Popes Francis and Benedict Trashed by Lying Prelates and Their Toady Deacons [UPDATED]

Actually, they were trying to praise Francis at Benedict's expense, but wound up making Francis sound small and petty, thus trashing both men with their lies.

Elizabeth Scalia has the story. Read it there and then my comments below will make sense. But here's the money quote:

By now you’re dying to know the story, but I will not repeat it, because that would be a backward obedience to the father of lies. I will tell you that the tale purports to be about a cruel and utterly bitchy remark, made by Francis (as he was vesting as pope for the first time) and directed to an underling only doing his job; moreover the bitchiness was understood to be a swipe against Francis’ predecessor, Benedict.

I am just sick enough, though, to suspend any last vestiges of tact and grace that still reside within me and call this vicious little rumor out as the Pure-D Bullshit I believe it to be.

[...]

No, the snippy little remark we have seen attributed to Francis and repeated in sad places (to, apparent applause in sad pews) seems like the fantasy of a soured spirit — the thoughts of a craven kind of person — perhaps a Cardinal whose own career is cornered and against the wall, imagining what he would have said and done had he been elected, and loving it so much, he just has to share it.

Perhaps the sort of man who spent the first few days after the papal election swanking around Rome, and social media, dropping remarks that made him sound like a 14 year-old fashion reporter settling scores with an editor who banished him from further attempts at his own designs. So small and venal he was even content to misrepresent the point of the traditional red shoes of a pope — meant to symbolize the blood of martyrs that has propelled the church forward, all these centuries — by defining them down as a meaningless affectation.

Yes, that’s small and bitchy. From a “prince” of the church...

That's some bold speculation on Elizabeth's part, but I think she's probably correct as to the source of this rumor. And "bitchy" was my exact first thought when I heard the rumor (which I won't repeat here either, but there's plenty of other sources where you can find it).

Neither does Elizabeth name names, but I will. The speculation is that the false quote attributed to Pope Francis originated with the disgraced reprobate Cardinal Mahony, and the story was passed on to a deacon of the Los Angeles Archdiocese, Eric Stoltz (no, not the actor), who related it to his congregation - DURING MASS - and to wild applause. And then bragged about it via social media afterward (it's even included on his Facebook cover photo ... jerk). Sorta like his former boss:

Yes, Elizabeth's description "bitchy" fits quite well. 


UPDATE
More on the rumor/lie from La Stampa (NOTE: I said earlier in this post that I wouldn't repeat the rumor here, but it does appear in the quoted text below):

... But urban myths started to circulate within the first few hours of his papacy. According to one of these rumours, straight after his election, Francis apparently refused to wear the red velvet mozzetta trimmed with (synthetic) ermine, saying to the Master of Papal Ceremonies, Guido Marini: “You can wear it! The carnival’s over.” A rude and boorish comment to make to the Master of Ceremonies. As far as Vatican Insider has learnt, said comment was never made. As Marini placed the mozzetta on Francis, the Pope simply said: “I would prefer you didn’t.” No reference was made [to] the carnival and no humiliating comment was made against the Master of Ceremonies....

(emphasis added)

Most people with a functioning moral compass recoil in horror at the thought that our humble Holy Father might say something as mean and nasty as that, which is why we know it, instinctively, not to be true. But, in those holding positions of authority in the Church who react with elation to this false story and gleefully spread it around, we are apparently not dealing with fully functioning moral compasses.

Romney's Sister: Romney Administration Would Not Work to End Abortion; “Not His Focus.”

From one of the women who knows Romney best, his sister:

Mitt Romney’s eldest sister, who has backed prominent Democrats for office and is in Tampa showing support for her brother, had some reassuring words Wednesday for women concerned about the Republican Party’s hard line on abortion.

Mitt Romney would never make abortions illegal as president, Jane Romney said when National Journal asked her about the subject after a “Women for Mitt” event. "He’s not going to be touching any of that,” she said. “It’s not his focus.”

[...]

But as Jane Romney put it, “Mitt’s much more in the middle” when it comes to abortion.

Mitt Romney has said he supports legal abortion in cases of rape and incest, and when the life of the mother is in danger. As for the fate of abortion rights, “Recognize this is the decision that will be made by the Supreme Court," he said in an interview with CBS News this week. "The Democrats try and make this a political issue every four years, but this is a matter in the courts. It's been settled for some time in the courts."

Jane Romney said she believes “life is sacred” and suggested those seeking abortion should be required to undergo counseling. But she also said that abortion should “absolutely” be safe and legal. “Every woman needs to be left to make her own choice,” she said.

A ban on abortion is “never going to happen” under a Romney administration, Jane Romney said. “Women would take to the streets. Women fought for our choice, we’re not going to go back."

[...]

With the way Romney has backed off in the last few days from the pro-life stance he pretended to hold in order to win the GOP primary, does anyone REALLY doubt that Romney's sister is entirely correct in her assessment of him? She's right about Romney. And what's more, we all KNOW that she's right about him.

