Saturday, July 31, 2010

The Bishops vs. Catholic Faithful (The Second Inning)

Earlier this year, the USCCB expressed concern about how the Catholic media portrays the Catholic religion.

It wasn't what we expected. They weren't talking about the National Catholic Distorter or America Magazine, Catholics United or Sr. Carol Keehan.

No, they were talking about the folks making the judgements that these people are teaching errors and leading souls astray.

They were shocked. Shocked, I tell you, that there is a growing presence on the internet making judgments that make people feel like their rolls in the hay with every Tom, Dick and Mary are sinful.

"We are particularly concerned about blogs that engage in attacks and hurtful judgmental language. We are very troubled by blogs and other elements of media that assume the role of magisterium and judge others in the church."


They sponsored a webinar on the Catholic media role and their relationship with Bishops.

As you can imagine, most of us found some laundry to do at the exact same time.

The Catholic media relationship with Bishops?

Why that is simple. Nobody on any side of anything gives a rat's patoot.

That is the relationship.

Once upon a time, Catholics faithful to the teachings of the Church and the Deposit of Faith were trying to hold onto what was left of trust after the systemic rot of cronyism was brought into the light.

After the long and painful search for parishes and initiatives to teach our children the faith resulted in the Bishops attacking faithful Catholics instead of pastorally managing those teaching errors, they have lost faithful Catholics.

As we are all assembling to expose their corruption and teach the authentic faith, panic and pandemonium is setting in.

When American Bishops and the USCCB silences and quashes the National Catholic Reporter and America Magazine, the nuns, priests and lay people whoring the Word Catholic and misleading our families, children and friends, we'll start to take their outreaches seriously.

Until then, here's how to characterize the faithful's relationship with American Catholic Bishops: YOU ARE DISMISSED.

Michael Voris, says it much better than I:



MCFL Hijacks the Word Prolife Again-- It is Time for The Change We Can Believe In





 As everyone knows, Jeff Perry is battling Joe Malone in the 10th Congressional district for the Republican nomination - Bill Delahunt's seat.


Bill Dellahunt was a trainwreck on all of our issues.  Prolifers are not sorry he is handing over his seat.  


I'm here to remind you that MCFL's 20 year strategy of advancing the political careers of proaborts included advising prolifers to vote for Bill Dellahunt.    


Like Martha Coakley, Joe Malone is a bad egg.    Jeff Perry is the better candidate for prolifers who feel called to continue to go to the polls and continue to feed the country the best proabort.     I am done with voting for proaborts.  They are anathema to me but I truly feel that people voting for the best proabort is a legitimate calling. I affirm it.  


This is not about Jeff Perry.


It is about MCFL's  strategy for the last 20 years, its honesty.   And, it is about what it means to be a 'prolife' candidate in the future.  


MCFL is once again not being honest about Jeff Perry.  Jeff Perry does not oppose abortion.


Here's what MCFL said about Perry:




According to Jack Rowe, Chairman of the Fed PAC,  "As a member of the Massachusetts House of Representatives, Jeff Perry has been a strong advocate for life.  He even voted against state funding of embryonic stem cell research."







 Rowe further stated, "Perry opposes tax funding of abortion and takes a pro-life position on all important issues.



No.  He doesn't.


You remember the important issue of abortion?


Here are the positions of Joe Malone and Jeff Perry - see if you can pick out the one MCFL claims has "a prolife position on the issue" of *abortion*.   



1.   Abortion - I hope we can agree that there are too many abortions in America.  I support efforts to provide women considering abortion with resources and education to enable and empower them to choose life, including pregnancy care centers and programs which can increase adoptions.   I support parental consent and notification requirements and I oppose partial birth abortion.  I also believe there are people of good will on both sides of the issue and we ought to work together to support and promote adoption as an alternative to abortion.

2.  ABORTION
I support a woman’s right to choose under the guidelines set by the United States Supreme Court.  Certainly, many people disagree with this position and I respect their views.  I do oppose partial birth abortion and federal funding of abortions. I support parental consent requirements for minors and counseling to encourage adoption and would work to increase the number of adoptions.




You tell me - which one has a prolife position on the issue of abortion?


