the North Dakota House Judiciary Committee held a public hearing then overwhelmingly voted in favor by 11-1.

Conservatives across the state are enthusiastic. Not surprisingly, LGBT groups approached it with their usual deranged logic.

Part of a growing momentum

MassResistance is pushing for state legislatures across the country to pass our resolutions urging the US Supreme Court to overturn its 2015 Obergefell “gay marriage” ruling. The ruling was a move by the activist SCOTUS Justices at the time to take away the rights of the states on this contentious issue.

The 5-4 Obergefell ruling stated that the 14th Amendment required that same-sex “marriage” be allowed by the states. The ruling was deeply flawed on constitutional grounds, and Justice Thomas has stated that – similar to Roe v Wade – it should be revisited. Moreover, two of the Justices (Ginsburg and Kagan) legally should have recused themselves because they had previously officiated at “gay weddings.”

Legislators in ten states are in the process of filing similar MassResistance resolutions.

These resolutions are not legally binding. They simply urge the Supreme Court to revisit the Obergefell ruling. But it’s a powerful message coming from a state legislature.

Big support in Judiciary Committee public hearing

Introduction by the sponsor. Before the committee’s public hearing testimony began, Rep. Bill Tveit, the main sponsor of the bill and a member of the committee, gave an extensive defense of the resolution. He talked about how for thousands of years humanity has recognized a clear definition of marriage between one man and one woman. He quoted Genesis in the Bible. He referenced the Blackstone legal foundation of America’s laws. He talked about protecting children. He finally described how America’s laws have protected marriage, and how the Supreme Court has taken away our right to keep its definition intact.

The public testimony during the hearing was overwhelmingly in favor of the resolution. The LGBT activists were not able to outnumber proponents. There was a time limit of 30 minutes for the entire public testimony, and nine people spoke. Among those, major North Dakota organizations on both sides were represented:

• The North Dakota Catholic Conference spoke in favor: Marriage is a fundamental human and social institution established by God. No ideology can erase the fact that marriage is between a man and a woman. Husband and wife form an exclusive bond and union for procreating and raising children.
• The North Dakota Family Alliance spoke in favor: The Supreme Court needs to revisit this. The family was God-ordained at the creation of the world, and it forms the foundation of our society. The hub of the family wheel is the husband and the wife. It has been shown within a multitude of civilizations that it is the basis for a flourishing country and society.
• The local Republican County Committee chairman spoke in favor: There's been a war pushing gender ideology across this nation. President Trump's recent executive order correctly declares that there are only two sexes.

The North Dakota LGBT group that represented the opposing side had no coherent argument against the resolution, so they served up a word salad of absurd leftist talking points:

• The North Dakota Human Rights Coalition representative: The idea that same-sex families are less stable and beneficial has been disproven in the courts. Those are simply discriminatory attitudes. The Bible and traditional legal principles are out of date, flawed, and are dangerous to rely on. They were created without the perspectives of women, blacks and non-landowners. Using "originalism" to guide constitutional decisions also means women and non-whites may not have a role in government. The Europeans who instituted our government violently seized America from the Indians – who were thus excluded from forming the US Government.

To the average person this sounds like a bizarre way to persuade people. But it’s the victim rhetoric that LGBT activists are using to keep forcing “gay marriage” on America by court order.

More written testimony comes in. Seeing that they were outnumbered at the actual hearing, the LGBT activists generated a wave of written testimony that they sent in to be included. It was basically more illogical, emotional, and unhinged arguments. MassResistance also submitted testimony to rebut much of what the Left said. You can see all the written testimony here.

The committee votes – to pass overwhelmingly

After the hearing, the main sponsor talked about how this is a multi-state effort that makes an important statement for the entire country.

The House Judiciary Committee then voted 11-1 to move the resolution forward to the House floor. It was an overwhelming victory!

The full North Dakota House of Representatives is expected to vote on the resolution this week.

Final thoughts

We’re not unwilling to say it: Too many other pro-family groups either “inform” people of what’s happening, or take small, incremental (and unfortunately ineffective) steps towards meaningful change. MassResistance believes in taking bold steps. These important (and long overdue!) resolutions are catching fire and pushing the pendulum back. Much more to come.

   

Please help us continue to do our uncompromising work!

Our successes depend on people like you.

Donate to MassResistance

Your support will make the difference!

The Woke Irish Embrace Self-Loathing Folly

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by Tamer Masudin (@tmasudin)

Kansas MassResistance Stops Cancel Culture Against Nurse

 

MassResistance stops “cancel culture” against Kansas nurse who stood up to trans ideology

Angry, deranged transgender activists demanded she lose her license. Nursing Board was ready to comply.

MassResistance got involved. Nurse was completely exonerated!

February 17, 2025

 This Kansas nurse isn't bowing down to the politically correct mob.

When leftists – particularly LGBT activists – see a lone conservative boldly standing up to their ideology, they do everything they can to destroy the person, the person’s family life, and even the person’s ability to earn a living.

Unfortunately, most pro-family groups do little or nothing to fight this. They usually just sit on the sidelines. But MassResistance jumps right in and battles right back! If you’ve been following us, you’ve seen us in action recently stopping “cancel culture” in New Jersey, Wisconsin, Canada, and Idaho. It makes a difference!

A nurse speaks out on social media

Elaine works as a nurse in the suburbs of Topeka, Kansas. She works for a company that sends her to various places in the area where a nurse is needed.