And, yet, pro-lifers are falling all over themselves to get this guy elected, even going so far as to say that those of us who will not vote for Romney because of his weak position on life are not authentically "pro-life". [NOTE: It was this piece that caused me to drop LifeNews from my Facebook feed.]

I have been saying for years that Romney is a fraud on the pro-life issue, trying to be all things to all people. But when it comes time to fight for anti-Roe judges, or for defunding Planned Parenthood, or for any other controversial right-to-life initiative, does anyone really believe that Romney will go to the mat in the same way the Dems are willing to fight to the death for abortion? Of course not. It is my heartfelt belief that pro-lifers will come to rue the day they ever supported Mitt Romney's bid for the presidency.

And, yet, the pro-life movement continues to make preposterous claims on Romney's behalf. Just stop. It is one thing to say that Obama is just so much worse that supporting Romney is a necessary evil. But pro-lifers just need to stop claiming that there is otherwise a pro-life argument in Romney's favor. There's just not. And, if he's elected, pro-lifers will eventually ask themselves "What were we thinking in supporting this guy?"

Allegedly "Pro-Life" Romney Holds Fundraiser With Abortion Drug Manufacturer; CatholicVote Sells Soul in Response

DO NOT VOTE FOR THAT FRAUD MITT ROMNEY !!!

MIAMI, FLORIDA, May 17, 2012, (LifeSiteNews.com) – Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney scheduled a $50,000-a-plate fundraiser at the home of Phil Frost, the executive of the company that makes the Morning After Pill, on Wednesday night. Plan B One-Step is produced by Teva Pharmaceuticals, Frost’s company.

The pharmaceutical executive’s residence was one of several stops scheduled to increase Romney’s war chest during a two-day swing through Florida.

“It’s a huge disappointment,” Brian Camenker, director of the Massachusetts-based pro-family organization MassResistance told LifeSiteNews.com. “You wouldn’t see someone who was really pro-life doing a fundraiser with somebody who helped the abortion industry.”

Brian Burch, president of CatholicVote.org, didn’t seem troubled by the fundraiser saying, “What matters is whether a President Romney will end all taxpayer support for abortion-inducing drugs, repeal unconstitutional mandates that force private institutions to cover such drugs, and whether he will make progress in building a culture of life.” [ED.: But isn't this a fairly good indication that Romney is NOT what he proclaims himself to be on life issues? On what basis are we to conclude that Romney will follow through on the pro-life initiatives that CatholicVote proclaims are "what matters"? On what basis are we to believe that Romney is going to cut off federal funds from flowing to a guy who just hosted a $50,000 per plate fundraiser for him?!?!?]

[More]

... But for Wales, CatholicVote? Look, we know you're in the tank for the guy now that Santorum is out, but at least have the decency and consistency of principle to call the guy out in no uncertain terms when he does crap like this.

Folks, don't listen to the professional Catholics who inevitably expose themselves as Republican-first-pro-life-second political hacks. You DON'T have to settle for the fraud Mitt Romney. You DO have a pro-life choice in this election.

Vote the 100% pro-life (with no exceptions) Constitution Party and its 100% pro-life (with no exceptions) nominee for President, Virgil Goode.

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".

Romney Attacks Santorum for Focus on Social Issues

Just more evidence for why I will NEVER, UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES, EVER vote for Dullard Flip Rino: He doesn't care about (and, in fact, is on the opposite side of) the issues that matter most to me.

Just Another of My Occasional Reminders ...

... that I won't be voting for Mitt Romney (a.k.a. Dullard Flip Rino) UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES. Not in the primaries, and not in the general election should he be nominated.

NEVER. NOT UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES. EVER!

I'm rooting for Santorum to win the nomination. Should he fail (and I believe he is the only one left with a real shot at denying Romney the nomination), I will not settle for being force-fed yet another establishment RINO.

But should Romney wind up being the GOP nominee, this year I will have a real 3rd-party choice: my friend, Virgil Goode who is seeking (and should win) the Constitution Party nomination.


(And please don't come here spouting such nonsensical and demonstrably false platitudes as "A vote for an unelectable 3rd-party candidate is a vote for Obama". Should anyone ever feel so inclined, just keep such inane rhetoric to yourself. It's not convincing, and such nonsense will not change my mind. In fact, the more I hear it, especially to justify a vote for Dullard Flip "Obama Lite" Rino, it only further entrenches me in my views. So save your energy - you'll need it to continue to justify the unjustifiable to an increasing number of skeptical conservative voters. For my part, should Romney win the GOP nomination, I will actively campaign against him and in favor of Virgil Goode, and will try to convince as many conservative and independent voters as I can not to waste their votes on a candidate they don't believe in, but to support a true conservative like Virgil Goode instead.)

Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell is a Coward - Sells Out Pro-Lifers for Spot on Romney Ticket [UPDATED]

Some "pro-life Catholic". I can't believe I ever wanted this d-bag to be President some day:

Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell, a Romney supporter and leading contender for the VP spot on a Romney-headed ticket, demonstrated his complete philosophical alignment with Romney yesterday by flipflopping on a bill he has championed and in the process hanging VA GOP delegates out to dry.