The entire purpose of our mission.  Abortion.  


Not to be a broken record, but let's go over again where has MCFL's strategy gotten us in the last 20 years:


Here in Massachusetts, we now have zero votes in the Senate and a bakers dozen in the legislature. Now that we are down to nothing, how many lives are being saved by this strategy?


When we want to advance life issues, we have zero people in the Senate.


People keep blaming this situation on the voters.   Here is the reality check:


We don't have a political machine that proactively seeks out prolifers, grooms them, endorses them and gets out the vote for them.   There is a way to be politically savvy and market our people proactively and win the vote.  Even, right here in Massachusetts.   


We have plenty of honorable people who want life defended from the moment of conception to the moment of natural death who will honorably represent our position on abortion while also taking other positions the American people are upset about.  


A political machine picks out charismatic, articulate people and puts a marketing package together that will resonate with things lots of voters are concerned about.   Running a campaign to win means putting your finger in the air and feeling the direction of the wind.  Finding things everyone can agree on and riding the wave.


In spite of the press, liberals are upset about Obamacare and illegal immigration.  They're tired of the political cronyism.  They're tired of having things shoved down their throat the overwhelming majority of Americans don't support.  We don't like the situation either.   


If ever there was a time when we had consensus with American people, the post-Obama world can be played to our advantage with some smart, savvy political strategy.    


This is what every political machine does that has a mission.  They package their candidates to create the soundbytes that gets THEIR OWN candidates elected.  They get out the vote for THEIR OWN CANDIDATES.


We do not have that political machine in MCFL.    There is no wisdom or political savvy.   Because they don't have the savvy and know how, it is a machine that has churned out proaborts for 20 years.  


Instead of grooming prolife candidates and packaging them, supporting them and getting out the vote for our own candidates, they are doing something else.  They are changing the 'word' "prolife" to mean you can be an outstanding prolifer but still support Roe v. Wade.


This is an outstanding prolife position to MCFL.    A warrior for the unborn can support Roe v. Wade.


We have a duty to protect what the word 'prolife' means for the next generation who will be victimized by it.  


Let's also be clear about what MCFL does when a prolifer approaches them for support in a race:    


They tell them they can't win and they will not lend their support.  They then go out and endorse a proabort and as the race picks up, MCFL throws the prolifer under the bus.  They will actually look past the candidates position that they believe in the sanctity of life from the moment of conception to the moment of natural death to find something to nitpick and circulate something saying they are not 'prolife'.   Or, they ignore the race all together as they are doing with Ed Sholley and Barney Frank.






There are national consequences to changing what the word "prolife" mean by MCFL and the strategy is being watched and covered in national prolife political circles.


After the dustup in the wake of its endorsement of independent gubernatorial candidate Tim Cahill, Massachusetts Citizens for Life has released a further statement helping pro-life voters understand its decision-making.....


MCFL says Cahill "made it clear" in two different meeting with officials of the pro-life group that, while he believes Roe v. Wade is "settled law,"...

After issuing an endorsement last week, MCFL came under fire from some pro-life advocates and Cahill and his staff responded in the press that he officially supports legalized abortions -- albeit with numerous pro-life limits...




The strategy of endorsing candidates who say killing the unborn is settled law and finding something we can bond with him on is legitimate political strategy for us, is it?

Settled law my eye.   Slavery was settled law.    The entire purpose of the prolife political movement is to overturn law that allows people to rip the limbs off of children until they bleed to death.    


There are liberties people take that victimize other people.  When a country settles its law to grant those people license to victimize other people, righteous people stand up and overturn those laws.  

It is sound political strategy to dance around the proabortion elephant in the room to find something else we agree with proaborts about?

How does this differ from Catholics United?

Why do the same prolifers who gripe about Catholics United turn around and defend this strategy when MCFL executes it?


It is intellectual dishonesty.  


I have plenty of gripes about the Republicans but imagine if they sat back for 20 years as a political machine endorsing and getting out the vote for the best of all the proaborts?

It is bad strategy.  I don't know anyone rational who would run a political machine this way.  It is indefensible. 



We are stuck with MCFL's harvest - zero votes in the Senate and a dozen in the legislature.




It is time for the change we can believe in.  



