Prominent Catholic Professor Claims IRS Audited Her After Speaking Out Against Obama and Demanded to Know Who Was Paying Her

Catholic professor / writer audited after connecting the dots on Soros-funded fake Catholic groups, Catholics United and Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good:

... And the plot thickens. Among the organizations she targeted in her writings were progressive groups highly supportive of Democratic causes, including: Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good, Catholics United, and Catholic Democrats.

 At the time, one of the founders of Catholics United, Chris Korzen, had become a target of her work, as she exposed, in her view, his true leftist agenda and some of the complicated theological stances the left-of-center organizations he associated with were taking. Plus, there were alleged financial ties with billionaire liberal George Soros. Here’s just two paragraphs from an article she wrote in March 2010, just months before her meeting with IRS officials:

On its website, Catholics United describes itself as a 501(c) (4) non-profit organization—eligible to accept donations. But, Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good emerged in 2005 as a kind of sister organization to Catholics United. A 501(c) (3) organization, donors can claim a deduction against personal income tax when they donate money to Catholics in Alliance. Reviewing the 2007 IRS 990 forms for both Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good and Catholics United raises some questions, because Chris Korzen is listed as having received $84,821 in compensation for 40 hours per week from Catholics in Alliance on the group’s 990 Form—even though the Catholics United website claimed he was the director there during the same time period.

[...]

Despite their inability to engage in extensive lobbying, Catholics in Alliance has been extremely successful in attracting large donors. Never a friend to the Catholic Church, George Soros, one of the earliest donors, contributed $50,000 to Catholics in Alliance in 2005 and another $100,000 in 2006 through his Open Society Institute. Likewise, Smith Bagley, a major Democratic donor and fundraiser, whose wife, Elizabeth Frawley Bagley, is Chairman of the Board of Catholics in Alliance, came close to matching Soros with grants from his family’s Arca Foundation. With a long history of supporting progressive organizations like ACORN, the Gamaliel Foundation, People for the American Way, and Planned Parenthood, Arca contributed $50,000 to Catholics in Alliance in 2007 and another $75,000 in 2008.

Hendershott can’t help but wonder if her writings against progressive groups played a role in her audit. It’s obvious that before she was notified by the IRS she was commenting regularly about matters of faith and politics and, in particular, Obamacare. While she doesn’t have proof that the IRS investigation was political in nature, she has strong suspicions that it was.

“I started writing articles like crazy saying these are fake Catholic groups,” she said of the aforementioned organizations, noting that Korzen would often target her work and rail against her assertions.

Hendershott noted that the progressive leader once called into a radio show she appeared on to challenge her contention that he had accepted Soros money.

“I had the tax return in front of me and read off the amounts that Chris Korzen was getting paid from Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good — a Soros supported fake Catholic group,” she told TheBlaze, noting that, through Catholics in Alliance, he had received $85,000.

While Korzen denied this on the air, Hendershott read from the 990 form in an effort to prove he wasn’t telling the truth. This, she believes, may have sparked — or played a role — in spawning the IRS audit.

“He was getting paid by one organization and working for another,” the professor said of Korzen. ”The IRS should have gone after them.”

Her writings for the Catholic Advocate soon ceased because, Hendershott admits, the IRS audit silenced her. If her suspicions are true, this may have been its chilling intention.

“I haven’t written for them since the audit, because I was so scared,” she said (records show her last article for the organization was on July 10, 2010 — the same month the IRS audit unfolded)...

[Read the whole thing]

Scary.


Previous Pro Ecclesia posts on this subject:
Soros-Funded Pro-Obama Catholics to Launch News Service?

Catholic Key Blog Asks "Is Catholics in Alliance Kaput?"

Soros-Funded "Catholic" Groups Still Running Cover for Pro-Aborts (Of Course, That's the Sole Reason They Exist)

"Nonpartisan" Catholics United to “Set the Record Straight” by Trying to Convince Catholics That New Healthcare Law is "Pro-Life"

Archbishop Chaput: A Bad Bill and How We Got It

Archbishop Chaput: Those Confusing the Catholic Stance on Health Care Will Bear the Blame for Anti-Life Effects of Heath Care Bill

CatholicVote Takes on Soros-Funded Catholics in Alliance and Catholics United

Sebelius and Kmiec Catholicism - the Catholic Left Declares War on Pro-Lifers

Apologists for Abortion-Loving Catholics Attack Archbishop ... Again

Catholic News Agency: Catholics in Alliance "Abortion Reduction" Study Found to be Faulty - Social Welfare Policies Have Little Effect on Abortion

What Did Gov. Strickland Know, and When Did He Know It (re: Eric McFadden)? [UPDATED]

Breaking: Catholic Democrat Who Once Headed Up Ohio's Faith-Based Initiatives Arrested for Running Prostitution Ring [UPDATED]

"Seamless Garment Has Lost a Thread"

Catholics in Alliance Voter Survey of "Little Value," Archdiocese of Denver Says

"Nonpartisan" Catholics United Attacks the Knights of Columbus

"Nonpartisan" Catholics United Hits McCain with Ad Questioning His Pro-Life Credentials

"Non-Partisan" Group of Catholic Obama Supporters Calling Itself "Catholics United" Gets Divisive

The Catholic Left Meets in Philadelphia

Convention for the "Common Good"

Bill Donohue: "How the Catholic Left Is Boxed in by Abortion"

"Catholic Democrats" Attack "Registered Republican Archbishop of Kansas City" for "Using Communion" to "Take Down" Sebelius

I Missed the Seminar [UPDATED]

Deal Hudson: "Catholics Organize to Elect Barack Obama"

Democrat Front Group Posing as Catholic Org Calls for End to "Christmas Culture War"

Fidelis Dismisses Religious Left Media "Report"

Democrats Set Their Sights on Winning Back Catholics

Mark Shea in National Catholic Register: "Richard Rich Lives"

Edwards Blogger Flap Discomforts Religious Left

Mark Shea: "Whores for Edwards Swings into Action"

Catholics in Alliance Respond With Letter to Editor

Continue to Raise Our Voices on Issue of Voting

In January's Catholic Chronicle - "Vote Your Values" Revisited

Vote Your Values

"NOT An Approved Catholic Voter Guide"

What's Missing?