For those who haven’t been paying attention, Virginia’s legislature has been going after the abortion industry root and branch. Last year they passed a law requiring aborttoirs to be regulated as if they did what they do: perform a surgical procedure which can be life threatening. This year a bill is being finalized that requires a woman seeking an abortion to see ultrasound pictures of the baby. Somehow this bill, which does not require any medical procedure the woman was not going to receive in the first place, has the pro-abortion lobby in a tizzy. Dahlia Lithwick at Slate has predictably styled this as rape.

Up until yesterday, Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell had unconditionally supported the bill.

Gov. Robert F. McDonnell is backing off his unconditional support for a bill requiring women to have an ultrasound before an abortion, focusing new attention on one of the most controversial pieces of legislation in Virginia’s General Assembly this year.

Until this weekend, McDonnell (R) and his aides had said the governor would sign the measure if it made it to his desk. McDonnell, who strongly opposes abortion, will no longer make that commitment.

[...]

There is only one explanation that fits all the facts. McDonnell wants to be Mitt Romney’s choice for vice president should Romney almost certainly win the GOP nomination. The ultrasound bill is causing too much controversy and probably has Romney’s handlers wearing brown trousers at the thought of having to actually take a pro-life position in a general election campaign. McDonnell takes to opportunity to look moderate and abandons ship...

[More]

My Comments:
I already knew Dullard Flip Rino was a pro-abort squish, so his discomfort with the recently-passed Virginia pro-life law comes as no surprise to me. But for an allegedly "pro-life Catholic" like Bob McDonnell to suddenly go wobbly and hint opposition to signing the pro-life law just to appease Romney's handlers? May he rot.

A couple of weeks ago, I wrote in regards to Bob McDonnell:

When Romney does finally go down to an inglorious defeat (and he will, be it either in the primaries (hopefully, to Santorum) or in the general election), I hope like hell he takes people like Bob McDonnell down with him.

McDonnell's egregious sell-out of the pro-life cause (much worse than Santorum's sell-out of pro-lifers by endorsing Specter) for the sake of raw political ambition and a potential spot on a Romney ticket makes that outcome inevitable. May he fall far and fall hard.


UPDATE:
Here's McDonnell's statement from today on this matter:

I am pro-life. I believe deeply in the sanctity of innocent human life and believe governments have a duty to protect human life. The more our society embraces a culture of life for all people, the better country we will have. Over the course of my 20-year career in elected office, I have been glad to play a leading role in putting in place common-sense policies that protect and defend innocent human life in the Commonwealth. One of those bills was Virginia's informed consent statute, of which I was the chief patron in the House of Delegates, finally seeing its passage in 2001. This session, the General Assembly is now considering amending this informed consent statute to include a requirement that any woman seeking an abortion receive an ultrasound in order to establish the gestational age for appropriate medical purposes, and to offer a woman the opportunity to voluntarily review that ultrasound prior to giving her legal informed consent to abortion.

Over the past days I have discussed the specific language of the proposed legislation with other governors, physicians, attorneys, legislators, advocacy groups, and citizens. It is apparent that several amendments to the proposed legislation are needed to address various medical and legal issues which have arisen. It is clear that in the majority of cases, a routine external, transabdominal ultrasound is sufficient to meet the bill's stated purpose, that is, to determine gestational age. I have come to understand that the medical practice and standard of care currently guide physicians to use other procedures to find the gestational age of the child, when abdominal ultrasounds cannot do so. Determining gestational age is essential for legal reasons, to know the trimester of the pregnancy in order to comply with the law, and for medical reasons as well.

Thus, having looked at the current proposal, I believe there is no need to direct by statute that further invasive ultrasound procedures be done. Mandating an invasive procedure in order to give informed consent is not a proper role for the state. No person should be directed to undergo an invasive procedure by the state, without their consent, as a precondition to another medical procedure.

For this reason, I have recommended to the General Assembly a series of amendments to this bill...

You can read the snivelling rest if you'd like, but it's the weasel words of a liar, a hypocrite, and a coward, so take it for what it's worth.


UPDATE #2
And for those of you keeping score at home, rack up another huge victory for Planned Parenthood.

Between (1) electing the most pro-abortion President in history, (2) passing Obamacare, (3) successfully rallying the Democrats to hold out and defeat the Stupak Amendment thereto, (4) having the President take the government to the brink of shutdown rather than deprive Planned Parenthood of one penny of taxpayer money in the federal budget, (5) getting the opportunity to put the screws to their arch-enemy the Catholic Church by being invited to help write the HHS mandate requiring the Church to violate its teachings by covering contraceptives, abortifacients, and sterilization, (6) cowing Susan G. Komen back into the Planned Parenthood fold via a campaign of intimidation, and now (7) cowing an allegedly pro-life Catholic governor who previously had strong social conservative bona fides into backing down on signing one of the more pro-life pieces of legislation to have passed in a long time, Planned Parenthood is on quite an impressive role.

It would be difficult to argue that any private organization in the country comes close to matching the power and clout of Planned Parenthood. They certainly seem to always get their way.


