Democratic Massachusetts Auditor Sues Her Own Party After They Ignore 72% Of Voters
'Protect the people, not the politicians'
Blue-state city leans into battle against ACLU over archangel Michael statue honoring police
A Massachusetts city in the Greater Boston area has made abundantly clear that it will not be dominated by the sensitivities of activists — those whose apparent discomfort with America's Christian inheritance has them fighting to hide civic symbols of courage, honor, and bravery.
Dealt a legal setback in October, the city of Quincy is now asking the state's top court to weigh in on the matter of an angel and a saintly firefighter.
Saints and iconoclasts
Quincy Mayor Thomas Koch commissioned renowned sculptor Sergey Eylanbekov to design two 10-foot-tall bronze statues heavy with cultural and historical significance to honor police and firefighters outside their new public safety headquarters.
While the city had erected other statues by Eylanbekov without issue, this time was different as the new statues also carried religious significance — one depicting Florian, a 3rd-century firefighting Roman Christian, and the other depicting the winged archangel Michael stepping on the head of a demon.
The statues have many fans in the community, including Quincy Police Chief Mark Kennedy, who indicated he feels "honored" by the Michael statue, and Quincy Firefighters Local 792 president Tom Bowes, who said, "Florian embodies the values that are most important to our work as firefighters: honor, courage, and bravery."
Not all were, however, pleased.
'If beautiful art has religious meaning to anyone, it must be hidden away from everyone.'
The American Civil Liberties Union, the ACLU of Massachusetts, the Freedom from Religion Foundation, and Americans United for Separation of Church and State joined a handful of locals in suing last May to block the installation.
Among the plaintiffs are:
- a Unitarian social justice warrior;
- a self-identified Catholic who finds the "violent imagery" of good triumphing over evil to be "offensive";
- a local synagogue member who suggested the images "may exacerbate the current rise in anti-Semitism";
- an Episcopalian who believes that walking past such statues would amount to "submission to religious symbols"; and
- a lapsed Catholic who suggested the image of Michael stepping on the head of a demon was "reminiscent of how George Floyd was killed."
Their lawsuit claimed that "affixing religious icons of one particular faith to a government facility — the city's public safety building, no less — sends an alarming message that those who do not subscribe to the city's preferred religious beliefs are second-class residents who should not feel safe, welcomed, or equally respected by their government."
The complaint strategically neglected to mention the significance of Michael in other religions, in the Western literary canon, and pop culture. Similarly, it largely glossed over Florian's potential secular appeal, emphasizing his recognition by Catholics as a saint.
Mayor Koch emphasized in an affidavit that "the selection had nothing to do with Catholic sainthood, but rather was an effort to boost morale and to symbolize the values of truth, justice, and the prevalence of good over evil."
The plaintiffs evidently saw things differently as their complaint suggested the statues' installation "will not serve a predominantly secular purpose," but rather to "promote, promulgate, and advance one faith, subordinating other faiths as well as nonreligious traditions."
Setback
Norfolk Superior Court obliged the iconoclasts in October, blocking the planned installation of the already purchased and completed statues while the case proceeds.
Judge William Sullivan, a Democratic appointee, said in his ruling that "the Complaint raises colorable concerns that members of the community not adherent to Catholicism or Christian teaching who pass beneath the two statues to report a crime may reasonably question whether they will be treated equally."
The judge suggested further that the statues "serve no discernable secular purpose."
"Although defendants argue that the public has an interest in inspiring the city's first responders in carrying out their work to maximum effectiveness, the court does not conceive the ability, commitment, and enthusiasm of members of the Quincy Police and Fire Departments to serve the communities will be appreciably undermined if the two statues are absent for the duration of this litigation," added Sullivan.
The ACLU — which has alternatively defended the erection of satanic displays on public grounds — celebrated the ruling with Massachusetts chapter staff attorney Rachel Davidson thanking Sullivan for "acknowledging the immediate harm that the installation of these statues would cause."