Toledo Blade: "Catholic Voting Guide Gives Church Perspective"

Catholics Find Voting Guides a Test of Allegiance

Weigel: "An Electoral Battle of the Booklets?

More From Amy Welborn on the "Dueling Catholic Voter Guides"

Columnist: "Christian Right Driving Wedge Into U.S."

More on Catholic Voter Guides

Dueling Catholic Voter Guides

San Fran Nan the Theologian: Bishops Don't Speak for Catholic Church

Seriously. Why is this woman STILL receiving Our Lord in Holy Communion?

... “Well, I don’t think that’s the entire Catholic Church,” Pelosi responded. “Those people have a right to sue, but I don’t think they’re speaking ex cathedra for the Catholic Church. And there are people in the Catholic Church, including some of the bishops, who have suggested that some of this may be premature,” Pelosi said...

This witch needs to be excommunicated. Like, over a decade ago.

Congressman Destroys Sebelius on HHS Mandate and "Appropriate Balance" for Religious Liberty

Gowdy has provided not only a roadmap for whoever argues the case before the Supreme Court, but elicited about the best piece of evidence one could possibly ask for showing that the HHS didn't do its due diligence in considering the appropriate balancing of religious liberty interests.

The HHS mandate is pretty much doomed once it gets to the Supreme Court. When it comes to "striking the appropriate balance" between the fundamental right to religious liberty and some purported government regulatory interest, as Justice Roberts wrote recently in the Hosanna-Tabor case, "the First Amendment has struck the balance for us ."

By the way, I just found out that Congressman Gowdy is a Baylor graduate. Couple that with RG3 being the #2 pick in the NFL draft, and it's YET ANOTHER big day for Baylor.

Sic 'Em Bears !!!


UPDATE
You know what the best part about this entire exchange is? That the words "contraception" and "women's health" NEVER ONCE came up. And that's because this issue isn't about those things - it's about whether the government is permitted to burden religious liberty by demanding activity that violates the fundamental tenets of that religion.

What Congressman Gowdy has done here is to focus on the LEGAL and CONSTITUTIONAL issues at stake, and whether Sebelius and the HHS gave due consideration (or any consideration at all) to what the LAW requires in order to burden a fundamental right like religious liberty. And Sebelius basically conceded that she and the HHS did not. Great work, Congressman!

Reject the Obama-Romney Ticket - Vote Virgil Goode for President

Obamney/Robama in their own words:

 

There's barely a dime's worth of difference between Obama and Romney, and NEITHER will fight for the principles and priorities that are most important to you.

Don't get stuck choosing between the alleged lesser of two evils. You have a REAL choice, if only you'll escape from the two-party box in which the Republicans think they have trapped you into voting for whoever they nominate just because the other guy is allegedly worse.

 Vote for someone who shares your values, priorities, and political philosophy.

Vote for the only candidate with a 100% pro-life voting record running under the banner of the only 100%-without-exception-pro-life party.


Vote for Constitution Party nominee

Virgil Goode!!!

Fight the Goode Fight!!!

John McCain to Catholic Church: F*ck You

Here's the last RINO the GOP establishment told us we just HAD to vote for because he was "electable":

“I think we have to fix that,” the Arizona Republican said when asked by David Gregory on NBC’s “Meet the Press” about the idea of a Republican “war on women.” “I think there is a perception out there because of the way this whole contraception issue played out – we need to get off of that issue in my view. I think we ought to respect the right of women to make choices in their lives and make that clear — and get back onto what the American people really care about: jobs and the economy.”

This is what RINOs do. They accept the Dem talking points about the issues. So, instead of framing this as a First Amendment Free Exercise issue in which the Catholic Church has a vital religious freedom stake, the previous GOP nominee for president uses the verbiage of the left in defining this as a "woman's right to choose" issue, even if her choice is on the dime of the Catholic Church.

And the previous GOP nominee is a big supporter of the current RINO the GOP establishment is busy trying to shove down our throats. And don't think for one minute that Dullard Flip Rino doesn't share McLoser's sentiments and would sell the Church and the First Amendment down the river in a heartbeat if they think it will mean making social issues irrelevant during this election.

The GOP can go to hell.

Bishops to Obama and ObamaCath Defenders of HHS Mandate: No Compromise !!!

The other day, George Weigel wrote a piece at National Review criticizing a recent Washington Post column by E.J. Dionne in which Dionne, according to Weigel, "attempts some fraternal intimidation of the Catholic bishops of the United States prior to the meeting of the bishops’ conference administrative committee on Tuesday and Wednesday".

Weigel continued:

... Dionne warns the bishops that, if they do not back off from their strong defense of religious freedom and find some way to reach agreement with an administration he insists is trying to accommodate their concerns, they risk becoming a church that no longer stands for both life and social justice. Worse, they risk becoming “the Tea Party at prayer.” ...