UPDATE #3
“You know what I’m concerned about? I’m concerned about the budget.”

And the transformation to Establishment-RINO-Fiscal-Conservative-Social-Moderate (and don't bother me with all those divisive social issues) is complete.

Jerk.


UPDATE #4
Posting this update just because I want to use this word, and didn't think of it when writing any of my previous descriptions of McDonnell:


CRAVEN

That is all.

Previous Pro Ecclesia posts on this subject:
Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell: Romney's Anti-Santorum Hatchet Man [UPDATED]

Romney Lying About Santorum's Record on Spending

But when you're a liberal RINO who governed like Obama-lite who is pretending to be a conservative in order to win the GOP nomination but who has no conservative record to run on (like Dullard Flip Rino), smearing your opponents with lies is all you have.

But here's the truth:

Mitt Romney is now arguing that Rick Santorum’s record exposes him as one of those Republicans who “act like Democrats” once they get to Washington. Romney surrogate Tim Pawlenty adds that Santorum “clearly has been part of the big-spending establishment in Congress.” Another Romney surrogate, former senator Jim Talent, says of Santorum, “He certainly has been outspoken on social issues . . . but when you get outside those issues into fiscal, spending, regulatory issues, his record shows that he’s been in the liberal wing of the Republican party.”

[...]

So, is Romney’s claim true? Was Santorum a spendthrift in the Senate? Fortunately, credible third party analysis is available to help us answer this question, so we need not merely accept the Romney campaign’s verdict as the final word on the matter.

The National Taxpayers Union (NTU) has been rating members of Congress for 20 years. NTU is an independent, non-partisan organization that — per its mission statement — “mobilizes elected officials and the general public on behalf of tax relief and reform, lower and less wasteful spending, individual liberty, and free enterprise.” Steve Forbes serves on its board of directors.

For each session of Congress, NTU scores each member on an A-to-F scale. NTU weights members’ votes based on those votes’ perceived effect on both the immediate and future size of the federal budget. Those who get A’s are among “the strongest supporters of responsible tax and spending policies”; they receive NTU’s “Taxpayers’ Friend Award.” B’s are “good” scores, C’s are “minimally acceptable” scores, D’s are “poor” scores, and F’s earn their recipients membership in the “Big Spender” category. There is no grade inflation whatsoever, as we shall see.

NTU’s scoring paints a radically different picture of Santorum’s 12-year tenure in the Senate (1995 through 2006) than one would glean from the rhetoric of the Romney campaign. Fifty senators served throughout Santorum’s two terms: 25 Republicans, 24 Democrats, and 1 Republican/Independent. On a 4-point scale (awarding 4 for an A, 3.3 for a B+, 3 for a B, 2.7 for a B-, etc.), those 50 senators’ collective grade point average (GPA) across the 12 years was 1.69 — which amounts to a C-. Meanwhile, Santorum’s GPA was 3.66 — or an A-. Santorum’s GPA placed him in the top 10 percent of senators, as he ranked 5th out of 50.

Across the 12 years in question, only 6 of the 50 senators got A’s in more than half the years. Santorum was one of them. He was also one of only 7 senators who never got less than a B. (Jim Talent served only during Santorum’s final four years, but he always got less than a B, earning a B- every year and a GPA of 2.7.) Moreover, while much of the Republican party lost its fiscal footing after George W. Bush took office — although it would be erroneous to say that the Republicans were nearly as profligate as the Democrats — Santorum was the only senator who got A’s in every year of Bush’s first term. None of the other 49 senators could match Santorum’s 4.0 GPA over that span.

This much alone would paint an impressive portrait of fiscal conservatism on Santorum’s part. Yet it doesn’t even take into account a crucial point: Santorum was representing Pennsylvania.

[...]

Among the roughly one-third of senators (18 out of 50) who represented states that — based on this measure — were at least as far to the left as Pennsylvania, Santorum was the most fiscally conservative. Even more telling was the canyon between him and the rest. After Santorum’s overall 3.66 GPA, the runner-up GPA among this group was 2.07, registered by Olympia Snowe (R., Maine). Arlen Specter, Santorum’s fellow Pennsylvania Republican, was next, with a GPA of 1.98. The average GPA among senators who represented states at least as far left as Pennsylvania was 0.52 — or barely a D-.

But Santorum also crushed the senators in the other states. Those 32 senators, representing states that on average were 16 points to the right of Pennsylvania in the presidential elections, had an average GPA of 2.35 — a C+.

In fact, considering the state he was representing, one could certainly make the case that Santorum was the most fiscally conservative senator during his tenure.

[Read the whole thing]

(emphasis added)

Fortunately, Santorum is running an ad that will hopefully innoculate him from Romney's attack machine:

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"

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

Yesterday, I blogged about Ross Douthat's "Divide and Conquer" piece at The New York Times, which pointed out that Obama's so-called "accomodation" on the HHS mandate was merely a means to sow dissension and confusion among Catholics.