Onwards and upwards
The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court agreed last month to hear an appeal of the lesser court's ruling — an opportunity welcomed both by the ACLU of Massachusetts and the city of Quincy.
"We look forward to defending Quincy’s plan to honor our brave first responders at the Massachusetts high court," Mayor Koch said at the time.
The city — represented by the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty and Quincy solicitor James Timmins — filed a brief with the SJC on Wednesday, making mince meat of the activists' arguments and underscoring the statues' permissibility under the law.
The brief reiterated that the statues have a secular purpose; their primary effect will not be to advance religion; and their prohibition based on religious hostility would violate the U.S. Constitution.
The brief noted further that the plaintiffs lack standing "since merely observing public symbols one finds disagreeable is not a cognizable injury" and that "the placement of inanimate statues as public art on a public building does not implicate direct support of religion in any manner, let alone the subordination by law of some faiths to others."
To prohibit the statues would also be "at odds with the robust history of public display of other symbols with religious significance" in the state, said the brief.
There are, for instance, statues of Moses and "Religion" in the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Courthouse; a statue of Pope John Paul II — a Catholic saint — in the Boston Common; and a statue of Quaker martyr Mary Dyer outside the Massachusetts State House in Boston.
"The ACLU’s theory in this case is tragically simple: If beautiful art has religious meaning to anyone, it must be hidden away from everyone," Joseph Davis, senior counsel at Becket and an attorney for the city of Quincy, said in a statement.
"The ACLU’s radical rule flouts our nation’s civic heritage and decades of court decisions," continued Davis. "The Justices of the Supreme Judicial Court should reject the ACLU’s Puritanical demands and make clear that artworks don’t have to be purged from the public square just because they might make someone think of religion."
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
When parents pay twice to escape public schools, the verdict is in
Those with the means are fleeing America’s public schools. A recent article in The 74 reports that enrollment has dropped more in affluent Massachusetts districts than in all of the state’s low- and middle-income communities combined. That “rich flight” shows up even in a state whose schools routinely rank near the top nationally.
The 74 points to a July 2025 study by Joshua Goodman and Abigail Francis, published in Education Next, that compares actual Massachusetts enrollment to what pre-COVID trends predicted. The authors found a clear shift away from public schools and toward nonpublic options. Public-school enrollment came in 1.9% below the projected level. Private-school enrollment ran 15.6% above projections. Homeschooling rose 50% above projections.
Parents want options. If conservatives are serious, they will treat the school-choice win included in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act as a starting point, not a finish line.
Charter enrollment moved the other way: 18.9% below pre-trend predictions, though nearly flat compared with 2019. The study notes that Massachusetts law caps the number of charter schools statewide and limits how much district funding can flow to them, which likely constrains charter growth even when demand rises.
The income story is the most revealing. Enrollment losses proved “substantially larger” in high-income districts. Top-income districts lost nearly 50% more students than the lower-income four-fifths combined.
The authors also compared Massachusetts to national 2023 data and found similar patterns, suggesting that this is not a Bay State anomaly. It is a national trend with a clear lesson: Families with options are using them.
That matters for at least three reasons.
First, affluent families are choosing private schools even though they already pay for public schools through taxes. That means they are paying twice — once to support a system they are leaving and again in tuition to exit it.
If families with the greatest ability to navigate public-school choice still choose to walk away, that should raise a blunt question: How many more middle- and working-class families would leave if they could afford to?
It also raises another: How much bigger would charter schools be if Massachusetts did not restrict their growth by law?
Second, Massachusetts is not a cautionary tale of failing schools. It is widely viewed as a high-performing state. Yet the families most able to choose still choose private education. If families are leaving in a state with strong academic reputations, how much faster would the flight be in states with mediocre outcomes and chronic disorder?
Third, Massachusetts offers choice largely within the public system, not through broad state-supported private-school options. Even charter expansion is restricted. Families who can afford to buy their way out are doing it anyway. Families who can’t are stuck.