Thursday, July 29, 2010

Some Crazy Goings On at the Boston Archdiocese

A post at Bryan Hehir Exposed today is a bit of a heartbreaker.   It shows how Fr. Erikson came to Boston with a good heart and good intentions.  Somewhere along the way he got sucked up into the cyclone and when the house landed in Oz, he was captured by creepy little monkeys and hauled off to the wicked witch's house where he remains under some kind of spell and is now screaming "I'll get you my little pretties" to faithful Catholics.


We simply highlight the aspirational statement by the Vicar General from 2006 when he started, and invite you to compare it vs the the recent actions.
Father Erikson said “I expect people to judge us [Archdiocesan officials] by our actions.”
People are now doing exactly that.

Ouch.

Speaking of such, today's Cronyism II post at Boston Catholic Insider is pretty incriminating on how Ann Carter and Jim McDonough have tossed out long-time diocesan employees to make room for their former colleagues at Abington Savings Bank.

There's so many former Abington Savings Bank employees, there's a contest to re-name the Archdiocese with some fun submissions:


Here's mine:

Dewey, Cheatem and Howe Pastoral Center.

Creemed


Earlier this week Catholic Citizenship (which finally seems like it might be in the hands of peeps who takes the job seriously) sent out an alert on some pretty scary shenanigans up at the State House:
In a highly controversial move, the Joint Judiciary Committee gave a favorable report to Senate Bill 23 filed by Cynthia Creem. This bill is a proposed constitutional amendment that would prohibit initiative petitions on “The rights to freedom and equality; the right of each individual to be protected by society in the enjoyment of life, liberty and property, according to standing laws.” 
In essence, no initiative petition would ever go forward since all petitions touch on some aspect of life, liberty or property.

Cynthia Creem.  What a piece of work she is, eh?

A little backlash and the bullet was dodged today.





Heh.   We finally found something they are not willing to do.

Tuesday, July 27, 2010

MCFL Clarifies the Tim Cahill "Confusion" (It's as clear as mud)

MCFL has clarified their endorsement of Tim Cahill.

It got a little closer to the truth - but no cigar. And, it is too little, too late.

In yesterday's Globe, Madeline McCormish revealed that she 'interviewed' Tim Cahill on his positions on the sanctity of life and the question on whether he supports life from the moment of conception to the moment of natural death, never came up.

You'll remember that MCFL took their doctored-up questionnaire, painted Cahill as 'an outstanding advocate of the unborn' and a candidate who holds prolife positions in every aspect of our mission.  

You'll remember that MCFL tried to claim their PAC was not MCFL - which they continue to do today:



The State PAC has asked us to share with you this statement of theirs












"There has been some confusion regarding the endorsement of Tim Cahill by the MCFL State PAC. The PAC endorsed the Cahill-Loscocco ticket because the ticket is the best choice to advance the pro-life cause.







Tim Cahill made clear in two different meetings with the PAC that, while he believes that Roe is settled law," 





This puts to rest any of Madeline McCormish's pretense that it was news to her that Cahill is supports Roe v. Wade and a woman's "right" to kill an unborn child.


MCFL goes on to say, that when it comes to legislation that is not in play in Massachusetts, Other than sucking the limbs off of babies unto death, which he firmly believes in,  should pigs fly and the Massachusetts legislature ever turn prolife and roll laws across his desk, he will get right on it.  


In a call yesterday with a Massachusetts prolife leader, we chatted about MCFL's history for the last couple of decades.   MCFL has been going the route of supporting proabortion politicians by spinning and covering up their proabortion convictions and telling us they are making incremental advances.


Will somebody please take an inventory of what we have up at the State House and tell me show me the gains we have made?


This tack has done nothing but turn over the unborn to the culture of death, incrementally.


Within two minutes on the call with this Mass prolife leader we came up with a list of politicians MCFL helped elect who then made laws and policies that turned Massachusetts into what it is as we speak.


Bob Ambler, Bill Delahunt, Joe Malone, Ed Markey, Dan Daley, Marian Walsh, Tom Finneran, Joe Moakley, Steve Lynch, Mitt Romney, Scott Brown.  Though Ray Flynn never repudiated our mission, he did work for and with proaborts who advanced the culture of death.