... and then concluded:

One of the most maddening aspects of this otherwise bracing debate has been the refusal of those who support either the HHS mandate or the bogus administration accommodation to debate honestly, in terms of the facts, and fairly, in terms of the rhetoric. This leads one to the suspicion that the administration’s defenders know that they have a losing case. The administration will likely continue its intransigence, for it cannot meet the bishops’ full concerns without enraging some of its (most well-heeled) allies. There is no remedy in Congress, thanks to Democratic control of the Senate, and the enthrallment of the Democratic party to those who would make Sandra Fluke a 21st century Joan of Arc. But the bishops have a winning case in the courts, on both First Amendment grounds and because of the provisions of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. Indeed, serious constitutional scholars believe that any test of the HHS mandate in the federal courts will result in a victory for the bishops of the magnitude of the Hosanna-Tabor decision in January, where the administration lost 9–0.

The shrewder defenders of the administration know this. That is why they and their allies in the Catholic Lite Brigade, including the Lite Brigade’s journalistic regiment, are trying to roll the bishops now, before the courts get to work. Having failed even to engage the substantive arguments, they are now resorting to intimidation tactics — “You’ll seem partisan! You’ll look like the Tea Party!” — in order to soften up the ground for another “accommodation.”

All of which, in truth, is as insulting to the bishops as the intellectual contempt the administration showed in its February 10 “accommodation.” But that is the sorry state to which the administration and its Catholic apologists have come.

Today, Weigel follows up with a piece hailing the Bishops' decision to stand firm in favor of religious freedom and in opposition to Obama's HHS mandate:

... The March 14 statement of the Administrative Committee of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, “United for Religious Freedom,” does not contain the kind of rhetorical flourishes that reached a dramatic coda in the Poles’ ringing “Non Possumus!” Still, the U.S. bishops have drawn an unmistakably clear line in the sand.

Resisting pressures from both within and without the Church to retreat from their hitherto firm and unified opposition to the administration’s HHS mandate and its bogus “accommodation” of religious concerns, the Administrative Committee — which includes bishops from across the spectrum of Catholic opinion and which does the conference’s most urgent business between the semi-annual meetings of the entire episcopate — strongly reaffirmed statements by the conference president, Timothy Cardinal Dolan, and by individual bishops, that both the mandate and the “accommodation” are unacceptable. Moreover, the statement affirms, against charges of exaggeration, that present administration policy represents a threat to religious freedom of “unprecedented magnitude” that must be “rejected.” And as for those who have long sought to play divide-and-conquer in this affair — from government officials to journalists to advocates of Catholic Lite — they, too, are sent an unmistakable signal in the March 14 statement: “We will not be divided, and we will continue forward as one.”

In a deft response to the spin and distortion that have characterized this debate for two months, “United for Religious Freedom” usefully clarifies just what the argument is not:

This is not about access to contraception, which is ubiquitous and inexpensive. . . . This is not about the religious freedom of Catholics only, but also of those who recognize that their cherished beliefs may be next on the block. This is not about the bishops’ somehow ‘banning contraception,’ when the U.S. Supreme Court took that issue off the table two generations ago. Indeed, this is not about the Church wanting to force anybody to do anything; it is, instead, about the federal government forcing the Church . . . to act against Church teachings. This is not a matter of opposition to universal health care, which has been a concern of the Bishops’ Conference since 1919, virtually at its founding. This is not a fight we want or asked for, but one forced upon us by government on its own timing. Finally, this is not a Republican or Democratic, a conservative or liberal issue; it is an American issue.

The Administrative Committee’s statement then crisply defines what the HHS mandate involves.

It involves an “unwarranted” and “extremely narrow” definition of who is a “religious employer “ — a definition that “creates and enforces a new distinction” between Catholic houses of worship, on the one hand, and, on the other, the Church’s charitable activities and its educational efforts. According to the administration’s regulatory scheme, the latter will become “second class” citizens, in a dramatic break with both Catholic tradition and federal law...

It involves an attempt by the government to compel Catholic institutions that serve those of many faiths and no faith to violate Catholic teachings within the Church’s own institutions, which is both an intrinsic injustice and a gross intrusion of state power into the Church’s evangelical mission.

[...]

Thus those who expected the bishops to try and find some 50-yard line of agreement with the administration, a middle ground on which the Church’s institutions would be protected while individual Catholic employers would be left to the tender mercies of HHS, were proven exactly wrong: The bishops intend to defend religious freedom in full, and that defense will be all-in.

[...]

There will be no compromise here, for there can be no compromise of first principles. Those who understand that will gather their energies and continue to defend both Catholic and American tradition.

[Read the whole thing]

Previous Pro Ecclesia posts on this subject:
Cardinal Dolan: White House Lectured My USCCB Staff On How to Interpret Catholic Teaching!

George Weigel on Obama's "Divide and Conquer" Strategy: Obama, Not Bishops, Now Calling Shots for Catholic Church in U.S.

Divide and Conquer: Ross Douthat Notes Obama's HHS "Compromise" Merely a Means for ObamaCaths to Save Face

NO COMPROMISE !!!

Obama Administration Gives Opponents of HHS Mandate All the Evidence They Need to Convince Court of Free Exercise Violation

Health Care Reform and the Magisterium [UPDATED]

Cardinal George: Sr. Keehan Chose Obama Over Catholic Bishops

American Papist: Obama an Enemy to Catholic Unity

The Catholic Health Association and the Future of Catholic Unity

Sister Carol Keehan Misrepresents Her Support of the Health Care Bill

Bishop Tells Pro-Life Democrat: Nuns Can’t Absolve ObamaCare Vote

Establishing the "Alternative Magisterium"

Archbishop Chaput: Those Confusing the Catholic Stance on Health Care Will Bear the Blame for Anti-Life Effects of Heath Care Bill

Catholic Obama Supporters More Interested in Providing Cover Than Holding Obama's Feet to the Fire

Catholic Nuns Urge Passage of Obama's Health Bill

Obama's Catholic Strategy: Divide and Conquer

Cardinal Dolan: White House Lectured My USCCB Staff On How to Interpret Catholic Teaching!

