Thursday, January 7, 2010

More on Scott Brown and MCFL

MCFL sent out parables today (posted below my response).

In response to MCFL's email, here's another parable for your consideration:

A story in Maccabees of a martyred mother with seven sons. Greek King Antiochus tried to force a faithful woman and her sons to eat meat. The Jewish mother refused in her faithfulness to religious law that meat defiled the soul. Each one of them chose death rather than to be a spectacle in the public square of caving to the tyranny of governmental pressure to disobey God.

For the men and women who signed the Manhattan Declaration, this would the moment to apply the principle. These are the days.

I see our role here as faithfulness as this world decays around us. We have been going the wrong way. MCFL has been getting and giving terrible advice.

I believe voters have the right to accurate information to make up their own mind on what they want to do about Scott Brown. Most of them have not done their homework and are relying upon MCFL to classify him - calling him a "pro-life" vote is dubious, at best. Everyone has to live with their own conscience, according to their own principles . MCFL has made the decision for the prolife community here in Boston and is withholding information from the people while at the same time asking them send a candidate to Washington based upon what they think will happen.

In reality, it is not about what Jack Rowe, Ann Fox or anyone thinks or believes Scott Brown will do - it's about what Scott Brown says he'll do.

Here are quotes from articles from the last few days:


Rep. Brown indicated he supports the following principles concerning abortion:
  • Abortions should always be legally available.
  • Abortions should be legal when the pregnancy resulted from incest or rape.
  • Abortions should be legal when the life of the woman is endangered.

  • "Abortions should always be legally available" - It's perfectly clear there is no basis to believe Brown will ever be voting for a constitutional amendment.


    While abortion coverage proved a sticking point lawmakers developing federal health care reform, Brown said the positions he and Coakley take on abortion aren't pivotal to the Massachusetts Senate race. Both support Roe vs. Wade, but Brown opposes late-term abortions and lowering the age of consent to have one.

    "Abortion really isn't a large part of this race. It's not something that is important at this point, because the major issues are dealing with taxation, deficit spending and where our national security interests are in terms of keeping our country safe," said Brown.

    Brown also noted that whether a candidate for a federal judgeship was pro-life or pro-choice holds "very little importance to me" and would have voted to appoint Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor. He would not want a judge "legislating from the bench."

    Brown has said he supports Roe v. Wade and abortion is of very little importance to him. While he says he thinks it's unimportant whether a judge is prolife or prochoice - he also says he will not select judges who will "legislate from the bench. Brown will actually rule out selecting any judicial candidate who interprets the constitution as having a fundamental right to life by characterizing them as "legislating from the bench".

    Do you see the difference between MCFL distributing her beliefs about what Brown may do without substantive soundbytes from Brown and drawing conclusions about what Brown will do from the substantive soundbytes Brown himself has said he will do?

    Brown also says in this article that he wants to take the proposal for healthcare reform "back to the drawing board" -

    The Republican candidate to succeed the late Sen. Ted Kennedy said he'd be a vote to take a proposal for health care reform back to the drawing board because he said the plan could worsen care already available to Massachusetts residents. On healthcare, Brown said each state should be left to handle provisions for its residents, like Massachusetts did when it required coverage beginning in 2007. He said the state could share its programs with other states and replicate them, and work with other congressional delegations if federal aid would be needed to get state-level health care plans in place. Imposing a federal-level insurance plan may mean Massachusetts residents could see lesser care and higher cost, he said

    Scott Brown supported healthcare reform here in Massachusetts that actually included provisions to publicly funding abortions.


    Brown supported Massachusetts health care overhaul in 2006 and favors elements advanced in the congressional debate about a national overhaul. But he said he would oppose the bills now moving through Congress because they would help other states at the expense of Massachusetts

    What differences does it make to the prolife community whether he wants to reform healthcare by instituting this in 52 states? It trumps the Hyde Amendment. This is akin to Roe v. Wade only now we are publicly funding the abortions. For anyone on this circulation who doesn't understand why in processes, I'm happy to demonstrate how by using the Massachusetts healthcare reform Brown helped to implement. We just went through a terrible battle to protect our conscience rights being obliterated by our own chancery. We still don't have all the details of what the contracts say here in Massachusetts. What we do know is nothing at all changed except for large infusions of cash into Caritas. Procedurally, the abortion contracts Caritas made are still in effect and our employees still are being compelled to vet patients who are covered for abortion, want an abortion and have to be told what number to call to proceed with the abortion along with the instructions and we still have promised to make sure they have a ride to the abortionists. What entity is listed on paper as owning this structure is secretive.