All of these politicians, whom MCFL supported and helped elect by claiming they were 'prolife' eventually turned around and screwed us because they were never prolife to begin with.


If there is any prolifer who can look around in Massachusetts and convince themselves pretending proabortion politicians will be outstanding advocates for the unborn and getting out the vote for them has made Massachusetts a more friendly place for the unborn in the last twenty years, you are swimming in a river of denial and I cannot help you.


In Massachusetts, the race for governor is anathema.  The State House is fill to the rafters with proabortion politicians MCFL helped elect.  Legislation will never reach his desk.  It is not and should never have been anything more than a recommendation based upon who is the better of the proaborts.   


No pride should ever be involved in endorsing a proabort.


For those of us who recognize there has to be a new game in town, new leadership in MCFL, new vision and a new determination to 'get out 100,000 people' for prolife candidates (and there are some in the race for November), this clarification of the dishonesty is meaningless.  


In case I have not been clear,Carol has asked me to share this statement of hers.

Here is how to 'incrementally' start to dig ourselves out of this hole in Massachusetts and help the unborn: 


We need leaders who reserve the use of our political power, resources and ground troops to elect "prolifers".     And, when the word "prolifer" is used, it is to be reserved for candidates who believe that life is sanctified from the moment of conception to the moment of natural death.   There needs to be no more compromise and no more lying and no more getting out the vote or using an ounce of energy for anyone who does not meet this litmus test.

Coalition to Save Catholic Healthcare

The Coalition to Save Catholic Healthcare is having a press conference today at the Omni Parker House at 10am.    I can't be there, but I am a member of the coalition.  Please give it some support in prayer.

The concerns I have previously brought forth about how they structured in Cerebus' control of who is selected as a Catholic ethicist, the 'committees' to oversee ethics that are Cerebus corporate and not Catholic,  the opt out clause   -  along with other concerns, lead me to believe that the Catholic vocations and conscience protections of doctors, nurses, pharmacists and other Catholic professionals are in jeopardy with this deal.

Here's the press release:







COALITION TO SAVE CATHOLIC HEALTH CARE


              The mission of the Coalition is to continue Roman Catholic health care in the tradition of the teachings of its founder.
              We steadfastly oppose the continuation of any negotiations to sell or transfer the Caritas Christi Health Care System by the Archdiocese of Boston to Cerberus Capital Management L.P., its subsidiary or any allied organization.
              Caritas Christi’s mission, which is “rooted in the healing power of Jesus” is compromised by any dealing with Cerberus, a venture capital organization whose sole aim is monetary gain.
  Individuals and organizations allied in this coalition are dedicated to preserving human life from fertilization to natural death.
 Some of the history of Cerberus Management runs counter to the teachings of the Nazarene who walked the hills of Galilee, teaching and healing physically and spiritually. The pieces of silver which are to be exchanged for the eventual sacrifice of the core principles are a deceptive lure into the ultimate escalation of health care costs to be borne by the patient.  The end result will be limited services, as well.
 The Coalition requests that governmental overseers reject any agreement, merger or sale between these two parties.
 We also request that the Archdiocese of Boston cease any further discussion with Cerberus Capital Management L.P., Steward Health Care Systems LLC, or associated parties.
 Caritas Christi must retain not only its existence, but also its core meaning.
                                                                       
                                                                        R. T. Neary, Chairman
                                                                        508-359-4551
                                                                        RTNeary@Verizon.net
Media Information
John O’Gorman  
617-846-2983
July 23, 2010

Cronyism in the Boston Archdiocese



I must say that even I am blown away by the cronyism in the Archdiocese of Boston being unraveled by our friends at Boston Catholic Insider.

Jim McDonough and Ann Carter (formerly of Abington Savings) have stacked the Chancery with bank tellers and other former bank employees who have bupkis in the way of Catholic credentials or experience in the roles they were given.

What is McDonough's head bank teller doing as the Cardinal's Executive Secretary?   It' a fairly high-level admin job that would require a seasoned executive secretary and Catholic.

And, according to last night's weekly Boston Catholic blogger conference call, there is more to come.