When Elaine was younger, she was a victim of sexual assault. She is very much against men being allowed in women’s restrooms and locker rooms. She sees the entire transgender movement as medically and psychologically dysfunctional and delusional. It’s especially dangerous for children. In other words, she tells the politically incorrect truth.

She does not discuss her opinions during work. But over the past year, she has been very vocal on social media.

 One of Elaine's posts on X.

Not surprisingly, her posts have attracted abuse from leftist online trolls, especially transgender activists. But that hasn’t bothered her. She feels strongly about telling the truth in the face of destructive political correctness.

Then on October 9, 2024, she received a frightening letter from the Kansas State Board of Nursing. It said:

The Kansas State Board of Nursing (KSBN) has received information that you may have violated the Kansas Nurse Practice Act… It is alleged that you have been using social media to attack the transgender population, and to debase healthcare processes.

The letter went on to say that an investigation has begun on this case.

It was shocking! Elaine was basically telling the truth. Her first reaction was that it was a witch hunt.

A close look at the Kansas Nurse Practice Act, referenced in the letter, reveals that it does not prohibit or even address a nurse’s private social media use. Nor does it mention transgenderism as a prohibited or protected issue.

Moreover, the Kansas State Board of Nursing is appointed by the Democrat governor of Kansas, Laura Kelly. Gov. Kelly recently vetoed a bill that would ban transgender mutilation of children. It’s widely believed that this board is solidly in line with the governor’s pro-LGBT thinking. Transgender activists had obviously communicated to the board about Elaine.

Attacks against Elaine increase

After the board’s letter about the opening of the investigation, LGBT activists and their allies filed numerous complaints against Elaine to the Kansas State Board of Nursing. They wanted her nursing license to be revoked, and make sure she would not be able to work as a nurse again.

In addition, the level of the online attacks against Elaine expanded to vicious doxing and threats. Unhinged transgender activists posted her home address. They exposed where her children went to school. They even began publishing libelous attacks against her husband. They made harassing phone calls to Elaine’s home, too.

 A phone call to Elaine's home

Kansas MassResistance team fights back

In mid-November, our Kansas MassResistance team connected with Elaine. She was thrilled to have our help!

Our activists went to work defending Elaine online – and stomping the leftist trolls attacking her and her family. The leftists certainly weren’t used to the treatment we gave them – and began backing off. They tried attacking us, but of course, that didn’t work.

Our Kansas activists also filed numerous statements in support of Elaine with the nursing board. They also contacted members of the board to express their displeasure about this illegitimate action being taken against her.

Kansas Attorney General weighs in

The flood of online attacks against Elaine – and the absurd charge by the Kansas State Board of Nursing – brought the issue to prominence in Kansas. Kansas Attorney General Kris Korbach, a Republican, was asked to weigh in. Here’s what he said on social media:

Actually, this would not be prosecuted by the Attorney General. The nursing board would be the making the decision. But his statement was certainly significant!

Elaine wins!

On December 9, the Kansas State Board of Nursing concluded its investigation and met to make a decision. Several Kansas MassResistance activists attended the meeting to show support for Elaine. The board members immediately left the meeting room and discussed it in private – but they got the message.

A few days later, Elaine received a letter with their one-sentence decision:

The Kansas State Board of Nursing (KSBN) decision was to inactivate (close) the case.

Elaine had won!

During their “investigation,” the nursing board investigator admitted to Elaine that all the complaints against her were about her social media posts. None of the complaints were about actual work as a nurse.

Thus, the charge against her was completely baseless and frivolous – since private social media posts are not prohibited or even addressed in the Kansas Nurse Practice Act. As Elaine had said, it was simply a witch-hunt by the leftists.

Moving forward to stop future abuses

After the decision, we filed a FOIA (Freedom of Information Act) request to see the actual complaints filed against Elaine. The nursing board clearly did not want to release them. They charged as much money as legally possible and (possibly illegally) blacked out the names and addresses of the filers. But it appears that most of the complaints came from across the country. And the British-style spelling of certain words suggests that they even came from foreign countries!

Several Kansas MassResistance activists have contacted state legislators about providing a legal remedy so this kind of abuse won’t happen in the future. It includes limiting the ability of Kansas licensure boards to investigate professionals simply because of their political opinions or speech outside of work hours. This type of cancel culture must be stopped!

Final thoughts

With the momentum from the Trump administrations bold executive actions to protect citizens, the conservative movement needs to start being aggressive about completely stopping the Left’s “cancel culture” against us.

MassResistance is certainly not going to let up!

   

Please help us continue to do our uncompromising work!

Our successes depend on people like you.

Donate to MassResistance

Your support will make the difference!

Letter to the Editor: Enjoyed but Unsatisfied

Dear Mr. Schaper,

I enjoyed your article on RedState [actually, Townhall.com] regarding government elimination but must admit I found it ultimately unsatisfying, perhaps because it only described the problem and only hinted and somewhat simplistically at solutions. I agree that DOGE is a minor rectification of the greater problem of deficits where Medicare and Social Security need to be addressed. While one may object as you do on philosophical grounds to the very existence of these programs I believe a more realistic approach would need to be employed in a move to a solution to the problems these programs address. I look forward to a greater elaboration of your proposed solutions.  A more modest proposal I read in Redstate in regards to Social Security was to eliminate the FICA income ceiling and to mean test benefits. at the very least this would remove the myths that what one pays into the system actually funds what one takes out.

Best regards,

Trellis Smith