Writing today at National Review, George Weigel has a piece titled "Divide and Conquer?", which makes the same argument while fleshing out the issue of who has "primacy" in speaking for the Catholic Church in the U.S.:

... The notion of a “primate” has little operational meaning throughout the Catholic Church in the 21st century. The Second Vatican Council mandated that every country have a national bishops’ conference. So, today, the president of the national conference is understood to be the principal figure in any local Church. Everyone understands, for example, that Cardinal-designate Timothy Dolan, as president of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, speaks for the Church in the United States in a singular way, especially when he speaks for a united bishops’ conference on matters of first principles.

Everyone, that is, but the Obama White House.

[...]

In the administration’s view, then, primacy in the Catholic Church is not conferred by the pope, but by the White House. Thus Sister Carol Keehan could be recognized by the president’s chief of staff as primate of the Catholic Church in the United States, because she headed an organization that “knows a fair amount about . . . health care in this country” — unlike, for example, those mulish bishops who had failed to be taken in by the administration’s shell game.

That the administration would play divide-and-conquer with the Catholic Church in its attempt to ram through the HHS mandate was obvious from the outset, although the White House was likely surprised by the virtual unanimity of Catholic opposition to the mandate’s announcement on January 20 — a unanimity breached only by the likes of Catholics for Choice, a front group for pro-abortion donors that Lenin would have recognized as a gaggle of “useful idiots.” Indeed, the very rollout of the “accommodation” on February 10 reeked of divide-and-conquer. As Cardinal-designate Dolan has made clear in recent interviews, the White House called Father John Jenkins, C.S.C., president of the University of Notre Dame, with news of the “accommodation,” before it called the president of the bishops conference. Father Jenkins, to his great credit, told the White House that they had the wrong number and that they had to call Dolan...

[...]

In one respect, none of this should have been surprising. As I wrote in May 2009, President Obama’s commencement address at Notre Dame was striking in its attempt to inject the president and his office into a longstanding Catholic debate over Catholic identity in the United States. American religious history, I noted, had been rife with arguments about religious identity for centuries: Puritan identity, Baptist identity, Presbyterian identity, Episcopalian identity, Lutheran identity, and Jewish identity had all been contested, often vigorously and sometimes bitterly. But no president before Barack Obama had ever insinuated himself or his office into those intra-confessional debates, anointing good guys and implicitly condemning bad guys. Yet that is precisely what Obama did at Notre Dame: The good (as in “real”) Catholics were to be those who followed his lead (and those of his putative Catholic precursors, such as the late Cardinal Joseph Bernardin and longtime Notre Dame president Father Theodore Hesburgh, C.S.C.); the bad Catholics (as in faux-Catholics) would be . . . well, the kind of Catholics who recognized the administration “accommodation” on the HHS mandate as the ruse it was and is.

[Read the whole thing]

(emphasis added)

My Comments:
As I pointed out last week, the Obama Administration has inserted itself into an internal Church matter and has made a value judgment that those Catholics who do not abide by the Church's teachings on abortion, birth control, abortifacients, and sterilization (and, let's be honest, same-sex "marriage" is next up on the agenda) are the "REAL" Catholics in America, and that the Bishops and the teachings they uphold are out of date in their beliefs, out of step with their members and ... as of now ... out of power. Because, as noted in my post yesterday, it is now Obama under cover of this "alternative magisterium" of ObamaCaths, rather than the Catholic Bishops, who is effectively the de facto policymaker for the Catholic Church in the United States. Primacy indeed.


Previous Pro Ecclesia posts on this subject:
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

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

Ross Douthat writes at The New York Times:

So far as I can tell, the White House’s proposed “compromise” in the contraception-sterilization-plan B-ella controversy asks the parties involved to compromise their reasoning faculties and play a game of “let’s pretend” instead. The revised regulation allows religious institutions to pretend that they aren’t actually purchasing an insurance plan that covers services they find morally objectionable, because their insurance companies will be required to pretend that they’re supplying these services free of charge. But fond illusions about “free” services aside, it’s hard to see how a system in which Catholic hospitals and colleges are required to purchase health insurance for their employees from insurers that are required to cover birth control, sterilizations and the morning- and days-after pills is meaningfully different from the original Health and Human Services mandate. As Yuval Levin writes, ”the choice for religious employers is still between paying an insurer to provide their workers with access to a product that violates their convictions or paying a fine to the government.” The rule has been changed, but the reality remains the same.

[...]

While the original mandate was just an imposition by the state, the new policy is an accommodation by secular authorities for the convenience of some of the faithful — those believers, in particular, who were offended by the baldness of the White House’s indifference to religious scruples but who broke with the administration more in sorrow than in anger. It’s essentially a salve for the consciences of pro-Obamacare Catholics, as my colleague Laurie Goodstein points out in a perceptive analysis:

For the White House, the decision announced Friday to soften a rule requiring religious-affiliated organizations to pay for insurance plans that offer free birth control was never really driven by a desire to mollify Roman Catholic bishops, who were strongly opposed to the plan.