    Is it MCFL's belief that Brown's aspirations for our 52 states to institute this mess is some kind of prolife version of national healthcare?

    What are MCFL substantive ideas about Brown's plan? It isn't enough to say he's going to stop national healthcare because he has other plans that are destructive to the country, to our conscience protections.


    On abortion rights, Brown is basically in favor but with nuance. “Roe v. Wade is the law of the land, and I don’t plan on overturning it, but I’ve always felt that, you know, I’m against partial-birth abortions and believe in parental consent, a strong parental notification law,’’ Brown said, adding that he would not apply an abortion rights litmus test in Supreme Court confirmations.

    You've got to reach beyond what MCFL is circulating about what they think about believe Scott Brown will do and look at the evidence.

    We are in a critical hour where we can influence what kind of candidates we get from the GOP going forward. The question is, do you want to continue use our prolife networks to lobby for candidates who are proabortion or do we have the courage, strength, faith and loyalto to Christ to tell them not to bother coming to us unless they're willing to put their money behind a candidate has a proven track record in the sanctity of life from the moment of conception to natural death.

    Are you willing to throw away this chance to change our future for this candidate?

    Do you think that MCFL will have any further influence with getting prolife candidates funded with the kind of money we need to win after they have proven that they'll categorize this man's record as sending a "pro-life vote" to the senate?

    I don't relish having people upset with me - but I believe MCFL is giving terrible advice.

    One more thing for your consideration. Brown claims that he would support laws protecting our conscience.
    I'm here to remind you that in Massachusetts, Catholics Hospitals are being illicitly forced to hand out emergency contraception. Where was Brown when this was happening? What influence in helping Scott Brown get elected has protected our conscience rights?
    What has Brown actually "done" to help us remove the illegal "interpretation" of law by Mitt Romney?
    He's done nothing.
    Here's todays Scott Brown soundbyte. He's going to be the swing vote for both parties. Yesterday, he said he wouldn't vote for a judicial candidate who "legislated from the bench". Today, he has another story. These are his principles and you don't like them, he has others
    May God protect, guide and counsel us all.
    In Christ, Carol McKinley

    Scott Brown vows to work with Dems
    “I give you my word. What’s the Republican party gonna to do to me? They haven’t really done much for me now,” he said. “So all of a sudden I’m obligated to them? I don’t owe anybody anything.”
    With 12 days to go until the Jan. 19 special election - and on the heels of a poll showing him within striking distance of Coakley - Brown said his stance on issues makes him “the most important vote down there potentially.”
    “If I go down there, I’ll be the 41st (Republican) senator,” he said. “The Democrats have to come to me and say, ‘Scott, we know you’re an independent guy, can we have you on this issue?’
    “That’s a great position to be in,” he added.
    Brown continued to paint himself as a social moderate who is tight-fisted with taxpayer dollars and hawkish on national security. He said there may be cases in which U.S. citizens should be treated as enemy combatants if they have undergone terrorism training outside the country.
    “Even though they hold the status of U.S. citizens, now they’ve gone to a different level,” he said. “They’re joining a known terrorist group and almost saying, ‘Even though I’m born here . . . I want to be (elsewhere) instead.’ ”
    Brown ducked the label “pro-choice” while saying abortion should be a woman’s personal choice. In the next breath, he said he would vote to confirm a U.S. Supreme Court justice who opposed Roe v. Wade - but added he would have supported Justice Sonia Sotomayor.
    “The party’s never been behind me - I’m not the party guy,” he said. “That’s the beauty of me.”