From Tom Peters (aka AmericanPapist) at CatholicVote:

Cardinal Timothy Dolan sent a letter to his brother bishops earlier this week where he revealed a shocking conversation that recently took place at a meeting between White House and USCCB staff:

At a recent meeting between staff of the bishops’ conference and the White House staff, our staff members asked directly whether the broader concerns of religious freedom—that is, revisiting the straight-jacketing mandates, or broadening the maligned exemption—are all off the table. They were informed that they are. So much for “working out the wrinkles.” Instead, they advised the bishops’ conference that we should listen to the “enlightened” voices of accommodation, such as the recent, hardly surprising yet terribly unfortunate editorial in America. The White House seems to think we bishops simply do not know or understand Catholic teaching and so, taking a cue from its own definition of religious freedom, now has nominated its own handpicked official Catholic teachers

Let’s break this down so we don’t miss anything about the context or gravity of the situation:

[...]

5. After all of this, when the White House finally gets around to inviting staff authorized by the USCCB to negotiate on behalf of them, the White House says what to them?! First, they issue an ultimatum saying all compromise is off the table. So what on earth are they supposed to talk about if the White House refuses from the outset to compromise in any way, shape, or form? The cynical answer is the White House, once again, simply wanted to establish the appearance of dialogue while offering zero substance.

6. Then, the White House proceeds to lecture the USCCB staff about how to interpret Catholic teaching! Can you imagine anything more offensive? Telling Catholics how to be Catholic? They show them a copy of the America editorial as if a) the staff has not already read it and b) the U.S. Bishops give a fig what the editors of America think.

[...]

In other words, what we have here is NOT a failure to communicate. What we have here is an Administration and White House officials who believe they know Catholic teaching better than us. And who have the hubris to lecture us about what our faith teaches.

The editors of the Wall Street Journal comment:

As a study in ideology and power, the anecdote [of the White House meeting described above] is chilling, compounded by all the recent claims by Democrats and liberals that Catholics who actually abide by their faith are opposed to modernity. Such prejudice is supposedly defunct in contemporary America, except when it’s practiced against religion.

[Read the whole thing]

My Comments:
The astoundingly breathtaking arrogance of this White House in daring to lecture the Catholic Bishops on what Catholic theology "should" be sorta calls to mind the astoundingly breathtaking arrogance of Bill Clinton's press secretary Mike McCurry opining that John Cardinal O'Connor didn't understand Catholic teaching regarding the impermissibility of non-Catholics receiving the Eucharist at Mass:

... With breathtaking boldness, McCurry borrowed a tactic from Mario Cuomo and told the nation that Cardinal O’Connor, the country’s best-known Catholic prelate, simply misunderstands the policies of his own Church and that, if Americans seek authoritative guidance as to those policies, the White House will be glad to provide it. In effect those bishops who criticized the President were accused of being theologically deficient (believing that the Code of Canon Law governs the Church), a deficiency which, once again, the White House is prepared to remedy...

The current Obama White House has merely taken the Clinton/Cuomo playbook to the next level. Whereas the Clinton White House sought to try to re-define the Church's teachings in order to deflect away from the short-term effects of one of a number of recurring Clinton controversies and scandals, the Obama Administration is playing for the long-term - seeking to permanently change the Church's theology on a fundamental matter and permanently replace the Catholic hierarchy as the spokespersons for that teaching and for the Church.

[And, of course, as is indicative in the preceding link as well as in the current instance, there is never a shortage of DemoCath hacks (see, e.g., the usual suspects - you know who they are) who are always only too willing to put the good of the Democrat Party or of a particular Democrat politician ahead of supporting the Bishops of their Church on fundamental teachings or matters of religious liberty. Their party is their "church", and their "Church" is merely their cultural identity.]

Fortunately, Cardinal Dolan understands how to frame this issue in a way that highlights the Obama Administration's impermissible meddling into internal Church affairs. This is exactly the sort of evidence that will lead the Supreme Court to strike down the HHS Mandate on First Amendment grounds.


Previous Pro Ecclesia posts on this subject:
George Weigel on Obama's "Divide and Conquer" Strategy: Obama, Not Bishops, Now Calling Shots for Catholic Church in U.S.

Divide and Conquer: Ross Douthat Notes Obama's HHS "Compromise" Merely a Means for ObamaCaths to Save Face

Obama Administration Gives Opponents of HHS Mandate All the Evidence They Need to Convince Court of Free Exercise Violation

Health Care Reform and the Magisterium [UPDATED]

Cardinal George: Sr. Keehan Chose Obama Over Catholic Bishops

American Papist: Obama an Enemy to Catholic Unity

The Catholic Health Association and the Future of Catholic Unity

Sister Carol Keehan Misrepresents Her Support of the Health Care Bill

Bishop Tells Pro-Life Democrat: Nuns Can’t Absolve ObamaCare Vote

Establishing the "Alternative Magisterium"

Archbishop Chaput: Those Confusing the Catholic Stance on Health Care Will Bear the Blame for Anti-Life Effects of Heath Care Bill

Catholic Obama Supporters More Interested in Providing Cover Than Holding Obama's Feet to the Fire

Catholic Nuns Urge Passage of Obama's Health Bill

Obama's Catholic Strategy: Divide and Conquer

Romney Sells Out Congressional GOP - Comes Out Against Conscience Clause Bill Protecting Employers from HHS Contraception Mandate [UPDATED]

THIS is the REAL Mitt Romney:



Here's how Greg Sargent at The Washington Post is calling it:

Jim Heath, a reporter for ONN-TV in Ohio, just Tweeted a remarkable piece of news: Mitt Romney told him he does not support the Blunt amendment, which would empower employers and insurers to deny health coverage they find morally objectionable.