Between the fiefdoms of Jack Connors and McDonough, it would be one heck of a power point presentation to put together how their cronies helicopter from one of their fiefdoms to the other.  

Don't these people have to sign a conflict of interest policy?

Monday, July 26, 2010

Bryan Hehir on Conscience Objections

BHE bloggers have another must read (and watch!) post up on the continuing saga of Cardinal O'Malley's 'acting Cardinal' J. Bryan Hehir.   

What is important about their post is the unraveling of the Hehir's act of deception.    It is sliced and diced.

They're getting mighty techie over there!

MCFL Once Again Engineers a "Prolife Questionnare" To Avoid Revealing Tim Cahill's ProChoice Positions.

You see these feet  ------------------------------------->

Tim Cahill believes in the 'right' to kill children by vacuuming the limbs off of the unborn until they are dead.

He wants that procedure to be done 'safely'.

The prolife movement knows that the procedure is never 'safe' for the child because the child dies.

The purpose of the prolife movement is to oppose advocates of abortion.

If we are not this, we are nothing.

There are races, such as the one for governor where all the candidates believe in the right to kill the unborn at the whims of the mother.   I don't have any argument at all, that out of the three proabortion candidates on the ticket, Tim Cahill is the best of the lot.   I don't mean to throw him under the bus for people who feel like he's the best we've got.   Go for it.

The dust up in the prolife community is about MCFL's attempts to redefine the word 'prolife'.

These are critical moments in the prolife movement. 

MCFL has consistently annointed candidates who support abortion as 'prolife'.   

This is unacceptable.   It is a hijacking the prolife movement.

If you support vacuuming a child unto death in utero - you don't make the cut into the prolife camp.  

These are the days to close the borders and fortify the walls.  

The enemy is within.  We have got to be honest about it or we are toast.  


Once again, as they did with Romney, Brown and others - MCFL is saying Tim Cahill earned his 'outstanding' prolife rating as a result of his responses to MCFL's questionnaire.

I'm not buying into it.

Here's the reason why:  Like everything else with MCFL, what they don't tell you is more important than what they're telling you.  MCFL doctored up questionnaire so that Cahill didn't have to answer that abortion is one of his 'core values'.

MCFL proactively covers up for and lies about their candidates position.

Here's the 'questionnaire' MCFL doctored up and gave to Cahill to answer.

Seasoned prolifers have seen (and some of us have helped author) questionnaires for political candidates and  recognize that critical questions are absent from their questionnaire.

The absent questions are the fruit of knowing the answers and finding ways to keep those answers from the prolife grassroots.

It is not what you call actions taken in good faith.

MCFL actually removed questions from Cahill's questionnaire to cover up his support for abortion so they could label him an 'outstanding advocate for the unborn'.

Here's a legitimate pro-life questionnaire with standard questions in the prolife industry.

Note the differences.

MCFL has morphed into Catholics United.

And, like what a tangled web we have to weave when practicing deceiving, MCFL is coming up with some doozies for excuses.

The exchange I posted yesterday with Anne Fox from MCFL continued on for a few more rounds of emails where she continued to assert that the MCFL PAC has nothing to do with MCFL.


Carol, the endorsement is by the MCFL State PAC which is an entirely different entity from Massachusetts Citizens for Life.  If you go to their web site, I believe they have the information that interests you.
Ann

Yes, how silly of us to think Mass Citizens for Life created a PAC to get the vote out for their candidates and the PAC therefore are the ground troops for Mass Citizens for Life.

'The MCFL State PAC has asked us to share this news with you."
Ridiculous.

They are talking to people who have been in the prolife movement for 20 or more years.  We know how it works.  They are circumventing truth by piling up intellectual dishonesty.

The dust up is covered in today's Globe.


The Massachusetts Citizens for Life State Political Action Committee announced its endorsement of Cahill last Monday, saying he would be an “outstanding advocate for the unborn, the disabled, and the elderly.’’
“Cahill holds prolife positions on all aspects of the issue from abortion funding to informed consent, to partial birth abortion and parental consent,’’ Madeline McComish, the chairwoman of the PAC, said in a statement.
But Cahill’s spokeswoman Amy Birmingham maintained yesterday that he remains pro-choice. On Friday, she said, “He would never do anything to overturn Roe v. Wade.’’
McComish said yesterday that she was surprised to learn that Cahill still favors abortion rights and that she would ask him to clarify his position.