Rather, the fight was for Sister Carol Keehan — head of an influential Catholic hospital group, who had supported President Obama’s health care law — and Catholic allies of the White House seen as the religious left. Sister Keehan had told the White House that the new rule, part of the health care law, went too far...

[...]

The new rule, though, is much more savvy: Because it speaks the language of compromise and conscience, it provides grounds for anyone who desperately wants to believe in it to believe in it, even as it leaves the underlying policy more or less unchanged. (It’s telling, in this regard, that the Washington Post’s E.J. Dionne managed to write an entire column today defending the compromise without once engaging with its substance.)

And by winning back the Catholics who wanted to be won back, the White House may have successfully defused the immediate crisis that its own ineptness created...

[Read the whole thing]

There is no doubt that this "accomodation" was targeted at winning over what Fr. Z has termed "the Magisterium of Nuns" (Obama's spokesperson said as much two days ago while making the rounds on the Sunday talk show circuit), thus once again sowing dissension and confusion among Catholics over who it is that speaks for the Catholic Church. Divide and conquer, so that it is now Obama under cover of this "alternative magisterium", rather than the Catholic Bishops, who is effectively the de facto policymaker for the Catholic Church in the United States.


Previous Pro Ecclesia posts on this subject:
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

Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell: Romney's Anti-Santorum Hatchet Man [UPDATED]

Yet another thing Romney has in common with Obama: he knows that when you want to take down a Catholic, you scrape together 30 pieces of silver and go out and buy yourself another Catholic to do your dirty work for you. Another Catholic like ... say ... Virginia's Gov. Bob McDonnell who will only too willingly defame a fine man like Rick Santorum if it means a spot on a Romney ticket.

The Other McCain reports:

One of Rick Santorum’s campaign slogans is “The Courage to Fight,” and sometimes his supporters might wish the senator would consider that old saying about discretion sometimes being the better part of valor. Any heckler or liberal reporter (but I repeat myself) can throw Santorum the most loaded “gotcha” question and, rather than brushing it aside, Santorum refuses to back down from a fight.

So it was when the subject of women in combat came up last week — the Obama administration wishes to expand the employment of women in such positions — and please observe the predictable response from Team Romney:

Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell chided Rick Santorum on Monday for expressing concerns about women serving in military combat roles.

Santorum told CNN last week that having women on the front lines could lead to a “compromising situation where people naturally may do things that may not be in the interest of the mission because of other types of emotions that are involved.”

He later said he was referring to both male and female emotions.

Either way, the remark did not sit well with McDonnell, a leading Mitt Romney supporter whose oldest daughter Jeanine did a tour of duty in Iraq.

“I like Rick Santorum a lot, I just disagree with any inference he might have made that somehow women are incapable of serving in the front lines and serving in combat positions,” McDonnell said in an interview Monday with CNN’s Kyra Phillips.

“And I base that in part on my own daughter’s own experience as a platoon leader in Iraq with 25 men working with her,” he continued. “She did a great job, as in some very risky situations, and yet endured and led and I’m proud of her. So, I just wanted to make sure people didn’t think that women aren’t capable of doing the job. And I’ve got firsthand experience in saying that.”

Governor McDonnell, you’re arguing like a liberal: Taking the conservative argument about a policy and trying to portray it as being an attack upon people.

[...]

McDonnell’s argument is dishonest and, furthermore, why can’t Mitt Romney fight his own fights? Should Mitt Romney wish to pick an argument with Santorum over this issue, by all means let him do so, instead of hiding behind Bob McDonnell’s skirts. Does anyone think it enhances Romney’s reputation to deploy his proxies to make liberal arguments against a conservative rival in a notoriously liberal venue like CNN? Why are Republicans doing the liberals’ work for them?

[...]

Far be it from me, as a Maryland resident, to meddle in the internal affairs of the Old Dominion, but if I were a Santorum supporter in Virginia, I’d be outraged by McDonnell’s scurrilous and unseemly attacks on Senator Santorum’s good name. I might even be tempted to contact Governor McDonnell’s office at 804-786-2211, and tell the governor to cease his mendacious campaign of character assassination against Mitt Romney’s conservative rival. If that didn’t get results, I might go so far as to contact the Republican Party of Virginia at 804-780-0111 and ask them why they were supporting McDonnell, who has so obviously hired himself out as Romney’s hatchet man.

Well, as I say, this is the course of action that might seem incumbent upon me if I were a Virginian, concerned about the fair honor of that venerable commonwealth. Were it my privilege to call myself a Virginian, I think my cheeks would blush with shame at the very thought of the dishonorable conduct of Governor McDonnell, who has defamed a fine Christian man like Rick Santorum at the behest of Mitt Romney.

(emphasis in original)

This is how Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell went from being the man I most wanted to see elected to the White House some day to being a GOP establishment hack who I wouldn't vote to be dog catcher. McDonnell should be ashamed of his loathesome attack on Santorum. Now that I see his true colors, I consider McDonnell to be only slightly above the smarmy creep for whom he's shilling. When Romney does finally go down to an inglorious defeat (and he will, be it either in the primaries (hopefully, to Santorum) or in the general election), I hope like hell he takes people like Bob McDonnell down with him.