I just got off the phone with Heath, and he graciously played me the audio. Heath asks Romney if he’s for the “Blunt-Rubio” amendment, and defines it. Romney replies:

“I’m not for the bill. But, look, the idea of presidential candidates getting into questions about contraception within a relationship between a man and a woman, husband and wife, I’m not going there.”

That’s pretty remarkable. If Romney knew what he was saying, the Senate GOP caucus, which is set to vote on this amendment tomorrow, may feel as if Romney has pulled the rug out from underneath them. And this has become an important issue for conservatives. So it’ll be interesting to see how the base reacts to this, particularly since the GOP primary is anything but over and Rick Santorum — who’s perceived as a more reliable social conservative — is likely to use this to attack Romney, who will be under continued pressure to connect with social and religious conservatives.

Perhaps Romney now feels confident enough in victory in the GOP primary that he’s willing to risk some ire from the base in order to begin his pivot to general election mode in advance of winning the nomination.

[...]

UPDATE III: The Romney camp now says he’s for it:

“Regarding the Blunt bill, the way the question was asked was confusing,” a spokesman told TPM. “Governor Romney supports the Blunt Bill because he believes in a conscience exemption in health care for religious institutions and people of faith.”

You can see that all the RINOs [LIARS!] are trying to spin this by explaining that Mitt was confused about which bill they were talking about. Bull!!! DO NOT let the post-interview spin fool you. Romney's initial reaction is what he REALLY believes, and the spin is the Romney campaign scrambling to clean up another one of his messes. Here's how you can tell:

Notice how easily Mitt adopts the language of the left in describing the bill. Notice how he uses this opportunity to get to the left of Santorum and try to paint Santorum as some sort of "bedroom police" - again utilizing the rhetoric of the left.

And then recall how comfortable Mitt was in getting to Rick Perry's left on Social Security and adopting the language of the Democrats in essentially arguing that Perry was going to force Grandma to eat dogfood, or worse, was going to push Grandma off a cliff. Romney seemed like a natural in making those arguments, just as he seems like a natural in his arguments against the Blunt bill and criticizing Santorum's support of it.

Now, contrast those two instances of Romney feeling comfortable in his own skin with those many, many, many times during his campaign in which Romney seemed ill-at-ease and downright uncomfortable trying to sound like a "severe conservative" in his attempts to appeal to grassroots conservatives (i.e. the base of the GOP).

Why is that? I'll tell you why: Because, as Romney has said on multiple occasions, he can't be who he is not, and can only be who he is. Well, THIS is who he is. The Romney in that video - selling out Congressional Republicans trying to do the heavy lifting of overturning the HHS mandate - is who Romney is. Should he win the nomination, we will have an entire campaign season of Romney being who he is to the chagrin of conservatives. And in the unlikely event he were to defeat Obama, we would have an entire 4 years of Romney being who he is and the Republicans in Congress going along with him, again much to the chagrin of conservatives. And in 4 years, he'd be running for re-election, being who he really is, again much to the chagrin of conservatives.

DO NOT VOTE FOR THIS MAN. Not in the primary, and not in the general election. Because I believe in my heart of hearts that the Romney in the video above, and the Romney who demagogued Rick Perry on Social Security, is just the tip of the iceberg of who Romney REALLY is, I will NEVER, UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES, EVER vote for him.

And neither should you.


UPDATE
Even Romney sycophant Britt Hume notes the opportunism evident in Romney's answer to the question, as he seemed downright gleeful at the opportunity to get to the left of Santorum:

@ByronYork I thought Romney skipped past the question, to seize a chance to stick it to Santorum on contraception. Not a considered answer.

It may not have been "considered" in the sense that Romney let his mask slip, but make no mistake: the answer Romney gave reveals the TRUE core of Mitt Romney. Romney's core impulse is to run to the left of his opponent - that's his comfort zone. Heck, he even ran to the left of Ted Kennedy for crying outloud. If you want to get Romney off his game, force him to have to run to the right; but he's on his turf when it comes to taking the discussion leftward.


UPDATE #2
Lisa Graas has more, including the response from the Santorum campaign:

Verona, PA – Senator Roy Blunt (R-MO) and Marco Rubio (R-FL) proposed legislation that would prevent the government from forcing religious institutions to provide services against their faith doctrine. Today, former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney said he would oppose it. When Mitt Romney had the chance, he forced Massachusetts Catholic hospitals to go against their private beliefs and provide morning after abortion pills to patients. All the candidates are entitled to make misstatements here and there – but this is a much deeper issue.

Hogan Gidley, National Communications Director, said: “As Governor, Mitt Romney has a clear record of taking away the freedom of religion. We all know Romney’s liberal record on this, so when he’s asked a question about a bill that would protect our religious freedom – and Romney’s gut reaction is to say he’d oppose it – we shouldn’t be the least bit surprised.”

“On the other hand, Rick Santorum was asked the same question, but he wasn’t confused because Rick Santorum has consistently supported religious freedoms.”

UPDATE #3 (1 March)
New York Daily News: "Mitt Romney accused of flip-flopping on GOP-backed Blunt amendment on contraception".

A Bit of Irony That the Lamestream Media Appears to Have Missed

That there IS a candidate running for President this year who wants to use the federal government to impose his views regarding contraception upon people who don't share those views, and his name IS NOT Rick Santorum.