I want to believe McComish.  Really, I do.    But, I've seen her name around the prolife community for a couple of decades.  How can anyone be actively involved in a prolife initiative and be oblivious to everything the candidate has said about abortion, or not recognize the prolife candidate questionnaire has been doctored up after twenty years of political experience?


Moreover McCormish interviewed him and apparently, the question never came up as to whether he supports abortion rights:


Asked if she considered Cahill to be opposed to abortion based on his answers, McComish answered, “Well, yes!’’

“He came in and the PAC interviewed him and I was impressed with him,’’ she added. “And I do believe, based on my meeting with him, that he is prolife. Otherwise we would not have endorsed him.’’


Massachusetts Citizens for Life Political Action Committee didn't ask whether the candidate supported abortion rights.  They skipped right over the question.

That is impossible to swallow.

Voters have become increasingly skeptical about candidate conversions, in recent years, stung by former governor Mitt Romney’s assertions of his pro-choice credentials when he ran for governor in 2002 and his declaration that he had always been “prolife’’ when he ran for president in 2006. 

A conversion?


Let's review the material facts again.  


As of Friday, Cahill's spokeswoman said he "absolutely" supports abortion:


But Cahill’s spokeswoman Amy Birmingham maintained yesterday that he remains pro-choice. On Friday, she said, “He would never do anything to overturn Roe v. Wade.’’
The beef is not with Cahill.

It is with MCFL's active support of abortion rights candidates.  It's about the dishonesty MCFL is using to redefine what it means to be an outstanding advocate for the unborn.  They don't have the right to bring proabortion candidates into the fold of the prolife movement.

This is the reason for our existence, the purpose of our work.    If  you believe outstanding advocates for the unborn can believe in the right to tear babies apart until they are dead, you are a pro abortion advocacy group.


MCFL has pulled in the Trojan Horse.

Let's not be fools and cowards, shall we?

The hardest part of righteousness is standing up to the enemy within.  If they want to go this route - which they have for 20 years - we have got to send them packing for the sake of the children who lose their lives in this compromise.


 But Massachusetts Citizens for Life sometimes backs candidates who favor abortion rights...

Even the Boston Globe is onto it.

Sunday, July 25, 2010

Goodbye Bad Bishops

I'm getting bored again so you'll note a few changes around Throw the Bum Bums Out.   This may not be the template I settle with so you may see a few more changes until I feel like settling into something for a while.

In building my blogroll, I came across this fun website linked on Dympha's Road (tip of the hat!) - Goodbye Bad Bishops!  

You'll note whose portrait has joined the ranks of Clark, Hubbard and Roger Mahoney.

Among movers and shakers in conservative Catholic circles, Cardinal O'Malley has the new nickname - "Cardinal Mahony of the East".

Saturday, July 24, 2010

MCFL's Disturbing Conduct



Early in the race for Governor, several grassroots prolifers contacted me to tell me that MCFL was telling people Tim Cahill was "prolife".    

I went to Cahill's website, went to the "issues" tab and under abortion was his position:

"I believe in and support a women's right to choose. I also believe that abortion should be safe, legal, and rare.
I circulated it and that was the end of the matter until early this week when prolifers received MCFL's "endorsement".

Given Cahill has been front and center on his proabortion convictions, I was shocked by the veracity of MCFL's claim that Tim was an "outstanding advocate for the unborn".

"Here we go again!", I thought to myself.

It was my intention to find the proabortion link on Cahill's website this weekend and do a post comparing it to MCFL's Tim Cahill prolife screed.

I've been playing phone tag with prolife leaders in Massachusetts until today when one of them told me he tried to find "abortion" under the "issues" link on Cahill's site and couldn't find anything about Cahill's position on abortion.   

I looked myself, and sure enough, it's gonzo.  

Red Mass Group confirms  that Cahill's abortion position was scrubbed from the website in concert with MCFL's claim that Cahill "holds prolife positions on all aspects of the issue".