Please note Gov. McDonnell's phone number prominently listed and highlighted above in the quoted text. I hope you'll give his office a buzz and let them know what you think.


UPDATE
In the comments to his post, The Other McCain goes on to explain in more detail what is so scurrilous about McDonnell's attack on Santorum:

What McDonnell has done is to begin the argument by framing it falsely: If you are opposed to Obama’s policy of expanded roles for women in combat, you must have a prejudicial attitude toward women’s ability. Thus, instead of arguing about the policy, the argument is, “Santorum is a sexist who is prejudiced against women” — an accusation which, by the way, is utterly irrelevant to whether the policy is wise. (That is to say, a prejudiced sexist may be capable of articulating an entirely sound policy argument.) But the implicit accusation of prejudice is made for the political purpose of pre-emptively discrediting Santorum, which is why I say McDonnell argues like a liberal.

It's worse than that. McDonnell argues like a liberal and he SHOULD know better, having himself been on the receiving end of just such scurrilous attacks.

Flash back two-and-a-half years ago - just before the Virginia gubernatorial elections. If you recall, The Washington Post waged just such a scurrilous campaign of attacks against McDonnell and in favor of Creigh Deeds arguing that McDonnell was an out-of-touch culture warrior guilty of sexism because of a graduate dissertation McDonnell wrote regarding the negative effects of women working outside the home. The thrust of The Post's unfair attacks on McDonnell were laid out in a September 1, 2009 editorial entitled "Bob McDonnell, Culture Warrior":

ON MORE THAN one occasion, Robert F. McDonnell, the Republican candidate for governor in Virginia, has offered a soporific description of his graduate school dissertation as a "thesis on welfare policy." This is false.

In fact, Mr. McDonnell's study, written in 1989 at age 34 in support of his master's degree in public policy and degree in law, is a full-throated attack on liberals, modernity, the Great Society and inheritance taxes, among other supposed ills, which he linked to and blamed for homosexuality, declining morality and the degradation of the traditional family, along with the proliferation of pornography, out-of-wedlock sex, day care, birth control, pregnant teenagers, divorce, single mothers, working women and feminists.

The thesis is a wistful ode to a bygone 1950s America, when, Mr. McDonnell noted, 70 percent of American families were led by working fathers and homemaker mothers, and "every state in the union made sexual intercourse between unmarried persons a crime." Sounding at times like an Old Testament prophet, Mr. McDonnell wrote that government must discriminate in favor of married couples and against "cohabitators, homosexuals or fornicators," for "[t]he cost of sin should fall on the sinner not the taxpayer."

[...]

A deeply researched, passionately written manifesto, the thesis posits a detailed Republican strategy to roll back the evils that Mr. McDonnell saw as afflicting American society generally and the family in particular. On the eve of his political career, Mr. McDonnell was a committed and convinced culture warrior of the right.

[...]

... in his 14 years in the state's General Assembly, Mr. McDonnell did aggressively pursue a socially conservative agenda largely in line with his thesis. As governor he could do the same, although he would be constrained by a legislature at least partly controlled by Democrats. He could not ban abortion and contraception, but he could help restrict access. The Bob McDonnell who wrote that thesis would make a divisive, disruptive and partisan governor -- a sharp departure from the tradition of generally pragmatic executives who have helped make Virginia one of the better-managed states in the union. Virginians deserve specific answers about where the thinking of his early middle age has shifted, and where it remains consistent.

And The Post continued to hound McDonnell as an out-of-touch sexist right up until election day. For McDonnell to now "go there" with Santorum, adopting the assumptions, tactics, and rhetoric of the left, is just despicable and marks him in my book as a person with no honor. I'm absolutely disgusted.

“Living in Washington Isn’t My Life’s Ambition.”

Says the guy who's been groomed for the presidency since childhood, and who's been trying - unsuccessfully - for the last 20 years to get elected to Washington.

Somehow I doubt GOP voters are going to buy Dullard Flip Rino 6.0 - "anti-establishment Washington outsider" version - any more than they were willing to buy previous unelectable versions of this loser.

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.

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

Daydreaming About "The Obama He Once Knew"

Can it be? Can we finally say of the sorry saga that I've dubbed The Passion of the Kmiec: "It is finished." ?

Doug Kmiec, the President's chief Catholic shill whose advocacy and despicable display of sycophancy on behalf of the most pro-abortion candidate in our Nation's history helped pave the way for a majority of self-identified Catholics to vote for said candidate, has decided to finally call it quits with Obama.

Unfortunately for Kmiec, he apparently still doesn't realize that Obama had already jilted him 3 years ago, as soon as he became President and no longer needed the head of a prominent pro-life (allegedly) Catholic implanted in his arse.

Here's the story from LifeSiteNews:

WASHINGTON, D.C., February 6, 2012 (LifeSiteNews.com) - President Barack Obama’s most prominent Catholic supporter is backing away from the radically pro-abortion leader over his administration’s decision to force religious institutions to cover contraception, including abortifacients, and sterilizations.