Georgetown Law Student: Georgetown Should Pay for Us to Have Sex Because We're Going Broke Buying Birth Control

Unreal:

At a hearing of the House Democratic Steering and Policy Committee yesterday, a single witness — Georgetown law student and “reproductive rights activist” Sandra Fluke — told sympathetic policy-makers that the administration’s so-called contraception mandate should stand … because her peers are going broke buying birth control.

“Forty percent of the female students at Georgetown Law reported to us that they struggled financially as a result of this policy (Georgetown student insurance not covering contraception),” Fluke reported.

It costs a female student $3,000 to have protected sex over the course of her three-year stint in law school, according to her calculations.

“Without insurance coverage, contraception, as you know, can cost a woman over $3,000 during law school,” Fluke told the hearing.

Craig Bannister at CNSNews.com did the math — and discovered that these co-eds, assuming they’re using the cheapest possible contraception, must be having unprotected sex about three times a day every day to incur that kind of expense. What Fluke is arguing, then, is that her fellow law students have a right to consequence-free sex whenever, wherever. Why, exactly, especially if it costs other people something? When I can’t pay for something, I do without it. Fortunately, in the case of contraception, women can make lifestyle choices that render it unnecessary...

[More]

Lady, if you want to be promiscuous to the tune of $3000 during your time at Georgetown Law School, that's your business. Knock yourself out. No one is going to stop you. Y'know, free will and all.

But to demand that the Catholic Church violate its teachings by providing you with the means for you to engage in your promiscuity is beyond arrogant. It's perverse.

This witness was called by "ardent, practicing Catholic", San Fran Nan the Theologian. Does she REALLY think testimony like this bolster's the Obama Administration's position on the HHS mandate? As one commenter at Hot Air put it:

Yes, PLEASE, trot out more privileged poster children like this. This is like an ad for our side.

Exactly.

Pelosi: Yes, of Course, the Catholic Church Should be Forced to Cover Contraception — Even If It’s Self-Insured [UPDATED]

Good Lord! What does it take for someone to get their ass excommunicated anymore?


Previous Pro Ecclesia posts on this subject:
And While They're At It ...

"Ardent, Practicing Catholic" Nancy Pelosi Says She Stands With Her "Fellow Catholics" in SUPPORTING the HHS Mandate


[UPDATE]
More from The Weekly Standard.

As the Debate Over the HHS Mandate Heats Up ...

... just a reminder:

"As a debate involving the Catholic Church (either a discussion about the Church specifically, or a discussion in which the Church is taking a position) grows longer, the probability of someone mentioning the sex scandal approaches one."
~ Anderson's Law

As longtime reader and commenter Terry points out in the comments at another post, these days it generally only takes one or two comments for it to happen.

Doug Kmiec Back in Obama's Embrace

"The Passion of the Kmiec" continues, as erstwhile Obamaphile, Doug Kmiec, resurrects his love affair with The One following the so-called "accomodation" on the HHS mandate.

I mean, we all KNEW this was going to happen, right? That's why so many greeted Kmiec's love / breakup letter to Obama with the outright contempt it deserved. All the signals were there in that letter that Kmiec would go rushing right back into the arms of his beloved at the first hint of an "I'm sorry". Not that Obama actually had to SAY "I'm sorry", or actually BE "sorry", or even change his ways. Just an acknowledgement that "I still need you" was enough for the battered ObamaCath to reconcile with his abuser.


The Passion of the Kmiec - A Pro Ecclesia Timeline:

February 2012
Doug Kmiec Back in Obama's Embrace

Doug Kmiec Thinks He's Breaking Up With Obama, But Obama Already Jilted Him First


September 2009
Kmiec Lies Again: "Obama Has Taken Some Steps Towards [Protecting Life], Perhaps Not as Fast as Some Would Like"


July 2009
"The Passion of the Kmiec" ... The Saga Continues


May 2009
Kmiec Tells Another Lie in Service of Obama

Robert P. George on "Obama and His Pro-Life Apologists"

Robert George vs Douglas Kmiec: How Should a Pro-Life Citizen Respond to Obama? [UPDATED]


April 2009
Cardinal Rigali Calls Out Kmiec on His ESCR Lies

A New Front in the Church's Civil War

Fr. Z Fisks Pathetic Sycophant Kmiec on Notre Dame's Obama Invite

Prof. George Schools Prof. Kmiec ... Again


March 2009
Scholar vs. Hack: Prof. George Schools Prof. Kmiec re: "Did Obama Allow Human Cloning?"

Kmiec Brushes Aside Another Non-Negotiable by Coming Out Against Prop 8


February 2009
Kmiec Calls Pope's Comments "Intrusive"

Catholic World Report: "Douglas Kmiec and His Misinformation Offensive for Barack Obama"


January 2009
Kmiec Claims He's In the Loop for Vatican Post

American Papist's Open Letter to Prof. Kmiec

Kmiec the Martyr

Prof. Kmiec Eulogizes Fr. Neuhaus in a Manner That is All About Prof. Kmiec and Justifying his Obama Vote [UPDATED]


December 2008
Prof. Bainbridge on Doug Kmiec and U.S. Diplomatic Relations with the Holy See


November 2008
Vatican Official Says Kmiec Will Not Become New Vatican Ambassador

The Kmiec Catholic Re-Education Camp

Former Student of Prof. Kmiec Calls Him Out on "Revealing His True Colors"

A Modern-Day "Vicar of Bray"

Douthat Smacks Kmiec

Amy's "Wrap-Up" of Pre-Election Abortion Coverage

Pathetic


October 2008
George Weigel on Kmiec's "Flawed Thinking"

Archbishop Chaput: Kmiec Doing a "Disservice to the Church"

Mainstream Media Compliant in Obama's "Faith Outreach" Pitch

Bill Donohue: "I'm Catholic, Staunchly Anti-Racist, and Support David Duke" [UPDATED]

Debate Over at Amy's: Should Catholics Work for Legal Restrictions on Abortion?