    First Parable
    A woman ran a large orphanage full of precious children. One day a terrible fire broke out. The woman ran for help. Her neighbors came and said they would go in to save the children. The woman asked, "Will you save all my children?" "No", said the neighbors, "But we will save as many as we can". The woman replied, "I don't want to have anything to do with you if you can't guarantee to save them all"
    The firemen came and said they would go in to save the children. The woman asked, "Will you save all my children?" "No", said the firemen, "But we will save as many as we can". The woman replied, "I don't want to have anything to do with you if you can't guarantee to save them all"

    The Fire Chief came and told the woman that her house had burned to the ground and all the children were dead. The woman replied, "At least my conscience is pure! I did not deal with anyone who would not guarantee to save all the children"
    Second Parable
    A flood arrives and the man is up to his knees in water. A truck comes to him. The people in the truck call out, "We have come to save you! Get in!" The man replies, "No thank you. God will save me"
    The water rises and the man is hanging out of his second story window. A speedboat comes to him. The people in the boat call out, "We have come to save you! Get in!" The man replies, "No thank you. God will save me"
    The man is on his roof clinging to his chimney. A helicopter comes to him. The people in the helicopter call out, "We have come to save you! Get in!" The man replies, "No thank you. God will save me"
    Of course, the man drowns. When he sees God, he berates God for not saving him. God answers, "I sent a truck for you, I sent a boat for you, I sent a helicopter for you...
    Third Parable
    Matthew (25:13-30)
    "It will be as when a man who was going on a journey called in his servants and entrusted his possessions to them.
    To one he gave five talents;to another, two; to a third, one--to each according to his ability. Then he went away.

    Immediately the one who received five talents went and traded with them, and made another five.
    Likewise, the one who received two made another two. But the man who received one went off and dug a hole in the ground and buried his master's money.

    After a long time the master of those servants came back and settled accounts with them.
    The one who had received five talents came forward bringing the additional five. He said, 'Master, you gave me five talents. See, I have made five more.'
    His master said to him, 'Well done, my good and faithful servant. Since you were faithful in small matters, I will give you great responsibilities. Come, share your master's joy.'
    (Then) the one who had received two talents also came forward and said, 'Master, you gave me two talents. See, I have made two more.'
    His master said to him, 'Well done, my good and faithful servant. Since you were faithful in small matters, I will give you great responsibilities. Come, share your master's joy.'

    Then the one who had received the one talent came forward and said, 'Master, I knew you were a demanding person, harvesting where you did not plant and gathering where you did not scatter;so out of fear I went off and buried your talent in the ground. Here it is back.'
    His master said to him in reply, 'You wicked, lazy servant! So you knew that I harvest where I did not plant and gather where I did not scatter?
    Should you not then have put my money in the bank so that I could have got it back with interest on my return?
    Now then! Take the talent from him and give it to the one with ten.
    For to everyone who has, more will be given and he will grow rich; but from the one who has not, even what he has will be taken away.
    And throw this useless servant into the darkness outside, where there will be wailing and grinding of teeth.'


    I can 't seem to crack the code how these relate to voting for the proabort who isn't as bad as the other proabort.

    Soon, prolifers will have a choice between Charlie Baker/Richard Tisei and Devil Patrick/Tim Murray..

    This fool is gearing up for "the parables".


    Anonymous said...

    Thank you for your courage & sticking to your convictions, they are the right one's! ALSO for being the voice of the unborn.

    Anonymous said...


    What a terrible thing, to be in a place where there are no good choices. Thanks for all your hard work.


    Carol McKinley said...

    Thank you both.

    M. Alexander said...

    I wonder how many prolifers, have stood on the sidewalks of an abortion mill and are going to vote for a guy who voted for the 35 foot buffer zone?

    Can you say, "With friends like these who needs enemies?"

    Anonymous said...

    Send the Massachusetts Republican Party a message: Vote for Libertarian Joe Kennedy for Senate in the January 19th special election and in future elections vote for any third party or independent candidate who can't win over a Democrat. Let the Republican Party in Massachusetts fall to the level of a third party, and tell them that when they ask for your support or vote. Some of its candidates in the last election for state constitutional officers got only a few more votes that the Green Party candidates.