MCFL State PAC Endorses Tim Cahill for Governor











Boston- Madeline McComish, Chairman of MCFL State Political Action Committee, today announced that the MCFL State PAC has endorsed State Treasurer, Tim Cahill, for Governor in the November election. 
Tim Cahill will be an outstanding advocate for the unborn, the disabled, and the elderly.  He will bring commonsense solutions to protecting their rights and their lives.  Cahill holds pro-life positions on all aspects of the issue, from abortion funding to informed consent, to partial birth abortion and parental consent. Very important also is his opposition to Physician Assisted Suicide which is currently being proposed in the state legislature, according to McComish.











She added, Currently pro-life people across the state are collecting signatures to repeal Obamacare.  They welcome Tim Cahills pledge to opt out of the abortion funding in Obamacare.  People remember that Cahill was the first to point out that Romneycare in Massachusetts will go bankrupt in four years, thus subjecting everyone in the state to rationing and denial of care.  The other gubernatorial candidates have publicly stated their support for the pro-choiceposition.  In other words, they support abortion and take anti-life positions on the other life issues." 











MCFL State PAC is in the process of contacting pro-life people across the state and will mobilize more than 100,000 activists in Massachusetts in support of Cahill.  For more information about MCFL State PAC, please visit, http://MCFLStatePAC.intuitwebsites.com
Very disturbing.

MCFL is getting out in front of their endorsements of proaborts and scrubbing and hiding their proabortion convictions.   

Equally disturbing is their promise to get out 100,000 for Cahill while they have done nothing for real prolife candidates who are running in the State (for positions other than Governor).  

MCFL sanitizes proaborts so they can get out the vote for them and is doing bupkis for real prolife candidates.


UPDATE:


I wanted to share my exchange with Anne Fox  to get clarification on what transpired from MCFL.


At 08:55 AM 7/25/2010 -0400, I wrote:



"I believe in and support a women's right to choose. I also believe that abortion should be safe, legal, and rare"  ~ Tim Cahill

"Tim Cahill will be outstanding advocate for the unborn, the disabled, and the elderly.  He will bring commonsense solutions to protecting their rights and their lives.  Cahill holds pro-life positions on all aspects of the issue..." ~ MCFL

Anne,


I note that Tim Cahill's proabortion position has been taken down from his website in concert with MCFL's glowing endorsement that he is an outstanding advocate for the unborn.  (The evidence is documented on Red Mass Group)


Would you kindly divulge what conversations anyone at MCFL had with Tim Cahill that resulted in the removal of his proabortion position from his website?


Thank you, Carol McKinley   


-----Original Message-----


From: Anne Fox 
To: cmmckinley@aol.com

Subject: Re: MCFL's endorsement of Tim Cahill


Carol, the endorsement is by the MCFL State PAC which is an entirely different entity from Massachusetts Citizens for Life.  If you go to their web site, I believe they have the information that interests you.


Anne
I wrote: 
Anne,




Mass Citizens for Life created the PAC to carry out the political action necessary to help elect MCFL's candidates.  That is how the entity structure of every political action initiative works.  They are you and you are they.
If MCFL takes the position that their PAC is not MCFL so that the announcement from MCFL's PAC that Tim is an outstanding advocate for the unborn and holds prolife positions on all aspects of 'the issue' and the mysterious disappearance of Tim Cahill's proabortion position from his website have nothing to do with MCFL - the intellectual dishonesty of that position takes my breath away.
What are the names of MCFL's people who were the architects of MCFL's statement on Tim's position and the disappearance of Tim's actual position on his website?
Thanks, Carol

Fascinating.

Again, I don't have any problem with saying "Out of the three proabortion candidates, MCFL would encourage you to vote for Tim Cahill for the following reasons...blah, blah and blah."

Saying he is an outstanding prolifer saying he takes prolife positions on all aspects of 'the issue', advising him to scrub his website clean of his actual position so there is no backlash for MCFL, saying MCFL's PAC is an entirely different organization than MCFL, making promises to get 100,000 people organized to elect the proabort while leaving all your prolife candidates in the November election sucking the wind-- these are  objectionable.  

They affect the efficacy and credibility of  the prolife movement across the board.  It needs to be addressed.

Giddy up.