Deacon Fournier Puts Smack Down on Prof. Kmiec

Kmiec's Payoff? [UPDATED]


September 2008
The Obama-Kmiec Magical Mystery "Faith Tour"

Deacon Fournier: "Doug Kmiec’s ‘Can a Catholic Support Him?’ Asks the Wrong Question"

Ponnuru Raps Kmiec for Defending Obama's Born-Alive Vote

"Separate But Equal" Redux - Pro-Life Edition

Mark Stricherz: "Why the Democratic Abortion Strategy is Worse"

Whither the "Catholic Vote"? Some Interesting Posts at the Fidelis Blog


August 2008
Darwin Catholic: "Douglas Kmiec, Master of Dissembling" [UPDATED]

Prof. Rick Garnett on Kmiec's "Missing the Point"

A Former Student of Prof. Kmiec Speaks Out ...

Prof. Kmiec Shifts the Goalposts

Kmiec's "Bridge Too Far"? Obama's Attacks on Justice Thomas

Without Further Ado: Doug Kmiec on McCain v. Obama at Saddleback [UPDATED]

Paging Prof. Kmiec ...

Doug Kmiec Claims Democrats Making "Steps Toward Honoring Life" in Platform

Prof. Garnett Takes on Prof. Kmiec ... Again

Casey Jr. to Get Prime-Time Slot in Denver to Appease Catholics [UPDATED]


July 2008
Fr. Neuhaus Responds to Doug Kmiec

Deal Hudson's Open Letter to Doug Kmiec

National Catholic Register on Catholics, Kmiec, and Obama

Prof. Hadley Arkes: "Political Distraction Among the Catholics"


June 2008
Doug Kmiec - What He Said Then vs. What He Says Now Re: Constitutional Jurisprudence

What is the "Pro-Life Position" Regarding Abortion?

Traumatized

Unrequited Love

Doug Kmiec: "After Meeting with Barack" [UPDATED]

Cranky Conservative: "But At Least He Says It with a Smile"

Doug Kmiec Again Places Platitudes Above Policy [UPDATED]

Prof. Bainbridge on "Obama, Abortion, & Catholics"

Prof. Rick Garnett on Kmiec's Latest Nonsense

Deacon Keith Fournier: "Why I Disagree with Doug Kmiec, Once Again"

Give It a Rest Already, Prof. Kmiec!

Doug Kmiec's Newfound Celebrity Status Among Those on the Left

Doug Kmiec Soon To Be Sorely Disappointed

E.J. Dionne on Kmiec Being Denied Communion [UPDATED]


May 2008
Deal Hudson on Prof. Kmiec and Blurring the Lines Between "Pro-Choice" and Pro-Abortion

Did Doug Kmiec Just Now Catch On That Obama and NARAL Are Politically Conjoined? [UPDATED]

Deal Hudson on "How Obama's Catholics Will Dodge the Infanticide Question"

Kmiec's Dishonesty [UPDATED]

Catholic Teaching and Political Risk Taking: When Credit Isn't Given Where Credit is Due [UPDATED]


April 2008
Kmiec's Wishful Thinking on Obama and Abortion


March 2008
The Curt Jester: "Shameless Garment" [UPDATED]

So-Called "Catholic Reaganite" Doug Kmiec Endorses Obama [UPDATED]

No'bama for Me, Thanks"

Can a Catholic Vote for Obama?


February 2008
Obama's Pledge to Planned Parenthood: "I Will Not Yield"

"Why American Catholics are Supporting Barack Obama"

How the Catholic Left Will Tackle McCain

Why Does Kmiec Criticize McCain for Positions on Which He Gave Romney a Pass?

Deal Hudson on "Douglas Kmiec and the Lure of Obama"

Douglas W. Kmiec on "The Moral Duty to Inquire"

Professor Bainbridge: "Will Catholic Reaganites Go for Obama?"

Deal Hudson: "Preacher Man: Barack Obama and the the Gospel of Liberalism"

"Sorry, Doug Kmiec, But This Catholic Isn't Buying Obama"

Ramesh Ponnuru on Douglas Kmiec and "Catholic Reaganites for Obama" [UPDATED]

Romney Advisor Says Obama "a Natural for the Catholic Vote"

Fr. Z: "Keep Your Ovaries Off My Rosaries"

Fr. Z writes:

I just received this by email. I wish I had thought of it, but I’ll be happy to share some of the credit for spreading it around:

Doubtless you have heard the distasteful, yet pithy and memorable slogan of the pro-abortion crowd, which they use to dismiss religiously-based arguments against abortion and contraception: “Keep your Rosaries off my Ovaries.”

It seems to me that now the upper hand is on the other foot, to quote Lloyd Bridges.

Now those who loudly decry any impositions upon their consciences are trying with every fiber of their being to impose upon the consciences of others.

Mightn’t we loudly shout in reply:

“Keep your Ovaries off my Rosaries”?

[More]

Previous Pro Ecclesia posts on this subject:
Dawn Eden to Sen. Biden: "Keep Your Rosaries Off My Uvula!"

Obama's Unacceptable "Accommodation"

At Mirror of Justice, Prof. Robert George writes:

... This so-called “accommodation” changes nothing of moral substance and fails to remove the assault on religious liberty and the rights of conscience which gave rise to the controversy. It is certainly no compromise. The reason for the original bipartisan uproar was the administration’s insistence that religious employers, be they institutions or individuals, provide insurance that covered services they regard as gravely immoral and unjust. Under the new rule, the government still coerces religious institutions and individuals to purchase insurance policies that include the very same services.