Doug Kmiec, Obama’s former Ambassador to Malta, revealed this week that he is now “without a candidate” for the 2012 election because of the contraception mandate. [ED.: This guy was a Romney man before he became Obama's version of Richard Rich. Why doesn't he just go back to shilling for Dullard Flip Rino again? Isn't he basically Doug's "get back" guy? You know, after the breakup, you get back together with "get back" guy. Besides, Romney has basically the same positions on most of the major issues as Obama, so getting back together with Romney should provide a smooth landing for Dougie.]

“Until I have an opportunity to speak with the president [ED.: In other words, his boyfriend could still win him back with a lot of flowery words and an "I still love you". Pathetic.], I am for now (unhappily) [ED.: I'm just heartbroken over this turn of events. I mean, Obama is just so dreamy and, apart from all the anti-life things he's done during his presidency, such as this HHS mandate, he's a natural for the Catholic vote.] without a candidate,” he wrote in an e-mail to The Hill.

[...]

Kmiec, a Republican and former dean at Catholic University of America’s law school, shocked pro-lifers when he endorsed Obama in 2008 and went on tour promoting him as the “pro-life” candidate. [ED.: And as no less than "a natural for the Catholic vote". In other words, Doug travelled around the country on a lying tour to sell Catholics a crock of shit. Telling a lie that any thinking person KNEW was a lie. Read on and you will see that Doug is STILL smitten and is STILL telling that lie on behalf of his beloved.]

In a Feb. 2nd letter, a copy of which he sent to Catholic Online’s Deacon Keith Fournier, Kmiec told President Obama, “In deciding against a reasonable accommodation of Catholic concerns in the implementation of the health care program, you lost sight of your own beliefs.” [ED.: Seriously, Doug? Are you still trying to pull this shit? Trying to pretend that Obama is something that he is clearly not? Trying to pretend that he is anything other than an anti-life secularist? I think it's quite clear that he has kept sight of his own beliefs throughout his entire career - he is a true believer in the gospel of Planned Parenthood, even willing to allow health care reform to die and the government to shut down rather than to deny Planned Parenthood their victories on federal funding of abortion.]

“Why put the cold calculus of politics above faith and freedom?” [ED.: Again, Obama didn't do this for political gain, because he actually has more to lose politically from the HHS mandate than he has to gain. He did it because he is a true believer in what Planned Parenthood preaches and he did it because he's a statist and because he's a secularist and because he can.] he wrote. “Please respond, [ED.: Please write me back. Please call me. Haven't you read my letters? Haven't you seen my emails? My texts? Haven't you listened to the 479 messages I left for you on your voice mail?] for friendship will not permit me to disregard duty to faith and country. [ED.: I will always love you, but you just can't go on hurting me like this. By the way, don't you remember how I was denied Communion for my love of you? So, why are you doing this to me? To us?] The Barack Obama I knew [ED.: I know deep down that you're not this person who abuses me like this. I know I can change you. That I HAVE changed you. But this person I'm seeing now is not the REAL you.] would never have asked me to make that choice.” [ED.: Good God, just stop, Doug. This groveling behavior over some shared moment that exists only in your fevered imagination is just embarrassing and unseemly. Face it, Doug. He's just not that into you.]

[Read the whole thing]

(emphasis and editorial commentary added)

Told ya so, Doug, but you just wouldn't listen. But then, you were being obstinate in your refusal to acknowledge what everyone, including you, KNEW to be true. You've been played, and allowed yourself to be played. And I plan on rubbing this one in for a long time.

I suppose it would be too much to ask from the obviously still-smitten Kmiec that he issue an apology for his sycophantic shilling on Obama's behalf. And he SHOULD apologize, profusely and repeatedly. He should do public penance. Because HE is the one Catholic in America MOST RESPONSIBLE for the fact of a President Obama. And because of that, he has both the blood of the unborn and the persecution of the Catholic Church on his hands.

We'll Always Have Malta


UPDATE
At The American Catholic, my friend Darwin Catholic wonders why it is THIS issue, as opposed to all the other issues where Obama has lived up to his anti-life street creds, that has the ObamaCaths finally rethinking their support of the most pro-abortion President in this nation's history:

... while it never does well to question why people are late to the barricades (we can use all the allies in the “culture war” that we can get) I must admit that I’m kind of perplexed by the reaction.

Figures like Kmiec have shown themselves willing to sell huge moral issues like abortion, euthanasia and gay marriage down the river of political expedience in return for little gestures of “fair mindedness” from Obama and the Democratic party. I figured, naturally enough, I think, that this was because they simply cared a lot more about the package of political issues which define the Democratic party than they did about these moral issues, and that the crowing over gestures of accommodation was just so much window dressing. This sudden feeling of betrayal over an issue which, while grave, is certainly less shocking than Obama’s strong support for far more pernicious evils almost makes it appear that it was, all this time, the window dressing that they valued.

But why?

Good question. I think I know the answer, but I want to contemplate it for a little while before I opine on it.


The Passion of the Kmiec - A Pro Ecclesia Timeline:

February 2012
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"