The conclusion follows: Private education is winning the revealed-preference test. Parents with money choose it — even when it costs them twice.
RELATED: Teaching kids to hate America will have real-world consequences
Now imagine what happens when parents don’t have to pay twice. How popular would private-school options be if families could use a tax credit or scholarship to offset what they already pay into the system?
That question should terrify teachers’ unions. It should energize lawmakers.
School choice has already become a major political force, and it will only grow as parents lose confidence in public schools. That may help explain why Americans keep moving south. The biggest population gainers from 2014 through 2024 included states like Texas, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Florida — states with low taxes and high growth, yes, but also states that have embraced school choice more aggressively than Massachusetts has.
Meanwhile, the broader K-12 picture remains grim. Public dissatisfaction has risen sharply in recent years, and the academic and behavioral fallout from COVID-era closures has not fully receded.
Chronic absenteeism remains high. Math scores remain depressed. School leaders report more disruption, more fighting, more bullying, more classroom chaos, and more fear among parents. Seventy-five percent of college faculty “say current students are less prepared in critical thinking, reading, and analysis compared to pre-COVID students.”
At some point, blaming the pandemic becomes a dodge. The system’s decline began before COVID, and it has not reversed since.
If conservatives are serious, they will treat the school-choice win included in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act as a starting point, not a finish line. Parents want options. The country needs academic recovery. Competition would do more to improve outcomes — and to break the political stranglehold of teachers’ unions — than another decade of excuses.
Sanctuary city official cries ‘abduction’ when ICE arrests alleged drug trafficker — DHS fires back
The Department of Homeland Security set the record straight after a Boston official accused Immigration and Customs Enforcement of abducting “a neighbor.”
Last week, Boston City Councilor Enrique Pepén issued a statement concerning an “ICE abduction in Rozzie Square.”
'ICE did not abduct anyone. We did arrest a criminal that this sanctuary politician and his policies released from their jails to terrorize more innocent Americans.'
“Earlier this morning, in broad daylight, ICE abducted a neighbor right out of their car in front of Family Dollar in Rozzie Square,” he wrote.
Pepén stated that “community members and business owners took immediate action” to notify a local organization providing services to immigrants, document ICE’s vehicles, and move the individual’s car to “a safer location.”
“We are working with our local partners to find out more about the individual taken and how to assist in bringing them back home,” Pepén continued. “To say that this is scary and not right is an understatement.”
Pepén insisted that “no one should be scared to do their daily errands regardless of their status — especially in our vibrant community."
“Make no mistake, these abductions do not make anyone safe. Neighbors caring for neighbors do and I will continue to fight to get ICE out of our communities,” Pepén concluded.
He encouraged Boston residents to report any ICE sightings.
The DHS hit back, explaining that ICE officers arrested Jose Perez-Antonio, whom the agency described as “a serial criminal illegal alien” with several charges, including for alleged identity theft and trafficking cocaine and fentanyl.
“Boston City Council member Enrique Pepén needs to stop with the smears,” DHS Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin told the Boston Herald. “ICE did not abduct anyone. We did arrest a criminal that this sanctuary politician and his policies released from their jails to terrorize more innocent Americans."
McLaughlin stated that under President Donald Trump and DHS Secretary Kristi Noem’s leadership, those who break the law “will face the consequences.”
“Criminal illegal aliens are not welcome in the U.S.,” she added.
RELATED: 'Killers bringing terror to our streets': Swalwell smears ICE agents in heated hearing
Pepén responded to the DHS’ statement in a video on social media.
“They claimed that I was smearing the situation and that I was smearing the agency. The only smearing that I see is the way that ICE is treating our people, the way that they come after our community and are able to continue to wear masks and create havoc and fear amongst our people. And yet we don’t know why, we don’t know what’s going on, we don’t know where people are being taken. That’s the only smearing that I see,” Pepén said.
“Regardless of whether or not this person has a record, ICE agents wreaked havoc in our neighborhood as they have been doing across the country and DHS has been found time and time of falsely reporting their objectives [sic],” he wrote.