[...]

The simple fact is that the Obama administration is compelling religious people and institutions who are employers to purchase a health insurance contract that provides abortion-inducing drugs, contraception, and sterilization. This is a grave violation of religious freedom and cannot stand. It is an insult to the intelligence of Catholics, Protestants, Eastern Orthodox Christians, Jews, Muslims, and other people of faith and conscience to imagine that they will accept an assault on their religious liberty if only it is covered up by a cheap accounting trick.

Finally, it bears noting that by sustaining the original narrow exemptions for churches, auxiliaries, and religious orders, the administration has effectively admitted that the new policy (like the old one) amounts to a grave infringement on religious liberty. The administration still fails to understand that institutions that employ and serve others of different or no faith are still engaged in a religious mission and, as such, enjoy the protections of the First Amendment.

[More]

Prof. George also links to the text of a statement drafted by Prof. George, John Garvey, Mary Ann Glendon, Carter Snead, and Yuval Levin, and signed by dozens of scholars, university presidents, and others, rejecting the accommodation as a mere accounting trick that does nothing of moral substance to eliminate the mandate's unjust and unconstitutional imposition on religious freedom and the rights of conscience.


Previous Pro Ecclesia posts on this subject:
Before and After

And While They're At It ...

Sr. Carol Keehan ...

NO COMPROMISE !!!

Obama to Catholics: Caring for "Least of These" is "Religious Obligation" for Me, But NOT for Thee

Obama Administration Gives Opponents of HHS Mandate All the Evidence They Need to Convince Court of Free Exercise Violation

Before and After

(Image courtesy of phatmass.com)

Obama NEVER Compromises. You compromise your principles, he gets everything he wants, and then he calls that "striking the appropriate balance".

He's a liar and a tyrant. And this will not stand.

And While They're At It ...

... the Bishops may as well go ahead and excommunicate the Harlot of Babylon ... errrrr ... I mean ... the Congresswoman from San Francisco for believing that religious freedom (the right the Founders decided to mention FIRST in the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights) is a mere "excuse" standing in the way of the "fundamental right" to sex without consequences ... errrrr ... I mean ... so-called "women's health".


Previous Pro Ecclesia posts on this subject:
"Ardent, Practicing Catholic" Nancy Pelosi Says She Stands With Her "Fellow Catholics" in SUPPORTING the HHS Mandate

San Fran Nan the Theologian Strikes Again: Obama Has More Patience Than Biblical Job

Pelosi Says No "Common Ground" on Abortion: Calls for Scorched-Earth War Against Catholic Church, Pro-Lifers, GOP, et al

San Fran Nan the Theologian Won't Say at What Point Word Became Flesh

Pro-Abortion "Ardent, Practicing Catholic Grandmother" Just Doing What Jesus Would Do [UPDATED]

Bishop Morlino: “Speaker Pelosi is Not Called by Jesus Christ to Lead the Catholic Faithful”

Nancy Pelosi ... Dumb@$$

U.S. Catholic Bishops Conference Contradicts Pelosi's Claim That Senate Health Bill Doesn't Fund Abortion

San Fran Nan Gets Taken to the Woodshed: Speaker Pelosi’s Bishop Corrects Her Once Again

Boston-Area Priest: Pastoral/Teaching Approach Has Failed Miserably in Persuading "Pro-Choice" Catholics of Their Error"

"Ardent Practicing" Conservative Catholic Grandmother™ Calls Opponents of ObamaCare Nazis

Pelosi Accused of Muzzling Opposition to Taxpayer-Funded D.C. Abortions

Wuerl: Why I Won't Deny Pelosi CommunionPope to Speaker Pelosi: Reject Abortion Support [UPDATED]

"Conservative Catholic Grandmother"™ Pelosi Backs Down: Contraception Removed from "Stimulus Package"

"Conservative Catholic Grandmother"™ Pelosi Says Birth Control a Boon for the Economy [UPDATED]

More U.S. Bishops Issue Statements on Abortion

LA Times Columnist Lies to Cover for Pelosi

Obama Camp to Speaker Pelosi: "Shut Up, Already!"

The Follow-Up Question Brokaw Should've Asked

Pelosi: St. Augustine Agrees With Me - That's My Story and I'm Sticking to It [UPDATED]

Archbishop Chaput on Speaker Pelosi: "On the Separation of Sense and State" [UPDATED]

Biblical Scholars Challenge Pelosi's "Scripture" Quote

Pro-Abort Catholic Politicians to Receive Communion at Papal Mass [UPDATED]

"Conservative Catholic Grandmother" Pelosi Defends Removal of "God" from Flag Certificates

President Bush to Veto Stem Cell Bill

Never Mind Church Teaching, Catholic Nancy Pelosi Says ESCR "a Gift of God"

"Anti-Catholic" Pelosi Accused of Promoting "Culture of Death"

Pelosi Sings Praises of Embryo Destruction

Bishop Vasa on Nancy Pelosi: It's "Categorically Impossible" to be Catholic and Hold Abortion is "Just a Choice"

Worth a Thousand Words

Nancy Pelosi: "My Family is Very Pro-Life"

Catholicism, Pelosi style

Archbishop Wuerl's Stand on Lawmakers Who Back Abortion Angers Some Conservative Catholics

NARAL Pro-Choice America Salutes Nancy Pelosi on Her Inauguration as Speaker of the House

More on Speaker Pelosi at Open Book

A Catholic Speaker in the House

American Life League's Judie Brown: Pro-Abortion Pelosi Insults Catholic Faith