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
Massachusetts on track to set mileage limits for drivers
A bill advancing through the Massachusetts Senate would make reducing how much people drive an explicit goal of state transportation policy. It is called the Freedom to Move Act.
The bill, SB 2246, does not impose mileage caps on individual drivers. There is no odometer check, no per-driver limit, and no new fines or taxes written into the legislation. Instead it directs the state to set targets for reducing total vehicle miles traveled statewide — targets that would be incorporated into transportation planning, infrastructure investment, and long-term emissions policy.
When reducing driving becomes a formal state objective, personal mobility inevitably becomes something to be managed.
Transportation is the largest source of greenhouse gas emissions in Massachusetts, as it is in many states. From that perspective, lawmakers argue the bill simply aligns transportation policy with existing climate mandates. The state already has legally binding emissions reduction goals, and supporters say those goals cannot be met without addressing how much people drive. SB 2246, they argue, is about planning — not punishment — and about expanding alternatives rather than restricting choices.
Planning ... or punishment?
The bill also establishes advisory councils and requires state agencies, including the Massachusetts Department of Transportation, to factor VMT reduction into project development and funding decisions. In theory, this means greater emphasis on public transit, transit-oriented development, walking and biking infrastructure, and land-use policies designed to shorten commutes. Supporters emphasize that the legislation does not ban cars, restrict ownership, or mandate lifestyle changes. It simply provides a framework for offering residents more options.
The practical implications, however, deserve closer scrutiny — especially outside the state’s urban core. In greater Boston, where transit access is relatively dense, reducing car trips may be feasible for some commuters. In suburban and rural areas, the reality is very different. Many residents drive long distances to work because there are no viable alternatives. Families juggle school, child care, medical appointments, sports, and jobs across multiple towns. Small businesses rely on vehicles for deliveries, service calls, and daily operations. For these drivers, “driving less” is not a preference — it’s a constraint imposed by geography.
Future restrictions
Critics also worry that while SB 2246 does not cap individual mileage today, it lays the groundwork for future restrictions. Once statewide VMT reduction targets are established, pressure will mount to meet them. That pressure could influence everything from road funding and parking availability to congestion pricing, zoning decisions, and the collection of driving data. Even without explicit mandates, policy signals matter. When reducing driving becomes a formal state objective, personal mobility inevitably becomes something to be managed.
There is also the issue of trust and execution. Massachusetts has struggled for years to maintain and modernize its public transportation system. The MBTA’s well-documented reliability problems have eroded confidence among riders and taxpayers alike. Promising expanded transit options while existing systems remain fragile leaves many residents skeptical that alternatives to driving will arrive quickly — or equitably.
RELATED: EPA to California: Don’t mess with America’s trucks
National trend
From a broader policy standpoint, SB 2246 reflects a national trend. States and cities across the country are experimenting with VMT reduction as a climate strategy, encouraged by federal guidance and funding priorities. The premise is that cleaner vehicles alone are not enough and that total driving must decline to meet emissions targets. Whether that assumption holds as vehicle technology evolves — including hybrids, plug-in hybrids, and increasingly efficient internal combustion engines — remains an open question.
Supporters argue that thoughtful planning now can prevent more disruptive measures later. By gradually reshaping transportation and development patterns, they believe emissions can be reduced without dramatic lifestyle changes. Opponents counter that history suggests incremental planning often leads to more intrusive policies — especially when initial targets prove difficult to meet.
What makes SB 2246 significant is not what it does immediately, but what it signals about the future of transportation policy. It reframes driving not simply as a personal choice or economic necessity, but as a behavior the state has an interest in reducing.
As the bill moves to the Senate Ways and Means Committee, lawmakers will have to weigh climate goals against economic realities, regional disparities, and personal freedom.
Massachusetts residents should pay close attention. SB 2246 may not tell you how many miles you can drive today — but it helps define who gets to decide how transportation works tomorrow.
Today's top stories
thefederalist.com
www.theblaze.com